The growth of private & for-profit HE
providers in the UK:
Implications for policy and practice
Professor Robin Middlehurst
Kingston University
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Categories of Private Provider
Contexts, policies, rationales (UK & beyond)
Scale & scope of ‘Private Providers’
Myths & Realities
Implications for policy & practice
Categories of Private Providers
Access
Elite/semi-elite
Religious/
cultural
Nonelite/demandabsorbing
Ownership
Family
Entrepreneur
Corporate
Mission
For-profit
Non-profit
Religious
UK function
Offering a
degree with
UK DAPs
Offering own
non-UK
awards
Offering
degrees of
publicly-funded
universities
PPPs in
content
design &
delivery
UK governance
Publiclyquoted
corporation (or
subsidiary of)
Private equity
owned
Private
company (forprofit)
Private
company
(nonprofit)
Publiclytraded
International
chains
Charitable
status
Context - Knowledge Economy
“Demands on universities outrun their capacity to
respond…”
- More students of different types seek access
- More segments of the labour force demand university-trained
graduates for specialized occupations
- Governments expect more to be done at lower unit cost
(Governments won’t support HE at same unit-cost level as for
elite arrangements)
- Knowledge outruns resources: “No university, & no
national system of universities, can control knowledge
growth.”
(Clark, B. (1998). p129-30)
Context – Mass Higher Education
“Mass enrollment has created a need for diversified
academic systems – hierarchies of institutions serving
different needs & constituencies. Diversified systems –
necessary for financial, academic & vocational reasons –
will continue to be central to higher education worldwide.
In general, governments will manage the diversification
with ‘steering’ mechanisms that will control the scope &
nature of academic systems.”
(Altbach, P. (2009). p157)
Context - Borderless Higher Education
• Blurring of boundaries (functions no longer distinct)
• Convergence (of activities, markets, providers)
• Unbundling & commodification (of processes &
provision)
• Globalisation, internationalisation
• Universities/polytechnics; HE/FE;
public/private/corporate; education/media; Mode
1/Mode 2 research; national/international/’glocal’.…
(Cunningham et al, 2000; Bjarnason et al, 2000; Gibbons et al, 1994;
Nowotny et al, 2001; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002)
UK – Policy Context
• 1986 - Separation of teaching & research funding (growth in student numbers
not matched by equal growth in research funds)
• 1988 – Ed Reform Act - some polytechnics & advanced FE colleges become
HECs
• 1992 – F& HE Act – polytechnics with Privy Council approval have right to be
called universities
• 1992 – HEQC – 3 categories: T-DAPs, R-DAPs, University title (not
mandatory)
• 1995 > Growth of TNE
• 1997 – Dearing Review – favoured FE expansion
• 2003 – White Paper – proposal to break link between research & university
title (no need for R-DAPs to be called a university)
• 2004 – HE Act – relaxation of criteria for university title
• 2010-12 – Browne & White Paper – HE as ‘private benefit’
• NB - Devolution
Rationales for PP growth - globally
•
•
•
•
•
Unmet demand for TE (qualifications & skills)
Market(s) willing to pay tuition fees
Shortage of public funds to meet demand
Emergent entrepreneurs able to build private HEIs
Favourable government policies & regulatory
environment (incl. incentives)
• Government challenge to public HEIs to improve
quality, enhance flexibility, increase choice
(Fielden et al, 2010, p11)
Public & private HE - global
Region
Private % of total
enrolment
Numbers of
students in private
HEIs
Private HEIs as % of Numbers of private
the total
HEIs
Africa
14.6
0.7m
59.2
434
Asia
36.4
18m
57.8
18,206
Latin America
48.6
7.6m
71.3
7,090
Europe
16.0
3.7m
25.7
2,136
USA
26.1
4.7m
61.3
2,667
World totals
31.3
35m
55.7
30,555
Source: PROPHE (2010). Public and private higher education shares for 117 countries, 2001-2009. (updated November
2010)
Note: These figures are amalgams of differently defined data for different years (2001-2009) and are intended to give an
approximate feel for the scale of provision.
The private sector represents an important share of total
enrollment in emerging markets at all levels
Share of enrollment in Private Education Institutions
by Region (2009)
60
Private enrollment share, 2009
50
40
Primary
Seconday
30
Tertiary
20
10
0
EAP
ECA
LAC
MNA
SAS
SSA
Source: EdStats, UIS, 2009 or latest available; in World Bank Education Strategy 2020.
The share of private
enrollment is highest in
South Asia, Latin
America, and East Asia
and Pacific
It is significantly higher
in secondary and
tertiary education than
in primary education
Enrollment in private
education grew by 58%
(1991-2004) while
public enrollment grew
by only 10% in the
same period.
At the tertiary level,
private sector growth
has stabilized
The private sector is not yet used to its full potential
in emerging markets
Private % of total higher education institutions and enrollment in East Asian countries
120%
Private % of Total HE Enrollment
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Private % of Total HEIs
•Private sector grew quickly
in countries of the middle
technology cluster
(Indonesia and the
Philippines) and from the
lower technology cluster
(Cambodia) but face a
quantity-quality tradeoff.
•Sectoral growth is not
always accompanied by
quality
•Private sector can play a
critical role in supporting
more diversified skill
provision
Source: PROPHE International Databases and WDI , in Putting Higher Education to Work Skills and Research for Productivity and Growth, World Bank 2011
UK – Scale of PPs
• Minimum of 674 privately-funded HE providers (75% in London & SE)
• 27 lead providers of large provider groups (incl. multiple campuses &
subsidiary colleges)
• Most PPs are small (in UK & Europe)
• 217 < 100 students
• 35 > 1000 students
• 5 > 5000 students
• Est. of 160,000 HE learners in 2011-12 (c/f ca. 2.5m in HEIs)
• Majority are for-profit (54.6% - typically Business & Management); nonprofit (39% - typically arts/religious); ‘Other’ – 6.4%
• Fees: < 3k-£9k + (pre-2012 data)
(Fielden et al, 2010; BIS, 2013; UUK, 2013)
UK - Scope of PPs - Students
• Full time - 60.2%; Part-time 21.6%; Distance learning
18.1%
• UK domicile 49%; International non-EU 41%; EU 10% (Just
under 80,000 UK-domiciled students)
• Full-time students – in creative arts/design; complementary
medicine, law
• Part-time students – architecture/planning;
business/administration; education
• 65.3% - aged 25+
• 67.2% - in paid employment (30% unemployed)
• 52:48 male : female ratio
(BIS, 2013)
UK – Scope of PPs - Provision
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Non-specialist (offering range of provision) - 34.9%
Business, Management, Accountancy, IT - 30.1%
Religious colleges – 9.2%
Arts-focused – 8.9%
Science & Technology focused – 4.6%
Alternative & complementary medicine – 2.4%
54% offer post-graduate courses; also first & subdegrees
• Majority only offer 1 or 2 courses; 18% > 4
undergraduate-level courses
(BIS, 2013)
Myths & Claims
Realities
It’s a separate sector
Not a homogeneous ‘sector’, very diverse
providers & boundaries blurred with HEIs
Private sector poses threat to traditional
universities
Far fewer students studying in PPs: 160,000
v 2m+ in HEIs
Large number of PPPs – eg 30+ ‘pathway
providers’ (Study Group, INTO, Navitas)
PPs increase & widen capacity?
Students in PPs are very diverse (ethnicity,
age, subject, gender)
PPs increase choice for students
Flexibility of time-tables, modes of study,
awards
Specialisms offered – eg mode of study &
subject
Range of fees & modes of payment
Myths & Claims
Realities
PPs are all low quality
UK data – N=1495 students
86.1% satisfied with course (c/f 86%
NSS - 2012)
82.4% satisfied with provider (c/f 85%
overall satisfaction NSS – 2012)
82.3% satisfied with accrediting
organisation
Global – elite private providers top league
tables
High quality private providers in Kenya,
Malaysia, Bangladesh, Japan, Korea
PPs are expensive
Undergraduate fee range: from £3k to >£9k
Why choose PPs?
N = 1495 students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Personal interest in the subject – 93.6%
Career relevance – 90.5%
Range of options/modules available – 79.7%
Reputation of provider – 86.9% rated this as important
Range of subjects offered – 63.4%
Fee levels – 57.4%
Facilities – 59%
(BIS, 2013)
Implications for practice across
providers
• Innovation in teaching, learning & research
(within & across sectors)
• New organisational structures & partnerships
• Staffing opportunities (& staff development)
• New approaches to QA?
• Blurring of boundaries, shifting missions?
• Need for distinctiveness?
Implications for policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regional variation
Subjects & associated challenges
Employment
Regulation & de-regulation
QA
Fraud
Level playing field?
Regulatory challenges
• Four types of regulation: DAPs, Title, course designation & Home
Office
• BIS, HEFCE, QAA were all involved, now HEFCE i/c
• Operating Framework is aimed at equal treatment “with the publiclyfunded sector”
• V wide diversity of sector makes this difficult, particularly in
governance
• Coming into ‘SNC net’ & reporting (KIS etc) – opposed by many PPs
• FP & NFP treated the same
• Still large data gaps (eg TNE) – ‘policy blind’
Key References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Altbach, P., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an
Academic Revolution. Boston, Boston College/UNESCO.
Bjarnason, S., Davies, J., Farrington, D., Fielden, J., Garrett, R., Lund, H., Middlehurst, R., Schofield, A.
(2000). The Business of Borderless Education: UK Perspectives. Vols.1-3. London, CVCP (now UUK)
Clark, B. (1989) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation.
Paris, IAU/Pergamon Press.
Cunningham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Bagdon, K., Flew, T. & Coaldrake, P. (2000). The
Business of Borderless Education. Canberra, DETYA
Fielden, J., Middlehurst, R., Woodfield, S. & Olcott, D. (2010). The growth of private and for-profit higher
education providers in the UK. London, UUK.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New
Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science & research in contemporary societies. London, Sage
Hughes, T., Porter, A., Jones, S. & Sheen, J. (2013). Privately funded providers of higher education in
the UK. BIS Research Paper no. 111. June 2013
Marginson, S. & Rhoades, G. (2002). “Beyond nation states, markets, and systems of higher education:
A glonacal agency heuristic”. Higher Education. 43 (3). 281-309
Middlehurst, R. & Fielden, J. (2011). Private providers in UK Higher Education: Some policy options.
www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy-Options.html
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking Science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty.
Cambridge, Polity