The most important characteristic of higher education provision in FECs, underlined by the findings of this research project, is its heterogeneity. The high-level distinctions between prescribed and non-prescribed provision, between franchised students and validated programmes or between ‘vocational’ and ‘academic’ subjects only scratch the surface; the heterogeneity runs much deeper. On almost every scale – number of HE students,
balance of HE and FE provision in individual colleges, number of external validators and accreditors, depth of employer links – there are significant differences.
In positive terms this heterogeneity is closely linked to the flexibility and responsiveness of FECs in planning their HE provision. FECs respond quickly to changes in student demand, employer needs and the wider policy environment (such as the availability of student numbers, whether directly from HEFCE or via a partner HEI, or shifts in regulatory
regimes); they have no choice but to respond in this manner. One important finding is the very strong sense in FECs that they operate to different, and more urgent, timescales than HEIs (or HEFCE and BIS); this was graphically described as being in a different ‘time- zone’. However, this need to be flexible and responsive also means that it is perhaps more difficult for colleges to develop stable strategic plans with regard to HE provision. A
recurring theme of this research is that, within very broad strategic parameters, FECs must be highly adaptable (even, some college managers acknowledge, opportunist). Perhaps a more accurate way to describe this is to draw a distinction between traditional forms of planning based on a limited number of key assumptions (or forecasts) and more adaptable, or market-oriented, forms of planning that need to take account of a much larger number of variables (and also build in more explicit adaptation processes when circumstances change).
Heterogeneity is also linked to less positive characteristics, ambiguity and uncertainty:
For example, students on non-prescribed courses are often not included in FECs’ arrangements for managing higher education. This suggests that many FECs do not adopt a comprehensive definition of their HE provision but define it
Students on non-prescribed courses, as a result, are difficult to identify. Many are studying part-time in the evening or on distance learning programmes (and
consequently were difficult to survey). Their primary identification appears not to be as HE students studying in FECs (but, alternatively, as taking professional courses or engaging in work-based learning or continuing professional development);
A third example is the persistence of multiple HEI partnerships; although most FECs formally accept the desirability of having a single HEI partner (or, at any rate, a small number of HEI partners), the need to be highly responsive may make this goal more difficult to achieve in practice;
Another example is that a significant proportion of students are unclear initially about whether they will be studying in an HEI and FEC (although they are aware they will receive an HEI award). At one level this is simply a matter of bad
communications. But it may hint at deeper issues of identity – while a ‘uni’ student is a familiar category, a ‘college’ student (who is not an FE student but studying on an HE course) may be less well recognised.
The dynamism of HE provision in FECs, in response to changes in student demand and employer requirements, may undermine the stability of such provision – in these, and other, respects. Indeed, one of the attractions of directly funded HE provision is seen as its greater stability, although this will be less true in the future.
A number of challenges flow from the heterogeneity, flexibility and responsiveness of HE provision in FECs, and of the uncertainty and instability to which these characteristics may give rise. These are, in ascending order of significance:
First, producing accurate and up-to-date data is always going to be a challenge – because of what might be termed the ‘time-zone’ effect, the volatility of course provision and the separate reporting of students on prescribed and non-prescribed courses;
Secondly, managing the inherent tension between the responsiveness of HE provision and the need for developmental strategies is also a key challenge within FECs;
Thirdly, investing longer-term in HE provision (whether services more targeted on HE students or specialised teaching facilities) presents college managers with difficult choices;
Fourthly, developing consistent policy prescriptions and frameworks that are equally relevant to all types of HE provision in FECs is a challenge for funders and
regulators;
Finally, recognising that the concept of ‘higher education’ is inherently problematical in FECs. The formal definition and ‘real-world’ definition, as perceived by students and employers, may not coincide.
This list of challenges may appear to suggest that HE provision in FECs is a ‘special case’. In practice many of these challenges also apply to significant segments of HE provision in HEIs (and may have an increasing impact on the behaviour of HEIs as the Government’s higher education reforms proceed). However, the impact on FECs is currently greater – for two reasons. First, with a few exceptions, FECs lack a critical mass of more stable HE provision; and, secondly, FECs are subject to a wider range of external controls, in terms of validation and accreditation and quality assurance, so they are less ‘masters of their own fate’. On the other hand, FECs typically have more experience than many HEIs of operating in market-like conditions in developing and managing their FE provision.