Universities’ domination of FE-HE partnerships must end

When it comes to partnerships between universities and further education colleges, the English context has become considerably more complex over the past few years.

Ongoing changes to higher education regulation, funding and policy come on top of ferocious competition for students and a demand from industry for higher-level skills. All of this is driving a need to redefine traditional relationships, in which the balance of power has been weighted towards universities.

As the head of a college that offers a range of higher education courses (all validated by partner universities), I have broad experience of FE-HE partnerships. I understand that universities have generally been perceived as the party taking the reputational risk. This is because they have to trust the college to successfully deliver the qualifications that they, as the ones with the degree-awarding powers, will ultimately validate.

For many universities, this is a risk worth taking – but only on the understanding that they are the ones leading the partnership. This isn’t surprising given the fundamental importance of reputation to an institution’s continued success. And it is also true that colleges’ reputations can themselves derive a boost from a university partnership – which can strengthen recruitment, retention and overall success across their whole portfolio. In addition, a strong and committed university partner can bring specialist expertise, knowledge and support, as well as access to high-quality resources for both the college and its students. But the perception that the FE college somehow brings less to the table is outdated.

Colleges provide extensive benefits to universities, particularly as we move into an overwhelmingly skills-focused economy. They are agile and employer-responsive, able to get awards and courses to market much more quickly than many universities can. Our strong, ongoing relationships with local and regional employers can also be of real benefit to our university partners.   

As the Augar report rightly highlighted, post-18 education needs to benefit society, individuals and the economy. The system must be forward-looking, providing people from all backgrounds with the opportunity to access it. Strengthening skills and technical education was one of Augar’s key proposals.

Vocational qualifications at levels 4, 5 and 6 are therefore going to be a crucial element of future higher education provision – and colleges are well positioned to offer such higher-level skills training. We are also experts in widening participation, by way of part- and full-time delivery models, lower fees and more flexible entry requirements.

As well as being essential to meeting industry’s needs, attracting more diverse cohorts of learners will boost university recruitment. Partnering with a college can provide a pipeline of students progressing on to higher-level courses at the university. This reduces the need for the university to spend large amounts of money on marketing.

As with all partnerships, some are more successful than others. Most are purely transactional relationships, focused on numbers. The better ones are those in which the partners support one another’s growth and are well aligned strategically. If both have an authentic commitment to local, place-based growth, they can achieve a far greater impact in terms of social mobility and improving lives than they could on their own.

Yet while partnerships will continue to be as important as ever, there is also a case for colleges to be freed up to do more under their own steam. Allowing colleges to apply for their own foundation and taught degree awarding powers would boost parity of esteem in HE-FE partnerships by improving quality assurance, raising the profile and strengthening the reputation of HE in FE.   

Currently, many colleges – mine included – find themselves in a chicken-and-egg situation. Achieving degree-awarding powers requires colleges to reach a certain capacity and volume of students. Yet with universities controlling the relationships and, therefore, student numbers, we remain in a static, somewhat powerless position.   

Our situation is not likely to be helped by the Office for Students’ proposal that a revised teaching excellence framework should include baseline requirements for quality and standards. We all want high standards, but the OfS must take into account valid concerns about inclusive providers potentially being penalised – and the negative effect this would have on FE-HE partnerships. Universities may well end up cherry-picking the highest-achieving students to meet the targets, dramatically reducing accessible pathways and participation. 

Further education colleges must develop a better understanding of what universities want and need: a high-quality, responsive and well-regarded partner, with access to pipelines of motivated students and networks of employers. But universities must also properly recognise the value of all that.

Every college-university relationship must be viewed as the mutually beneficial arrangement it genuinely is – with the shared aim to deliver skills, knowledge and social value. It is clear we can achieve so much more together, but the time for equal partnerships has well and truly arrived.

Sam Parrett is CEO of the London and South-East Education Group.