Prof Eric Thomas at JISC11: ‘Financial Challenges, Digital Opportunities’

The keynote at the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) Conference 2011 in Liverpool was given by Prof Eric Thomas, Vice Chancellor, University of Bristol, and Universities UK President-Elect.

Prof Thomas gave some sense of the seismic change in higher education in the UK over the last 50 years by pointing out that, in 1961, 4.2% of 18 yr olds went to university. Conversely, in 2011, 44% of 18-30 yr olds will go to university. Continued expansion in student numbers is, however, countered by a climate of cutbacks. Cuts of 1 billion to the H.E. sector were announced in Dec 09, with a further cut of 200 million in Spring 2010.

Prof Thomas reminded the audience of the proposed terms of loan repayment arising from the Browne review of H.E., which will involve students paying 9p in the pound of their earnings, once their earnings exceed 21k. Therefore, the previous State system for H.E. was free at the point of access, with repayments via the taxation system (though spread across the whole working population). Similarly, the new system will mean higher education is still free at the point of access, and still repaid via the tax system, but with more of the repayment falling on the individual. However, while Prof Browne’s analysis tots up, it does gloss over the argument that society as a whole benefits from an educated population. More broadly, the H.E. sector in the UK is shifting from a state run system to a consumer-led, lightly regulated market in which consumers will be seeking value for money.

The social impact of the new, market-based system will be arguably its most significant feature, posing the questions of how lower-income families will respond, and how debt-averse communities will respond. Prof Thomas said he had spoken with Princeton University who, following the imposition of a similar system, found that people from the bottom 10% of incomes stopped applying to come to the university.

Where Prof Thomas’s analysis deviated from most predictions of the post-Browne settlement was in his analysis of the range of fees likely to be charged for H.E.. In the aftermath of the Dearing Review (1997) and the introduction of fees, the maximum fees allowable quickly became the standard fees charged by all H.E.I.s, and institutions charging less than the maximum were perceived as second rate. There is a perception that the same will happen post-Browne, and that all universities will charge 9k per year (Oxford and Cambridge will, predictably, do this, but Exeter, Durham and Surrey have announced that they, too, intend charging the maximum). However, Prof Thomas argued that people won’t necessarily pay the highest fees, and will be more informed consumers. More specifically, he argued that there will be a marked increase in people’s expectations of H.E. (increased fees will further embed the customer metaphor), that more students will study at their local H.E.I. because of cost, and that students will want to know the employability rates of the courses they might attend.

Prof Thomas developed his argument with reference to the expansion of Higher Education provision in the Further Education (F.E.) sector, and to the expansion of private provision in H.E.. He used the analogy of budget airlines, pointing out that they account for only 10-15% of the market, but have fundamentally changed the market itself, with established airlines re-branding themselves as more high-end. Transferring the analogy back to H.E., it seems likely that individuals to whom fees of 9k annually are not a disincentive will opt to attend established universities. However, fees of 9k annually will also create a large area of non-consumption, pricing some sections of the population out of the mainstream sector. Therefore, F.E. colleges and private providers will be in the interesting position of competing against non-consumption, a niche in which the Open University gained success previously, by offering H.E. to sectors of the population to whom it had previously been inaccessible (Archer et al. 1999). Furthermore, there is a similarity between the current position of F.E. colleges and private providers on the one hand, and the position of Polytechnics in the 1970s on the other, with new entrants to the H.E. market expanding their curricula, and offering many of the same qualifications as the mainstream H.E. sector.

Prof Thomas gave the hypothetical example of a private provider offering a law degree in 2 yrs for 5k a year. This will be good value for money for the student, and will enable entry to the law profession, perhaps at the level of local town solicitor rather than London barrister, but an attractive career proposition regardless.

Prof Thomas also pointed out that the sector itself will not necessarily benefit from the post Browne settlement, as student fees will not comprise additional income for the universities, but will supplant the income from the State which is being withdrawn. A further point opened up by Prof Thomas was the likelihood of mergers and acquisitions in the sector. He pointed out that there are currently 44 providers of H.E. in London. He argued that there won’t be less provision, but there will be fewer institutions.

Overall, Prof Thomas offered a persuasive argument concerning likely future developments within the sector. His analysis broadly accords with other prognoses (such as Lord Mandelson at the 2010 Dearing conference, or Stefan Collini in The London Review of Books), but where he deviates is in his predictions concerning the range of fees that will be charged. The upper level of 9k annually will price some individuals and (more worryingly) communities out of Higher Education, but it will also create an opening for local F.E. colleges and specialist H.E.I.s offering degree-level quality at a much lower price, thereby enabling wider access to H.E.. Once that happens, established H.E. brands like Oxford, Cambridge et al. will not have a problem retreating to the high end of the market, but the mid-range H.E.I.s, and especially the post-92 institutions, will need to move rapidly to create distinctive identities for themselves in the squeezed middle.

Reference
Archer, W., Garrison, R. and Anderson, T. (1999) ‘Adopting Disruptive Technologies in Traditional Universities: Continuing Education as an Incubator for Innovation,’ Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 13-30.

Collini (2010) ‘Browne’s Gamble’

The Browne Review has profound implications for the future of Higher Education in the UK. Stefan Collini argues in The London Review of Books that the Browne review comprises ‘a redefinition of higher education and the retreat of the state from financial responsibility for it.’

Collini’s analysis is neither reactionary nor dismissive. He argues for diversity of provision in H.E.: ‘There is a wholly legitimate place in a diversified higher education system for all kinds of part-time, work-related, vocationally oriented, career-break courses, but the social value of the institutions that primarily provide such courses should be recognised and properly rewarded without forcing them to try to ape “traditional” universities when the odds – in terms of resources, reputation and so on – are so stacked against them.’ Collini also recognises that part-time students need to have parity with their full-time counterparts: ‘The report is clearly right that part-time students must be eligible for funding for their tuition on the same basis, pro-rata, as full time students.’ The Browne review, if implemented in full, will enable people to access Higher Education in the timescales suitable to them, via delivery channels that suit their lifestyles, and with due support, where available.

Collini argues ‘consumer choice’ will become the chief determinant of what universities teach and how they teach it. Browne’s fundamental belief is that student choice will guarantee quality, and students’ main measure of satisfaction will be the employment advantage conferred by the qualification and the institution awarding it. As the State withdraws from funding universities, students will pay vastly increased fees in the expectation that the investment will secure an employment and salary return.

The bleakest prediction made by Collini is that the implementation of the Browne Review will ‘exacerbate the financial disparity between types of university and, above all, to bring about a much closer correlation between the reputational hierarchy of institutions and the social class of their student body.’ The wealthy and privileged will attend Russell Group universities, and the rest will just have to make do with whatever they can afford. As Collini concludes, ‘it is a necessary truth about markets that they tend to replicate and even intensify the existing distribution of economic power.’

Collini’s overview is that Browne comprehends the H.E. sector as, primarily, an economic phenomenon: ‘This report displays no real interest in universities as places of education; they are conceived of simply as engines of economic prosperity and as agencies for equipping future employees to earn higher salaries.’ There is nothing wrong with students attending university to better their employment prospects, but the reconstituting of the H.E. sector as a preparation ground for work only may narrow the curriculum along utilitarian lines. Furthermore, the cost of attending university will compel students to focus on employment outcomes, thereby exacerbating the imperative to attend university for employment, thereby exerting further pressure on the narrowing of the curriculum, which will change only in response to changing economic conditions and the requirements for new skills sets for employment. Moreover, in the absence of a state subsidy for H.E. teaching, and in the context of a lightly regulated market, courses that don’t attract students will go. Non-profitable subjects will either be taught in small, specialist H.E.I.s with fewer overheads and resources than mainstream H.E.I.s, or they won’t be taught.

Reference
Collini, S. (2010) ‘Browne’s Gamble’, The London Review of Books, vol. 32, no. 21, pp. 23-25.

Critiquing theories of learning…

‘Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice,’ by Alison Fuller, is the first chapter in Communities of Practice: critical perspectives (Hughes et al. [ed.] 2007). Fuller argues that the standard communities of practice model sees learning as a process of identity formation, rather than as the acquisition of products (p. 19). Participation becomes the point of the thing, which is similar to the argument made by Sfard (1998).

If participation is the point, then social relations in communities of practice become critical. The purpose of the community of practice is the centre of gravity shaping the social relations.

However, Fuller cites the criticism of Eraut (2002) who argues that advanced industrial economies do not lend themselves to the stable kinds of communities posited in the community of practice model. In addition, Fuller and Unwin (2004) argue that, even within the community of practice model, the roles of novice and expert are not stable; novices can be more adept than experts at some tasks, for example those relying on information technology (it’s hard not hear echoes of Prensky [2001] in this argument).

Novices may be more expert in certain fields than those labelled ‘experts’ within any community of practice, but the key determinant is power relations. If the experts engage in dialogue with the adept novices, then the community as a whole can benefit, but the role of expert may have to be reconfigured. Alternatively, the experts can assert their power by excluding the expertise of the novices; novices can use technologies to support learning, but experts can deem those technologies inadmissible within the H.E.I.. The community is likely to suffer in the long run, but those in power retain their position, for a while at least.

Furthermore, it is taken as axiomatic that advanced industrial economies are radically different to their predecessors in industrial societies, yet wealth and power are still more concentrated than diffuse. A statistical breakdown of university vice-chancellors in terms of gender, education, age would expose a largely homogeneous community.

Novices in H.E.I.s in the UK have a great deal to bring to the game, but in a chillingly competitive environment a degree from an ‘old’ university will probably be perceived to have greater weight by employers, and so the older universities may feel they have most to gain from not changing. How much participation do they want?

References

Eraut, M. (2002) ‘Conceptual Analysis and Research Questions: Do the Concepts of “Learning Community” and “Community of Practice” provide added value?’ paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1-5 April.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2004) ‘Young people as teachers and learners in the workplace: challenging the novice-expert dichotomy’, International Journal of Training and Decvelopment, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 31-41.

Fuller, A. (2007) ‘Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice’ in Hughes J., Jewson N. and Unwin L. (eds.) Communities of Practice: critical perspectives, Abingdon, Routledge.

Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’ On the horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6.

Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 4-13.

Leadership for Open and Flexible Learning

Latchem and Hanna (2002) argue, ‘Distance learning has historically been disruptive to traditional educational systems’ (p. 204). It’s an interesting point to start from; distance learning does have an effect on control. Unlike the traditional classroom, there isn’t an authority figure physically present, and so other imperatives come into play. Maybe the learner has an economic need to learn, or maybe the drive is more personal, or maybe the learner can learn effectively with no form of coercion.

The authors also argue that a major achievement of open universities has been to ‘provide academic, professional development and general programmes to a far wider public’ (p. 204). In this sense open universities can be identified as disruptive institutions, changing the learning that happens in the act of making that learning available to a section of the population who had not already obtained their training for H.E. study successfully through the school system.

The impact of the open universities leads the authors to conclude, ‘What began at the “low end” of the marketplace as correspondence education is becoming a dominant force.’ There is an argument for seeing the open universities as disruptive in opposition to the sustaining model offered by older H.E.I.s, and Latchem and Hanna assemble this argument convincingly. Traditional H.E.I.s are now offering online and distance learning as a support to or replacement for the traditional lecture hall.

From promising beginnings, however, the authors lapse into truism: ‘Achieving systemic and radical change in higher education is no easy matter.’ The same point was made in a more illuminating way by Hearn (1996) who argued that trying to change an education system is like trying to move a cemetery, in the sense that there is not a lot of internal support for it. More interestingly, Latchem and Hanna see the traditional paraphernalia of learning, ‘the textbook, the lecturer as the authority, and the test as the all-inclusive means of assessing the learning’ as ‘an 18th century way of knowing the world that is expressly empirical and representational’ (p. 208). Personally, I think educational structures in the UK owe more to the nineteenth century; Gladstone’s government’s Education Act of 1870, which made education compulsory for children aged 5-13, was about preparing children to function as adults in an industrial economy. If our economic base has shifted markedly since then, it is surprising that relatively little has changed about our classrooms and our ways of assessing learning. Alternatively, the lack of change in our classrooms might signify that our economic model has not altered a great deal.

The occasional truism aside, the article is valuable for applying the sustaining/disruptive dualism to higher education on a ‘macro’ scale. If technologies do democratise learning (a contentious argument) and if, therefore, an acceleration in the availability of technologies democratises learning at an accelerated pace, then academics will need to re-think their professional identities, to a degree that challenges their status as an authority. More fundamentally, the fact that more people are paying more for higher education means that a ‘goods and services’ mentality will increasingly permeate the sector. The disruptions to come may be on at least as grand a scale as that identified by Latchem and Hanna.

References

Hearn, J. C. (1996) ‘Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An organizational perspective’ Innovative Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 141-154.

Latchem, C. and Hanna, D. E. (2002) ‘Leadership for Open and Flexible learning’ Open Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 203-215.