REPORT ON EXPORTING UK EDUCATION

REPORT ON EXPORTING UK  EDUCATION

Need for a more coherent approach across government and agencies

Tightened Visa policy harming Higher Education

Comment

According to a new report from Wild ReSearch the value of UK education exports was estimated to be £14.1 billion in 2008 – 9. This value is predicted to grow annually by about 4 per cent in real terms, so it would be worth about £21.5 billion in 2020 and £26.6 billion in 2025 (both in 2008/9 prices).

However, the report says that the  value of education as an export from the UK needs to be much more fully recognised by the government and a coherent joined up  approach across departments and agencies developed to support and promote UK Education . It adds that  the tightening up of  student visas needs to be sorted out. It says ‘ It is unwise to have such strong restrictions placed upon those we seek to encourage into the country. Alongside this, reputation management is of great importance; it must be ensured that the strong British brand of world class education is maintained. Any dilution of the standard of education will be noted by international students and trade will be taken elsewhere’.  The export value of higher education specifically makes up a large share of this, worth £7.9 billion annually. (although there has been considerable growth in recent years in UK based independent schools setting up abroad  and in  UK education service providers winning business providing, for example, advice and support on qualifications, English language teaching, teacher training, quality assurance,  the curriculum, school inspections and school and system-wide improvement)

Most of the current support for exporters  through UKTI is focused on education equipment supply. The British Councils role is regarded as controversial. As a subsidised quango it is tasked with promoting British culture and education abroad yet competes  directly with other UK companies abroad  while purporting to represent  their interests. Given the degree of  distrust of the British Council and the conflict of interests inherent in its role and practice, the reports recommendation that the  British Council (and UK Trade and Investment )needs to ensure  that it is  doing all it  can to support  education looks naïve . Though a more focused  sector support role from UKTI would almost certainly be welcomed ,  the same could not be said  for  giving a greater role to  the British Council.   Indeed, if anything,  most UK education service providers would want some restrictions placed on the BC and its anti-competitive practices. Nobody believes that the BC is competitively neutral. Nor should they.

On Higher Education, which is the main focus of this report, it says that  there is a real danger today that  ‘many international students are given the impression that the UK is closed for business as the Home Office has tightened up student visa policy. It is often appears that the Government is seeking short-term political gain rather than focussing on the long term growth plan.’

There are signs too that the UK’s share of the international student market is beginning to  shrink even though all of its leading competitors, the other Anglophone countries, the USA, Canada and Australia, have retained theirs. With 20 per cent, the USA has the largest market share.

The report seeks ,importantly, to  dispel one big myth- that foreign students are taking the places of UK students.  Contrary to public perception, international students do not take home students’ spaces at university; indeed, they are vital for keeping certain university courses running, especially STEM subjects and post-graduate courses. This is what the Home Affairs Select Committee had to say about it:

“International students … pay more than UK students for their courses and, in effect, subsidise the educational system in the UK – under current arrangements the average fee for a non EEA student was £8,600 in comparison to £2,200 for an EEA student and the Independent Migration Advisory Committee found that international students contribute 37% of the total university income from fees. Most universities are educational charities and therefore any surplus in income is usually invested in improving facilities and increasing the size or pay of the work force.”

A survey across eleven countries was carried out by the Institute of International Education (IIE) with the US Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Education USA between 2009 and 2010 which received over 9,000 valid responses. The results of the survey suggest that “over two thirds (69%) of respondents worldwide felt that the United States welcomes international students, as compared with 42 per cent for Canada, 34 per cent for Australia, and 33 per cent for the United Kingdom.”

The report warns that New visa rules mean the UK’s top universities and schools are in danger of losing their appeal to foreign students. Indded this appears already to be happening. It says planned government changes to student visas risk deterring legitimate students. And it warns that students who may once have come to the UK could opt for the US. Australia  or Canada instead.

The recent changes restrict postgraduate employment in the UK to those with a top degree and a job with an accredited employer paying over £20,000 a year.

Details of the plans were announced last week by Immigration Minister Damian Green.

“It is vital that we continue to attract the brightest and the best international students but we have to be more selective about who can come here and how long they can stay,” said Mr Green.

Most education exporters would agree with the leading recommendation of this report  ie

‘The UK government should reassess the full impact of all policies related to the export of education to ensure the potential for economic growth is optimal. The key departments here are BIS, DfE, FCO, the Home Office and UKTI’

One would only add that the DFID, seeking to bring education to the most disadvantaged in the developing world, should also be included. The private sector in education  does have a role in bringing education to the poorest communities abroad.

It also has some positive suggestions on the Visa issue ie to make the visa process easier for valid international students

i. Retain the post-study work visa

ii. The Government should produce additional statistics showing separately the number of students entering the country as well as permanent migration. This would be more transparent as any reduction in student numbers does not represent a reduction in permanent migration. This would then ensure that the pressure to curb immigration does not result in a clampdown on international students

iii. Ensure the application process for international students is as straightforward as possible

iv. Leave it to highly trusted institutions to decide on language requirements

v. Ensure that bogus institutions receive the strongest penalties.

It also suggests the formation of an all- party parliamentary group for education providers which could help bring a clearer focus on the policy front. What might also help is for education providers themselves to set up a sector specific group to identify issues of common concern and to help articulate industry concerns and seek action  in an area where we should have a competitive advantage but are under  increasing threat from competitors. What is clear is that the Government is not currently doing nearly  enough to support our education exporters across a broad range of services.  And it isn’t just about resources-what resources we have could be much better targeted.

Graham Able and Fraser White; WILD ReSEARCH; Education: A Great British Export? Feb 2011

Note Graham Able is a former Headmaster of Dulwich College and is Chief Executive of Alpha Plus. Fraser White is a Lawyer who funded  the report and is chief executive of Shanghai-based Dulwich College Management International (DCMI). DCMI runs a number of British-style schools in East Asia.

For copies of the report- contact Edward Wild ew@wildsearch.org

RUSSELL GROUP HELPS WITH POST 16 CHOICES

 

RUSSELL GROUP HELPS WITH POST 16 CHOICES

Useful guide for students to help choose the right qualifications for post 16 options

Comment

What you decide to study post-16 can have a major impact on what you can study at degree level. Whether or not you have an idea of the subject you want to study at university, having the right information now will give you more options when the time comes to make your mind up.  The Russell Group of Universities, with the help of the Institute of Career Guidance, has published a guide that  aims to help students make an informed decision when choosing their course for post-16 education.  The Group believes that it will be of use to parents and advisors too. This is an important document. It would surely help to have a similar one for pupils aged 13 and their parents and advisors as the wrong choice at that  crucial age can massively influence a child’s future options post 16 too and indeed whether they can apply for university courses.  It is the case that many pupils, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, are limited in their choices of HE courses because they have not taken appropriate GCSEs or vocational equivalents, often because they have had poor advice in school  or indeed no advice. One question put by the Guide is – Know what you want to study? – Check out the entry requirements  If you have a university course which you are keen on, have you checked  the relevant university website or UCAS course search to find out whether  this course requires certain subjects at advanced level? Pretty obvious, of course, but some pupils don’t even do this.  The preamble to the Guide says ‘ Getting your post-16 subject choices right is an important first step towards university but it won’t guarantee you a place on your chosen degree course. Entry to Russell Group universities, in particular, can be highly competitive and academic background, while vitally important, is only one of several things universities will take into account when they consider your application. They will also want to select students who are clearly well-motivated and passionate about their subject. In some cases, they may even ask you to gain some work experience in a relevant field. ‘

 Informed Choices; A Russell Group guide to making decisions about  post-16 education 2011

http://russellgroup.org/Informed%20Choices%20final.pdf

 

THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS AT GETTING PUPILS INTO OXBRIDGE

MOST SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS AT GETTING  PUPILS INTO OXBRIDGE

Independents, unsurprisingly, dominate

Comment

Professor Les Ebdon, despite the objections of many Tory MPs, looks likely to be the new head of OFFA. Tories believe that he will push universities too hard to admit under qualified state school pupils or, to put it another way, indulge in social engineering. Ebdon believes that we should deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, shorthand for- the disadvantaged get poor qualifications so universities should reduce entry qualifications  for them  and instead spot their potential.  Not a good idea runs the counter argument , spotting potential is not easy   and in any case we have to compete with the best in the world, so dumbing down probably  isn’t such  a good idea .  Better to raise the quality of pupils coming out of state schools, even if this takes time. Rob Wilson MP , giving his views representing  the Fair Access to University Group, says that  intervention to improve standards at the pre-university secondary school stage is the best way to improve fairness, recognise talent and ensure that students, regardless of background, are able to access top institutions. It seems likely that OFFA will now find itself under political attack.

43 % of graduates from Ebdon’s  own university (Bedfordshire) have no job six months after graduating, so indications are that he has no  access to a silver bullet  to improve social mobility  or to ease  access to good jobs (or any job ,come to think of it!).     And doubtless more pressure will now be put on Oxbridge to admit more pupils from state schools and to invest more in their already substantial outreach programmes. On top of which they will need to offer remedial programmes for undergraduates in the first year to get them  up to the standard required to cope with  their courses(  and, in the process ,increase the costs of their courses, so reducing the number of places available-how much sense does that make?).

So, which schools generally have the best record in getting pupils into Oxbridge? Here is the top ten based on the latest available figures:

North London Collegiate School                       (40) (42%)

St Paul’s Girls’ School                                       (40) (42%)

Westminster School                                         (50) (39%)

Magdalen College School                                 (25) (32%)

Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls              (30) (29%)

The Stephen Perse Foundation                        (20) (29%)

St Paul’s School                                             (45) (27%)

Guildford High School                                     (25) (26%

City of London School for Girls                       (20) (26%)

Wycombe Abbey School                                  (20) (25%)

There isn’t a single non-selective state school in the top hundred .42% of the end of KS4 pupils in both North London Collegiate and St Pauls Girls gained entry to Oxbridge, which is extraordinary. Eton, for the record, sent 60 boys to Oxbridge representing 22% of their cohort. Interestingly, though, increasing numbers of pupils from the top independents are choosing Ivy League Universities ahead of Oxbridge.  So, will Oxbridge be in a position to compete at all with the Ivy League in the future, given the access  agenda?   A question that Ebdon   may need to answer when he takes up his new job.

(Source Deposited Papers-Parliament 2012)- 2006 GCSE cohort progressing to Oxbridge 2010 

MODERN UNIVERSITIES AND SOCIAL MOBILITY-ITS NOT JUST ABOUT OXBRIDGE

Universities Driving Social Mobility? Beyond the Oxbridge Obsession

Modern universities hit back on social mobility agenda

Comment

Social Mobility, or lack of it, is high on the Coalition Governments agenda. Alan Milburn and Simon Hughes are on the case and the main line of attack is universities. If you improve access to Higher Education then surely social mobility will improve. Not so say many experts. The issue is far more complex and defies such simplistic solutions. . And universities worry that such social engineering will make them less competitive in the global market. There is also an obsession with Oxbridge and getting more disadvantaged pupils into Oxbridge or a small group of elite universities, while ‘modern’ universities might be more appropriate for their needs.  A new report ‘Universities Driving Social Mobility – Beyond the Oxbridge Obsession’ applauds the Government’s commitment to promote a society in which people can improve their lot in life, including by studying at university. However, it warns that in spite of this aspiration, the Government’s approach to the role it wants universities to play in driving social mobility is very narrow. It concludes that it’s time to move ‘beyond the Oxbridge obsession’.  The report says that the Governments vision is very limited. In effect, it is improving access for a small number of pupils to a small number of top universities at a time when they are reducing university places. This will not lead to a step change in social mobility.  And using free school meals as a proxy for socio-economic disadvantage is a ‘highly imperfect’ measure.

By ensuring that there are more educational opportunities the Government can assist social mobility but the report stresses that this requires investment across all education, at all levels, including, particularly, the early years.  It states ‘High Quality and Free Early Years services can reduce education inequalities’ and early interventions can reduce the attainment gap between children from different backgrounds.   The report says it would be much better to incentivise ‘modern’ universities so that they can offer life changing opportunities to a diverse range of pupils from different backgrounds and at different ages. Modern Universities, the report says, provide places for those whose families have never had a member at university and recruit Black, Asian and ethnic minority students as well as students from a wide range of ages, offering flexible and part time courses. The danger is that Government policy and its obsession with elite universities will divert resources away from the more socially inclusive universities to the more exclusive ones, therefore undermining modern universities growing  and potential  role in promoting social mobility.

http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/research/universities-driving-social-mobility-beyond-the-oxbridge-obsession

SOCIAL MOBILITY AND IMPROVING ACCESS

SOCIAL MOBILITY AND IMPROVING ACCESS

Milburn pitches in

But are Universities the right target?

Comment

Social mobility is important because it raises aspirations, creates better connections between and within communities (more important now perhaps than for a generation), and reinforces the value of education and skills.

Worryingly for governments, despite huge investment in widening access to education in the last decade or two, research suggests there has been no comparable increase in social mobility – quite the reverse.  Social mobility can be thought of in absolute and relative terms. The former refers to processes of adjustment in the income or occupational structure of the economy. The latter, sometimes called ‘social fluidity’, is associated with an individual’s opportunities for progression within the social hierarchy However, trends in social mobility are remarkably resistant to policy interventions. Those in higher social classes appear to have been able to take greater advantage of the opportunities created by policy interventions and more able to use a variety of additional social advantages to maintain their relative position.

The factors involved influencing Social Mobility are thought to be:

• Social capital –A lack of positive role models, negative peer pressure, poverty of ambition and aspiration and risk aversion etc

• Cultural capital – can also help middle-class families to confer social advantages on their children, increasing their potential to move upwards and protecting them from downwards movement in the social hierarchy.

• Early years influences – are seen as key to influencing later life chances.  Convincing evidence shows that early experiences such as the quality of the home environment, family structure, pre-school care and relationships with caring adults produce a pattern of development in later life that is hard to  reverse even through schooling.

• Education – appears to be one of the most important factors influencing social mobility. However, there is considerable evidence that the introduction and expansion of universal education systems in the UK and Western Europe have , not led to increasing levels of relative social mobility.

• Employment and labour market experiences – substantial levels of worklessness and long-term economic inactivity have emerged in some areas and/or among specific population groups.  Second, research has identified the emergence of a prominent ‘low-pay – nopay’ cycle for some groups.

• Health and wellbeing – ill-health results from social and environmental factors identified with lower socio-economic status, and ill-health and caring responsibilities can lead to declining socio-economic status.

• Area-based influences – localised environmental problems appear to combine with socio-economic disadvantage to produce negative area-based influences on potential for social mobility. For example, inequalities in access to private transport combined with poorer quality provision in some important public services in deprived areas may mean that lower socio-economic classes are unable to exercise effective choices over access to these services.

Alan Milburn the access Czar has recently, like many others before, said that universities should do more to encourage greater access to Higher Education, particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils. There is always a simple solution to addressing a complex problem that is wrong.  We have seen how many factors actually influence social mobility -education is but one- important though it may be.  A report for the  Department of Work and  Pensions (2007) ‘Factors influencing Social Policy’ said that:  ‘while educational attainment remains a strong predictor of future social position, there are strong influences on educational attainment  which are outside the scope of formal educational provision. For instance, patterns of development are often set prior to starting formal education, suggesting that early experiences are central to understanding both educational attainment and social mobility. However, many of these early years influences are outside what is normally thought to be the scope of public policy and are heavily associated  with family dynamics, parenting and home environment.’

It does seem that social mobility  may be  very resistant to  centrally driven  interventions because of the number of factors at play and the multi-faceted  dynamics underpinning  social mobility. But most experts on social mobility believe that the earlier you address the issue, in education,  the more likely you are to achieve the outcomes you want. Many critics believe that pressuring universities to take more with  lower grades  is not the right answer. Trying to force social mobility at such a late stage is actually counter-productive. True, a pupil at  a  poor school who achieves an ABB at A level probably deserves a place on a course much more than a privately educated pupil ,going for the same course with equivalent or slightly better grades, although quite where you draw the line is less clear But, A level Grades  are  set to establish  to what  degree pupils have acquired  the knowledge base, information processing, analytical  and  communication skills required  to succeed at University . There is a big difference in this respect between an A* student and one securing a B Grade. Good GCSEs are also important indicators for admissions tutors. They want to see breadth and consistency across subject areas.  Yet a lot of teachers’ work in state schools is focused on getting  pupils  up to a C grade at GCSE, because that’s how league tables work. Schools are given government incentives to get a certain number of students above a C grade. But there’s no incentive to help them get from a C to an A*, whereas at fee-paying schools students are pushed to go for those top marks and they are the ones who get into the top universities.’ Proper support for our most able pupils in schools remains in short supply, although these are precisely the pupils who have the most potential to be socially mobile. Pupils also are not getting the kind of good,  face to face professional advice and guidance and mentoring they need to raise their aspirations and expectations-so crucial for social mobility. Making the right choices at the key decision points in a young person’s education and career can open or close a lifetime of opportunities.

The fact is Governments  have not  had a joined up policy to aid mobility, and it is not, in any   case, a policy area that easily lends itself to top down interventions.   There is no reason why this government will be any more able to ease social mobility than any other to my mind particularly given their obsession with Oxbridge.

OXBRIDGE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION-PUBLISHED LETTER EVENING STANDARD 22 AUGUST 2011

OXBRIDGE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION

Published Letter; Evening Standard; 22 August 2011

You report that schools are to be officially ranked in league tables by the proportion of sixth-formers they send to Oxford and Cambridge universities. This is one of the governments nuttier ideas- reflecting the obsession with Oxford and Cambridge-that didn’t deserve to get off the drawing board. Given how few schools send pupils to Oxbridge ,in any quantity, it will  do nothing but irritate heads and governors. UCL, Imperial, LSE, Durham, Bristol and others will also be understandably aggrieved. Imperial frequently tops Oxford in League tables and  is thought  to  have better science courses overall.  There are also plenty of very bright pupils who could easily go to Oxbridge but choose other universities because Oxbridge doesn’t offer the options they want   , or the courses  simply suit them better. Their schools now stand to be penalised. The Sutton Trust, which exists to improve access for disadvantaged pupils disapproves of this measure which speaks volumes. Ministers should change their minds and quickly.

Patrick Watson, London

ARE MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS LOSING CONFIDENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

Comment

The publication of Lord Browne’s Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance marked the beginning of an intense period of policy debate about higher education which is not yet concluded. The Government is shortly to launch its delayed White Paper (probably  this week ) amid concerns that the current funding model, with most universities charging the top rate for tuition fees, is unsustainable and cannot be covered by the Treasury .

The introduction, then raising of Tuition fees was always going to bring a spotlight onto the educational offer at our universities. Middle Class parents often support their children financially, either fully or in part, at university to stop them getting into debt and therefore take more interest in what their children actually do at these institutions.  Recent research from Edge, the charity dedicated to raising the status of practical education,   found that Britain’s middle income parents of children aged 11-18 years old have changed their education aspirations for their child, with many saying university doesn’t provide the best return on investment.   Short terms, ‘reading weeks’, (a modern trend that sees Departments effectively closing for a week mid-term) reduced teaching time ,less  one to one tuition,  along with   fewer seminars , assignments   and lectures leave the impression of  a poorer overall offer and  some parents and students  clearly perceive declining standards .  Certainly parents who have been to university  compare their experiences with those of their children and can spot the  glaring  differences.The focus on research and the funding tied to research has meant that most universities see teaching students as a second order priority. Liberal Arts and other more flexible courses in US universities are attracting   more of our best home grown students. Yale has seen UK student enrolments double in five years, with other Ivy League colleges seeing similar increases.  Rapid Expansion in university places in the 1980s and 1990s has not been matched over time by funding, the effects of which cannot be concealed.   Some students have demonstrated against this perceived decline and the quality of their courses. Student complaints against universities in England and Wales have reached record levels according to the higher education ombudsman’s (Office of the Independent Adjudicator) annual report. The independent adjudicator’s office says complaints rose by 33 % last year. The OIA received more than 2,000 enquiries last year and a record 1,341 complaints . Around half were found not be justified, although there has been a small increase in justified complaints. The OIA found that two universities-Southampton and Westminster were non-compliant ie they failed to comply with  the adjudicators rulings.

It is clear that   the some universities are finding it difficult to adjust to a changing environment and pay too  little attention  to the  teaching and support they give to their students. The goal posts have shifted. and they are  now operating in a world that requires greater transparency and accountability, both in terms of admissions policy , the quality of teaching and course content and the employability of their  students.

http://www.oiahe.org.uk/downloads/OIA_annual_report_2010.pdf

FURTHER EDUCATION -FUNDING AND QUALITY UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT

Comment

The publication of Lord Browne’s Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance marked the beginning of an intense period of policy debate about higher education which is not yet concluded. The Government is shortly to launch its delayed White Paper (probably in late June) amid concerns that the current funding model, with most universities charging the top rate for tuition fees, is unsustainable and cannot be covered by the Treasury . The introduction, then raising of Tuition fees was always going to bring a spotlight onto the educational offer at our universities. Middle Class parents often support their children financially, either fully or in part, at university to stop them getting into debt and therefore take more interest in what their children actually do at these institutions. Short terms, ‘reading weeks’, (a modern trend that sees Departments effectively closing for a week, mid-term) reduced teaching time ,less  one to one tuition,  along with   fewer seminars , assignments   and lectures, leave the impression of  a poorer overall offer and  some parents and students  clearly perceive declining standards . The focus on research and the funding tied to research has meant that most universities see teaching students as a second order priority. Liberal Arts and other more flexible courses in US universities which appeal to many students, are attracting   more of our best home grown students. Enrolments of UK students  at Yale University  have doubled in five years. Other Ivy League colleges also report significant rises in UK students signing up.  Rapid expansion in university places in the 1980s and 1990s has not been matched over time by funding, the effects of which cannot be concealed.   Some students have demonstrated against this perceived decline and the quality of their courses. Student complaints against universities in England and Wales have reached record levels according to the higher education ombudsman’s (Office if the Independent Adjudicator) annual report. The independent adjudicator’s office says complaints rose by 33 % last year. The OIA received more than 2,000 enquiries last year and a record 1,341 complaints . Around half were found not be justified, although there has been a small increase in justified complaints. The OIA found that two universities-Southampton and Westminster were non-compliant ie they failed to comply with  the adjudicators rulings.

Higher Education institutions must wake up to the fact  that they are in transition to a demand  led industry  in which they must be globally competitive, designing courses that appeal to students with high quality teaching.  Although Professor Grayling attracted much flak with  the  recent launch of the  private New College , he  probably has a clearer idea than many of his colleagues as to where the sector is heading.

http://www.oiahe.org.uk/downloads/OIA_annual_report_2010.pdf

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES-RESPONDING TO DEMAND?

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Will  HE reforms incentivise more private universities?

Comment

David Willetts, the HE Minister, has held what the Daily Mirror has described as ‘secret’  talks with   US private education firms  about university reforms.  One suspects that he probably didn’t do much to hide the fact that he was talking to private providers.  An HE White Paper is expected this month. Expanding the private sector is seen by the government as a way of tackling the chronic financial pressures and lack of places facing the university system. Throughout the world, the number of students in private institutions is growing faster than in publicly-owned ones. The reason is simple: governments cannot afford to pay for the higher education that is required so the private sector has expanded to become “demand absorbing”. With the student population growing to 2.1 million in 2009/10, Universities must be allowed the freedom to expand if they are capable of adequately meeting extra student demand.

Private universities would add extra capacity, when hundreds of thousands of applicants are set to miss out on places. The BIS, in written evidence to the Select Committee, said ‘To ensure a vibrant sector, the Government wants to make it easier for new providers, including local FE colleges and alternative providers, to enter the system on a fair basis. We believe that competition is a great driver of improvement and more providers in the system will mean more and better choice for students and better value for money through new and potentially innovative and lower cost approaches to teaching.’

Unions are worried that the Tories are planning a huge increase in the number of  these American-style private colleges. UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: “It is a disgrace that ministers are contemplating giving taxpayers’ money to these characters while starving our public universities and colleges of funds.

“The potential damage to our higher education system is too dangerous to risk allowing the profiteers in.” Labour’s higher education spokesman, Gareth Thomas, said the US-style colleges would aim to undercut universities by offering cheap degrees taught over the internet. He added: “After trebling tuition fees and getting their higher education sums wrong, now the Tories are set to threaten the quality of our universities with plans to let unregulated for-profit universities expand hugely in the UK.”

The revelation that David  Willetts had met the US firms – including Apollo Group Inc and Education Management Corporation – came after Labour MP Barry Gardiner questioned the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Mr Gardiner said: “The clear implication is that the Government is considering privatising our education system.”

Private universities are common in the US but there are currently only two in Britain – Buckingham (not for profit) and BPP in London. The BPP University College receives no money from the higher education funding council. As a private university it is also  able to set its own level for tuition fees. BPP already has degree-awarding powers. It has 6,500 students taking courses in its law and business schools and a further 30,000 taking accountancy qualifications. It was   the first private university college to have been created since Buckingham in the 1970s, which was first created a university college, and then later became the University of Buckingham.Buckingham University  being private(ie independent) cannot  access  the pool of research funding  that is available to other (State) universities. Universities though taxpayer  funded, are ‘autonomous’ self-governing institutions but that doesn’t mean that they are immune to pressure from the government ,  for instance  over the  level of tuition  fees they charge, and  how many students they admit  from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Buckingham consistently tops student satisfaction surveys, although  many  of its students are foreign nationals and many of its courses run to just two years, as opposed to the normal three years, as  in most other English universities (Scotland tend to have four year courses) . Some reformers believe that  two year concentrated courses may be the way forward, at least in some subjects, given the complaints of some students  that three year  courses are not delivering value for money.

Sally Hunt, leader of the UCU lecturers’ union, has claimed that private providers are not accountable to the public and do not deserve to be put in the same league as other universities. However, Hunt provided no evidence in support of her claims.

If the consumers of the service are happy and the courses  meet quality benchmarks, operating in a regulated environment, it is hard to see why private universities should not be allowed to compete for students helping to improve capacity in the HE sector to meet demand, while providing at the same time , more choice.

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education–Some-Policy-Options.html

ASCL – SHARES CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF CLARITY ON FUTURE CAREERS ADVICE AND GUIDANCE

The ASCL union in its submission for the Report stage of the Education Bill says it would like to see the parts of Clause 27 that relate to repealing the duty on schools in England to provide careers education removed from the bill. It said ‘We strongly believe that the provision of careers education must remain a compulsory part of the curriculum. This will leave careers education in the position it currently occupies; schools are required to teach it but free to determine how to do so. Removing the requirement to teach careers education it claims is not cost effective because careers advisers will have to cover a good deal more ground in individual interviews and group sessions with pupils who not have been prepared through a programme of careers education. ASCL would prefer a single, simplified duty on schools to secure access to independent, impartial careers guidance for all pupils aged 13-18 through the new all-age careers service. We strongly believe that the duty should continue to age 18, particularly in light of the raised participation age, and that it should be secured through the all age service. ASCL supports the principle of an all-age careers service but is extremely worried about the lack of clarity regarding core funding, transition arrangements and new expectations placed on schools. The requirement that the bill places on schools is based on a service that does not yet exist and about which few details are available. There is huge uncertainty at a time when careers advice and guidance is of critical importance due to the cumulative effect of many changes to the system (particularly the loss of the Education Maintenance Allowance and increase in tuition fees).