| Path: Home > Advocacy > HEFCE: supply and demand |
Supply and Demand in Higher Education
A NIACE Response to HEFCE Consultation Document 01/62
Published: January 2002
1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing
Education works to encourage more and different adults to engage in learning of
all kinds. NIACE's functions include research, development and consultancy;
advocacy to inform and influence public policy; information services and
dissemination; campaigning for, and celebrating the achievements of, adult
learners. Established in 1921, NIACE is an independent non-governmental
organisation, a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Its
corporate and individual members come from all sectors concerned with adult
learning: universities; colleges; local authorities; voluntary and community
organisations; churches; broadcasters and unions. While receiving core grants
from the DfES, National Assembly for Wales and through the 1988 Local Government
Act, the majority of its income is earned through research, development and
consultancy work - including contracts with the UK government, the EU and the
national lottery.
2. NIACE welcomes the opportunity to respond to
the HEFCE paper 'Supply and Demand in Higher Education'.
The Analysis
3. NIACE broadly welcomes this thorough and valuable analysis, and the debate generated about the future shape of the HE sector and the role of HEFCE in managing growth. However, despite the title of the consultation document, the focus largely consists of an analysis of supply-side factors within a highly traditional paradigm which views the core business of HEIs as the delivery of degree-level qualifications to school-leavers. It contains relatively little analysis of the needs of the increasing numbers of students who are mature and who study part-time.
4. Overall some analysis of what exactly is
meant by 'participation' would be useful. The frame of reference in relation to
Government targets for widening participation is clear, but stronger connections
also need to be made with the wider lifelong learning agenda and work-force
development agendas which are also planks of Government policy. The role of HEIs
in responding to this agenda has been ambivalent, and this could be a valuable
opportunity to explore the radical potential which an expanded role might
deliver. In this respect, we believe that the paper is unnecessarily
conservative.
5. Following on from this, the analysis of the possibilities for growth of part-time and mature students market is therefore disappointing, although we recognise that the picture as regards 'demand-side' analysis is perhaps at this stage less amenable to accurate analysis due to the nature of the data currently available. The document assumes that, as a more highly-qualified cohort of graduates enter the labour-market, the need for compensatory programmes for older learners through, for example, Access courses, will reduce. This seems to be an idealised view of the future, set against the current picture where levels of qualification in the current work-force are still relatively low and conditions for mature learners to enter HE not ideal. It also ignores the increasing numbers of older students entering postgraduate courses who do not possess orthodox academic qualifications.
6. Further analysis is also needed of the key motivating factors which attract students to higher education. The consultation document makes the case for a largely instrumental motivation in the case of most students. This ignores the complexity of purpose of those who are participating and could participate in the full range of HE learning opportunities, including continuing education and, of course, the Open University. The model presented is strikingly static, in that it assumes that the honours degree will continue as the chief 'product' of HE and does not recognise the possibilities for developing more responsive forms of provision to attract new learners.
The Conclusions
7. NIACE particularly welcomes the recognition
that the sector has a key role to play in stimulating aspirations through
working with schools and colleges to ensure young people experience and
understand the benefits and choices offered by higher education from an early
age. The development of a genuine and lasting learning cultural change such as
that outlined in 'The Learning Age' can only come about when all educational
sectors contribute vigorously to the local collaboration necessary to achieve
this goal. At the same time, we are unconvinced that schools and colleges alone
can deliver greater numbers of young people progressing into higher education.
Schools are already under immense pressure to deliver a range of objectives, and
all evidence points to the critical role of parents and peers in supporting the
aspirations of young people. Long-term work at local level is most likely to be
successful if HEIs are also engaging in stimulating demand and generating
opportunities for adults to experience and value opportunities for learning in
work and community contexts.
8. We are reassured by the accurate appraisal of
the effects of non-intervention on those institutions which have perhaps done
most to address issues of participation in non-participating communities. Some
of the smaller post-92 institutions and Colleges of HE have developed
particularly effective processes of response and support for non-traditional and
part-time students, but their future viability is threatened in the current
system. The consequences of their demise would be serious both for local
students and for the ability of the system overall to develop a higher degree of
responsiveness, and urge that mechanisms for financial support should be put in
place.
Possible Actions to Help Increase Demand
9. Universities have traditionally derived their curriculum from knowledge generated within the academy and/or within closely associated professions. The mainstream institutional processes which have developed were not set up to respond to local and immediate evidence of need, and it is hardly surprising that, on the whole, standard curriculum development processes have limited rather than enabled new approaches to widening participation. There are, nevertheless, a number of examples of good practice, although often on the margins of institutions. Attention should be given to capturing the lessons learned these from these processes and their implications for wider debate on curriculum development.
10. There is an urgent need for research into the nature of demand for higher education, and what kind of offer is needed. Some obvious groups include:
 | Those in work for whom there are limited opportunities for developing an understanding of HE opportunities available and engaging in processes of preparation and orientation. |
| Students who have formerly been deemed to have 'failed' in HE. These learners may have little support or encouragement to build on what was achieved or to return to higher education, although many may be open to revisiting the opportunity. |
| Those who are motivated and committed to the collective aspirations of
their neighbourhood or community but who are currently not attracted by the
focus on individual learning and aspiration and lack of a connecting
curriculum. |
11. We believe there is also considerable scope
for learning lessons emerging from work-place initiatives currently funded
through the (DfES) Union Learning Fund. Much of this work builds on what is
increasingly recognised as powerful good practice in higher education, that is
the involvement of learners themselves in advocating and promoting learning.
12. Stimulating
demand for higher education in a complex and changing environment is clearly
about more than promotion. Nevertheless, new and more subtle tools of dialogue
and promotion need to be developed to complement the tools which have been
effective over the years in recruiting large numbers of school leavers. The HE
sector has been slow to engage actively in national promotional campaigns and to
recognise and learn from highly effective campaigns such as those run by NIACE
for adult learners, now replicated internationally and also other FE-based
initiatives such as "Bite-Sized Learning".
Conclusion
13. In conclusion, we believe that the government's targets for the sector will not be achieved without a dramatic increase in the progression of people from social classes C-E from school to HE; without a similar expansion in mature participation and part-time study. We would therefore suggest that the Council may need to adopt a less conservative approach to widening participation in the sector than is covered in the consultation paper.
14. For more information about this response, contact Alan Tuckett (Director) or Sue Cara (Associate Director).
Related Link:
|
