Progression and fair access to higher education in the creative industries sector

In this chapter, I will be arguing that the relationships between further and higher education institutions can be crucial in either promoting fair access to higher education or reinforcing the barriers that limit opportunities for progression through vocational routes. I will be introducing some of the policy initiatives targeted at enhancing fair access and analysing how the principles of fair access described within the Schwartz Report (September 2004) are constructed to reinforce the institutional autonomy of Universities in determining what constitutes ‘merit and potential’. I will then describe how the use of progression accords can establish constructive relationships between further and higher education institutions to promote wider understanding and recognition of vocational qualifications. In particular, I will be describing an example of the positive impact of the introduction of progression accords in the creative industries sector in the East of England

The creative disruption of degree apprenticeships in the UK

The introduction of an apprenticeship levy for employers with a payroll above £3m in 2017 has transformed the landscape for higher-level skills in the UK. While there is some evidence of the economic benefits of higher education, it seems to be largely operating to reproduce economic position rather than as an agent of social mobility. At the same time, UK employers have made it clear that graduates do not possess the range of skills that they require and yet have a poor record of investing in the development of their employees. In this problematized context, degree apprenticeships can operate to creatively disrupt our understanding of the relationship between higher education and work. Assumptions about the presumed differences between academic and professional standards, knowledge and competence, on-and-off-the-job learning are all challenged by the introduction of degree apprenticeships. Can universities overcome these challenges to rethink the role of higher education as the worlds of work and learning align

Maximising employer-responsive progression through organisational development

In this chapter I will provide a brief overview of Middlesex University’s approach to the accreditation of ‘in-house’ organisational training and will describe how this, together with the University Work Based Learning Framework and organisational development consultancy services, have provided an effective model for developing employer-responsive provision. I will also describe how this approach has provided a means of establishing ‘in-kind’ employer contributions that lower the cost of delivery of higher education in the context of the HEFCE co-funding initiative. I will primarily be focusing on a case study example of collaborative organisational development between Middlesex University and Halifax Community Bank (part of the Lloyds Banking Group)

What are the barriers to establishing effective diploma progression pathways.

This paper outlines some of the risks to the effective implementation of Diplomas and seeks to promote discussion concerning existing practice based experience. The risks identified include limited recognition of the Diploma as an equivalent entry qualification to HE and limited engagement in the development of Diplomas by the HE sector. The paper describes some of the ways in which Lifelong Learning Networks can address these risks focusing on the benefits of introducing progression accords. A range of case study examples are provided to stimulate further discussion of how progression accords could be implemented in a variety of higher education contexts

Why co-design and delivery is ‘a no brainer’ for higher and degree apprenticeship policy

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contend that collaboration between employers and universities in the design and delivery of programmes of work-based study is an effective way to align the higher-level skills needs of employers with the aspirations of individuals who wish to gain university qualifications in the workplace. In mapping the fluctuations of UK higher-level skills policy through workforce development to degree apprenticeships it is argued that the facility for employers and universities to co-design and develop degree apprenticeship standards should be extended to the development of Higher Apprenticeships in England. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an analysis of a broad range of higher education (HE) skills related UK policy documents to map the fluctuations in policy that underpin the opportunities for employers and universities to collaborate in the design and delivery of HE programmes in England, including degree apprenticeships. Findings – It is noted that the approach to collaborative employer-university development signalled for degree apprenticeships described in policy documents unhelpfully perpetuates the presumed distinction between “academic learning” and “on the job training”. However, it is also concluded that despite this, the rationale for co-design and delivery should equally apply to the development of all higher apprenticeships to ensure that the expertise that universities can bring in designing and assessing higher-level learning is not unnecessarily excluded from the process. Originality/value – This paper provides value through its analysis of how the fluctuations of HE and skills policy has affected the basis upon which employers and universities can collaborate in the design and delivery of work-based HE including higher and degree apprenticeships in England. It also seeks to inform HE policy and practice in the development of employer-responsive provision. Keywords: Workforce development, Work-based learning, Higher education policy, Employer-university collaboration, Higher and degree apprenticeships, Higher-level skills polic

The official discourse of fair access to higher education [article]

Despite significant public investment in the sector, selective universities in the UK have made little if any progress in widening participation over the last ten years. There are also increasing incentives for universities to become more selective in the context of government-driven higher education market competition. At the same time, while some universities may view the pursuit of academic excellence as incompatible with widening participation, key policy documents have consistently included descriptions of a variety of strategies designed to promote wider and fairer access. This paper is concerned with how the idea of fair access has been constructed within official higher education discourse. A method of ‘constructive description’ is employed to analyse the discursive strategies at play within selected governmental texts. The analysis indicates that the primacy of institutional autonomy in the official discourse of fair access operates to exclude descriptions of a ‘common currency’ of merit and potential, which may leave potentially unfair admissions practices unchallenged. The paper proposes a change in ‘mind set’ from universities operating as exclusive ‘gate keepers’ admitting students, to that of the inclusive recognition of applicants’ merit and potential. This may have significant implications for admissions policy, particularly in the light of the shift away from traditional models of funding towards empowering individual or employer ‘buyers’ in the higher education market.

Commodification and the official discourse of higher education.

The commodification of higher education has been described, within the philosophical and sociological literature, in opposition to, or in alliance with principled perspectives about the nature, purpose or value of ‘higher education’: for example, as that which is intrinsically valuable, a social good, a democratic requirement or an individual entitlement. This thesis argues that such approaches are relatively unproductive in providing descriptions that can inform higher education practice. Rather, it is argued, they largely seem to operate to reproduce the principled perspectives with which they are aligned or opposed. The thesis examines the following question: How do official texts that describe higher education, operate to (re)produce and/or resist the idea of its commodification? The methodology employed to examine this question, locates ‘official’ texts as empirical objects for analysis. The analysis proceeds by identifying and organising oppositions and alliances within these texts, to produce a constructive description of how each text is operating within the higher education field. Specific descriptions of higher education within official texts are analysed in relation to constructed theoretical spaces that describe modes of discursive action, including the commodified mode. The method provides a means of describing commodification as a discursive modality rather than as a representation of use-value/exchange-value or market/non-market type oppositions. This approach is productive in describing the ways that official texts operate to regulate higher education practice without reproducing a principled perspective. Despite some explicit references to the economic or commodity value of higher education, official texts tend to use such descriptions to promote the introduction or maintenance of bureaucratic and regulatory systems that actually stand in opposition to the commodified mode. This conclusion is in contrast with the idea that official descriptions of higher education are operating to promote increasing commodification

Maximising employer-responsive progression.

Middlesex University Accreditation Services and Work Based Learning Framework can be deployed to construct higher-level programmes in response to organisational workforce development strategies – including reference to a case study of collaborative partnership between Middlesex University and Halifax Community Bank

The unexpected benefits of reflection: a case study in university-business collaboration

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the development process and outcomes from a six-year collaboration between Halifax Bank (part of the Lloyds Banking Group) and Middlesex University between 2010 and 2016 in the UK. The collaboration involved the construction of work-integrated higher education programmes that were, from the outset, redicated on clear return on investment criteria for the Bank. One unexpected outcome from the collaboration was the emergence of critical reflection as a valued business benefit that, it is argued, has the potential for significant cultural change within the organisation. Design/methodology/approach – This case study discuses how “productive reflection” can lead to an integrated approach to organisational learning. The study is located in the context of Halifax’s specific organisational objectives established following the banking crash of 2008. Quantitative and qualitative evidence is considered to illustrate the extent to which the “return on investment” criteria established by Halifax have been achieved. Findings – The case study indicates that the challenging business context of the financial crash of 2008 provided the impetus for a sustained collaborative development that allowed the potential pitfalls of restricted learning opportunities to be addressed resulting in an integrated approach to organisational learning. In addition to the organisation’s return on investment criteria being met, there is evidence that the work-integrated approach has raised the prospect of productive reflection becoming part of an emerging learning culture. Originality/value – The scale and sustained period of the university-business collaboration is unique and provides valuable insight into how an organisation’s learning culture can be affected by a work-integrated approach. In demonstrating the perceived business value of productive reflection, the case presented illustrates how learning can start to become considered as a normal aspect of working life

Higher ambitions for fair access and work based learning.

This paper is concerned with the policy context of the idea of fair access to higher education. I argue that descriptions of this in official texts such as the Schwartz Report have operated to reinforce institutional autonomy in establishing how ‘fair access’ is constituted. Furthermore, that the lack of a ‘common currency’ for establishing fair access operates to legitimise reproductive methods of assessing merit and potential that are reliable but non-valid. I then recontextualise this analysis in consideration of how ‘fair access’ is constructed within the recent Department for Business, Innovation and Skills higher education strategy document Higher Ambitions. In particular, I focus on the description of work based learning as a means to provide more flexible routes into higher education. I argue that this description of work based learning also operates to reproduce a traditional model of higher education institutions as gate-keepers that determine what counts as fair access. I conclude by constructing a description of the recognition of work based learning as a reliable and valid mode of assessing merit and potential that is not in tension with institutional autonomy and is, as such, impartial