Student Fees for Rpl and Related Issues

STUDENT FEES FOR RPL AND RELATED ISSUES

and

RPL CREDIT AND STATE FUNDING.

By

Mike McDonagh

CAT Centre Napier University Edinburgh EH14 1DJ Tel 44 (0)131-455 6103 email

13 September 1996

This file contains two papers posted to the Internet Conference on Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), Summer 1996. One paper outlines fees/costs for APEL at Napier University, and the other covers some thoughts I had in relation to credit/funding for RPL (APEL in UK terminology).

Note: The conference was run primarily to allow colleagues in South Africa collect experience from elsewhere on RPL and also these papers draw on other postings to the conference. The papers should be read in context.

PAPER 1: STUDENT FEES FOR RPL AND RELATED ISSUES

I've just returned from holiday and I see that the group of topics for the last part of the conference includes issues relating to finance. What follows in this posting is a descriptive outline of our method of financing/charging in relation to RPL activity in our Credit Framework at Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland*. We award credits (or more strictly credit points) for successful assessment through RPL and I'd like to share some of our experience in this area and raise some other issues.

1. Fees from students. At present UK central or local government will to pay HE fees for most full-time students but does not do so for part-time students. Most RPL students that we see are part-time and the way we charge these students for RPL is as follows:

Firstly all students coming into the Framework requesting RPL are required to undertake a diagnostic test as to their suitability for RPL (see my earlier paper as to the need for this). The fee for the diagnostic test is 50 pounds sterling and is non-returnable.

We only offer credit through RPL for learning which matches onto University modules that are validated and currently being delivered through 'formal learning'. A full-time student is required to study a 120 credits per academic session. Part-time students can attempt one or more modules through RPL. Individual modules sizes start at 8 credits and increase in size in multiples of 4 credits; large projects for example can be 24-36 credits. (Yes, the University got it wrong and the size for single modules has been revised to a standard 15 credits starting session 1997-98).

We have an all in charge (includes tutoring through to assessment) per credit attempted and for session 1996-97 the charge per credit is 8.00 pounds sterling (not very meaningful!), but an 8 credit module thus costs the student 64 pounds sterling. To put it further in perspective: total fees for a full 120 credits would be therefore 960 pounds sterling.

We do not have an credit-rated module for 'introduction' to RPL. Some institutions do this, but we felt there were problems with level. We have progression through levels to give academic coherence to our awards and we were not convinced that a student studying at an advanced level would be able to accumulate meaningful credit from a lower level 'introductory' RPL module. However as a form of mitigation the 50 pounds sterling fee paid for the diagnostic test is counted towards payment for the first module attempted by RPL. Fees are payable at the start of RPL and relate to the credit attempted; passing or failing does not affect the fees charged.

There are other models of charging in the UK where institutions look at the immediate resource input (tutoring/mentoring/assessment/admin etc) and charge flat fee(s) for RPL not necessarily related to the volume of credit attempted. We took the view that since we charge all part-time and full-time students in the Framework on credit basis for 'formal study' similarly we would also charge students gaining credit via RPL on the basis of the quantity of the learning. This also takes into account developmental costs of modules.

2. Payments to RPL Assessors. Now something on the payment of assessors. We initially used the diagnostic test fee of 50 pounds sterling as a flat fee payment to assessors regardless of the assessment (some slick departmental accounting here!) to encourage participation of faculty staff in RPL assessment and raise the profile of RPL in the institution. Interestingly some early RPL assessors (again internal faculty staff) did not wish payment as they took the view that they would be assessing the module(s) anyway and only the format of presentation of the learning had changed. However no-one returned the cheques!

Now that RPL assessment is accepted and understood we propose to reduce this level of payment. It has to change because, if nothing else, some portfolios together with their reflective commentaries map onto several modules over different subject areas requiring the services of more than one subject expert assessor.

3. Related issues It is probably worth mentioning the old chestnut, much discussed, as to the maximum number of credit points leading to an approved award that should made available by RPL. In the UK the conventional wisdom has been that not more than 50% of an award is suitable for study via RPL. In reality I wonder if anyone's RPL portfolio could get close the quantity of credit required for a degree award, though it is possible for Masters level awards and also lower awards (eg Higher Certificate or Higher Diploma). We have had occasion to push through this 50% barrier.

Another issue that has caused us much debate is the award of credit for a partial match on modules via RPL ie only a proportion of the learning outcomes from a module are claimed by the student. One view is that the raft of a student's learning from (work) experience should not be expected to match the way we decided to wrap up the learning in a module. The other side of the coin is that the academic experience of a module is considered to be self contained in terms of learning outcomes and assessments. So at present we only award credit where the RPL portfolio/reflective commentary shows a match on complete modules.

In conclusion -For a public sector institution our charging system appears to work and I believe it to be equitable to our students, but you may know different.

-On matching onto modules I'm aware that 'unmatched' RPL takes place eg admission requirements to post-experience professional programmes such as nursing; teacher training. I'm interested in models here, anyone.

Also -I think something needs to be said about government financial support for institutions offering credit for RPL. In the public sector student fees cannot be the sole source of income for this (expensive) activity and I hope to post some observations on this in a further paper.

Mike McDonagh Director, CAT Framework Napier University, Edinburgh Scotland 6 August 1996

* As this is about money, the many lochs in Scotland were made by Scotsmen searching for their pennies. I'm sure you wished to know this.

PAPER 2: RPL CREDIT AND STATE FUNDING

I'm indebted to Dr Bill Harvey, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) for reading this paper and helping me clarify some of my thoughts.

Paul West introducing the RPL Conference indicates that the objectives of the conference include the collection of information on RPL for South Africa. In this posting I'm interested to share some of my understanding from the UK on potential agreements for state funding of credit for FE/HE institutions and how this might relate to RPL. This paper is intended to complement my earlier posting on student fees for RPL.

In his paper "I see you", Mike Lenaghan tells of many individuals with a wealth of experience in South Africa but that a mechanism for the recognition of learning from experience is not in place. It is to be hoped that an opportunity for individuals to participate in RPL will be developed so that successful assessment may be utilised to fulfil personal aspirations and advance careers. Also an educated and trained workforce must benefit society and it's economy.

My belief is that the award of credit for RPL should be seen as a mechanism for facilitating the development and use of RPL. Credit can be used to show the measurement of the assessed learning that has been achieved. The credit awarded to a successful individual does not have to lead to a qualification. It may be on a transcript which for example can be used in job application and/or transferred with an individual as he or she moves through FE/HE institutions internally or externally. Credit, of course, may be accumulated over time and go towards a qualification.

Here I note that I have a small problem with the Herman Anderson's "African model for RPL" in that it is somewhat linear ie it appears for example that employment follows training. I would suggest these two can also be in tandem and RPL would take this into account. Also it appears from the suggested model that once the learning is assessed only then is it mapped onto NFQ's but, as far as the individual is concerned, I would have thought potential mapping on to NFQ's would be attempted at the start of the RPL procedure. It seems unlikely to me that individuals will wish to spend time having their learning assessed only to find out that it doesn't map onto some recognised qualification*.

As to funding, again from Mike's paper "I see you" I infer that there is a (large) potential market in South Africa for RPL. However students may not be necessarily be able to pay full cost fees for their RPL rather this activity will be in the public sector and it will require government support. That is, while students may be expected to pay an equitable fee, government will need to resource FE/HE institutions on some sort of pro-rata basis.

A method of institutional funding that has been explored in the UK for HE students, with a greater or lesser degree of success, is government funding by credit. In Wales the Welsh HE funding body decided last session to fund part-time courses run by HE institutions strictly by credits being studied. This mechanism also was looked at by the Scottish HE funding body for all modes of study but was for the meantime rejected as being simply too difficult to implement. Any country thinking of using a funding per credit mechanism may find itself and its FE/HE institutions facing some tricky issues including:

-how do FE/HE institutions make their administrative systems robust enough to cope with many students so that there is correct reporting from FE/HE institutions to a central funding body?

-how do institutions deal with vagaries of RPL students who would drift in and out of an academic system which is perhaps run on an annual cycle (financial, matriculation, assessment schemes, etc)?

-if the credit is not quantifiable at the start of an RPL experience (ie unmatched credit) how do institutions deal with this?

-what sort of credit are we talking about anyway? Is it enrolled/matriculated students studying for credit by RPL? (If so, I'll gladly enrol as many students as I can in order to get the funding into my credit framework and a central funding body won't like that!)

- an alternative is funding is by output credit ie there's only funding where the students achieve the credit they attempt. Central funding bodies love this one. FE in England is output funded at present. The challenges are: how do we inspect student potential and will we start raising barriers to access? What sort of slippery slope is this for discriminating against potential developing learners? Do institutions wait for retrospective resourcing and/or do we have put up with clawback mechanisms at the end of an academic session? How do institutions organise their support systems to see students successfully through their learning?

Concluding remarks: Credit may be used to give measurement to assessed learning both formal or informal; it may be moved from place to place; it may be accumulated; it may be used to gain a qualification. Credit is a mechanism of considerable advantage to the individual and also to the state. Countries have to decide for themselves their own national priorities for credit. Scotland and Wales have already done so, the rest of the UK is in the process. However any state funding body decisions relating to credit must carefully take into account the implications for FE/HE institutional mechanisms and their students.

Mike McDonagh Director, CAT Framework Napier University Edinburgh, Scotland

13 August 1996

*I appreciate it is difficult to demonstrate complicated schemes two dimensionally. Also if the rpl conference machine has been playing up I may not have got all the associated documentation with the attached file containing the model.

1