Teetering on the edge: Policy and practice of extended degrees in he sector

1. Teetering on the edge: Policy and practice of extended degrees in he sector Jacqui Mitchell – Lecturer - School of Humanities and Social Sciences

2. My background • Mature student • Left school at 16 without qualifications – 47% of young people did so in 1970 – DfES 2002 • Working class background • Lived in area with strong grammar school sector and shinny new secondary modern school • Attracted to Critical Theory – Marxist scholarship – intellectual discipline ‘Political Economy’ - area of study - ‘sport and technology’ • Victim of ‘social function of elimination’ (Bourdieu 1977) and ‘classification by examination–’ (Foucault 1977) • ‘Insider’ (Robson 1993) piece of research • Commitment to access initiatives • See education as a political process

3. Aims of this workshop: • To discuss what are Extended Degrees? • To consider the history and context of their introduction in the sector • Present initial findings from Case Study • Discussion the future of Extended Degrees

4. Martin Trow – Critical Theorist “There is hardly any issue in higher education that can be approached through the perspective of access, and in a way that has the advantage the links and connections among different element of higher educational systems.” Trow, M. (1981) ‘Comparative perspectives on Access’ in Fulton, O, (ed) (1989) Access to Higher Education

5. What are Extended Degrees? • Four year programme of study worth 480 credits • 1st year of Extended Degree at pre-degree level – Level 0 • For students who do not meet entry qualifications for Level 1 i.e., students: -without level 3 qualification - have mainly vocational level 3 qualifications - have qualifications in different subjects • Level 0 component has to be completed before proceeding to level 1 –i.e., no trailing of modules • More recently also known as ‘integrated degrees’ or ‘preliminary year by Russell Group or 1994 group • Mainly subject specific i.e. Extended Law or Psychology • Or Level 0 programme grouped around set of programmes • In-house or in collaboration with a local college

6. Why do we have Extended Degrees? • To offer an alternative route into HE for ‘under represented’ groups • Commitment to accessibility by institutions – i.e., social inclusion & social justice principles • Counter-hegemonic development i.e., accepting students without recognised academic qualifications (As FACE argued in 2006-11 HEFCE Strategic Plan Consultation response) and AOA have been arguing since 2005 – a move to a more universal system (Trow 1970; 1973) • Funding issues in FE – reduction in Access Courses • Became a recognised area of funding by HEFCE • Competition, especially in London between former polytechnics (Ainley et at 2002) • Creative and opportunist response to structural changes and funding issues in HE

7. What Extended Degrees are not: • A free standing Foundation Year that is a linked or closed programme of study i.e., Foundation Year - not regarded as HE course by HEFCE • A two year Foundation Degree • A Degree programme that extends upwards or is harder than normal! There is no definition of an Extended Degree on UCAS website or QAA guide to Academic Qualifications in UK

8. Extended Degrees aimed at: • Significant % proportion of students who enter this route who have had poor educational experiences or failed to engage at secondary level for a variety of reasons. • Therefore not students who have turned away from HE under Widening Participation discourse but part of a group that were excluded from HE because of low educational achievement – i.e., part of a Widening Access discourse. For example: • Only 18% of young people from manual or unskilled backgrounds gain 2 A-levels by age 18 (Gorad 2007) • 11.5 % of 16 -24 year olds leave school without qualifications (2009 ucu.org.uk) = different and unique audience

9. Research questions • How do Extended Degrees relate to the HE sector as a whole and widening participation/access initiatives specifically? • What are the perceptions of the academic staff working on Extended Degrees and Senior Managers of the role of Extended Degrees within the institution and the students that take them? • Case Study which involved: documentary analysis, questionnaires, interviews, quantitative analysis of progression and retention

10. Literature Review – Key themes • Theoretical framework – Critical Theory - Brookfield, Burke and Trow • Framing of debate about the role of HE and its occupants still on elite terms despite growing diversity of provision and students • WA or WP students labelled as ‘inferior’ (Burke 2002) or a ‘problem’ (McDonald & Strata 2001) • ‘No clear or shared meaning of WA or WP’ (Gorad 2007) • AOA recommends that ‘simply improving A – Level attainment alone is not sufficient with regards to access – more alternative pathways into HE needed (2005) • Tribal Report ‘Unfinished Business in Widening Participation’ (2008) acknowledged 3 year gold standard elite model of HE is most common model for policy makers and employers - BUT most HE now students study outside this model i.e., not at elite institutions or part-time etc. • ....and that post 1992 institutions that offer Extended Degrees are ‘disadvantaged themselves’ funding wise (Tribal Report 2008)

11. Findings – Documentary analysis ? SILENCE Not discussed at macro levels in policy documents at HEFCE, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or its predecessor, Department for Education and Skills, – despite discussing Access Courses and general expansion in sector.

12. Findings – Post 1992 University and FE College – Documentary analysis • Corporate Plan states: Commitment to Widening Access for mature, minority ethnic students and those without conventional qualifications and expresses a desire to help these learners succeed. Also wants to identify examples of good practice in this area. • School A’s Extended Degree Programme rated by students as one of the most successful programmes for teaching and learning & programme organisation in the university 2005-8 ...But Extended Degrees not feature in recent 2005 Self Evaluation Document for an Institutional Audit or Access Agreement for 2007 as an example of good practice or widening participation.

13. Post 1992 University and FE College – Documentary analysis • Funding received in School same for Level O as Levels 1-3 • Little evidence of institutional change in relation to recognising needs of this group of students • No institutional steer in the beginning – more localised initiative – developed within university not top down initiative such as Foundation Degrees • Later all programmes that were under recruiting asked to offer Extended Degree by institution and attempts to standardise entry requirements started as 40 UCAS points now 100 required • Programme started by being delivered at university and local college • Students expressed preference to study at university –FE staff came to the university to deliver modules –  FE into HE not HE into FE.

14. Findings – Questionnaires • FE staff felt more supported working on Level 0 by their institution than HE staff • Most felt more confident about teaching experience to deliver curriculum to diverse group of students but FE tutors more confident than HE tutors • All staff wanted to be more involved in decisions about delivery design – felt senior managers at both institutions discussed this without their involvement • For FE college was sense of prestige being involved in HE – increased reputational range and for individual tutors sense of having something to offer • HE staff more cynical about School /University involvement but all expressed commitment to WP/WA initiatives • Some expressed concern that timetable was too short to meet needs of students • FE staff found pressure of marking difficult at times and felt that they were not appreciated by University • Reason for success - Support built into programme design, committed and motivating staff

15. Findings – Interviews with staff • Tutors working on programme felt other staff viewed programme as for ‘failing’ students • Any access initiative must involve all staff and be widely promoted and celebrated • Needs to be more systematic way of tracking and monitoring performance of students • Need to find a way to measure how an institution seeks to meet the teaching and learning needs of its students i.e. More ring fenced or targeting of funds to support students within institutions • Need to find a way to measure the relative status of institutions in relation to meeting needs of students – added value

16. Findings – from Literature Review and Research HE now a disembodied discourse (Kettley 2007) – i.e., “does not reflect what potential entrants, undergraduates and universities actually do.” • Internally diverse cultures within institutions - staff and students • Students present with a range of educational profiles outside traditional model of a student • Should not be using qualifications alone to decide who should enter HE – need more holistic approach – potential more important • Staff often part-time or hourly paid or from partnership colleges – i.e., on margins of academic community and institutional power • ‘Under the radar’ (Senior Manager quote)– bottom up initiative From own observations from working on the programme: • Proportion of students described feeling of fear as part of their previous educational experience • Proportion of students had been bullied • Significant % did not want to set foot in a school or college again

17. Challenges identified in research • Traditional university funding model based on students ready for university i.e., for levels 1-3 – not Level 0 • Level 0 often forgotten within policy decisions and internal documentation • Inflexible timetables and assessment regulations • Educational needs greater • Pedagogic design requires extra resourcing - hard to keep fighting for by those involved with programme • More flexibility needed with regard to the curriculum and assessment – rigid regulations • Implications for students of a further year of debt • Impact on League Tables for an institution when taking students with low UCAS points • Higher risk group for retention and completion • Retention issues often linked to financial, personal or social problems not educational – 50% pass rate – some students take 2 years just to complete Level

18. Recommendations • Need to have an institutional discussion about what is WP and WA. • Need to find a way to measure how an institution seeks to meet the teaching and learning needs of under-represented students on programmes such as Level 0 • Need to find a way to measure the relative status of institutions in relation to meeting needs of under-represented students on Programmes such as Level 0 • More ring fenced or targeting of funds to support under-represented students • Framing of the debate about the role of HE and its occupants still on elite terms despite growing diversity of provision and students and staff

19. Discussion • Why don’t Extended Degrees feature more in discourses about access to HE?