Report 98/58

The nature of higher and further education sub-contractual partnerships

November 1998

University of Leeds
J M Consulting
University of Surrey
Further Education Development Agency

This version of this document contains the Contents and Executive Summary only. The full document is available in Word or RTF formats.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

1. This report presents the findings of a research study commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) into sub-contractual partnerships between higher and further education (HE/FE). These are partnerships in which the student is registered with a higher education institution (HEI) but the course pursued is delivered wholly or partially in a further education college (FEC). It covers only those arrangements where the student place is funded by the HEFCE. The research arises out of the Council’s wish for more detailed information about the financial arrangements underpinning the schemes in order to ensure accountability, and about the quality of the student experience in order to meet concerns sometimes raised about standards. The research, based on detailed case studies involving different types of schemes, analyses these issues.

Types of sub-contractual provision

2. Sub-contractual partnerships are often colloquially referred to as franchise schemes. In practice, sub-contractual arrangements are to be found in both franchised and validated forms of provision. A fuller account of the different varieties of HE/FE collaborative provision, and the extent to which sub-contractual arrangements underpin them, is given in Chapter 3. This report uses the term sub-contractual arrangements to refer to all forms of provision in which funding passes indirectly from the HEFCE to the FEC via the HEI. Franchised and validated arrangements refer to specific forms of collaborative provision, and are used here in that context only.

3. Three models of sub-contractual provision are identified which differ as to rationale, target student group, success criteria and association with franchised/validated forms of provision. Schemes, in practice, incorporate more than one model. It is not possible to identify one model, or type of scheme, as more successful than another given the range identified. Overall, sub-contractual provision has resulted in:

• Wider/extended access, via the types of students enrolled and increased local delivery of HE.
• The development and extension of HE qualifications in specialist vocational areas of provision, based on FE expertise.

4. Hitherto, sub-contractual arrangements have underpinned provision which has distinctive characteristics or a distinctive client group. As higher education changes, more students are simply being attracted to locally delivered higher education. However, we know less about the characteristics and needs associated with such students and to what extent sub-contractual arrangements are leading to new courses targeted at such groups.

The student experience

5. The research used the extent to which the Higher Education Quality Council’s (HEQC) Guidelines on Collaborative Provision (1996) had been implemented to consider the quality of the student experience. The research suggests that the quality of the student experience in FECs is broadly comparable to that in HEIs. This needs to be understood in the following contexts:

• Where there is no comparable student group in the HEI, it reflects the view that the student experience is appropriate to higher education.
• Where comparable groups do exist, the student experience may be intentionally different, i.e. seen as more appropriate to the client group, such as mature non-standard students.

6. In general, students are positive about their learning experience. They value the individual attention and small-group teaching and benefit from the development of both subject-specific and study/transferable skills. The latter are increasingly being developed across the whole of higher education, but there is still a disjuncture between HE and FE approaches to teaching and learning which requires more attention at the point of progression.

7. Students, according to the arrangements of the various schemes, are largely successful in achieving their intended qualification or in progressing to the HEI. Improved scheme- monitoring data would help to establish more clearly factors associated with withdrawal/failure/non-progression. Institutions should consider arrangements for the central collation and publication of these data across the scheme as a whole.

8. The HEQC guidelines are being implemented. The research examined four key areas for evidence: recruitment/admission and induction; on-course experience; student achievement and progression; and quality assurance (QA) arrangements. There is widespread evidence of implementation but monitoring for compliance is less securely developed. Where evidence of non-compliance exists, this is often reflected equally in provision across the HEI, rather than being specifically associated with sub-contractual provision.

9. There are areas where practice might be improved. These include:

• Periodic review of schemes as a whole to ensure a critical reassessment of achievements against aims and objectives. Such a procedure would also ensure a regular overview of all relevant materials; incomplete and/or insufficient documentation currently exists in many schemes.
• The designation of a central unit actively involved in scheme management.

In addition, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) should consider the development of more differentiated guidelines to assist institutions in addressing areas of practice causing concern. It should also consider further guidance on the management requirements of large and complex schemes.

Beyond the guidelines

10. The research considered the relationship between quality, geographical proximity and single/multiple partnerships in the light of earlier concerns about quality and the specific recommendations in the Dearing Report for there to be a normal presumption of a single HE partner.

11. The evidence from the research is not uniform. Most arrangements are between institutions in local/regional proximity. There is no evidence that student progression is affected in such schemes by relative distance from the HEI. Geographical proximity to the HEI does not, in itself, promote greater use of HEI learning resources. Distance does not influence attendance at key meetings concerned with assessment or moderation. It does affect involvement in staff development and similar activities.

12. The propensity to develop single/multiple partnerships is influenced by the nature of the schemes. There is no consistent view across the sector. Some schemes have such a presumption, others stipulate this requirement for closely linked (associate) colleges, others make no requirements. Some HEIs, particularly pre-1992 universities, believe any single partnership requirement should be at subject rather than institutional level.

13. Many multiple partnerships and sub-contractual arrangements with distant partners could be said to arise from issues connected to subject provision. The strength of this argument would, of course, need to be tested in each case.

Funding

14. All schemes use a marginal income model (commonly referred to in the sector as a fees-based model) as the basis for funding, with significant adjustments (both additions and reductions) at scheme level to reflect a variety of factors, in particular, high-cost provision, special HEI-FEC relationships, HEI involvement in teaching or other activities incurring costs, and administration/validation charges.

15. There are significant variations in the funding received by FECs. This is partly a consequence of the fee levels in operation at the commencement of the scheme. In addition, the adjustments can have a significant impact. The amount currently paid to FECs varies from £990 to £2,200 for Band 1 students and from £1,600 to £4,143 for Band 2. Expressed as a percentage of 1992/3 tuition fees this varies from 53 to 150 per cent. A calculation using the HEFCE’s new funding methodology (commencing 1998/9) shows percentages varying from 31 to 98 per cent.

16. There is little costing at course level in either FECs or HEIs. There has been none at all in the indirect cost areas such as QA and co-ordination/management of schemes. Consequently, it is not possible to state whether marginal or full costs are being covered in the FECs, or whether HEI costs are being covered by their administrative charges. It would be good practice for both parties to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of their franchise-type schemes.

17. Present funding arrangements have generally supported growth and diversity of provision. There are cogent arguments in favour of the maintenance of sub-contracted HEI/FEC funding in respect of provision part-delivered in college with guaranteed progression to the HEI to complete a recognised award. Where, however, the HEI simply validates provision and there is no progression, or where there is no guaranteed student progression from FEC to the partner HEI, there is more scope to investigate alternative funding arrangements.

Contractual arrangements

18. The HEQC guidelines continue to remain valid in this respect and the need for a written agreement, carrying corporate authority, is recognised by all institutions. There is a need to ensure that all agreements cover the full range of responsibilities and obligations on both parties. The research evidence is that there are three areas of uncertainty and difficulty which would benefit from clear statements of intent or procedure in documents:

• Student recruitment, particularly, where under-recruitment might cause particular difficulties in the HEI and FEC.
• FEC staffing, in particular, the employment of part-time staff and the staff development opportunities to be made available to all staff teaching on sub-contractual courses.
• Student access, and the extent of such access, to HEI facilities.

There is scope for periodic institutional review of contractual arrangements. This could assist the clarification of financial arrangements and ensure agreements are updated to reflect change and institutional development.

Accountability and value for money

19. The basic framework of accountability is in place: funds passed from HEIs to FECs are being used for teaching students enrolled on an HE programme; the quality of student experience is comparable; and adequate systems are in place to handle basic financial and student number information. The framework of accountability would benefit from attention to the following:

• Further clarification of requisite resource levels, both in contracts and validation documents. Responsibilities for staff development/scholarship work, library and computing facilities and other resources could be more sharply defined.
• Better information on student cohort data and success rates across schemes.

Sub-contractual schemes create added value through widening participation and the development of higher-level qualifications, particularly in specialist vocational areas. Given the current absence of costing data, a more formal analysis of value-for-money will await the evidence from the forthcoming costing study commissioned by the HEFCE.

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank the vice-chancellors and principals of the case-study universities and colleges for agreeing to participate in the research. Guarantees of anonymity given to both participating institutions and individuals at the outset of the project prevent us from thanking people by name. However, particular thanks are due to those members of staff in the case-study HEIs and FECs for their help and generous assistance in arranging the visits of the research team. Special thanks are also due to the numerous members of staff and students for agreeing so readily to be interviewed during the project.

Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to all the members of the project steering group from the HEFCE, the QAA and the FEFC for their helpful suggestions and advice during the course of the project and in the preparation of the final report.