Politicians civil servants vicechancellors lecturers and students Implications

Politicians, civil servants, vice-chancellors, lecturers and students: Implications of “boundary encounters” for educational developers James Wisdom Jameswisdom@compuserve. com

Does it advance our understanding to consider the politicians, the civil servants and the vicechancellors as communities of practice? Might they have common goals, are they developing their learning through participation, are they working in recognisable and distinctive ways, are they making meaning? And if so, how might the lecturers, the students and the educational developers interact with them?

Politicians: John Denham, Peter Mandelson, David Lammy, David Willetts, Phil Willis, Stephen Williams What are the shared assumptions? Where might they disagree?

Shared assumptions: That investment in HE is an essential investment in the economy of the country Future is knowledge-based, high skills, high value products and services All three parties are committed to expansion of vocational education, training, apprenticeships, Foundation Degrees (perhaps in FE colleges). Possibly a single funding body across F&HE – will this strengthen vocational education?

Where might they agree or disagree? Further expansion? Both Lab and Tory promising more new places this year Labour manifesto is fullest – support for part time study, STEM subjects and investment in subjects to support economic growth. Tories – Community Learning Fund for adults. Lib. Dems reported to be against further expansion (not in manifesto)

Where might they disagree? Widening participation? Yes from Labour – emphasis on social mobility From Tories – “Work to improve the way that universities are funded so that students get a fair deal, disadvantaged young people don’t miss out” Assumption that free tuition widens participation (Lib. Dem)

Where might they disagree? Fees? Labour and Tories accept fees – issue is in the mix of grants and loans in the support package Lib. Dems pledge to scrap fees over six years. SNP – “More Nats – Less Cuts” – more training places and financial support for students. Oppose fees Plaid Cymru - Against tuition fees, would phase out.

Conclusions: • No pledges to ring-fence HE – cuts inevitable • Labour – experience of government shows – prepared to direct change • Willetts – in step with Mandelson over economic role of HE; (but may be out if Ministry is reformed) • Both handling complexity • Lib Dems – looking for difference? • Nats – looking to defend against London

Civil service and funding councils Frequently re-positioned cadre of civil servants (at present led by Stephen Marston) – FE often split between Skills and Schools 80 seniors, total 910 Relatively stable quango of Hefce officers, 25 seniors, total 247 Taking advice from c 100 standing committee members

Might they have common goals, are they developing their learning through participation, are they working in recognisable and distinctive ways, are they making meaning? In what ways might we see Hefce as a community of practice?

Model – • Minister develops strategy, • passes to Hefce through the funding letter, • Hecfe converts it into policy, • then issues it through the block grant calculation or through project funding.

Hefce expertise – • Giving good advice; • Exemplifying options; • Balancing autonomy against direction; • Understanding the speed of change; • Reducing unintended consequences.

Hefce: Is the quality and experience of this “community” visible through its handling of its main task: Handling relationship between funding and student numbers – reduction, steady state and increase. Each of the six positions has its difficulties.

Where is the building of expertise? Expansion while restraining investment (1990 s) Introduction of national quality assurance Introduction of research selectivity exercise Investing in science and research (post 2000) Expansion while increasing investment (post 2000)

Problems: Underestimating capacity of institutions to expand rapidly with open-ended Treasury commitment Use of projects and initiatives to drive change Funding model leads to similarity – difference, specialisation and diversity is weak (unready for recession)

Considering the civil service: Where are the drivers for strategy? Other Ministries (skills shortages, sustainability, leadership, regeneration) Benchmarking against the 30 OECD nations

What is the OECD telling us? That we are seeing massive expansion in HE Number of graduates has grown by av 4. 5% p. a. since 1997, stable funding until 2000, then spending per student up by 11% until 2006. In the UK spending per student has risen 39% between 2000 and 2006 Across OECD countries, 34% of young adults have completed tertiary education(UK 37%, Canada c 50%) There has been an increase in proportion of funding from students and their families State provision for the poorer, private provision for the richer

That we invest less of a proportion of our GDP than the average OECD nation. But the cost of tertiary education per head per annum is £ 5, 525, just above OECD average That the personal premium across the OECD is £ 122, 812 That the net public return per student is £ 34, 334.

What might be the civil service analysis of UK HE?

What might be the civil service analysis of UK HE? That we have done well to increase participation rates of young people – they are 20% more likely to enter HE now than in the 1990 s That fees + finance do not appear to have made an impact, even on those living in the most deprived areas. That part time students are not well served by current regime

That cuts will do damage in the short term, but may lead to improvements in the shape of the sector – question – how much should HMG direct and intervene? The importance of raising national level of skills = 12 th in OECD with 30% qualified to tertiary level That the number of 18 -21 will decline over the next decade, but demand for HE will rise amongst the young (so widening the class base) and the mature. HE is still too socially regressive. Mature: partly new entrants, partly because the higher the level of education, the greater the propensity to retrain (but how do we pay for it? )

The importance of progression opportunities for vocational and apprenticeship qualifications Apprenticeships – 5 good GCSEs Advanced apprenticeships – 2 A levels Higher Apprenticeships – NVQ 4 or Foundation Degree Development of new programmes and modes of delivery is hampered by traditional systems and inflexible quality assurance (e. g. the use of credit is underdeveloped)

That the brand has been put at risk by the “defensive complacency” about quality and standards, and use of new fees money. The UK’s position in the growing competition for international students has been weakened by focusing on institution budget deficits as the motive rather than partnerships That reliance on international student fees is insecure (cheaper competition and home-grown provision) £ 2. 9 bn is 13% of the sector’s total income That the fees regime has not been new money from students, but new money from the Treasury

In what ways might we think of the vice chancellors as a community of practice? UUK as a trade association, not a Co. P What about the various groups, clubs or gangs? Million + 1994 Group University Alliance Russell Group Theme – the search for difference

Russell Group – 20 universities – benchmarking against world-class universities. Research-led learning: the heart of a Russell Group university experience 1994 Group – 19 smaller research intensive universities defending themselves against the Russell group - Each member undertakes diverse and highquality research, while ensuring excellent levels of teaching and student experience. Their Research Project report (2009) was about employability outside the curriculum

Million + 28 institutions – was the Campaign for Mainstream Universities. Mainly post-92. people from every walk of life to benefit from access to – for business, the NHS, the not-for-profit sectors and government to benefit from the full potential of all universities University Alliance - 22 universities at the heart of the sector that are research-engaged and businessfocussed. Majority post 1992. Was the Alliance of Non. Aligned Universities

The Leadership Foundation The Top Management Programme is the Leadership Foundation’s flagship programme and has an established track record in developing strategic leaders in the sector. 400 through since 1999 Over 40 of the current UK Vice-Chancellors/Principals are TMP Alumni. It has a VLE, and an alumni network with annual meeting – basis of a community?

Sutton Trust – Educational backgrounds of Vice Chancellors, 2008 Unlike the leaders of many other major professions, 66% of the VCs come from state schools, overwhelmingly grammar schools. Nine out of ten university heads were awarded their first degrees in old universities, established before 1992.

And if so, how might the lecturers, the students and the educational developers interact with them?

And if so, how might the lecturers, the students and the educational developers interact with them? Or What predictions can we make for the future?

What predictions can we make for the future? Funding Employer engagement Credit Institutions and staff Standards & Quality Costs Student engagement Educational leadership

Funding Increased pressure of demand - elsewhere this creates private or profit-making opportunities What will happen to the three-year, campusbased, straight after school, Honours degree? Labour (and civil service? ) would only protect STEM and strategic subjects with public funds So – higher fees, restricted support, loans at higher rates of interest. What will the middle class accept? Date of next election?

Employer engagement Not a good time. Relying on employer initiative will not meet Leitch targets State direction likely? Any expansion funding will be contested for vocational and higher level skills, for the new class of technician Fees support packages likely to benefit poorer students and vocational institutions (HE in FE? )

Credit The “Plan B” of employer engagement and fairer access Repeated emphasis on credit and flexibility Possibility of funding by credit not by programme Access by mature and poorer student Possibility of employer support Will require new course designs and new assessment regimes

Institutions and staff 70% of the £ 1. 1 bn net in fees money went into higher salaries and new posts – reductions inevitable Pre-92 pensions in deficit by £ 4. 7 bn over assets of £ 28 bn Will institutions collaborate over -administration and support services -facilities and research (research concentration) -teaching and courses Great pressure to reverse the “all the same” to differences of expertise – expect funding to drive this.

Standards and quality Sector assumptions about standards and quality are still based on the 3 -Y C-B S-A-S Honours degree The pressure is on to reform assessment to match different conditions From assessing what you have been taught to assessing what you have learnt This will become part of the battleground of reputation, boosted by the new information regime

Costs We have a funding model based on what we have spent in teaching the 3 -Y C-B S-A-S Honours degree What does it cost to be able to achieve the learning outcomes of a programme? Who is prepared to find out? OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes project to create measures

Student engagement A re-shaped model of learning A range of differently-designed courses A more appropriate assessment regime will all require a different (better? ) relationship with the student

Where might an educational developer start on student engagement? • An informed dialogue about learning outcomes • Active engagement with assessment criteria • Exercises to understand notions of standards • The development in sophistication of students’ conceptions of learning • Use of the Assist questionnaire to focus on levels of learning • Recognition of the significant characteristics of module and programme design

Educational leadership The central role of the programme director/leader Earlier model – the educational developer advising the programme team about innovative? better? more efficient? models of delivery and engaging with programme and module design Future model – programme teams at professional standard 2, leadership with pedagogic CPD

Conclusions for educational developers: We need to get behind the employer engagement and vocational skills movement We need to protect our institutions by welcoming credit reform and redesigning to meet the new needs We need to help institutions develop their distinctive strengths and strategic directions We need to reform assessment to meet modern pedagogy, and we need to broadcast that as improvement, not substitute, for the gold standard

We need to engage with the costs of students learning, not just staff teaching We need to help staff to reshape their relationship with students from being taught to engaging with their learning We need to grow as fast as possible the pedagogically skilled programme leader, and ensure the frameworks are there to support their work