Super Colleges, Polytechnics or More of the Same?

Posted by: Graeme Hall Apr 8, 01:35 pm Comment on this articlePermlink

A recent Higher Education in Further Education conference held at Warwick University highlighted the uncertainty that surrounds the future validation and funding of Higher Education (HE) at Level 4, delivered within Further Education Colleges (FE colleges).

With FE colleges set to be able to validate their own Foundation Degrees there is a wide divergence of opinion about what to do next.

The prestige of being linked to a well respected university is often mentioned as a reason to carry on with present arrangements – where provision at Level 4, delivered within FE, is validated by a HE institution (HEI).

However, discontent among FE colleges is centred on concerns about excessive ‘top-slicing’ of funding by validating HEIs, dogmatic and unsympathetic treatment and the variable quality of the service provided.

There is wide variation in practice across the country and colleges are talking to one another and their associations to see what might be done.

The most popular and, apparently successful, arrangements for all but the very biggest FE colleges (some with very large amounts of directly funded HE work who will certainly seek self-validation powers for themselves and perhaps on behalf of regional FE consortia) are variations around network or consortium arrangements where colleges form part of a grouping with special funding, quality, and staff development arrangements with their partner HEI.

This arrangement is not unlike that envisaged when the Lifelong Learning Networks were set up to work across the FE/HE divide – what is certain is the understanding that colleges, universities and, most importantly, learners will be disadvantaged if competition replaces co-operation and consortium working as the norm at this level of provision.

Graeme Hall, Executive Director of the West London Lifelong Learning Network.

Your Comments

A further discontent of some FE Colleges is that, even where a Foundation Degree has been validated by a HEI and a ‘top up’ year identified, there is not always a guarantee that successful completers of the FD will be accommodated in the final degree year at the validating institution. Clearly, if the FD has been validated, it is deemed to be of appropriate quality for progression. This may then be an issue of numbers, and I don’t underestimate the problems caused for the planning process by uncertainty about the number of FD learners who will want to take up this option. Whatever the reason, in any future collaborative arrangements, it is something that needs to be addressed for the benefit of the students. Apart from any moral obligation, being unable to guarantee a progression route devalues the FD and somewhat compromises the prestige of being linked with the university.

Posted by: Jackie Powell · IAG /Transition Co-ordinator Higher Futures Apr 8, 02:51 pm