Beyond equity of regard to equity in practice for college and university-based higher education

Today, Andy Burnham enters 10 Downing Street, having been absolutely clear he wants a country with greater, and more evenly experienced, prosperity, and that he sees devolution as crucial to achieving that.

Making local economies better requires higher and further education working together – and working better with their local government. Regional mayors have a chance to do more with their local universities and colleges, rather than a central state doing things to them.

But the backdrop to these policy debates is a public discourse that increasingly pits the purpose and value of further education and higher education against each other, too often based on perceived value, a partial reading of the evidence, or a confused policy architecture which practically disincentivises collaboration even as it rhetorically demands it.

But the new PM’s own experiences in Greater Manchester highlights that different futures are possible. In Salford, where both our university and our college are based, we see the realities of an education and skills ecosystem across the city-region committed to deepening integration and delivering a joined-up system that enables learners to progress through FE directly into work or to HE, and then into gainful employment.

The City Council plays a key role in the governance of both the college group and the university, and the civic university agreement with the council and developing Salford Innovation Board mean that there is consistent discussion between education, the city, business and the public sector.

We see adult learners moving from work into courses in FE or HE to develop their skills before returning to the workplace as well as the traditional school-college-university pathway. University students act as tutors in our schools and staff and PhD researchers contribute to teaching in our colleges.

But, we also recognise the potential fragility of this ecosystem constrained by structural, regulatory, and financial pressures that can force institutions into positions of competition rather than collaboration. We share a sense of the possibilities but have also direct experience of the pitfalls.

First, that the perceived value of HE and FE is so different, despite evidence that this should not be so; and, second, that the internal cultures of FE and especially HE institutions can create barriers to collaboration.

The experiences of Greater Manchester and the maturity of its devolved system, offer a ready test-bed to grapple with exactly these sorts of questions and have illuminated a way forward.

Shared quality code

On perceived value, we must do more to communicate the high, internationally-recognised standards of UK education across FE and HE. Students, their parents and carers, as well as employers and the general population need easy access to well-founded evaluation of the impact of higher education across the tertiary sector – whether in college or university settings.

The UK Quality Code is a sector-owned code devised and agreed through the Quality Council for UK HE which does exactly this. It establishes a shared understanding of, and foundation for, how we deliver quality – and it is endorsed by representative bodies of universities, colleges, specialist and independent providers, as well as NUS, and across all four nations of the UK. It is genuinely owned by the sector, and each nation has its own mechanisms for quality enhancement or assurance implemented by the separate funder-regulators.

The Quality Code is evidence that a more integrated system is possible, premised on a shared understanding of quality provision – we have the mechanisms already to facilitate and drive greater shared understandings of quality in tertiary integration.

We also have potential models for delivery of that more integrated system. The recent Curriculum and Assessment Review for pre-18 education introduced V-levels. These new qualifications are about both equity and choice: equity in vocational qualifications being valued in the same way as academic ones, and choice in students being able to either specialise or combine academic and vocational qualifications.

System-wide approaches such as these are essential if we are to avoid framing FE and HE either in opposition or as entirely separate pathways leading to entirely different outcomes.

Shared learning and conversation across the Greater Manchester system also bringing in voices from the tertiary systems of Scotland and Wales, and other regulatory, policy, or education-based stakeholders in the UK, have helped us to develop an inclusive approach to quality operating for different parts of the sector and coordinating with professional bodies and regulators. This creates meaningful regional collaborations between all HE providers and local government, which can emphasise particular priorities or industrial/research-oriented specialities. Localities will also need the capacity to balance their own needs and wants with national and global trends in the demand for graduates.

FE and HE can cooperate in constructing pathways into and through technical, professional and traditional academic routes and onto employment, connecting across the education system and businesses and employing organisations. It is here where we can ensure diverse learners benefit from educational opportunity through great support and pedagogy.

Mutual regard

To tackle the second challenge, we have to be honest that within both FE and HE, the governance structures and regulation require our governing bodies to be focused on institutional success and survival. Too often, this can inadvertently militate against a systematic approach in which we might need to consider much greater mobility of students, staff and resources between institutions.

But there is so much to be gained from close engagement, as we have found in Greater Manchester. For example, HE can learn a lot from FE about navigating troubled financial times. The college system has already gone through very significant efficiencies and restructuring, establishing both “‘academic” and “vocational” routes with strong employer engagement and a professional approach to education; in the current straightened circumstances, HE will need to follow suit.

FE has also made significant advances in supporting mental health, educational and personal transitions, and adaptable curricula and pedagogies. There are clearly differences between FE and HE, most obviously in research, but where we are concerned with the success of learners, there is much that we need to learn about systemic solutions.

Greater collaboration with other institutions and local government does pose challenges – HE institutions are, rightly, jealous of their autonomy from government, because academic freedom to investigate and critique is a key pillar of a free society. FE colleagues too often find their expertise is not properly valued by their HE counterparts.

But if we are to achieve a sustainable post-16 education and skills system, we must overcome these barriers. For example, developing a shared statement of practice establishing structures and governance frameworks that enable genuine equity of regard, voice and outcome within and between providers and pathways. This will also require significant culture change, particularly within HE that acknowledges any innovation will only develop at the pace of trust.

There is also a need to better enable staff and student mobility within and between FE and HE. This too needs a quality framework specifically designed to enable mobility of learners and credits, and this may challenge us to not only care for our institutions but also commit to more integrated systems which could be facilitated by regional structures.

Keep pushing forward

We are not pretending to have oven-ready solutions to these challenges in Salford. Though we see a pathway towards a more integrated regional offer, and we feel we have some sense of the shape and nature of the changes required, we know this is a transformation that will not happen overnight. We know the pace of change will vary between regions, depending on the context of collaboration and of competition. And we know changes need to be balanced by students having choices to study locally for careers that could take them anywhere in the world.

But we intend to live the values of FE/HE collaboration, so to chart a way forward, we will be setting out a series of policy considerations for (regional) post-16 education and skills systems, published via the Quality Council.

We can only move forward if we confront challenges in existing policy and formalise regional governance structures with relevant representatives across regulators, education, policy and government, which empower and enable institutions to undertake the practical work of implementing the design principles that all the participants in GM’s tertiary system have developed.

A devolved and effective tertiary system is absolutely possible, but it will take care, conviction and courage to build it.