Working Group 5: Cost/Benefit Analysis
Martin Cloonan, Arnaud Haeringer, Benedetto Matarazzo, Mark Murphy and Mike Osborne: Steering the Fifth Wheel: Defining and Funding Continuing Education in Four EU Countries
Abstract
This article examines the possibility of establishing funding models for Continuing Education (CE) within four European Union countries - France; Ireland; Italy; and Scotland. In doing so it first raises the question of what constitutes Continuing Education. Having noted the breadth of the term, the article continues by investigating the existence of funding models by examining the use of cost-benefit analysis in determining course provision in the relevant countries. It is suggested that ideological commitments on behalf of the providers militate against the use of simple cost-benefit analysis. But, contrary to expectation, this ideology is expressed more with reference to costs than it is with reference to benefits. We finish by considering whether funding models can be established and how those models might affect perceptions of CE.
Introduction
In March 1996 the European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN) applied for funding from the European Commission's SOCRATES fund for an ERASMUS Thematic Network Project to examine the European dimension of CE. The intention was to address inter-disciplinary and administrative issues of common interest with a view to increasing pan-European co-operation. In particular the project aimed to collect data on a national and European level on good practice and innovation in continuing education and to identify facilitatory and inhibiting factors in European collaboration. The proposal, entitled "Thematic Network Project in European University Continuing Education" (THENUCE), received an initial one year grant of 100.000 ECU which together with contributions from partner universities and organisations facilitated a European report and 19 individual country reports (EUCEN 1997). THENUCE is one of two ‘horizontal’ networks funded by the EC, the other being Open and Distance Learning, and there exist some 32 other subject-specific ‘vertical networks’ (EC 1998).
Following further funding, in years 2 and 3 of the THENUCE, particular issues identified in the initial year (EUCEN 1997, p15) are being considered by 13 Working Groups with topics ranging from the role of academics in CE, through researching the learning process and up to networking and CE around the world. We are involved in Working Group 5, which deals with Cost Benefit Analysis in CE. The aim was to investigate the use of cost-benefit analysis in the provision of CE within four EUCEN countries (France; Ireland; Italy; and Scotland), focusing on two institutions in each country. The research concentrated upon one key stakeholder - the provider. It was hoped to develop a model of funding CE and to compare and contrast differing models used within the eight institutions under review.
Each of the participant countries produced a national profile of CE provision which formed the backdrop to the group’s work. In addition a literature review of cost-benefit analysis was conducted at the University of Stirling. From this it became clear that while the costs of education could be calculated (if often somewhat crudely), the benefits were more problematic, as they were often articulated in subjective, value-laden, terms. Partly because of this, some commentators have doubted whether cost-benefit analysis to educational projects (Fielden and Pearson, 1978). However, it became clear to us that, at a minimum, cost-benefit analysis focuses attention on choosing between a set of alternatives (Woodhall, 1980). Furthermore, it became evident during the course of the research that for CE providers decisions concerning costs and benefits informs much of their daily praxis.
In order to determine how widespread the use of cost-benefit analysis was in the provision of CE a questionnaire was designed. This formed the backdrop to a series of semi-structured interviews which were conducted with the eight CE providers. The questionnaire was divided into four parts which dealt with: provision; costings and fees; perceived benefits; and general points. The questionnaire was designed to stimulate discussion and to produce a qualitative analysis of cost-benefit analysis in CE in the participant countries from the providers’ point of view. In order to achieve this it was necessary to pose a simple question.
Part One: What is Continuing Education?
The provision of CE in each country is partly a result of historical legacies. Limitations of space prevent in-depth analysis of this, but the situation can be precised as follows: all of the countries involved provide a range of CE within the context of increasing numbers of people entering HE and a pan-EU acceptance of the concept of Lifelong Learning. In France the "right" to HE is established under the baccalaureat system, with all who pass this exam being allowed to enter university. The CE tradition can be seen in the establishment of special university examinations for adults in 1956, les examens speciaux d’access aux etudes universitaires (Council of Europe, 1996: 65). In Italy CE is somewhat newer, having only began to be established in 1986 (Catania et al, 1997: 2). Ireland can trace its provision of CE back to the 1940s (Murphy, 1997: 2), while Scotland has by far the longest tradition of CE, as it can trace its roots back to the late nineteenth century (Osborne, 1997: 1).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one answer emerged in answer to the question of what CE consisted of. Nevertheless, some common factors emerged. It was apparent that an important thread within CE in all of the participant countries is the heritage of Liberal Adult Education (LAE) and a commitment to education furthering social justice (Osborne, 1997: 1). Thus the question of what CE is elicited such responses as "the advancement of the cultural level of adults" (Catania et al, 1997: 1); "an empowerer of adults to take a more active and effective role in... society" (Murphy, 1997: 1) and generally to help adults who have taken a break from education to return (Feutrie, 1997: 1).
Generally there was no formal state-derived definition of CE, but rather a range of activities undertaken by universities which fitted under the broad heading. Within this a crude divide could be drawn between general adult education courses of the LAE tradition, and professional training of the sort which often referred to as Continued Professional Development (CPD). However, what was most impressive was the sheer range of activities which the term Continuing Education encompasses.
Thus CE ranged from the free summer Access courses aimed at local socially disadvantaged groups which are provided, and financially underwritten, by Glasgow Caledonian University; to the highly prestigious (and expensive) 2-3 day seminar courses run by the Universite de Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg which feature world experts lecturing for audiences paying handsomely for the privilege. While these might be the extremes of the field, they do illustrate that CE activities range from the populist to the elitist, with a corresponding divide between the free (such as courses for the unemployed) and the highly expensive (such as a MBAs). Such extremes occur within and between institutions, as well as within and between countries.
To an extent the lack of a state definition of CE within the participant countries results in a situation in which CE is whatever providers determine that it is. CE appears to be determined by the content of the courses which it is held to encompass, rather than having a subject-based remit which it is expected to fulfil. Ultimately it is defined by its audience, rather than by an academic discipline.
In terms of provision, it was apparent that rather than Universities per se providing CE, it is often departments (and/or committed individuals within them) who initiate, and then often run, CE courses. The influence of one or two key individuals within universities as driving forces behind CE provision was noted by a number of respondents. Some respondents reported that provision was in response to market demand, although provision was generally expressed as being a public service (generally to the local community) rather than an overtly commercial enterprise. In this sense CE providers are trying to initiate, and then shape, markets as much as they are responding to existing markets.
The very definition of CE could be affected by what was going on elsewhere in the market as it could shape what CE might encompass within a given institution. For example, Haute-Alsace was acutely aware of competition, reporting that any financially successful courses were likely to be copied and indeed stolen by competitors. This might even go as far as competitors poaching teachers and teaching the same course at a different price and/or venue. For others competition might simply relate to not duplicating work which other local providers were doing. For example, has a number of private training organisations which compete with universities in training provision (Catania et al, 1997: 11). Only one respondent, Maynooth, was emphatic that competition had no impact on provision.
Competition could take many forms, from the local to the regional, to the national and beyond. Generally there was a keen awareness amongst respondents of their markets, although it was apparent that this awareness incorporated a certain amount of autonomy. Thus one respondent argued that universities respond to markets, but that have some leeway in which markets they wish to respond to. For example, Louis Pasteur marketed itself to the whole of France and Europe, whereas Glasgow Caledonian was more orientated towards the local community, although it also marketed some CE courses to an international audience. Thus the range (and, implicitly, definition) of CE could be affected by the interaction between prevailing market conditions and government initiatives.
However, the market is continually interacting with state policies. In all the participant countries decisions by government to expand HE was shaping events within CE. In Ireland universities are mandated to provide CE under the Universities Act, 1997. French universities are under similar legal obligations and since 1971 French employees have enjoyed certain rights to educational leave, especially in the public sector. In Italy in 1994, "a law was passed.. which encouraged industries and companies to employ young people under the age of 32 on a Contract for Work Training" (Catania, et al, 1997: 10) in return for certain tax relief.
In most of the Universities the provision of CE was seen as very much an add-on activity, "the fifth wheel of the car" as one respondent put it. The labelling in Ireland of many CE activities as "extra-mural" gives insights into the often peripheral nature of CE. This was further evidenced by the fact that the majority of CE tutors are not part of the institution's core, but are drafted in (on highly variable terms and conditions) to teach particular courses. For example, in Ireland such teachers accounted for around 90% of CE provision (Murphy, 1997: 12). The respondent from Haute-Alsace lamented that working in CE was a route which an ambitious academic would to get on in their profession. The lack of a national profile for CE was particularly lamented in Italy especially as CE is a comparatively new phenomenon there (Catania et al, 1997: passim).
The counterweight to this was a great deal of autonomy within, and on behalf of, institutions. Practically all of the respondents spoke of departmental autonomy, saying that they could run whatever courses they wished providing that they did not bring the university into disrepute or, even worse, cost the university money. (Although it was accepted that some Access and extra-mural courses were effectively loss-making goodwill gestures to the local community).
Part Two: Using Cost-Benefit Analysis
While the use of cost-benefit analysis was restricted, it was apparent that a number of factors were important in considering the issue. These were: costings; ideology; benefits and the interaction of CE with Lifelong Learning.
a: Costings
In order to establish funding models a number of questions were asked about course costings. This resulted in a number of funding models for departments being articulated by respondents. Some departments were entirely dependent on raising funds via selling courses - to both individuals and businesses. Others got money from research activities, external sponsorships (including European Union and local government funding). The Irish and Scottish respondents also mentioned research as an income stream. One department managed to maintain itself primarily through top-slicing the budgets of other departments within the institution, although this was felt to be vulnerable to the internal politics of the institution. Overall the picture was very much one of a mixed economy, perhaps reflecting the fact that CE provision is often ‘far from homogenous’ (Osborne, 1997: 1). Significantly, none were entirely funded by central government, although some posts were funded from central and local government monies and from EU sources, especially in work with the socially disadvantaged.
Not surprisingly, costings analysis for individual courses varied enormously. Here a great deal is dependent upon the system adopted by institutions in reaction to state policy and market forces. But event within these constraints, there is room for some autonomy. As one respondent noted, even when mandated to supply CE, institutions have to make decisions about how much CE to provide. Mitigating factors include whether the course is to be paid for by public funds, by students, or by employers; what publicity materials will be produced; whether the teachers are university employees or external; what the university charges the department for its services; the cost of teaching materials (especially if any laboratory work is involved); whether the course might be considered to be a "loss-leader", the exclusivity of the course; and, as most respondents remarked, "what the market will bear".