The Future of Higher Education 

 A NIACE Response to the White Paper (Cm 5735): The Future of Higher Education

Published: March 2003

1. NIACE, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, is a registered charity, and was founded in 1921 to represent the interests of adult learners, and of those who make provision for them, at all levels and wherever adults learn. Its membership is drawn from all sectors of post-compulsory education, and NIACE works within and across sectors.

2. NIACE seeks to secure an education system flexible enough to be responsive to the diversity and complexity of adults’ needs and aspirations as learners, and in particular to the needs of those who benefited least from initial education. It is our belief that a system fit for adults of all ages and in all their complexity will work better for all learners. This belief underpins and informs NIACE’s perspective on higher education.

3. NIACE welcomes The Future of Higher Education as a bold first step in addressing key problems inhibiting the development of a larger, stronger, more inclusive, and more serviceable system of higher education. This step includes significantly increasing the overall level of annual public funding; fostering the attitude and means for widening the funding base and encouraging an endowment culture; and biting the bullet on student fees in a way that is calculated to allow further increase and widening of participation.

4. We respect the attempt to alter funding and recognition so as to value and reward real diversity of mission within and between institutions to meet diverse needs across the range of roles for higher education in a complex knowledge society. However, we believe that the paper is seriously flawed in failing to pay sufficient attention to adults of all ages and to part-time students and their demands on a flexible and diverse higher education system. Indeed, we believe that the Paper is best seen as part one of a future strategy. The bulk of our comments are contributions towards the issues that a second part, ‘Higher Education and Lifelong Learning’ would address.

5. We commend the reaffirmation of the 50% 18-30 years participation target in the face of criticism but we believe this should not be at the expense of older adults whose needs may continue to be unintentionally marginalised by the emphasis on younger participants. We propose below a number of measures, which at modest total cost, could begin to significantly balance up the effect of the Paper and address in practical ways pressing economic and other needs for the UK created by an irreversibly ageing population.

6. NIACE acknowledges that there are specific proposals in the White Paper to improve opportunity and participation for older adults, alongside measures targeting younger adults from under-represented social and economic groups, but considers them too modest and circumscribed to have the desired effect. NIACE regrets the absence of a clear commitment to opening higher education to adults over 30 from lower socio-economic groups and to opportunities for mature post-graduate students.

7. NIACE regrets the Government’s decision to opt for top up fees as a means of securing additional funding for the sector. We believe that a means-tested graduate tax would better meet the aims of valuing diversity of mission and greater equality of opportunity, and would avoid inhibiting adults from lower socio-economic groups from participating. Although we recognise that securing the consent of the devolved administrations may make such an approach problematic, we urge the Government to open discussions with Scotland and Wales to identify any common ground.

8. Overall, we believe that there is a widespread sense that the opportunity for a truly ambitious, integrative and visionary paper has not been fully grasped.

9. NIACE supports the Government’s clear declaration of intent to develop lifelong and lifewide learning policies to support an economically prosperous and socially inclusive society. But in NIACE’s view that intent is only partially furthered by the proposals in the White Paper. There is, in our view, no sense of a new vision for the sector, in terms of an inclusive all-age, high-participation ‘tertiary’ system, in which diversity of institutional mission corresponds fully and confidently to the actuality of the present, much less prospective, make-up of the higher education student body.

10. Higher education is perceived and treated in the Paper as essentially similar in composition and experience to the system with which many of the present generation of policy-makers grew up. That system is seen as to be modestly adapted to draw in, at the two-year foundation degree end, a more working class clientele of mainly younger people who will complete more practical vocationally-tailored degrees linked to the workplace.

11. In relation to the nature of the contemporary higher education system, policy-makers should acknowledge the paradigm change that has occurred. Recognising this will assist policy-makers more confidently to build a larger and much more diverse system, which responds to the new reality of an adult (that is to say 21+) majority. It means recognising that the typical student does not go straight from upper secondary schooling into full-time residential university education, perhaps doing some casual work in the vacations. The typical student is already de facto part-time. A majority do not conform to the full-time, three year, young, honours student around whom the White Paper is constructed.

12. In some other respects also the Paper is too deeply rooted in old assumptions which if not recognised may do unintended damage, or at the least reduce the benefits which reform during this decade could achieve. All these areas will have indirect effects upon adult learners:

13. NIACE believes that the proposals made below would have the effect of strengthening the system’s capacity to meet the central purposes and reforms articulated in the White Paper. We believe, too, that it is important that the policy debate is engaged in an open and generous way.

14. There are subtle dangers residing in almost unspoken attitudes and a culture of blaming, in too much of the debate in and about higher education, which can feed rather than dispose of old-fashioned snobberies. At the most obvious there is an implied inferiority of the technical and vocational compared with the liberal and academic. There is also a tendency not to question rigorously the assumptions built into the full-time honours degree, but to assume its inviolability, such that students must adapt entirely to this, without the reciprocity of deep curriculum renewal.

15. The Paper stakes a great deal, rightly in our view, on Further Education/Higher Education partnerships as the main way to widen access and participation. Government is however tempted in this Paper to treat further education almost dismissively. In addition the efforts of the most active widening-participation ‘recruitment universities’ may be undervalued through ill-judged, poorly informed and ill-thought-through criticism. Together such tendencies could make real the most serious threat to the Foundation Degree: lack of acceptability in the workplace and more broadly within what is still sometimes a conservative, snobbish and class-prone society. The Government needs to trust and support FE Colleges, and be seen to be doing so, just as it needs to find a language to value the rich contribution of the newer universities in widening participation and achievement.

16. Opinion in NIACE is divided over the likelihood that Foundation Degrees can develop into a widely recognised and valued form of higher education on the scale, and in the timescale envisaged by the Government. NIACE has argued for some years that the development of a two-year higher education option, backed by access to a further two-year period, could widen participation and achievement. The Foundation Degree initiative could be a significant step towards that goal, and we welcome it as a potential catalyst both in its own right and as a stepping-stone to broader curriculum reform. However, if the initiative is to succeed, it will need to be undertaken in the light of the changing pattern of use of higher education outlined above. It will rely on effective partnerships between further and higher education institutions and workplaces. Evidence will be needed that there will be a demand on the scale envisaged, and that Foundation Degrees can quickly enjoy widespread credibility among learners and employers rather than being seen as a ‘second-class’ qualification. Much more will need to be done, too, to ensure that students from non-traditional backgrounds can avoid being ghettoised in what may be perceived as a second rate awards structure, provided by institutions less valued than the research elite. It will be important, too, to ensure that the introduction of Foundation Degrees really does extend opportunity, and avoids becoming merely a re-badging exercise. The Government recognises in the Strategy Unit paper In Demand that much needs to be done to change many employers’ attitudes to the value of investment in learning. Securing that change will, too, be key to the success of Foundation Degrees.

17. Also lacking, despite useful proposals in the third chapter, is any large vision of learning cities and regions in which higher education plays a key leadership and partnership role. As regionalism goes further, it will be important to stretch our understanding of universities: and this development is of key importance for adult learners, both in terms of personal development and social purpose education, and in terms of workforce education and training. It is, too, of key importance in effective knowledge transfer between higher education and industrial and civil society partners.

18. The position of part-time students also causes serious concern. From reading the Paper it would appear that only those students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds will be eligible for any "benefits package". Otherwise, part-time students will have to pay a full new fee up-front and not be given the same deferred payment system available to full-time students. NIACE cannot believe that the Government would intentionally seek to further disadvantage part-time students in this way and looks forward to reassurance that no such additional barrier to study will be established. A further concern is that the grant for part-time students is limited to those studying at least half-time. Given the challenges to make the system more responsive, this is, in our view, unhelpfully restrictive. Again, nothing is said in the paper to end the cap on access to loans for learners at 54. Given the need to adjust to the economic and social needs of an ageing workforce, and the spirit of the forthcoming European Age Discrimination measures, this is, we believe, a backward looking policy.

19. NIACE believes that the impact of the entire Paper upon part-time students has not been adequately considered and urges the Department for Education and Skills to undertake or to commission a detailed impact assessment as a matter of urgency. NIACE would be pleased to undertake such an exercise in partnership with others.

20. Not all the proposals below apply (exclusively, or even at all) to older students. NIACE has an interest in the equity, efficiency and fitness for purpose of the whole system, and wishes to see more low SES participation at 18 plus as well as older. The proposals offer a modest list of changes and additions for consideration and are intended to strengthen the positive impact of the White Paper. It will then better realise the Government’s economic, equity and other social objectives, and reduce vulnerability to valid criticism and to undesired and unintended outcomes. The proposals are not yet costed but NIACE will be pleased to co-operate with the Department and others in undertaking such work if that is of interest.

a)  Remove the 50% threshold on eligibility for part-time student support and give pro rata access depending on the proportion of full-time study. (Most ‘part-time’ students, as this is meant administratively, are less than half-time; there is neither merit nor logic in setting this arbitrary limit.)

b) The level of maintenance for low income families should be raised at least to the indexed value pertaining when it was abolished.

c) No upper age limit should be placed on the benefits intended to increase adult part-time participation.

d) Further thought should be given to raising the level of eligibility for support above the proposed £10,000 income level.

e) Consideration should be given to raising the repayment threshold above the proposed level of £15,000 to reduce the deterred impact of borrowing and repayment on debt-averse sections of the community. The average annual full-time wage may be more readily accepted. We urge the Government to cost this as an option.

f) Consideration should be given to making all first year study in higher education entirely free for categories of students identified on income and SES grounds and perhaps also in terms of family and school background. Once again, the Government may wish to consider the costs and benefits of such an approach.

g) Further consideration should be given to ensure that the operation of the widening participation premium secures measures to improve retention of ‘non-traditional’ or ‘new-to-higher-education’ kinds of students of all ages, during the early weeks of their study.

h) NIACE is committed to the creation of cross-sectoral and impartial Advice, Information and Guidance services, building on, opening up and sharing more widely best practice provision in each region or sub-region, wherever that has been developed. Higher Education developments in IAG should be developed through and alongside them.

i) Development funding should be identified and made available urgently to test and develop more schemes for ‘alternative admission’, drawing on the Universities UK work on admissions policies. Through school-HE compacts schools would become fuller partners in identifying and tracking talented young people able to cope with and benefit from higher education, replacing reliance on A level scores by much stronger school participation in the recruitment and selection process. Incentives and rewards could support ongoing arrangements. Long-term monitoring would also be required.

j) R&D projects should likewise be identified and funded to develop new forms of neighbourhood engagement by HEIs and FECs, including school engagement, to change the belief of whole deprived communities that ‘higher education is for other people’ and tackle aspiration at neighbourhood and community levels. ‘Cherry-picking’ schemes (eg. a place at the university for the top student in every local school) is no substitute and will not deliver the gains which Government requires.

k) FECs should be treated normally rather than abnormally as direct recipients of HEFCE funds for Foundation Degrees. This will reduce the inequality of power in local HE-FE relationships and begin to restore a sense of trust and self-confidence in this sector.

l) If the policy aim of developing Foundation Degrees is to succeed, consideration should be given to increasing their resources to be allocated to the development and support, and to their active promotion with employers and the wider community.

m) The proposed remit of the Access Regulator should be extended to include a requirement on all universities fully to recognise and honour attainment via Foundation Degrees with automatic right of entry and full recognition of credit obtained. Part of the Regulator’s agreements will include holding senior year undergraduate places for such FD graduates seeking entry to the senior years of relevant honours degrees.

n) The remit of the Regulator should extend similarly to ensure that all credit is fully recognised in entry and transfer into and between institutions.

o) The relevant parts of the White Paper proposals on knowledge transfer should be revised to extend partnership to other community employers groups and partners throughout the public and not-for-profit sectors as well as the private sector and with all other relevant stakeholders in the region. This should include explicit recognition and support for ‘Mode Two knowledge production’.

p) As the detail of research concentration is worked through, especially the issue of scale and 6* rating, more attention should be given to the arts, humanities and especially the social sciences in respect of quality/scale, and in respect of regionally grounded and partnership research. Resources will also need to be secured to support scholarship in teaching-led higher education institutions.

q) Care should be taken to protect the right and capability of all HEIs to enrol and supervise especially mid-career research students, almost all of whom are part-time. Many such doctoral students contribute significantly and in practical ways to our knowledge and understanding of knowledge-in-use through what are effectively three-way partnerships between (usually local) employer organisation, mid-career student and university.

r) As the RAE is further refined and developed, means should be built in to remove the penalty for having non-research active staff within a research unit which is submitted for assessment, thereby reducing the damage from separating research too fully from teaching and application. Adequate resourcing and recognition needs to be identified to secure their role in the system. Research concentration and the funding of excellent research can thus be advanced without causing the costly collateral damage, which the proposals may now threaten.

21. NIACE is pleased to answer questions about any aspect of this paper. In the first instance, please contact Alan Tuckett, Director on 0116 204 4240.

Top of page