From Franchise Network to Consortium: the Evolution and Operation of
a New Kind of Further and Higher Education Partnership
Freda Bridge, Roy Fisher and Keith Webb
Freda Bridge
School of Education and Professional Development
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate
Huddersfield
HD1 3DH
United Kingdom
Tel.: (01484) 478229
Fax: (01484) 478134
E-mail: f.a.bridge@hud.ac.uk
Roy Fisher
School of Education and Professional Development
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate
Huddersfield
HD1 3DH
United Kingdom
Tel.: (01484) 478269
Fax: (01484) 478134
E-mail: r.fisher@hud.ac.uk
Keith Webb
The Consortium for Post-Compulsory Education and Training
c/o School of Education and Professional Development
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate
Huddersfield
HD1 3DH
United Kingdom
Tel.: (01484) 478117
Fax: (01484) 478134
E-mail: k.f.g.webb@hud.ac.uk
Abstract 144 words
Complete Paper 6638 (including appendices)
ABSTRACT
From Franchise Network to Consortium: the Evolution and Operation of
a New Kind of Further and Higher Education Partnership
The Consortium for Post-Compulsory Education and Training (CPCET) is a
single subject consortium of HE and FE providers of professional
development relating to in-service teacher training for the whole of the postcompulsory sector. Involving more than 30 partners spread across the North
of England, CPCET evolved from a long established franchise network
centred on the University of Huddersfield. This paper, as a matter of
contextualisation, briefly outlines the background of HE to FE franchising
before providing an account of the development of this distinctive partnership.
Further, at a time when cross-sector collaboration has become a policy
priority, it considers some implications of this experience for the postcompulsory sector as a whole. The main operational procedures of CPCET
are described and some current issues are discussed.
1
From Franchise Network to Consortium: the Evolution and Operation of
a New Kind of Further and Higher Education Partnership
Introduction
The focus of this paper is The Consortium for Post Compulsory Education
and Training (CPCET), a pioneering collaborative partnership between further
education (FE) and higher education (HE) that in August 2002 became a
“HEFCE Recognised Funding Consortium” (HRFC) (HEFCE 2000a). This
new status was the culmination of a developmental process that had, in
effect, been initiated in the mid 1960s, but it also marked the start of a new
era of innovation and a new form of partnership between FE and HE. This
paper aims to explain and explore aspects of the development of this
distinctive partnership between FE and HE. Furthermore, at a time when
cross-sector collaboration has become a policy priority, it will consider some
of the issues that have arisen from this experience and their implications for
the post-compulsory sector as a whole.
CPCET (known internally simply as “The Consortium”) has superseded “the
Franchise Network” that gave birth to it and which established and evolved
many of its fundamental operating procedures over a period of some 40
years. Besides the maturity of its systems and the longstanding nature of
many of its fundamental institutional relationships, it is remarkable in a
number of respects. The scale and complexity of the collaboration is unusual
(32 partners serving in excess of 2000 students in 2001/2, dispersed
throughout the north of England). The open nature of the relationships
2
between partners is a key characteristic (HEFCE 2003a). A particular feature
of CPCET is that it was founded on specialist expertise (post-compulsory
sector teacher training) rather than on geographical location/proximity.
CPCET provides awards of the University of Huddersfield that recognise the
professional development of teachers and trainers who work in the postcompulsory education and training (PCET) sector, as well as addressing the
needs of learning support staff across the whole of educational provision.
Currently member institutions of CPCET (see Appendix A) may deliver
programmes that lead to any of the following qualifications: a Foundation
Degree in Learning Support; a Certificate in Education (PCET); a
Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PCET); and a Bachelor of Arts
honours degree in Education and Training.
These are all in-service
programmes. They each require that participants work in contexts where they
can practice and develop their professional skills and understandings. The
rationale that HE should work in collaboration with FE is now widely and
increasingly recognised as a sensible one, as in the Government’s recent
White Paper on HE (DfES 2003).
This has long been the case where the
provision relates to in-service teacher training and development for the postcompulsory sector. In this area the logic for close partnership is one that, of
necessity, underpins curriculum design and development, research, and
human resource planning for the post-compulsory sector.
3
The University of Huddersfield, working together with the network of colleges
that developed into CPCET, has a long established national reputation for
excellence in preparing teachers and trainers for the PCET sector (QAA
2001). The University also has a history of innovation and collaborative
working, having developed curriculum models that have been widely
influential within post-compulsory teacher training. The Huddersfield College
of Education (Technical), and the Huddersfield Polytechnic (both predecessor
bodies of the University of Huddersfield), pioneered the large scale and
systematic direct involvement of FE staff in the delivery of HE awards for the
professional development of those teaching in and managing FE colleges.
From the mid 1970s there was close collaboration with Regional Advisory
Councils (RACs) and, subsequently, with other regional and national strategic
bodies concerned with economic planning and development. The provision of
professional awards to teachers and trainers working outside FE, such as
within the prison, police and fire services, and within the NHS was promoted
with considerable success.
The University’s innovative approach is reflected in the creation of CPCET
itself, and in the basis that CPCET provides for imaginative responses to
emerging needs for professional development and training in an increasingly
dynamic and demanding Learning and Skills sector. For example, CPCET is
currently the main vehicle for a practice-based initiative, funded by four
Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) and a Regional Development Agency
(RDA), to rapidly expand the capacity for teaching Basic Skills in PCET in the
Yorkshire and Humber Region. It is also currently managing a two year
4
HEFCE funded Managed Learning Environment (MLE) project that seeks to
exploit the potential of information technology in the context of a large HE/FE
collaborative network. The existing procedures and systems of the CPCET
are well established, but they are still largely paper-based and this means that
administrative and quality assurance processes can, on this scale, be timeconsuming and relatively cumbersome. New opportunities for engaging and
supporting learners electronically have yet to be fully exploited.
New
technologies offer the potential for new forms and levels of co-operation
across geographical distances and institutional boundaries, and hold out the
prospect of enriching learning experiences in CPCET institutions, and of
enhancing the high levels of support and guidance that students receive.
The Broader Context of HE in FE
11 per cent of higher education is currently delivered through further
education colleges and it is clear that current Government policy as outlined
in Success for All (DfES 2002) is that this should grow. "Structured
partnerships" are seen as central to quality assurance together with a
strategic approach to growth that enables the development by colleges of
"distinct missions". This priority was more recently reiterated in The Future of
Higher Education (DfES 2003) white paper, “We believe that structured
partnerships between colleges and universities – franchise or consortium
arrangements with colleges funded through partner HEIs – will be the primary
vehicles to meet these aims and will deliver the best benefits for learners”
(para. 5.21 p. 62).
5
Another key aspect of Success for All (DfES 2002) was the prioritising of both
teaching and training methods, the development of teaching and learning
frameworks, and the strong emphasis on training for teachers, lecturers,
trainers, workplace supervisors and support staff. The continued expansion of
e-learning was another priority. Parry and Thompson (2002) have pointed to
the size of the challenge facing FE and have identified priorities for change
and development, including joint strategies and coherent quality assurance
mechanisms.
The complex history of HE provision in FE has recently been outlined by
Parry and Thompson (2001 and 2002). In June 1992 The Times Higher
Education Supplement carried what may be seen as a somewhat emblematic
front page headline "Quality Fear in Franchise Boom” (Sanders 1992). Even a
decade ago the terrain of HE/FE franchising was a complicated one with a
multiplicity of dimensions regarding geography (from local to international)
and a wide range of franchised "products" (in terms of subjects, levels and
delivery arrangements) (Abrahams 1994). Writing with a specific focus on HE
to FE collaboration Woodrow (1993) defined franchising, as "…the delivery of
the whole or parts of a course in an institution other than the centre in which it
is developed and validated." (p. 207) This usefully distinguishes franchising
from other collaborative activities such as joint courses and accreditation of
courses. She went on to state that the student numbers belong to the HE
institution and the income therefore "…accrues to them. This income is then
shared with the collaborating Further Education (FE) institution, according to
locally negotiated formula." (p. 207) Woodrow locates the genealogy of
6
educational franchising in the UK in both the commercial franchising
techniques of American big business and in the American community college
movement.
Further
Education
Colleges
have
themselves,
with
the
encouragement of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) (Belfield et
al 2000), become involved in extensive "Outward Collaborative Provision
(OCP)". Fletcher (2000) edited a collection of papers commissioned by FEDA
that considered the debate around this form of franchising by FE colleges.
Yorke (1993) related educational franchising to what he termed "business
format franchising" to identifying general principles that should inform quality
assurance. Yorke outlined the rational for franchising, seeing the widening
participation mission of the former polytechnics as a key driving force.
Drawing on the HMI's (1992) Higher Education in Further Education Colleges:
Franchising and Other Forms of Collaboration with Polytechnics Yorke refers
to some of the anxieties that then surrounded the quality of teaching, learning
resources, the HE student experience in FE, and the effectiveness of liaison
between institutions. Staff and student concerns about lack of interaction with
other HE students, inadequate library facilities, accommodation, and the
absence of appropriate student union facilities were highlighted by Brady and
Metcalfe (1994). Goodall (1995) identified library specific concerns including
limited and inconsistent resources, noting that many HE institutions provided
inadequate guidance to library services in colleges.
In a relatively early contribution to the debate on franchising Morris (1993)
outlined the various pros and cons and correctly identified franchise
7
relationships as vulnerable to break up owing to partner switching on the
basis of price,
Some imbalances in a franchising relationship are inevitable.
Franchisors will nearly always have greater resources than
franchisees. Other aspects of the partnership could easily become
one-sided if allowed to do so. Franchisees must get a fairer share of
the benefits, financial and otherwise. Similarly, franchisors should not
keep information to themselves. Above all franchise relationships do
require a great deal of management. Without high quality pro-active
management information gaps and misunderstandings will occur. At
first these may appear unimportant but ultimately the partnership may
well founder on the familiar rock of undermanagement. (p. 63)
The franchising of what were, prior to the formation of what is now generally
termed "the learning and skills" sector, fundamentally academic and
professional development programmes for FE lecturers to FE institutions
always had a strong rationale. The Colleges were (and are) the key sites of
practice and offered a huge store of knowledge and expertise. The four
"original" technical teacher training institutions (Bolton, Garnet, Huddersfield
and Wolverhampton) that were established following the McNair Report
(Board of Education 1944), and their respective successor institutions (the
Bolton Institute, The University of Greenwich, the University of Huddersfield
and the University of Wolverhampton) have each developed strong
relationships with further education colleges. [for an account of the HE/FE
collaboration at Greenwich see Lewis and Allen (1998). This is one of a range
of papers in Mitchell (1998) that explore some of the tensions and benefits
that arise from HE/FE collaboration].
8
Higher education may, up to the 1970s, be seen as overtly elitist in practice if
not in mission, with less than 5 per cent of school leavers undertaking study in
higher education. The post-war development of the UK’s HE system saw the
emergence of three types of HEIs - the universities, polytechnics and colleges
of higher education. The 1992 Further and Higher Education Act (DES 1992)
redesignated polytechnics as universities. In reviewing the uptake of higher
education following on from the more recent growth of HE it is evident that the
social class composition of the student body has not changed in a significant
way. Another feature of the post 1992 expansion of HE is that the pre-1992
universities have the lowest proportions of students from the lower socioeconomic groups (Field 2002).
Prior to the recent Government imperatives aimed at increasing participation
in higher education there had been a tradition of delivering HE in FE dated
back to the 1960s. Parry and Thompson (2001) argue that HE was not high
profile in FE colleges as it was, “Overshadowed by the rise of polytechnics
and other large colleges as national institutions during the 1980s.” (p.1). The
move towards a much higher take up of higher education in England during
the 1980s made the issue of HE in FE a significant one. There was a growth
in cross-sector collaboration; particularly as take-up of HE was becoming
more extensive and some HEI campuses were beginning to prove inadequate
for the demand. It was in this context that FE colleges were increasingly
becoming the deliverers of HE programmes. Franchise arrangements were
usually for undergraduate awards and offered several advantages to both the
FE and HE institutions. They provided the opportunity for expansion for both
9
parties, a more regional focus for HE delivery, as well as opportunity for FE
staff to teach on new HE programmes. Clear single institution progression
routes for students were a perceived advantage in seeking to attract those
who would not normally have access to HE. FE staff were able, in some
cases, to contribute to curriculum development of HE programmes, providing
new professional development opportunities for them.
In 1994, when approximately one in eight HE students were studying in FE
colleges (Parry and Thompson 2001), the Government decided to curtail the
expansion of full-time higher education. FE colleges offered most of their
higher education provision on a part-time basis with qualifications below first
degree level. Parry and Thompson (2001) refer to the role of further
education as “auxiliary and ancillary” in the move to mass higher education.
They describe FE colleges as having a useful role in ensuring the availability
of a wide range of students ready for entry into higher education. A surprising
outcome of the Dearing Report (1997), as indicated by Parry and Thompson
(2001), was that of assigning FE colleges a leading role in the expansion of
higher education. The Kennedy Report (FEFC 1997), issued in the same year
as Dearing, took the view that higher education was not significant to the
mission of further education.
The Development of CPCET
10
The “Huddersfield Network” which has now become The Consortium for
PCET effectively originates from 1966. Two related developments in that
year established the basis of what was to become a highly successful
collaborative partnership between FE and HE. First, following the Robbins
Report (Robbins 1963) of 1963, the then Huddersfield College of Education
(Technical) offered in-service training of teachers from the technical
education sector through a two year part-time day-release course. Secondly,
that provision was made available through the first of many extra-mural
Centres (at Durham Technical College).
The programmes provided were
developed from the one-year full-time courses leading to the Certificate in
Education and the PGCE, which were then validated by Leeds University and
which were taught, assessed and managed by staff of the Huddersfield
College of Education (Technical) (Guggenheim 1997).
This provision had a regional quality in that students were drawn from a range
of colleges within easy travelling distances of the centres. In the early 1970s
there was a vast growth in the extra-mural provision offered by Huddersfield,
and this was developed through close co-operation with Regional Advisory
Councils in Yorkshire and Humberside, the Northern Counties, the East
Midlands and East Anglia. By 1972 the Huddersfield College of Education
(Technical) had established a network of 17 extra-mural centres and by 1980
the (then) Huddersfield Polytechnic was providing for over one thousand
serving teachers from further, adult and higher education institutions
(Guggenheim 1997). These developments were in the forefront of a national
trend for in-service initial training to be provided at colleges of further
11
education with courses validated by universities which emerged in the late
1980s and early 1990s, particularly following the incorporation of FE colleges.
Since 1966 the development of the partnership has been characterised by the
progressive transfer of responsibilities from a single HE institution to the local
college providers. The University of Huddersfield, as the institutional
successor to the Huddersfield College of Education (Technical), has
continued this trend. The new CPCET arrangement is designed to maximise
partner college involvement in managing the development and delivery of
provision whilst retaining the integrity and consistency of a widely recognised
qualification for professional development. As the accounting institution and
the awarding body, the University retains a distinctive role among the
partners, particularly with regard to quality assurance, but it carries the same
weight as all other Consortium members on matters such as the distribution
of resources, the allocation of students between colleges, and the admission
of new members to the Consortium.
The Consortium currently embraces a large and diverse set of PCET
providers. Geographically, the members are dispersed across the north of
England from Blackpool to Boston, and from Manchester to Tyneside. Some
members provide just one of the awards available, others offer four different
Huddersfield University qualifications in professional development (see the
introduction above). The partners include large, general F/HE colleges and a
relatively small former agricultural college. Some have been designated as
Beacon Colleges and others are Centres of Vocational Excellence in
12
particular fields. A few of the partners have in excess of one hundred
students on CPCET courses, others have less than twenty.
Many, for
different purposes, are members of other consortia arrangements, and a
couple are also the lead institutions for other such partnerships.
These
features of the collaboration certainly create particular challenges (especially
for management and quality assurance), but they also provide major benefits
(for example, in accessibility, in the formation of substantial subject specialist
groupings, and in economies of scale). The partnership, though, is a mature
and successful one and it has proved to be flexible and innovative in
responding to the complex and changing training needs of the PCET sector.
The Ethos, Structure and Operation of CPCET
In November 1999 HEFCE (1999) published a code of practice on indirectly
funded partnerships (franchises) for the delivery of HE in FE. In December
2000 this was incorporated in to a wider report (HEFCE 2000a) that
incorporated guidance on the principles that should inform consortia
agreements. At this time CPCET was already at an advanced formative
stage, it was considered that the development was highly congruent with the
HEFCE guidelines. CPCET was founded on democratic principles and
membership does not does not restrict the rights of members to join other
consortia. The Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) (CPCET 2002) defines
the membership and objectives as "…a group of providers of higher and
further education and its objectives will be to deliver training and professional
development." (p. 1) This deliberately leaves scope for CPCET to diversify
from the in-service teacher training related provision that is currently its main
13
focus. The MoC goes on to closely define the powers of CPCET and to detail
its management structure.
The key management body of CPCET is its Board and this is presided over
by the annually elected Chair of CPCET (a senior representative of one of the
member institutions). The Board consists of one representative of each
member institution. The University of Huddersfield, on behalf of the
Consortium, employs and accommodates a Consortium Director and other
staff of the Consortium. The CPCET Board determines the duties of the
Consortium Director and the Director is also be a member of the Board. The
Board meets at least annually. Every member has one vote except that the
Chair has a second casting vote. Resolutions at a meeting of the Board are
carried by a majority of members present and are binding on all members.
The quotidian management of the Consortium is by a Steering Committee
consisting of the Chair, the Consortium Director and a member drawn from
each of six regional groupings of member colleges plus a representative of
the accounting institution (the University of Huddersfield). Meetings of the
steering committee are called by the Chair or may be called by any three
members of the steering committee to consider extraordinary business.
Every member has one vote except that the Chair has a second casting vote.
The Steering Committee reports to the CPCET Board. The powers of the
CPCET Board are as follows:
The Board will be responsible for
determination of the character and purpose of the Consortium
and for the oversight of its activities;
enabling the Consortium to deliver training and professional
development efficiently and economically and for applying
14
the principles of justice and fairness in the conduct of the
Consortium;
resolution of disputes concerning the affairs of the Consortium
that involve either partners, or partners and the Consortium;
the effective and efficient use of resources, the solvency of the
Consortium and for safeguarding its assets;
approving annual estimates of income and expenditure;
the title, appointment, general ambit of assignment, grading,
appraisal, suspension, dismissal and determination of the
pay and conditions of service of those employed by, or on
behalf of, the Consortium.
CPCET (2002) (p. 2)
The MoC also provides that:
Until decided otherwise by the Board, the accounting institution for
student numbers, financial arrangements and relations with the Higher
Education Funding Council for England [HEFCE] shall be the
University of Huddersfield. Any changes to this arrangement are
subject to HEFCE agreement.
For an outline of services provided to CPCET by the University of
Huddersfield see Appendix B.
CPCET Initiatives have included special events for college finance managers
and librarians. It has been suggested that franchising arrangements have
frequently directly involved librarians in the validation process but the level of
involvement declines post-validation (Goodall 1995). CPCET, together with
the University, has sought to ensure that librarians and other support staff are
actively involved in ongoing developments. Teaching staff from colleges and
the University have scheduled monthly meetings that focus on both course
management and curriculum/staff development issues. These meetings are
seen as fundamental to the successful operation of the courses, as well as
vital to the professional development of tutors.
15
Some Current Issues for CPCET (and others)
Several Issues currently facing CPCET are by no means unique. A major
practical feature and source of concern in the delivery of HE in FE arises from
the different terms and conditions of staff in the respective sectors. For
example, staff in higher education are expected to be active in research and
scholarship since these are normally seen as essential to maintain the quality
and vitality of the curriculum and of teaching. Research is not a contractual
requirement for lecturers in further education colleges. If staff teaching HE in
FE are, normally with annual teaching loads significantly in excess of 800
hours, not able to engage in research then there are HE quality issues to be
addressed. With the growth of HE in FE it is important to identify precisely
how staff delivering higher education programmes in further education are
being and should be professionally supported. The most recently published
research into HE in FE policy and practice has emphasized the significance of
these concerns (HEFCE 2003b).
The Bett Report (Bett 1999), despite being urged by Government to be
flexible and affordable, had substantial cost implications requiring significant
implementation funding. Some of the key recommendations of the Bett report
were that the future of universities and higher education colleges depends on
successful recruitment, retention, and motivation of quality staff; that HE must
sustain and improve the quality of teaching for a growing number of diverse
students; that flexible solutions to pay and related issues should be allowed to
evolve and adapt; that low levels of staff training and equal opportunities must
16
be tackled urgently; and that the sector must be sure it has the staff to
improve its output and research.
A huge agenda was now evident. Bett (1999) raised particular issues
regarding staff development. HEIs were seen to require effective staff
development policies and practices, Investors in People accreditation was
seen as a potential benefit, and the implementation of effective appraisal
schemes, and systems for clear staff representation were urged. The Bett
Report (1999) did not take staff delivering HE in FE, and their different
working conditions into consideration. CPCET is conscious of the need to
address this difficult problem and many of its support mechanisms are
designed to give colleagues teaching HE in FE ready access to research and
scholarship. Examples of these include membership of the University Library,
access to research seminars and colloquia, guest speakers at monthly
meetings, sponsorship of small-scale action research projects and an annual
CPCET conference featuring contributions from academics from both within
and outside CPCET.
Despite their frequent inter- and intra-disciplinary divisions, HE academics
have traditionally regarded themselves as part of a single community (Becher
1989) and have maintained strong professional allegiance. The risks of
challenging these values are substantial for people whose livelihood depends
upon success within the system (Gergen 1994). Nevertheless, from within
and outside institutions, new voices arising from social and technological
change and form the shift to mass FE and HE (including franchise and
17
consortium
arrangements),
now
threaten
taken-for-granted
academic
positions (Weil 1999). This has the potential to generate creative dialogue
among academics (Gregory 1996), though all too often there is the formation
of groupings that guard against what can be seen as ‘dilution’ (Weil 1999).
The changing role of the academic – teaching, research, managing,
curriculum planning – add new pressures, and this is in addition to challenges
to the long-standing academic monopoly on knowledge production (Weil
1999). Academic communities need to change in order to keep pace with an
increasingly complex world. Communities such as that represented by
CPCET are part of the change process. The distribution of new knowledge
and innovation in teaching and learning can constitute a considerable
challenge within the context of large scale distributed learning networks such
as those present in CPCET. Particular issues include the use of information
and communications technology, and the growth of e-learning and supporting
students with different needs, as well as work-based learning and intellectual
ownership issues in relation to learning materials produced by interinstitutional teams.
Widening participation is a central focus of both the Kennedy Report (FEFC
1997) and the Dearing Report (Dearing 1997). In the latter case, Weil (1999)
has argued that by focusing at a rhetorical level, rather than by proposing
better forms of funding for such individuals, Dearing unwittingly colludes in the
"iconisation" of higher education, and perpetuates patterns of social
exclusion. This was surely not an intended outcome of the Dearing Report
and is not in line with current Governmental policy geared towards social
18
inclusion. The national policy context relating to HE and FE is complex,
particularly when considering the blurred edges between the two sectors. The
history of the relationship between FE and HE has shown how the sectors
can work together in delivering Governmental agendas such as increased HE
participation rates. It is difficult to envisage how the recent imperative for
extensive growth in HE can be achieved without the direct involvement of FE.
The present position regarding the growth and expansion of higher education
programmes in order to increase participation has seen a significant shift in
funding. HEFCE has assumed responsibility for all postgraduate, first degree,
higher diploma and higher certificate courses in colleges of further education.
Parry and Thompson (2001) state that the government has planned for “Over
half the expansion in sub-degree places to be delivered through the colleges.”
(p.3) This has resulted in colleges being encouraged to consider how they
can best respond to this drive. Consortia along the lines of CPCET may be
seen as one pragmatic and effective response to this challenge
Field (2002) has identified a concern about the delivery of HE in FE related to
perceptions of quality in HE being closely correlated with research output. The
Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) and The Economic and
Social Science Research Council (ESRC) have both recognised the need to
build research capacity in FE. In collaboration with other HE providers, and on
its own account, the School of Education and Professional Development at
the University of Huddersfield, has a policy of seeking research funding that
will both exploit the institutional richness of CPCET and directly involve FE
staff in the conduct of funded research projects. CPCET is currently financing
19
two 0.5 research secondments that will enable FE based practitioners to
undertake research on aspects of its operations. In addition to this, for those
teaching on the University of Huddersfield programmes operating within
CPCET, it sponsors fees for higher level awards, including doctorates, for
membership of The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education,
and directly finances small scale research projects. In order to assist FE
colleges in meeting the demands of providing more higher education, HEFCE
announced a new funding package of £9.5 million intended "…to help further
education
colleges (FECs) to develop their higher education (HE)
programmes and specifically to raise the quality and standards of HE learning
and teaching." (HEFCE 2000b) (executive summary).
This is clearly a
focused attempt to try to alleviate the concerns about the quality of HE
teaching in FE. The intensity of teaching demands and the lack of structured
support for research and scholarly activity within FE colleges suggests that
HE institutions and consortia that place HE provision in FE institutions need to
consciously address this issue.
Looking to the Future
Collaboration between HE and FE in delivering HE programmes can be of
great benefit, financially, strategically, academically, and culturally to both
sides of the arrangement, as well as to the students who are the ultimate
beneficiaries. These benefits have been achieved by many established
franchised arrangements. Consortia, it is argued, offer greater potential in that
they are essentially more democratic in ethos. With this democracy come new
ways of operating, new opportunities, and, it should be recognised, new
20
tensions in terms of consultation and accountability. This type of arrangement
takes a lot of time, good will, effort and determination in order to be
successful. A clear vision and strong commitment from all parties are prerequisites but by no means guarantees of success.
In addition to the issues discussed above that confront all providers of HE in
FE, and those shared by all engaged in teacher training for PCET, The
Consortium for Post-Compulsory Education and Training currently faces a
number of particular challenges that essentially arise from its distinctive
character. Because it is a subject-specialist partnership, its activities often do
not correspond to established boundaries, whether these are geographical in
nature or conceptual. The former means cutting across the organisational
divisions of “stake-holder” bodies (such as RDAs, the LSDA and LSCs), and
the latter means falling “outside the box” of established categorisations (such
as for classifying students and collecting statistical data for the sector). Other
challenges are intrinsic – for example the co-ordination of so many dispersed
and different FE organisations. The inherent problems of communication are
currently being addressed through a major initiative to restructure through the
development of an electronic Managed Learning Environment (MLE) to
replace the established paper-based systems and materials. This is a
formidable challenge, but other intrinsic problems are also paradoxical and so
even less readily resolved. The clearest example concerns further growth of
CPCET. Because many of the curriculum and resource benefits for members
derive from its scale, all partners benefit from increasing the number of
participants. This necessarily involves a broadening geographical reach , but
21
this inevitably undermines the sustainability of one of CPCET’s great
strengths – regular face-to-face contact between all members of its
community.
On the basis of the record of its predecessors in adopting innovative solutions
to overcome previous challenges, members of CPCET are optimistic about its
prospects for progress in resolving such problems.
In the process of
increasing the involvement of FE in delivery of HE programmes, the
Huddersfield Network pioneered many practices that are now unremarkable.
Such developments have included curriculum initiatives (such as studentcentred learning focused on reflective practice and work-based, practical
assessment);
and
also
managerial
innovations
(such
as
improved
accessibility through provision at dispersed sites, employer involvement in
curriculum design and delivery, and new mechanisms to ensure high and
consistent quality among diverse providers). CPCET is a product of this
tradition of innovation - but it is also a means of perpetuating it. Looking to the
future, CPCET aims to expand its membership and to diversify its portfolio of
programmes offered. It also intends to continue to explore new ways of
articulating HE in FE and creating new cultures of co-operation, growth and
learning for individuals and for institutions.
Bibliography
Abramson, M. (1994) Franchising, access, Quality and Exclusivity: some
observations from recent research into further and higher education
partnerships, Journal of Access Studies, 9, pp. 109-114.
Abramson, M., Bird, J. and Stennett, A. (Eds.) (1996) Further and Higher
Education Partnerships: The Future for Collaboration. Buckingham:
SRHE/Open University.
22
Becher, T. (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and
the Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Belfield, C, Bullock, A., Rikowski, G. and Thomas, H. (2000) Franchising and
the Funding Methodology in the FE Sector, Journal of Education and Work,
13 (1), pp. 25-39
Bett, M. (1999) Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions.
London: The Stationery Office.
Blake, G. (1992) Franchising: assuring the quality of the student experience,
Coombe Lodge Reports 22 (10), pp. 821-902.
Board of Education (1944) Teachers and Youth Leaders. Report of the
Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Education to consider
the supply, recruitment and training of teachers and youth leaders. London:
HMSO.
Brady, M and Metcalfe, A (1994) Staff and Student Perceptions of
Franchising, Journal of Access Studies, 9, pp. 271-277.
CPCET (2002) Memorandum of Co-operation. Huddersfield: CPCET.
Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. Report of the
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. London: HMSO.
DES (1992) Further and Higher Education Act. London: HMSO.
DfES (2001) Education and Skills: Delivering Results A Strategy to 2006.
London: DfES.
DfES (2003) The Future of Higher Education. London: The Stationery Office
Limited.
FEFC (1997) Learning Works: widening participation in further education.
[“The Kennedy Report”] Coventry: FEFC.
Field, J. (2002) Links Between Further and Higher Education - A Contextual
Report. Bristol: HEFCE.
Fletcher, M. (Ed.) (2000) For Better or Worse: the influence of FE Franchising
on learning. London: FEDA.
Gergen, K. (1994) Towards Transformation in Social Knowledge. Sage:
London.
Goodall, D. (1995) The Impact of Franchised HE Courses on Library and
Information Services in FE Colleges, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 19 (3), pp. 47-62.
23
Gregory, W. (1996) Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems
thinking. Systems Practice, 9 (6), pp. 605-625.
Guggenheim, M. (1997) Franchising - A Partnership Between Higher and
Further Education. Unpublished Paper: University of Huddersfield.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate (1991) Higher Education in Further Education
Colleges: Franchising and Other Forms of Collaboration with Polytechnics.
London: Department of Education and Science.
HEFCE (1999) HE in FE Colleges: Code of practice on indirectly funded
partnerships, HEFCE 99/63. Bristol: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2000a) Higher Education in Further Education, HEFCE Report
00/54. Bristol: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2000b) Higher Education in Further Education
Development Fund for Learning and Teaching. Bristol: HEFCE.
Colleges:
HEFCE (2003a) Supporting Higher Education in Further Education Colleges,
HEFCE Report 03/15. Bristol: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2003b) Supporting Higher Education in Further Education Colleges,
HEFCE Report 03/16. Bristol: HEFCE.
Leather, S. and Toogood, P. (1992) Franchising in Post-16 Education,
Coombe Lodge Reports, 22 (9), pp. 749-819.
Lewis, T. and Allen, R. (1998) Patterns of HE/FE Collaboration, in Mitchell, P.
(Ed.) Beyond the Universities: The New Higher Education. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Mitchell, P. (Ed.) (1998) Beyond the Universities: The New Higher Education.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Morris, D. (1993) The Business of Franchising, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 17 (1), pp. 57-67.
Parry, G. and Thompson, A. (2001) Higher Education in FE Colleges.
London: LSDA.
Parry, G. and Thompson, A. (2002) Closer By Degrees: the past, present and
future of higher education in further education colleges. London: LSDA.
QAA (2001) see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/subjrev/All/q297_01.pdf
Robbins, Lord L. C. (1963) Higher Education: report of the Committee on
Higher Education. London: HMSO.
24
Sanders, C. (1992) Quality Fear in Franchise Boom, The Times Higher
Education Supplement, 1022, 5 June, p. 1
Weil, S. (1999) Re-creating universities for “Beyond the Stable State”: from
“Dearingesque” systematic control to post-Dearing systemic learning and
inquiry. System Research and Behaviourial Science, 16, pp. 171-190.
Wisker, G. (Ed.) (1995) Franchising: Flexibility and Fruitful Partnerships.
Birmingham: SEDA.
Woodrow, M. (1993) Franchising: The Quiet Revolution, Higher Education
Quarterly, 47 (3), pp. 207-220.
Yorke, M. (1993) Quality Assurance for Higher Education Franchising, Higher
Education, 26, pp. 167-182.
APPENDIX A - Members of CPCET as at May 2003
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
i.
ii.
iii.
xvi
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Accrington and Rossendale College
Barnsley College
Bishop Burton College
Blackpool and The Fylde College
Boston College
The Calderdale Colleges Corporation
Craven College
Darlington College of Technology
Dewsbury College
East Riding College, Bridlington
Grimsby College
Harrogate College,
Further Education Faculty of Leeds
Metropolitan University
Huddersfield Technical College
Hull College
Joseph Priestley College
Keighley College
Manchester College of Arts and Technology
Nelson and Colne College
North Lindsey College
Redcar and Cleveland College
25
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
Xviv
Rother Valley College
Rotherham College of Arts & Technology
Selby College
South Tyneside College
Stockton Riverside College
Tameside College
The University of Huddersfield
Thomas Danby College
Wakefield College
Wigan and Leigh College
York College
Yorkshire Coast College of F&HE
APPENDIX B - The services to be provided to CPCET during 2002-03 by
the University of Huddersfield:
i.
ii.
Summer school of ten credit points for in-service PGCE and
Cert. Ed. students
Curriculum development
iii. Quality assurance and maintenance of standards
a.
Validation and review
b.
Annual monitoring
c.
External examiners
d.
Moderation of assignments
e.
Assessment
iv. Registry functions
a.
Admissions
b.
Enrolment and registration
c.
Assessment
d.
Fee assessment
e.
Administration of student loans, bursaries and grants
f.
Statistical returns including HESES and HESA
g.
Conferment and certification
h.
Student appeals
26
v.
Financial administration
a.
Financial monitoring
b.
Facilitating payments to partners
vi. Use of learning resources
a.
Students registered on programmes of study covered by
this agreement will have access to the university’s library and
borrowing rights
b.
Consortium partner staff teaching on programmes of
study covered by this agreement will have access to the
university’s library and full borrowing rights
vii. IT services
a.
Students registered on programmes of study covered by
this agreement will have remote electronic access to the full set
of learning resources provided via “ECON” and also to other
materials that can be made available via a Huddersfield-base
gateway
b.
Students registered on programmes of study covered by
this agreement may be granted access to computer terminals on
the university’s premises if these are available
viii. Student services
a.
Administration of access funds, hardship loans and
mature student bursaries
b.
Career counselling
ix. Staff development programmes
Staff employed by Consortium partners who either teach or are
closely associated with the programmes covered by this
agreement may participate in the university’s staff development
programme if places are available.
27