The Higher Education Academy Annual Conference July 2006 – Session papers
Higher EducationAcademy Annual Conference 2006
Bridging the Gap : The Portability of Scottish HN qualifications.
Debbie Hinds
Cultural Business Group
GlasgowCaledonianUniversity
.
In 1999 Scotland was granted a level of autonomy from the Westminster Government with the passing of the Scotland Act (1998) granting the new Parliament devolved powers over a wide range of policy areas. One of these areas was education which, under the new structure, was integrated into Department for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (ETLL), providing an overarching link between the areas of economic growth, industrial development, further and higher education, lifelong learning, energy, transport and digital connectivity.
Since devolution, there has been a range of policies and consultation papers emerging from the new Parliament focusing on education such as: “ Life Through Lifelong Learning: Learning through Life: the Life Long Learning Strategy” (2003); A Framework for Higher Education in Scotland (2003); “A Changing Landscape for Tertiary Education and Research In Scotland”(2004), culminating in the Further and Higher Education Act (2005). All these documents embedded the recurring theme of the importance of a “ learning society”, claimed to be achieved through a further and higher education system designed to provide maximum social inclusion and citizenship. During the consultation processes of the draft Education Bill, the vision of the Government was to provide not only a common funding body - the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council (SFHEFC) but also to establish a common classification of Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE), to be known as Specified Tertiary Education Providers or STEPS ( Scottish Executive 2004).
This proposed new framework would give coherence of provision and collaboration between providers while retaining the “distinctiveness of character, and portfolios, legal status and missions of each institution” (Scottish Executive 2004:9). Indeed it is claimed that distinctiveness and diversity is a strength between FE and HE which should be allowed to: “flourish by creating a legislative framework which recognises that all parties have an equal and varied contribution.” (Scottish Executive 2004:9). However, although the Funding Councils were merged, resistance to a unified and homogenised tertiary framework (STEPS) was rejected. Even the term “ tertiary” was a contentious issue, reflecting a level of “sameness” and lacking in regard to the different and distinct roles of FE and HE. In particular HEIs ( Higher Education Institutes) were concerned that the term would marginalise their status within education (Mullen 2004). In the end, SFHEFC was given the power to direct additional funding for areas it deemed important – such as support for collaboration and under Section13.23 to assess and enhance quality of both sectors. The Deputy First Minister claimed:
‘ This is a major step forward in delivering a more effective and efficient tertiary education system – one which provides the very best for students, staff and institutions’. Wallace (2005:1)
It is worth noting at this juncture that although the unified tertiary framework was rejected, in part because of the impact on HEs status, the National Union of Students actually welcomed the term “tertiary” as it introduced a “greater parity of esteem” across the FE and HE sectors (Mullen, 2004:5). Therefore, although the Government held a vision of a merged FE and HE system, the two sectors have survived, with institutions retaining their autonomy and independence. But how does this assist in widening educational access and lifelong learning? In order to promote these opportunities, Government identified FEs as being at the centre for increased skills acquisition through wider participation, social inclusion and ultimately the gateway for non-traditional students to advance to HE. But how do institutions operationalise academic progression of students from all walks of life to provide fair access and educational opportunity? Although there is political will to encourage the concept of qualification portability the discourse has identified that the process is difficult (Trim, 2001). It is in recognition of which this preliminary project was formulated to investigate the portability of FE qualifications, from the perspective of a post-1992 university. Thus, the paper presents the initial findings based on a longitudinal study to investigate the transition and subsequent progression of HND students from various FE colleges (FEC) onto the level 3 stage of an undergraduate degree programme.
The aim of this paper is to explore the issues of wider participation and students progression within an education environment based on demarcation not only between FE and HE, but also within HE – between the “ancient” traditional” universities, the 1960s “plate glass” universities[1], and the “new” post -1992 universities. Particular attention is given to the student progression process of Higher National Diplomats as they trade their accumulated credit transfers (SCOTCATS), along the pathways of the education hierarchy, seeking recognition and therefore access, to their chosen careers and aspirations.
The student journey of two cohorts of FE students is documented over two years as they experience the transition process from FE to HEIs through a programme designed specifically for their entry onto a level 3 undergraduate degree. In the process, it draws on the experience of the author’s long involvement with FE/HE articulation programmes.
Together in Diversity – Scottish Education Framework
The removal of binary barriers across the Scottish Education system is key to achieving the Governments’ goal of life long learning, where a skilled workforce can meet and compete with the challenges of a global market. Although the concept of a tertiary framework was rejected, the actual boundaries between FECs and HEIs are becoming less distinguishable, particularly due to the expansion of the sector through the designation of post -1992 universities, under the Further and Higher Education Act (1992). These “ new” universities have developed closer links and collaborative arrangements with FEs, than the “traditional”, elite universities due, in part, to their historic programme portfolios of Higher National Diploma (HND) provision (Keating 2005). These links are further strengthened through the admission systems of the “new” universities which are operated on a recruitment process compared to the selection processes of the “traditional” universities [(Maclennan et al (2000) cited in Gallacher]. Even so the links between post-1992 universities and FE vary widely; from fully articulated programmes and franchises to tenuous collaborative partnerships based more on the recognition of credit transfer qualifications – SCOTCAT scheme (Scottish Credit Accumulation Transfer). This scheme, in principle, should make the transition from FECs to HEIs a straightforward advancement up the educational ladder of achievement, where credit accumulation can be translated to education advancement as shown in the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework levels. (See table 1)
Table 1 Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) levels
SCQF levels / SQA National Units, courses and group awards / Higher Education (HE) qualifications / SVQs / SCQF levels12 / . / Doctorate / . / 12
11 / . / Masters / SVQ 5 / 11
10 / . / Honours degree / . / 10
9 / . / Ordinary degree / . / 9
8 / . / HND / SVQ 4 / 8
Diploma of HE
7 / Advanced Higher / HNC / . / 7
Certificate of HE
(Source : Improving Scottish education - A report by HMIE on inspection and review 2002-2005)
However, the progression process is not clear cut nor transparent but confused and disjointed, as HE strive to maintain and preserve its elitist status and independence. Traditional universities may not recognise the non standard entry qualifications of students accumulated credit points for entry into any degree level, while the post -1992 universities may recognise achievement by granting access to level 3. Between these diametrically opposed positions are a plethora of admission requirements to particular programmes ranging from entry at level 2, entry with attendance to bridging courses or summer schools. Therefore progression pathways through credit accumulation in theory whilst commendable, is in practice neither equitable nor guaranteed (HMIE, 2005). As such, if increased social inclusion, wider participation and employability are to be achieved then approaches to higher educational progression demands a level of flexibility from both students and institutions.
FE as a bridge to knowledge transfer
In the search for lifelong learning through wider participation and increased opportunity there has been a paradigm shift in education to a “cradle to grave” approach, with the consequence that the elite hierarchical education system of the traditional universities is being replaced by mass market pluralism. This has resulted in a readjustment in the process from learning, to knowledge accumulation that is easily consumed through information that is entertaining to the masses - an educational framework of “edutainment” (Bleakely 2001).
FE has have been identified by Government as key to achieving a knowledge based workforce through wider access to work or education, whilst also providing a gateway through which students can advance to HE level. Scotland has been particularly successful in widening participation, as the target set for recruiting 18-30 year olds by 50% by 2010 was exceeded in 2003 as illustrated in Table 2 (Orton and Owtram, 2005).
Table 2. Undergraduate level students in further education colleges (FECs) and higher education institutions (HEIs)
1985–1986 / 1990–1991 / 1995–1996 / 2000–2001 / 2003–2004FECs / 30,025 / 32,952 / 60,718 / 72,461 / 55,405
HEIs / 75,189 / 87,265 / 67,270 / 142,630 / 160,795
Total / 105,214 / 120,217 / 127,988 / 215,091 / 216,200
Sources: Scottish Office (1995); Scottish Office (1998a, b); Scottish Executive (2005).{ Gallacher ,2006]
Increasingly, FE filters an heterogeneous student group into sub degree vocational programmes which provide potential pathways to degree level. However, there are a number of cultural and academic differences between FE and HE, which results in the seamless journey through the FE gateway being plagued with potholes, which have to be negotiated for students to successfully progress:
‘ While progression from FE to HE is common, and a great deal of HE takes place within FE institutions, HE level credits achieved in FECs, despite attempts to create credit transfer systems, are not in practice equivalent to those found in Universities.’ (Osborne et al 2000:245)
The FE / HE relationship – coherent and complementary education system.
HEIs still consider themselves as being of higher academic standing than FECs due to their research background and staff development focus driven on by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Furthermore, HE has increasinglyintegrated the use of IT and virtual teaching techniques into supporting independent learning and teaching strategies delivered over two semesters, while FECs are driven by vocationally orientated, competence based programmes taught over a three term timetable. Even the physical resources are on a grander scale:
‘….( the post 1992) universities appear to be emulating the ‘traditional’ universities by … erecting large physically impressive ( and highly visible) new campuses in their host cities…… This could certainly be seen as a retrograde step vis–a-vis lifelong learning – a step serving to make them as intimidating to their educationally dispossessed as many of the older institutions.’ (Marks, 2002:114)
As regards issues of access and progression, it is the differences rather than the similarities between the two types of institutions which become apparent and give rise to confusion. This is exacerbated by complex differences within the same types of institutions.
‘Both the terms “further “ and “higher” and the distinction between them not only distinguish types of programmes and institutions-they also carry what might be referred to as ideological and identity work: they sustain identities and boundaries for both students and teachers and at the same time limit as well as enhance people’s expectations and possibilities.’ (Young, 2006:3)
Therefore, students who have the potential and the aspiration to progress in education have to struggle with the inconsistencies of a fragmented education system which is promoted as providing access to all and “Opportunity for Everyone” (Scottish Office 1999).
There are merits of, and drawbacks to working towards a coherent and comprehensive education system which, although it may not provide a seamless journey through and across levels of academia, could at least accept the differences and therefore address the difficulties that these barriers can pose to the student journey. Until this is achieved then gaps in the skills base will continue to exist in the transition process. The need for HE to bridge these gaps is due, in part, to an altruist element of encouraging students to progress academically, but also a pragmatic element to insure that retention and progression targets are sustained. Consequently, over 2,000 articulated routes have been developed between FE and HE which have provided more than 3,600 students with access to level 2 or 3 of a degree programme.
However, one of the major issues concerning the portability of qualifications for diplomatsprogressing to level 3 of an undergraduate degree is the process of social integration between these new students and those continuing students with prior level 2 university experience. The latter have formed into established cohesive groups with formal and informal networks. They are knowledgeable and “streetwise” to the process and procedures of university protocol compared to the “ new kids on the block”, a situation which is a particularly difficult role for adult returners. Consequently, the direct entry students have to acquire new study and examination skills which may have been absent from their past education experience but which are taken for granted by the continuing students. This can lead to students becoming very quickly alienated from their new environment with such consequences as loss of self-confidence, self-esteem and ultimately in attrition if appropriate steps are not taken. As Tate and Godfrey noted:
‘ These incoming students differ considerably from first year entrants in many respects, perhaps most notably in their superior levels of motivation for study and their inferior levels of academic confidence.’ (2001: 261)
Therefore, while qualifications may be considered portable, the issue of academic progression from FE to HE is far wider reaching than the acceptance of credit transfer points. If the student journey is to be successful and fulfilling then an holistic approach must be taken to the transition process, by building on existing knowledge, encouraging self esteem and increasing confidence in finding and accessing information. Recognition of this is evident in various modifications or additions to induction programmes undertaken by a variety of HEIs ranging from free standing assessed modules to extended induction programmes. However, in some cases no additional steps are taken - the portability of an HND qualification is just accepted. It is therefore appropriate to contextualise the consequences of increasing student participation and transition from FE to HE from which the empirical and key outcomes relate.
Research Narrative
The historic context of this research is drawn from a 1992-post university that emanated from the merging of a central institution (CI), with a portfolio of HNDs and self validated degrees, with an existing polytechnic college with similar education background. The CI had a long and highly respected hospitality portfolio, which was extended in the early 1980s to include travel and tourism. In order to maximise resources a collaborative partnership was entered into with a local FEC, which was enthusiastic to participate in the arrangement, bringing with them vocational skills and knowledge which were otherwise missing from the CI.
The partnership had both weaknesses and strengths. It created opportunities for both institutions while increasing student choice without increasing physical or staffing resources. In order to reduce student perceptions of any differences in education delivery, teaching was shared equally between staff from both institutions. Leadership and quality control fell to the CI as the senior partner, but otherwise responsibility was equally shared. The perceived advantages to staff were an exchange of knowledge and opportunities to participate in personal development programmes thereby promoting a culture of research in both institutions. The HND content was prescribed by the awarding body (SCOTVEC) and quality assurance was overseen by an approved external examiner. However, programme leadership proved to be complex due to different administrative and operating practices, for example; by different holidays, timetable delivery, staff pay and conditions and general teaching and learning approaches. Nonetheless, there was a mutual recognition that integration of the programme into a single entity was essential.
Student perceptions and acceptance of the arrangements were more difficult to manage. The difference of resources and physical environment between the two institutions was blatantly obvious with the FECs history of heavy engineering and years of under investment being reflected in the surroundings. This was compounded by the students having to travel between campuses and bearing the financial cost compared to other CI students. They considered they were paying more and getting less. In addition, there were the differences in student profiles - from well qualified middle class predominantly female students in the CI, to low skilled based, male dominated students, many of whom were from socially deprived areas in FECs.
The aim of the partnership agreement was to have a fully articulated degree, with entry and exit points ranging from HNC, HND to degree and honours degree level. This would provide students with a truly portable qualification through entry and exit levels of an articulated framework. However, taking this approach meant that the content of the degree was constrained by the prescriptive and inflexible HND programme, the content of which would ultimately define the first two years of the degree. To maintain the ‘seamless journey’ between levels, the HND requirements would drive the first two years of the degree, which was considered as a “tail wagging the dog” scenario. The partnership was subsequently dissolved with the FEC taking ownership of the HND while the CI repositioned itself within the degree market place.
In the early years of the degree, HND recruitment was considered as student top up to meet programme targets. The small numbers involved meant that more individual attention could be given from Student Support Services. However as numbers increased a more formal system was introduced to help bridge the increasing gaps arising from the teaching and learning experiences between the two institutions. The Summer School Induction Programme was thus developed between the Department and the Effective Learning Services with its aim to support and promote effective learning in the university community through the innovative use of resources, people and technologies while recognising the individuality of the learner.