1. Inspiring learners: Equipping the next generation of graduates Policy Implications for Higher Education James Wisdom Jameswisdom@compuserve.com

2. Outline of this presentation: The politicians Our shared assumptions about HE Areas of agreement and disagreement The civil service view? Comparison with the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Predictions for the future

3. Politicians: Vince Cable Pat McFadden David Willetts David Lammy John Hayes Kevin Brennan (John Denham) Stephen Marston (DG, Universities and Skills) What are the shared assumptions? Where might they disagree?

4. Shared assumptions: That investment in HE is an essential investment in the economy of the country Future is knowledge-based, high skills, high value products and services. Support for STEM subjects. All three parties are committed to expansion of, or diversion of funds to, vocational education, training, apprenticeships, Foundation Degrees Possibly a single funding body across F&HE – will this strengthen vocational education?

5. Where might they agree or disagree? Further expansion? Widening participation? Emphasis on social mobility? Merger of institutions? Private providers? Role of FE Colleges? Who pays, and how?

6. What might be the civil service analysis of UK HE? That we have done well to increase participation rates of young people – they are 20% more likely to enter HE now than in the 1990s That fees + finance do not appear to have made an impact, even on those living in the most deprived areas. That part time students are not well served by current regime

7. That cuts will do damage in the short term, but may lead to improvements in the shape of the sector – question – how much should HMG direct and intervene? The importance of raising national level of skills = 12 th in OECD with 30% qualified to tertiary level That the number of 18-21 will decline over the next decade, but demand for HE will rise amongst the young (so widening the class base) and the mature. Mature: partly new entrants, partly because the higher the level of education, the greater the propensity to re-train (but how do we pay for it?)

8. That the brand has been put at risk by the “defensive complacency” about quality and standards, and use of new fees money. The UK’s position in the growing competition for international students has been weakened by focus on budget deficits over partnerships That HE is still too socially regressive That the fees regime has not been new money from students, but new money from the Treasury

9. The importance of progression opportunities for vocational and apprenticeship qualifications Apprenticeships – 5 good GCSEs Advanced apprenticeships – 2 A levels Higher Apprenticeships – NVQ4 or Foundation Degree Development of new programmes and modes of delivery is hampered by traditional systems and inflexible quality assurance (e.g. the use of credit is underdeveloped)

10. What is the OECD telling us? That we are seeing massive expansion in HE ( Number of graduates has grown by av 4.5% p.a. since 1997) Across OECD countries, 34% of young adults have completed tertiary education(UK 37%, Canada c50%) Increase in proportion of funding from students and their families  State provision for the poorer, private provision for the richer

11. That reliance on international student fees is insecure (cheaper competition and home-grown provision) £2.9bn is 13% of the sector’s total income That the personal premium across the OECD is £122,812 That the net public return per student is £34,334.

12. What predictions can we make for the future? Funding Employer engagement Credit Institutions and staff Standards & Quality Costs Student engagement Educational leadership

13. Funding Increased pressure of demand - elsewhere this creates private or profit-making opportunities What will happen to the three-year, campus- based, straight after school, Honours degree? (3-Y, S-A-S, HD) Public funding will protect STEM and strategic subjects So – higher fees, restricted support, loans at higher rates of interest. What will the middle class accept?

14. Employer engagement Not a good time. Relying on employer initiative will not meet Leitch targets State direction likely? Any expansion funding will be contested for vocational and higher level skills, for the new class of technician Fees support packages likely to benefit poorer students and vocational institutions (HE in FE?)

15. Credit The “Plan B” of employer engagement and fairer access Repeated emphasis on credit and flexibility Possibility of funding by credit not by programme Access by mature and poorer student Possibility of employer support Will require new course designs and new assessment regimes

16. Institutions and staff 70% of the £1.1bn net in fees money went into higher salaries and new posts – reductions inevitable Pre-92 pensions in deficit by £4.7bn over assets of £28bn Will institutions collaborate over -administration and support services -facilities and research (research concentration) -teaching and courses Great pressure to reverse the “all the same” to differences of expertise – expect funding to drive this.

17. Standards and quality Sector assumptions about standards and quality are still based on the 3-Y C-B S-A-S Honours degree The pressure is on to reform assessment to match different conditions From assessing what you have been taught to assessing what you have learnt This will become part of the battleground of reputation, boosted by the new information regime

18. Costs We have a funding model based on what we have spent in teaching the 3-Y C-B S-A-S Honours degree What does it cost to be able to achieve the learning outcomes of a programme? OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes project to create measures

19. Student engagement A re-shaped model of learning A range of differently-designed courses A more appropriate assessment regime will all require a different (better?) relationship with the student

20. Educational leadership The central role of the programme director/leader Slowly we have grown programme teams at professional standard 2 We now need pedagogic leadership to bring about changes, some reluctantly, some of which are highly desirable.