En el Control Interno Financiero

The literature, including policy documents and official reports from agencies such as HEFCE refers to WP students, non-traditional students and specific under-

represented groups so without clear definitions it is difficult to look comparatively at the literature. The terms, WP and non-traditional, are used interchangeably

throughout this thesis. Jary (2006) describes WP as the approach taken to

encourage an HE system that is more inclusive. He suggests that in terms of both policy and practice the aim is to ensure the opportunity to pursue HE is open to all who may benefit including those who, as a result of social and or cultural barriers, could be discouraged.

From a historical perspective we can begin in 1963 with the Robbins Report, which identified a need to better use the ability of those from lower socio-economic classes. This report, it could be argued, led the way for a more equitable HE sector (Hayton and Paczuska, 2002). There was a commitment made by the last UK Government in the 2003 White Paper ‘The Future of HE’ (DfES, 2003) to increase the number of 18-

20

30 year olds entering HE to 50% by 2010 and key to achieving this was partnerships with FE colleges (DfES, 2003; HEFCE, 2009).

There followed an emphasis on strategic planning and collaboration although the strategic planning element some would argue did not occur leading to lack of clarity, frequency of change and barriers to implementation in relation to WP (Greenbank, 2006; 2009 and Scott, 2009). Greenbank (2006), also suggests that despite the activity in relation to WP during this period key groups for inclusion, with a stake in the WP agenda, including individuals from WP backgrounds were not consulted, in other words the student voice was missing. This lack of involvement of potential students he suggests illustrates how in an education system geared to the needs of the economy it is the views of employers and not students that have been influencing leaders and sector change.

The focus on WP increased in 1997 when the Kennedy and Dearing (Kennedy, 1997; NCIHE, 1997) reports were published. It was envisaged participation would widen however this remains debateable as although participation in HE has increased it is not clear that it has widened (Winter and Dismore, 2010; Archer, 2006). Archer (2003) points out that there is a disparity between the increase in participation in HE and the increase in participation of working-class students in HE since the move to mass participation in HE, despite the many schemes aimed specifically to encourage this. While FE continues to be seen as a major player in the delivery of HE, Parry and Thompson (2002) discuss FE as becoming a hybrid offering HE and FE and

21

Collaboration remained prominent with the introduction by the Blair Government of the FD. A sub-bachelor level qualification but with the word degree in its title, which it was envisaged would be largely delivered by FECs in partnership with universities through franchise arrangements (Parry, 2009) offering an alternative route into HE and ensuring FECs gained increasing importance in the role they play in providing HE (Bathmaker et al, 2008). There has previously been a long history of HE in FECs (Scott, 2009) delivering HNCs, HNDs and technical and professional qualifications but this was the first time ‘degree’ was in the title.

Despite initial reservations and slow uptake of FDs they are now firmly embedded in English HE and should be viewed as a significant development that has introduced a range of successful, new and innovative awards (Ooms et al, 2012).

Following a change of Government in 2010 from ‘New Labour’, to a

Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition in 2010, there was the publication of the white paper ‘Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System’ (BIS, 2011, p.54-65) which sets out the coalition government approach to HE, dedicating a whole chapter to ‘improved social mobility through fairer access’. This report again

emphasised the unique position of FECs to reach students from different educational and social backgrounds through their focus on vocational education, flexibility and accessibility (Parry et al, 2012).

This White Paper drew heavily on the Browne Review, which was set up by the previous Government, looking at policy from the perspective of funding HE and student financing, including fees (Parry et al, 2012). Following publication of the final Browne report higher fees of up to £9,000 were introduced alongside the

22

commitment to increase social mobility through ‘fair access’ and the need to attract more students from disadvantaged backgrounds (HM Government, 2010). When published the Browne report (2010) did say that all those with the potential to benefit from HE should have access and that not being able to afford fees and cost of living should not be a deterrent to studying HE.

The result was a new fees system introduced by the Government for students commencing study from 2012-13. Despite the intention for a differential system of fees most HEIs were granted permission by OFFA to increase fees to nearly £9,000, which was the new cap. The fees would now be covered by a loan system where repayment was based on annual salary after graduation (Parry et al, 2012).

FECs who were already charging different and lower fees were not considered in the review despite the acknowledgement by ministers at the time of the distinctive role of FECs in offering choice for students, and efficiency to the HE sector (Parry et al, 2012).