Conclusiones

Chapter 1 described some of the broad characteristics of the UK HE sector and the policies and changing ideologies, which catalysed its shift from an elite to a mass participation section. Within this section I do not intend to repeat earlier discussions

or provide forensic analysis of historical and policy details. Rather the aim is briefly to highlight some additional aspects of the HE sector as it is currently constituted in order to provide greater context to the HE in FE sector, and the HE in FE literature that is reviewed later within this chapter. HE in FE is part of the HE sector as a whole, so will inevitably be impacted (to a greater or lesser extent) by some of the wider narratives and policies within the mainstream HE sector.

Tomlinson (2014) suggests the move to massification has radically transformed HE “through expansion, diversification and the move towards a more market-driven agenda” (p.11). He further remarks how when compared to the past, twenty-century HE is part of a wider national and global economic context that is inherently unstable and uncertain (ibid.). As well as expansion with regard to student numbers, expansion also includes the number and type of providers. No longer the exclusive domain of universities, private and alternative providers of HE (which includes FECs) have been introduced. This has coincided with a move towards different models of HE to complement the traditional three-year degree. Currently with degree apprenticeships and, latterly, with foundation degrees, these alternative qualifications have been championed as enablers of access to HE, particularly for under- represented groups, thereby constituting a more ‘diverse HE market’ which positively contributes to WP and social mobility agendas (Bathmaker, 2016). Further, this more ‘diverse HE market’ has led to reforms making it easier for alternative providers to be granted university status and to gain degree awarding powers.

As with the FE sector, the UK HE sector has been influenced by, and operates within the same broad neoliberal landscape as described in section 2.1.3. As such the same principles of marketisation and competition to ‘drive up standards’ apply, although the discourse is arguably couched more in the language of ‘employability’, ‘graduate attributes’ the ‘student experience’ and ‘student choice’, than in the ‘skills’

narrative of accessibility and the desire to welcome a broader range of learners who hitherto were not able or encouraged to pursue HE studies.

As stated in the 2009 Higher ambitions: The future of universities in a knowledge

economy report:

Higher education equips people with the skills that globalisation and a knowledge economy demand, and thereby gives access to many of this country’s best jobs. Everyone, irrespective of background, has a right to a fair chance to gain those advantages. This is vital, not just as a question of social justice and social mobility but also for meeting the economy’s needs for high level skills. (BIS, 2009, p.3)

Whilst promoting social justice and inclusion, the narrative is firmly positioned within the prevailing neoliberal discourse whereby the connection between education and employment is promoted. Later government publications continue to advance the same neoliberal narratives in HE. The May 2016 Success as a Knowledge Economy:

Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice white paper reaffirmed and

advocated the principles of marketisation and competition, and reinforced their inherent connection with employment. It stated “Competition between providers in any market incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better quality products and services at lower cost” (BIS, 2016, p.8). The paper further reports how “Universities provide an environment for deeper and wider learning, allowing for the development of analytical and creative thinking, objective inquiry and primary research. But evidence suggests that for most students, the most important outcome of higher education is finding employment” (ibid., p.11).

As described in Chapter 1 the notion of a degree affording enhanced employment prospects via the ‘graduate premium’ makes the ‘investment’ into a degree worthwhile. However, contemporary literature reports how “the prevailing critique of the effects of marketisation sees increasing forms of instrumentalism and more

stringent stakeholder demand as an inevitable consequence, and to the detriment of HE learning” (Tomlinson, 2014, p.11). Arguably the introduction of student loans and tuition fees is implicated in this shift and change in perceptions of what a degree is for and how, as paying consumers, the relationship between HE providers and students has been affected.

Following recommendations of the Dearing Report (Dearing, 1997) to introduce fees in HE, tuition fees have been part of the HE landscape for over a decade. Introduced in 2006, students paid £3000 per year. Following The Browne Review (Browne 2010) fees were raised (though capped) to £9000 per year from autumn 2012. This has subsequently been increased to £9250 per year. Naidoo and Williams (2015) argue that fees have shifted HE from being a public good to a “pay-as-you-go transaction” (p.211) which serves only to commodify education, and casts students as “customer beneficiaries” (ibid., p.208). Arguably this ‘business transaction relationship’ can increase the sense of entitlement a student may experience, particularly for a ‘product or service’ they are paying for and may feel dissatisfied with (Finney and Finney, 2010). Morgan (2013) further suggests that fees can embolden students, leading them to complain more, particularly about assessment grades they do not agree with.

A further consequence of fees concerns the immense financial pressures placed upon students. For many, paying for a degree and the economic and social imperative to obtain one to secure employment futures, is a high stakes endeavour, and one which can cause stress and pressure (Robotham and Julian, 2006). Students are paying and have to pass in order to see a return on their financial investment. Loans and fees can also deter students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, from applying to study in HE because of the debt associated with it. This is supported by a recent study by Callender and Mason (2017). Conducted

students was “much stronger” (p.20) than in more affluent peers, resulting in working- class students being more likely to be deterred from undertaking HE study. Further, they found that the level of debt-related deterrent had increased when compared to data from 2002.

The prevailing discourse of student choice, of student voice and of competition has more recently created further shifts in the HE landscape. The publication of league tables and rankings, performance data, e.g. Key Information Sets (KIS) and the use of the National Student Survey (NSS) to capture student views on their student experience, are all part of an architecture of metrics and accountability (Tomlinson, 2017). Concerns regarding teaching quality is a particular refrain in contemporary literature. Once largely concerned with research and with teaching viewed by some as a less ‘important’ aspect of the work of a university, the ‘student as paying consumer’ narrative as been instrumental in the drive to enhance the quality of teaching in the HE sector. Student criticisms concerning value for money, and in response to perceived criticisms about teaching quality, HE discourse and policy has moved in order to professionalise teachers and drive up standards. The introduction of the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) to provide staff CPD, and the introduction of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) are indicative of the improvement, ‘measure and feedback’ culture within the contemporary HE sector. Most recently The Higher Education and Research Act led to the creation of the Office for Students (OfS). Incepted on January 1, 2018, its remit is one of being “explicitly pro-competition and pro-student choice” (BIS, 2016, p.15), and further signifies the power of the student voice in a marketised and comodified landscape.

This review illustrates how the neoliberal landscape described in section 2.1.3 forms (albeit with differing emphases, metrics and levers) the backdrop for both the FE and HE sectors. As such, students in both sectors are pursuing qualifications, which are

broadly aimed at equipping them with skills (in the broadest sense) for employment. The following section reviews how these policy agendas and narratives from the two sectors are translated into the particular context of HE in FE. As with this review of the HE sector, I do not intend to repeat earlier discussions or provide forensic analysis of historical and policy details. The purpose is to draw on both sectors in order to situate HE in FE and to preface the review of the HE in FE literature.