morungos

Vince Cable wants a revolution in UK (well, English, Welsh, and Northern Irish) post-16 education (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode...) and he's right, the system needs fixing. Unfortunately, the noises he is making imply further breakage is likely, and possibly even imminent.

In a former career, I worked occasionally handling university admissions. It could be a thankless task. Most cases were simple, but then you would get an out-of-the-blue message asking about movement from a Irish college to a Scottish university, often hoping not to have to start at the first year. In an age where student debt is an immense problem, expecting people to pay for an additional year of study (without a damn good reason) is not right. These barriers are real, and deserve to be swept away where they can be.

Whether they can be, is not simply down to government intervention. Many are established by professional accreditation, for instance, that requires that a qualification guarantees certain knowledge or skills, whatever path is followed to its completion.

In Scotland, we used the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, SCQF, for this. It maps out both FE and HE skills, and is relatively easy to use. It made it possible to build a 2+2 degree-link programme with a local college, so HND students could complete a degree with additional years. England, Wales and Northern Ireland had a similar framework, the NQF, looked after the the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, CQDA. CQDA was scrapped in May. Its framework was replaced by the Qualifications and Credit Framework, or QCF, and is now handled by Ofqual.

If you are confused by all these groups and acronyms, so am I. It is clear that there were too many groups involved. At least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, everyone had a better pattern of working together. The government has started of scrapping some of them, which may help, so long as someone actuyally takes this particular ball and starts running with it, using it to build a system that allows learners to move between institutions more effectively.

This will be a challenge, largely because of professional accreditation. A professional society will typically validate a degree based on a specified path. If someone joins the degree later on, the university administration needs to be able to prove that they have the same skills as they expected in validation.

In practice this is hard because of the already intensive nature of a three year degree. In these degrees, there are few electives and minor components (which are usually not an issue for validation) so there is an immense burden on students moving degrees. A two year degree programme would likely make things even worse, as there is even less room to move. Paradoxically, a four year degree may allow more movement (and this happens in Scotland, where four year degrees are more conventional).

So here is my radical proposal. If you really want to break the barriers between HE and FE, you can do a lot worse than following the Scottish pattern: four year degrees, following one year highers/A-level replacements, where virtually all degrees could be completed as 2+2 programmes with colleges. Also, ensure that degrees are validated to recognise movement from FE to HE with a sensible (two years completed) entry point. Often, we found ourselves required to offer even first-year entry, simply because certain specific skills could not be proven. This was based on the ridiculous assumption that a learner needed to prove they were in line with the validation requirements at every single stage of their degree, rather than at the end, when they have completed their assessments.

This would really energise the relations between FE and HE. Traditional HE could shrink, but that might not be a bad thing, as the per-capita funding could rise (more advanced tuition cost more to teach). Organisations like the Open University are better at large-scale education anyway. Some students may choose to take all study at a university. Others may not, or may want to explore their options, or reduce costs by taking college study locally, maybe working a little to build funds, before moving to a university. Basically, for 2+2 degrees, make the first two years locally taught, relatively cheap, and valuable in their own right -- or at least, make that an option.

Yes, this is much more similar to the North American model than I had expected. However, the Westminster government has really missed two key points. First, professional validation is key to many degrees, and is not open to government control. Second, reducing the duration of a degree also reduces the flexibility with which it can be delivered, which makes connection with between FE and HE harder rather than easier.

What this needs above all is an Ofqual with a drive and agenda. It has not shown itself to be that organisation. The SCQF was driven by all stakeholders, government (often directly), colleges and universities, the QAA in Scotland, and the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Ofqual is part of this, but it is a regulator not a leader. Hands-off management and regulation will not cut it. A leader is needed, but is it Vince Cable or David Willetts?