Report 99/19

National Institute for Adult Continuing Education

Non Award-Bearing Continuing Education

An Evaluation of the HEFCE programme 1995-1998

By
Stephen McNair
with
Sue Cara, Veronica McGivney, Fiona Raybould, Jim Soulsby, Alastair Thomson, Mike Vaughan.

March 1999

Preface, contents and executive summary (read online)

Download

[ MS Word 762K ]

Preface

This is a report on the Non Award-Bearing Continuing Education programme (NABCE), funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) between 1995 and 1998. It is a product of the evaluation of the programme which the Council commissioned from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE), and focuses particularly on the policy implications of the work.

Widening participation, and liberal adult education have a long and complex history in British higher education, with distinctive traditions and funding mechanisms in the universities and polytechnics. Following the merging of the two into a single higher education sector in 1992, the HEFCE sought to develop a coherent funding approach which treated all institutions equitably. It did so by encouraging the old universities to "mainstream" work which had previously been funded separately, bringing it into the administrative, quality assurance and funding frames used for other higher education activity.

However, concern was expressed in many quarters that valuable work might be inadvertently damaged by this, especially in two areas of non award-bearing work: Liberal Adult Education (LAE) and widening participation. The former was traditionally not accredited, and delivered in distinctive ways and locations which made the mainstream systems difficult to apply. The latter often called for special strategies, with different time scales, funding requirements, curricular and organisational needs. In response, the Council agreed in 1995 to create a competitive fund to which institutions could bid for resources for work in both these fields, and commissioned NIACE to evaluate the programme.

Since then, the context has changed significantly. The Dearing Committee gave positive support to a continued widening of participation, and highlighted the fact that expansion of numbers had not meant a significant widening of recruitment. The Government's consultative paper on lifelong learning, The Learning Age, changed the emphasis of Government policy, paying greater attention to the role of education in overcoming social exclusion, and in community development. The Government's interest in the development of regional structures added greater weight to initiatives which strengthen links between higher education institutions (HEIs) and their local and regional communities, and most recently Ministers have expressed concern about the place and survival of some forms of LAE.

The issues addressed in the NABCE programme have thus become more central to the national policy agenda. Although the projects were not set up to explore policy issues, their experience, and the debates around them, can help to shape our understanding of the way forward. This report is a contribution to that understanding.

Contents

1. Preface

2. Contents

3. Executive summary

4. The context

5. Widening provision

6. Liberal adult education

7. Two Kinds of higher education?

8. Conclusions

9. Policy implications

11. Appendices

12. References

13. Index

Executive summary

Higher education institutions have always done more than carry out formal research and teach students on degree programmes. This report is concerned with two other activities: "liberal adult education", which traditionally offered educational programmes and activities to a range of learners who do not seek formal accreditation, and "widening provision", which sought to encourage those who would not normally expect to participate in higher education to do so, by offering preparatory programmes or by other activities.

Prior to the creation of a unified higher education system in 1992, this work had been differently funded in different sectors and institutions, and funding was often not directly related to student numbers on accredited courses. It therefore presented a particular challenge to the new Funding Council as it sought to create a unified and equitable funding methodology. Most of the pre-1992 universities had received separate funding for liberal adult work, while the polytechnics had resourced it from their mainstream funding. The HEFCE encouraged the pre-1992 universities to bring their LAE work into their mainstream funding and quality assurance processes ("mainstreaming"), and all did so for the majority of the activity. However, a residue remained, and doubt was expressed in the institutions about whether the new approach could adequately support all the valuable work previously undertaken.

At the same time, concern had been growing that the expansion of student numbers in the late 1980s and early 1990s had not widened access to non-participant groups. Such widening was believed to call for special initiatives, which might not be course based, to promote higher education and to prepare individuals for entry.

In response to these concerns, the HEFCE created the Non Award-Bearing Continuing Education programme (NABCE), and invited institutions to bid for funding to carry out work on widening provision (WP) and/or liberal adult education (LAE). It provided £4.6 million pounds a year over 4 years; and bidding was open to all HE institutions, whether or not they had previously received specific funding for liberal adult education. After a competitive bidding process 46 WP and 20 LAE projects were funded.

This report is the result of the evaluation of the programme, which the HEFCE commissioned from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE). Over three years, five NIACE staff undertook a series of visits to 20 sample projects, and read project documentation. In addition there were three surveys of projects, four national seminars, and two national conferences.

The context

The rationale for widening participation is both economic (that the public interest requires the maximisation of human resources) and ethical (that it is unjust for people who could benefit from higher education to be excluded from its evident social and economic benefits by the accidents of class, ethnicity, gender, disability or location).

The rationale for liberal adult education is more complex and contested. Its elements include the role of the higher education institution (HEI) in sharing knowledge, in promoting citizenship and overcoming exclusion, and in developing the capacity of its local and regional communities.

Since 1995, when the programme was launched, there has been a substantial change in the policy priority given to these issues. Government and others are now much more concerned with the role of HEIs in overcoming social exclusion, and in the social and economic development of their regional and local communities. Since all the WP projects, and most of the LAE ones, had these issues as a major focus, their outcomes and lessons became of interest to a growing policy community. However, the programme was not constructed for this purpose, and the tension between the local objectives of individual projects and the broader policy agenda was a feature of the evaluation.

General Issues

The WP and LAE projects were funded differently, the former on an "activity" basis and the latter on student numbers. However, there was considerable overlap in activities and objectives.

The diversity of institutions and projects makes it difficult to identify simple transferable lessons, or to generalise about success. Significant innovation for one project might be established practice for another, and a successful strategy for one was impossible for another. The projects varied in size (with funding ranging from £20,000 to £190,000 a year), in target groups, objectives and methodology. The institutions varied in mission, structure, previous experience of continuing education, extent and strength of established partnerships, and experience of project management.

Widening provision

Many of the WP projects sought to create and maintain infrastructure to support widening participation, rather than to provide courses. Much of the activity had long-term objectives, and did not expect to produce substantial changes in student numbers in that institution during the life of the project (although some did achieve this).

The principal target groups addressed by the 46 projects were (many projects targeted several groups):

• ethnic minorities (21 projects)
• women (15)
• rural communities (9)
• people with disabilities (6)
• learners in the "third age" (4).

Almost all saw their highest priorities, and greatest areas of success, as:

• developing partnerships with external agencies
• developing advice and guidance for potential students and for non-traditional students already enrolled in the institution
• changing public perceptions of higher education.

A majority of projects also saw as priorities (but with lower levels of success):

• changing the culture of their institution
• changing its institutional structures and processes, to make them more appropriate for non-traditional learners
• curriculum change (principally the curriculum outside degree programmes).

Structural characteristics of the most successful projects were:

• well established long-term partnerships with other agencies
• embedding of the work in the institution's mission
• a broad and flexible view of participation in HE
• a long-term strategy.

Outstanding features of the most innovative projects were:

• the use of existing students (mainly young undergraduates), as mentors, tutors, outreach workers and researchers, in order to create role models for others, and build links between communities and the institution
• community development strategies, designed to engage members of excluded communities in multiple ways with the institution and its resources.

Notable curricular innovations included new:

• preparatory programmes
• bridging and induction programmes
• summer schools
• associate student schemes
• study skills programmes.

Weaknesses of some of the projects included:

• marginality and low status in institutional priorities - by comparison with research and teaching quality assessment
• failure to draw on previous work elsewhere
• lack of mechanisms for student feedback on the work
• lack of embedding in institutional structures.

The absence, or unavailability, of data on non-traditional students made monitoring and evaluation particularly difficult. Although mainstream statistical systems have improved during the life of the programme, problems remain, particularly with groups of students reluctant to declare themselves, as is the case with some non-visible disabilities.

Liberal adult education

LAE has a complex history, and its definition and purposes are contentious. Most of the separately funded work of the pre-1992 universities had been incorporated into "mainstream" structures before the NABCE programme was launched.

Some projects were based in institutions which had received separate LAE funding prior to "mainstreaming", others were receiving such funding for the first time. Although some projects used the funds to continue previous work which had not been "mainstreamed", most used them for programmes which were new to that institution, although similar work was often already established in other institutions (in HE or other sectors).

Against the formal criteria of the programme, the LAE projects achieved their agreed student numbers, and can properly be regarded as "successful". However, the increased policy interest in this field raises broader questions about the precise definition of LAE, and the rationale for its separate funding, to which the projects collectively do not provide clear or simple answers.

There was no consensus among the projects about the essential components of "liberal adult education". The special features which were identified by the projects can be described in five broad clusters:

• work to widen participation by excluded groups (by far the commonest)
• sharing knowledge with external communities
• maintaining "open structures" for learning (including non-assessed work; innovative curriculum, modes of delivery and subjects; and "level-free" learning)
• work for empowerment and citizenship (prominent in the literature on LAE, but more evident in the WP projects than the liberal adult education ones)
• work which is not assessed and/or accredited

Successes of the LAE work include:

• involvement of new groups and communities in higher education
• imaginative approaches to sharing knowledge through day schools and events
• raising awareness and changing the image of HE
• changing staff attitudes within the university
• evidence of high levels of demand and recruitment: most projects exceeded their (very varied) student number targets.

Conclusions

The following conclusions arise from the evaluation.

Excluded communities

While it is possible to widen participation for individual members of excluded groups through specific programmes, the project experience suggests that the key to successful impact on excluded communities lies in a multi-stranded, capacity building approach. Where an institution adopts such an approach, engaging with the community on several fronts simultaneously, and working in partnership with other agencies, it can make a substantial impact on both the culture of the institution and its relevance to the capacity of those communities.

Target groups

The range of groups who are currently excluded is large and diverse. Members of different groups have different needs, and strategies for widening participation need to reflect this. It is particularly important to recognise the differences between excluded young people and older ones. Although there were examples of successful linking of the two, this is unlikely to happen without careful planning.

Institutional commitment

Institutions vary greatly in their commitment to, and ability to manage, this work. The best have a long established network of community partnerships at institutional level, and expertise in using these. Others have networks at a low level (through individual staff connections for example), which make small scale activity possible, but are insufficient to make strategic impact. A third group are involved only in a particular area (such as opportunities for particular disabled groups), and a fourth have few links of any kind.

Successful partnerships depended on long-term commitment, and were more likely when there was some stability in staffing and institutional structures, and genuine sharing of expertise and knowledge. Successful projects took a broad view of the kinds of work which an HE institution can legitimately undertake.

Project-based approaches

The project-based approach did succeed in stimulating innovation, and imaginative risk taking, and helped to build partnerships. It appeared to be less successful at producing cultural and institutional change in HE, except in those cases where the work was strongly supported by institutional mission, and sponsorship from people with major influence (formal or informal) within the institution.

Funding

The availability of dedicated ring-fenced funding for development work has led to significant innovation and development. Without such funding some institutions would not have engaged in this work, and in the light of other, more powerful, institutional and cultural pressures some will not continue it. The fact that funds had been won competitively from the HEFCE gave the work added status and influence in some institutions, and many institutions were able to use this funding to generate additional external resources.

Infrastructure

Many of the major costs of work to widen participation and maintain LAE are not in the provision of courses, but in maintaining the infrastructure of partnerships, outreach, and administration. Such infrastructure is often more expensive than that required for mainstream course provision.

Knowledge base

Over four years the projects have created a substantial body of expertise among their staff, which constitutes an important resource for future development. However, most of these were employed on fixed-term contracts, and there is a danger that this body of knowledge will be dissipated or lost when projects finish. Furthermore, there are insufficient opportunities for sharing knowledge and experience among those engaged in development work of this kind, both within HE, and between HE and other sectors. Support for formal networking should be a priority for future development, to accelerate the process of change and avoid repetition of mistakes.

The case for special funding

Since the mainstream funding of HE is based on numbers of students on formal programmes, its effect is to disadvantage institutions which undertake the kinds of activity supported through the NABCE programme. However, despite the rising prominence of the work in national policy, the use of the negative definition ("non award-bearing") reinforces a view of this work as marginal to the principal ("award-bearing") purposes of HE. It is important therefore, to be clear about the rationale for separate funding of such work, and devise funding approaches which do not disadvantage it.

The evidence from the projects suggests four reasons why such special funding might be necessary:

• Activity based work

Outreach, promotion and community development activity does not directly generate student numbers. In so far as this has a long-term effect on increasing or widening recruitment, it might be seen as a long-term investment, rewarded later through the mainstream methodology for widening participation.

• Not explicitly "HE level"

This includes: work to change perceptions of HE in excluded communities; work with groups operating at "mixed levels"; work not easily definable in terms of level; work where a programme at a "lower" level was part of a piloting or research activity. Like the first category, some of this work could be seen as a long-term investment to be rewarded in the future by mainstream funding. However, this requires that institutions take a very long view of the institution's strategy, and not all seem disposed, or able to do this. Some of these issues might be addressed by more creative partnerships with FE colleges.

• Non-accredited work

For some students, accreditation presents a motivational barrier to access, and for others it is simply irrelevant. Sometimes such students are enrolled in the same courses as others who do seek accreditation and formal awards. Where eligibility for funding is based on accreditation of a programme, rather than of the individuals on it, the mainstream funding methodology could support this, although the legitimacy of this approach is contested, and there are practical difficulties.

• Communal objectives

Work whose primary objective is to build the capacity of particular communities or organisations, rather than to advance individual members of those communities (which might nevertheless be a secondary or incidental outcome).

The experience of the NABCE programme suggests that if work of the kind carried out by the projects is to be sustained and encouraged more widely, three funding streams are required:

• Mainstream

With appropriate adjustments to recognise the additional costs of non-course activity, the mainstream route could properly support the activity based work, which relates primarily to widening participation.

• Non award-bearing

Here there is a need to support institutions in providing for students who enrol on mainstream courses, but who do not seek individual accreditation.

• Communal

Here there is a need to provide separate resources, not based on student numbers, to support institutions in developing the capacity of local and regional communities, based on agreed strategies, public consultation and evaluation. Like the work which institutions do with particular employers or industries, community capacity building work has collective, rather than individual objectives. Although it is likely that such an approach would, over time, have the effect of widening participation, as awareness of and confidence in higher education grows in excluded communities, to measure and reward it through student numbers on award-bearing courses would be to distort its fundamental purposes.