If you have a general point or comment to make about higher education which you feel cannot be made on any of the other pages given their topical focus please use the ‘leave a reply’ facility on this page to post and raise it.
Issues for discussion
- On-Line Higher Education Learning
- Intellectual Property and research benefits
- Demographic challenge facing higher education
- Research Careers
- Teaching and the Student Experience
- Part-time studies and Higher Education
- Understanding Higher Education Institutional Performance
- Academia and public policy making
- International issues in Higher Education
Archive of past discussions
- · Part-time studies in Higher Education (Archive)
- · Demographic challenge facing Higher Education (Archive)
- · Teaching and student experience (Archive)
- · International issues in Higher Education (Archive)
- · Intellectual property and research benefits (Archive)
- · Academia and public policy making (Archive)
- · Research careers (Archive)
- · Understanding institutional performance (Archive)
- · Higher Education in general (Archive)
Whilst fully supporting this exciting consultation I can’t help thinking that a general issue that needs to be considered alongside this, is the bottle neck of organisational infrastructures and the tensions that exist in areas relating to the quality and efficiency of processes, communication and collaboration, IT infrastructure, information quality and access, and poor decision-making processes.
A recent JISC infonet survey highlighted this issue:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/Home/news/stories/2008/07/strategyinfonet.aspx
All Government consultations are to be welcomed. But, in view of the past record of the Government in this area it’s just a little difficult, at this stage at least, to be optimistic about this one. We need to be cautious.
I know I’m not the only one who finds it seriously strange that Lifelong Learning is missing from the subject list here, and we can only hope that this will be remedied without delay. The status and meaning of so-called “ELQs”, along with the threats both to them and to nonvocational adult learners and the institutions that serve them, is one of the besetting issues in HE — it is, undeniably, an issue exercising huge numbers of people — and no government can command trust that appears to be shying away from fully open debate, including, of course, online debate, on these critical matters.
Also, as has frequently been observed, all too often DIUS and other Government consultation exercises have tended to ask only the questions to which the Government wishes to hear answers, which are by no means necessarily the questions that most people would wish to be asked and discussed. The recent consultation on “Informal Adult Learning” is an egregious case in point.
So, here is a direct challenge to the DIUS: create a subject heading on Lifelong Learning. In so doing, you will both provide a forum for voices that are clamouring to be heard and protect yourselves against the charge that you are content to trammel free and open democratic debate. Consultations must, after all, be real and inclusive, or they are not worthy of the name.
Well, this seems like a waste of someone’s time, given the level of responses you are getting.
Somebody in DIUS should take lessons in publicising Discussion Forums - oh, maybe they need lessons on what exactly IS a discussion forum.
And what point, exactly, is served by publishing massive pdfs of John Denham’s letters, but zero responses so far from the great and good who were asked by Mr Denham to pontificate??
I sincerely hope that this waste of internet space is not going to be cited as DIUS having ‘consulted with the community’. But then, it probably will.
Thank you for taking the time to post your comments. I would like to respond to some of what you say.
As you know the first part of the HE Debate process has been for DIUS to ask several external experts from the HE sector to provide contributions on a range of topics - their remit letters are posted on the DIUS website. The contributors are still working on their recommendations and DIUS will be publishing them in full in the early autumn.
When these contributions are published, all those who wish to have their say will be able to, and there will be a range of methods used to consult the public, including online discussions. We will ensure that we publicise these widely.
At the current stage in the process, we are also attempting to engage with the wider sector, through forums such as this - and we are grateful to JISC for hosting these initial discussions. The comments made at this stage will help DIUS as it prepares for the more formal and thorough consultation in the autumn, by highlighting any issues that have not been specifically addressed to date, and can be looked at in detail in the autumn. Our aim is to ensure that the autumn consultation is as effective as it can be.
Should you have any further thoughts or questions please feel free to email me at: vincent.mcgovern@dius.gsi.gov.uk
I agree with everything Michael Ayton has said. It’s vital to have a lifelong learning section, the issue of ELQ’s is far from over and this would be a perfect place for people to air their views and for the government to take heed. Of course I realise they didn’t take heed of the select committee and the majority of those who felt that taking money away from ELQ’s was a bad idea but you never know, perhaps if it keeps being said, someone might one day listen to what the electorate want, after all they are the ones who vote the government in and ‘out’.
Michael: thanks for raising the very important lifelong learning question again.
Richard: I see your point but let’s try and get this JISC forum moving as well.
Vincent: Many thanks for the explanation. As the London (June 2007) meeting of the Bologna Process group concluded with a commitment to lifelong learning, let’s hope the UK can show its commitment in practice. I have written the argument for lifelong learning for all elsewhere and will spare you here as readers on this site can probably recite their own well-rehearsed litanies. Suffice it to say, dip-in, dip-out, progressive and/or discontinuous learning for everyone whether employed or not is both an economic and a social good. PhDs in Computer Sciences may need entry-level French or Art just as much as AB Nogrades requires some sort of qualification or AB SkilledEmployed wants to so some academic research and get credit for that.
I have experience of several government consultation exercises and they all follow a similar pattern - government makes proposal, consultation identifies proposal is flawed and unwanted, government puts proposal into effect, initiative proves unpopular and ineffective, government tries to reverse proposal without losing face, government loses credibility, people’s quality of life reduced by government error. If the government fails to listen to those it consults with it should not be too surprised when its natural supporters (whose voices were ignored) do not vote for it at the next election. I do not understand why government does not listen. Is it just arrogance?
I agree with everything Linda is saying. I am not presently in work and do some studying to keep my brain active. I want to further the other degree I am working on as well when I finish the Literature one.
Believe me though, the courses I am doing are stopping me feeling the way I was about 3 years ago.
Thanks to all for your replies. I agree, the possibility of commenting after the autumn publications that Vincent mentions should in no way preclude there being a section on Lifelong Learning on this site. That there currently isn’t one is surely indicative. If this situation continues, obviously people will use this General board to put their points across, so I’d strongly suggest that a separate section be created. That would serve as a much-needed symbol that the Government is at least listening, especially after the deliberate closing down of the ELQ forum section on John Denham’s own website a few months ago.
Even without further consultation, however, as the posts from Gillian and Linda imply the Government must surely have realised by now how massively out of touch it has been on LL issues, particularly that of “ELQ”s. Essentially, it seems in danger of viewing all education not as most people do, i.e. as a whole thing first and an economic motor second, but rather purely instrumentally, as vocational “skills” acquisition. (Indeed, listening to Bill Rammell you often get the impression he actually thinks education IS vocational skills acquisition.) This simply is not how most people think or could think, yet the Government appears trapped in a bubble, unable to comprehend why its anti-ELQ plans have aroused such near-universal and passionate opposition. Thus Ruth Thompson, in a recent email to me, could write that “the Government would by and large share [our] vision” regarding the real, broader aims of education, whereas the truth is that only someone careless of those aims could possibly have conceived the assault on ELQs — to say nothing of the recent plans sharply to divide “informal” (i.e. non-vocational) learning off from the “other” sort, with their obvious confusion between actual (classroom-based or other) learning and mere “triggers” to learning such as visiting internet sites.
Let us hope that the existence of this board and the September publications shows, unlike the recent response to the Select Committee, that the Government is prepared to change its approach. The Tories, it should be noted, are on the case here. In several speeches and statements now, John Hayes has shown that he and his Party understand the wholler view, and the destructiveness that desertion of it is potentially set to cause. I write this as, personally, a non-Tory, but I know I’m not alone in feeling strongly that in these matters, “handsome is as handsome does”. Here as in so many other areas, the Government simply cannot afford not to listen.
Michael, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the negative effect of the instrumentalist approach that currently dominates education policy. I’m not sure that a separate category for lifelong learning is quite right although I see where you are coming from. I’m not sure about the etiquette of cross-linking blogs so if the Moderator eats this I shall not be surprised. I put my strong opinion on my own blog and linked it to here so that those interested could follow up. (www.learningandqualifications.wordpress.com)
Gillian, I disagree that a lifelong learning section within this blog is not necessary. The decision the government made to take money away from the ELQ’s was universally blasted by students, tutors and industry and a lot of MP’s. The government went ahead anyway in the face of all that, the ramifications are beginning to hit home, and we must try as best we can to put a stop to the down slide of our higher education system. Of course people need qualifications for work, but another huge group of people actually physically need education to make their lives bearable. They are the long term mentally and physically ill or disabled and I can speak with some experience of this. Higher education, working towards a degree or a qualification gives some people’s lives meaning. They will suffer first, and most, when the amount of courses are decreased, tutors are laid off, and course prices are increased to cover all of the aforementioned, because a lot of disabled people will be in receipt of benefits and won’t be able to afford the increase.
Lifelong learning is also vital to us as a nation, to upskill or reskill, to keep up with those countries who don’t put a block on education once you reach a certain level.
Once the majority of ELQ’s have been shoved on the scrapheap, money will be tight for universities, they will cut courses, tutors and the first time buyers of education, who the government are supposedly trying to attract, will have less choice and will be paying more for it, thus it will mean that more people will pass it by, especially those the government bangs on about, the most disadvantaged, they will not want to commit themselves to massive debt to study a restricted amount of courses at probably restricted buildings as some universities may have to close which will mean students having to travel further from home, something many will find hard, if not impossible to manage financially.
It’s not a pretty sight, and that’s why we need to have a section here to discuss/debate lifelong learning. It’s more than a job to a lot of people, it’s their life, the government need to know that and it needs to reach a wider audience.
Hi Linda. We’re fighting the same cause but with different tactics. All I am saying is that lifelong learning should be at the absolute heart of education policy. If that were the case, then a separate section is not necessary. To me, it is indefensible that education appears to be a series of hurdles to be jumped in a set order by set ages and ‘too bad’ if the race does not fit your life. If the central mindset can be changed (and equality legislation should help), then the objective will be achieved in a way that endures.
As someone who has been commenting on these matters for about a year now I tend to agree with what has been said about the need for a Lifelong Learning section of this publication.
What the government are doing is fundamentally ignore the rights of the individual to make lifelong choices about their education. They have withdrawn money from the sector, with the broadbrush approach that, if you have done one course on Shakespeare in your lifetime, say, as part of your degree then you are not allowed to do another, unless you pay full price for it. The message the population will get from this is, that one size fits all. You only get once chance to do a degree which is subsidised, then full prices for all.
This avowed obligation on the part of the government to divest lifelong learning and ELQs of subsidy money will have a cascade effect elsewhere and university departments which were going to encourage widening participation will be closed down.
There is no evidence that the money diverted from elqs and lifelong learning will be used elsewhere to good purpose. This is something the government have been told again and again but they somehow seem to think they know better than all of us, including University Vice-Chancellors and academics who have been in the business for more than five minutes. Remember, governments come and go, as will this one.
In conclusion then, yes, to a section on elqs.
Gillian, we are indeed fighting for the same thing and I agree wholeheartedly that lifelong learning should be at the ‘heart of education policy’ but I fear it is not, and that’s why we have to highlight the issue here by having a separate section for it.
The government have effectively killed lifelong learning, in my opinion, learning/education only matters if there is a job at the end of it, a very laudable aim, but as we’ve seen on here so far, that’s nowhere near the whole picture and lifelong learning should not be allowed to be sidelined like this. As you say it should be at the heart of education policy, so lets make sure we put it back there, where it belongs.
Once we’ve done that, there will indeed, be no need for a separate section on blogs such as this.
Please listen to us and add the separate section for lifelong learning.
The difficulty with the government thinking that education equals jobs is that with the upcoming recession, there will be a downward pressure on job creation and expansion of the job market. Therefore there might not be the jobs for people to get. Having said that therefore, it would be wise to at least give people hope of reskilling during the recession. Taking money from ELQs will not do any such thing. What the government is doing is giving people no hope whatsoever, which is the finest recipe they could brew up for getting themselves out of office.
I would suggest therefore once again an elq section of this blog where such important matters could be discussed.
I am a ‘use case’ in the ELQ debate. I gained a very poor Maths degree (3rd) in 1981 (like many 18 year olds, I wasn’t really ready for tertiary education). I have since been working in the IT industry and have carved out a good career. However, although I receive a salary, the large part of the fruits of my labour go straight into the pockets of Company executives and American private capital investors. I have been a lifelong Labour voter and my politics have always been left of centre. I would prefer to work in an area which is of more benefit to my fellow citizens. When it looked like, a couple of years ago, the nuclear power generation industry was going to be given a much needed kick start by this government I enrolled with the OU both to update my (30 years old) Maths skills and take a Physics degree. This with a view to changing careers to work in the nuclear power generation industry. Two years in we get hit with this ELQ stuff.
My current employer is not going to pay for me to retrain away from their employment. My future employer will not be interested in me until I gain an appropriate degree. So it falls to me to pay the extra fees demanded by the government of people like me. It remains to be seen whether I will be able to afford the increased fees or whether I give up all hope of career change.
If we are to engage in a period of ramping up the commissioning of nuclear power stations where is the expertise going to come from ?
I can’t really add anything to what Gillian and Linda have put across so well, which is possibly why no others are joining in
So speaking only from a personal perspective, I for one am looking for a “broad education” rather than a specialist focus on one subject area, which is generally called for in post graduate study.
As someone working with young people I believe it is necessary to have a wider spectrum of skills and knowledge rather than specialist knowledge in one area. Because of the work I have been doing I am also interested in social psychology, biopsychology and sociology as well as my specialist curriculum subject area.
As a societal need I believe we need some people educated across a much broader knowledge base. This can only be achieved by allowing access to certificate/diploma/degree courses at the undergraduate level. Specialisms are all well and good but the breakthroughs and new innovations generally come from the bringing together of different disciplines - denying graduates and even PhDs the funding to bring a new focus to their work can only deter some from doing it - and who knows what we might lose.
We need to change minds somehow…
Great information! Thanks for writing this. It is an honor to participate in the discussion.
I fully agree with Sue Fewster. For this country to continue to be leaders in innovation and development, we need this mix of specialism and broader knowledge base (not forgetting skills). I guess a question begging here is, what is the right balance for these, taking into account individual requirements and the future needs of the UK? (not short term wants of groups, be they political or otherwise.)
The whole ELQ thing is based on a fundamental government mistake regarding the arguments they have put forward.
They maintain that the money siphoned off from the current ELQ budget will help 20,000 more first time buyers in HE get into education, yet have not offered proof of this assumption at any stage.
They maintain that there will be co-funding with employers, again without a shred of proof.
They have even maintained, at a meeting of the Open University Students Association in Milton Keynes, that nobody in the room would be affected by the ELQ situation.
In other words, tbeir whole argument is based on zero facts and a great deal of assumption. Possibly all this farce will be undone with the part-time gees review next year but my worry is that the government’s funding plans for elqs are based on nonsense and hot air at the present time.
I very much welcome and support the calls for discussion of Lifelong Learning whether in a section of its own, where the issue would get de facto recognition or, here, in the general section where perhaps more people will read it.
I thought that it might be helpful to look a little more closely, not at the likely results of the ELQ decision for Lifelong Learning, the evidence for which has already been pored over by the Select Committee, and which others have made useful comments about here but at the argument which is supposed to lie behind the decision.
DIUS has built its case for the ELQ decision wholly on a principle of fairness. This principle is held to be self-evident and attractive quite independently of any pragmatic issues.
The principle of fairness adduced is that:
It is unfair to provide public support to anyone seeking a second qualification, “equal or lower”, where (a) there exist suitably able individuals who haven’t any qualification and (b) public resources are limited.
It’s worth noting at this point that if one does find this principle self-evident, it is not clear why it should not be extended to higher qualifications too. The alleged unfairness to be corrected is the plight of the suitably able individuals who haven’t any higher qualifications. Whether that injustice has come about because of others seeking equal or lower qualifications or of seeking higher qualifications might seem by contrast a minor concern. But presumably the compensating advantage of having a publicly supported postgraduate system at all are supposed to outweigh the uncorrected unfairness.
Equally it is unclear why the principle should not be extended downwards. How can we justify public support for people seeking Higher Education qualifications, even for the first time, when others lack even basic literacy? Again, presumably, the compensating advantage of having a publicly supported university system at all might be supposed to outweigh the uncorrected unfairness.
What we learn from this is it might be unwise to follow a supposed self-evident principle of fairness because the compensating advantages of not doing so are too valuable to lose.
This aside, the ELQ decision is simply the result of applying the principle above to Higher Education. Arguably the principle had already been applied, if less explicitly, in Further Education.
What’s the connection between the concept of an ELQ and that of “Lifelong Learning”?
Since, a PhD is the highest qualification one can acquire it obviously not possible to go on acquiring “higher” qualifications throughout one’s life. That is why Lifelong Learning is never defined only in terms of vertical progression. If it were, it could not possibly be “lifelong”. Horizontal progression, reskilling, reimagining, reinventing are recognised by all to be key constituent concepts of the notion of Lifelong Learning.
Insofar as Lifelong Learning involves acquiring qualifications at all then, it must be and always has been understood as involving the acquiring of qualifications that are “lower or equal” than one already has but, of course, in other fields, subjects and skills. The phrase “ anyone seeking a second qualification, equal or lower, ” and “lifelong learner” are then in this context, synonyms.
We can therefore rephrase the DIUS principle as:
It is unfair to provide public support to anyone seeking qualification based lifelong learning, where (a) there exist suitably able individuals who haven’t any qualification and (b) public resources are limited
This then is the principle upon which the ELQ decision is based and which is being applied to Higher Education. But what follows from it? Consider:
(a) there have always have been and always will be suitably able individuals who haven’t any Higher Education qualification
(b) public resources have always been, are and always will be limited
These seem both to be true. It can be seen to follow that:
(c) public support for qualification based lifelong learning in Higher Education has been, is and always will be, in principle, unfair.
I suppose that most people will regard c) as
1. absurd in itself
2. in direct contradiction to everything politicians and civil servants have said about lifelong learning over the last several decades. It is, for example, hard to see how someone could espouse an argument which leads to c) and yet think it reasonable to have a Minister for Lifelong Learning. Or have a European process which has the idea of Lifelong Learning at its heart.
The lesson I, and many others have drawn, is that the principle of fairness from which conclusion c) follows must be simple-minded and specious. It depends upon the wholly artificial introduction of the idea of competition between two overlapping groups of students, both of whom are entirely deserving of public support, designates one group as the underdog and then takes against the other in order to give the false impression that a non-existent injustice has been heroically overcome.
All this is quite apart from the fact, as everyone except DIUS acknowledges, the effect of the ELQ policy will be damage the opportunities for first-time entrants too.
I would welcome comments from others, from DIUS, and in particular from the relevant Director General on what, if anything, is wrong with the analysis offered above.
But for now, the take home point is that the direct implication of the fairness principle upon which the ELQ decision is based is that Lifelong Learning, as a aspect of public life, should now be regarded as a form of social injustice. If DIUS really believe that then they should say so and have done with it.
I hope these thoughts have been helpful
An excellent demolition job, Ian! Everyone except the DIUS, it seems, can see how thoroughly illogical, indeed self-refuting, its anti-ELQ thinking is, even in its own disturbingly narrow terms – yet on it apparently ploughs. I doubt whether the DIUS will try to counter the charge of speciousness, simply because it cannot. You don’t have to be a philosopher to understand the incoherence of Bill Rammell’s ‘fairness’ nonsense, but it’s good to have it so comprehensively laid bare.
Even so, we must recognise that the fairness ‘argument’ is above all a mask anyway. Peel it away and what you immediately see is the argument from economic necessity - that the pot must be spent on creating more graduates to match the high-skilled economies of our international competitors. (When you ask the DIUS why such ‘competing’ requires the sacrificing of lifelong-learning courses now when it never has in the past, you get no answer.) Just occasionally, the mask slips and this is admitted, as in the recent response (itself an often-hilarious masterpiece of illogic) to the Select Committee report, which actually cites the economic argument before the specious ‘fairness’ one. More frequently, however, the Government just keeps clutching the mask back against its face, as if unaware of how many times it’s been pulled right off.
In a sense though - and this surely is the really crucial point - the economic competition argument is itself a mask. The Government has never denied that it was proposed originally that the funding for Bill Rammell’s first-time-learners scheme be raised by top-slicing. So far as I’m aware, no reason has ever been offered for why this course was rejected. We have had hints though, in the form of statements from Ruth Thompson and others that one of the motivations behind the removal of funding from ELQ courses is to ‘send a message’ that the system is changing radically. Ostensibly this might seem another amusing circularity (‘I’m denying you funding so as to give you the message that there’s no funding’), but in fact there is a very real message, encapsulated for instance in Anne Rogers’ admission to me (email, 16 August) that the Government’s ideological position vis-à-vis education is that ‘public funding in further education should go to courses which lead to recognised ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE [my caps] qualifications’. Statements like this hint at, without ever articulating quite explicitly, the cold rammellite philosophy we know from elsewhere: that education is now to be understood, in a startling inversion of traditional ideology, sensibility and social understanding, as an economic driver first, second and last, and as a whole thing scarcely at all - and furthermore that the system should be socially engineered until people’s understandings are changed and this has come about. Hence ‘no’ both to top-slicing and to answering the question ‘Why not top-slicing?’, but instead deliberate obstruction, and in some cases destruction, of traditional liberal institutions and learning channels.
Not just the aridity, but the arrogance of all this is frightening. There is zero evidence that the public thinks like Bill Rammell does, and a very great deal of evidence that it does not. Ironically, the Government is, of course, turning its back on a rich body of humane and truly egalitarian thinking on adult education contained in Labour’s own past, while it’s left to the Tories to assert the wholler view as they begin (so it would appear) to rediscover some of their pre-Thatcherite roots.
So yes, I’d join with Ian in calling for the Government, unless it can admit the incoherence of its thinking, to state honestly that it believes lifelong learning to be a form of social injustice. Let it be honest about its fundamental ideological position on education, as up till now it has not been. Above all, let us hear no more of fairness from a Government which, on the basis of funding cuts stemming at root from a wholly unwanted and alarmingly shallow ideology, is intent upon denying educational chances to thousands upon thousands of entirely deserving lifelong learners.
I really dont know what the government means by economically valuable qualifications. Perhaps it would like to consider cases like mine, where despite obtaining an Honours Degree in Accounting and an Open University Diploma in English Law, I was never able to find a suitable job in which to use these qualifications, including teaching, for which I applied a number of times.
Having educated myself all my life, I constantly find myself stymied by the system. Being asked to believe that qualifications are an economic driver after reading that this economy is now flat-lining is just too laughable for words.
This government is truly a fairytale organisation; it fascinates me how it just keeps on believing its own propaganda.
Picking up on the point from Sue Fewster about personal perspectives, that’s a very valid way of getting the point across. So much has been said about the mechanics of what’s happening and why, and that’s great, but we also need to know how it affects those on the ground, the students.
I know of many students who say that without their studies their lives would be very empty indeed. They are restricted in what they can physically do, so studying opens up the world to them, it gives their lives meaning, something to get up in the mornings for, a social network of others in the same situation and something to work towards.
For others it’s the joy of gaining knowledge, of achieving something, of enjoying something, of feeling uplifted by the very love of learning, I would beg that the government doesn’t take this away from us.
There are many many more examples of why ‘lifelong’ learning should mean just that, life long.
I thought it might be valuable to highlight this Mortarboard blog by Anthea Lipsett.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2008/aug/28/highereducation.research
Anthea outlines a couple of areas which aren’t included in this DIUS blog but omits to mention lifelong learning. As this is fundamental to higher education perhaps she could add it to one of her future blogs. Thank you Anthea.
Quite rightly colleagues have raised the issue of lifelong learning, which should be given a separate discussion area. I would like to suggest two other areas which could benefit from consultation and discussion. First, assessment and grading in h.e. The Dearing Report questioned the fitness for purpose of the UK h.e. honours system, and the work by the Burgess Group (Measuring and recording student achievement, 2004, and Beyond the honours degree classification: Burgess Group Final Report, October 2007 - see at http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/Burgess_final.pdf) concluded that reform is necessary and overdue but that “establishing a replacement system for the current honours degree classification would be fraught with critical dangers that should be explored, and tested in more detail before any radical change was made.” and hence recommended “a stage of detailed exploration, development and testing to be carried out in parallel with the existing honours degree classification system over the next four years.” Clearly this is an area that the DIUS needs to examine, and gain from practitioners, such as those responding to this blog, critical and informed comment.
The other area which I should feel should be explored is academic freedom. My study of the legal protection for academic freedom in Europe (see at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/v20/n3/full/8300159a.html) showed that the protection for academic freedom in the UK was the lowest in the EU states. In 1988 the Education Reform Act in the UK removed academic tenure and led to reform of the university system, with governance along managerial lines. The net result has been a decline in academic freedom, worsening industrial relations in academia, and subsequent lower morale and higher stress. Surveying the outcomes of this reform, in Higher Education Quarterly, Shattock (2002) found: ‘little hard evidence that the new managerialism … has been particularly successful in delivering academic success’ and that ‘where improprieties and breakdowns have occurred, they have centred on governing bodies and the executive and not on the academic community. Indeed, in nearly all such cases … attention was drawn to the difficulties by concern in the academic community.’
Quite recently, some of the deplorable outcomes of the impact of the decline in academic freedom in the U.K. have started to come to light. Prof Geoffrey Alderman, the former chair of the academic council of the University of London, and Prof Roger Brown, the former chief executive of the U.K. Higher Education Quality Council argued in articles in the The Guardian that “There is evidence to show that that standards at British universities have deteriorated so much that only an independent inquiry will reassure the public”. They have written to Phil Willis, the chair of the influential House of Commons’ Universities Select Committee, to ask his committee to investigate. Willis has said questions over academics giving students higher degree grades than they deserve is tantamount to fraud. According to the BBC, Willis will ask the committee to investigate claims that foreign students gain qualifications despite having a poor grasp of English. (see at http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2287492,00.html and at http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2287650,00.html).
In addition on the 17 June 2008 the BBC Website featured an article entitled “Whistleblower Warning on Degrees”, in which a UK academic at a world-famous UK university, stated that postgraduate degrees are awarded to students lacking in the most basic language skills (See at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7358528.stm). Following from this article, the BBC received hundreds of emails from students and academics at other universities confirming that this practice was widespread (see at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7458723.stm). However as was reported in a subsequent BBC article: “Students: Customers or learners?” (see at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7466279.stm) most of the academics who reported this academic corruption to the BBC had to do so anonymously, as they do not have tenure, and hence do not have academic freedom and were afraid to speak out freely about the decline in standards.
In Denmark, as a result of my research, the Dansk Magisterforening (the academic professional association) is preparing to petition UNESCO on the grounds that the Danish University Act of 2003 (and its negative implications for academic freedom - specifically freedom of research - institutional autonomy, institutional accountability, and collegiality and governance rights) contravenes the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel to which the Danish Government was a signatory, and there is currently an online petition to demand a better research and education policy (at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/for-en-bedre-forskningspolitik.html) which has been signed by over 4500 Danish academics. As the UK also signed the UNESCO protocol, it is worth asking why it has not been implemented in the UK.
In a speech on 27th November 2007, (see at: http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/rammell_fabiansociety_271107.html) Bill Rammell reported that “the Prime Minister called on John Denham, and me as a minister, to invite the university sector to lead a debate on how we maintain academic freedom.” In order for such a debate to take place in line with the P.M.’s wishes, surely the topic of academic freedom needs a separate place on blogs such as this?
I’ve spent a little while on the internet and have found many sites advocating lifelong learning, I’ve added some quotes and links here. The last link stands in stark contrast to the rest.
The penultimate clipping is from an article in the U3A News magazine, by Peter Kingston. The thrust of his argument is how the Labour government have changed direction from education, education, education to employability and upskilling.
http://learningandqualifications.wordpress.com/
The forlorn who await their damson crop in vain are those who learn a skill or a tick-box competence in isolation, never linking it to other skills nor seeing the wider context. Those who transfer their attentions to more successful harvests, this year’s ‘apples’ and ‘blackberries’, have transferable skills that allow them to recognise similarities in fruit and employ slightly adapted processes to make worthwhile products. For that to occur, the education ‘farmer’ needs to sow and nurture curiosity, experience, creativity, reflection not just this year but every year, from pre-school to extreme old age.
http://www.niace.org.uk/organisation/
There is now solid evidence that learning is good for your health, your self-esteem and your employability.
http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/?lang=en
The Welsh Assembly Government wants Wales to be a learning country, where high quality lifelong learning helps people to reach their goals. Lifelong learning creates better opportunities, empowers communities and helps to provide the jobs and skills that people need. Lifelong learning will help to bring a bright and sustainable future to the people of Wales.
The next section comes from an article in the U3A News; sorry I don’t have a link for it. Author is Peter Kingston.
As Blunkett said: “Learning offers excitement and the opportunity for discovery. It stimulates inquiring minds and nourishes our souls.”
The “vision of the Learning Age” is “about more than employment,” said New Labour’s first education secretary in 1997.
Which quickly changed to this:
From now on employability and “upskilling” were to be the goals of government adult education policy.
If people wanted to do floristry or painting, they would have to pay more for them. The government made clear that it would be reducing the proportion of public subsidy on evening classes.
After the first two years of fee increases there were 1.4 million fewer people taking part, according to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/95085/Alan_Johnson_second_speech.pdf
Alan Johnson, the then education secretary:
“more plumbing, less Pilates; Tai chi may be hugely valuable to people studying it, but it’s of little value to the economy”.
We have to listen to those who are passionate about lifelong learning, listen to their arguments, they make sense, you only have to read the comments above to see that.
We need education, knowledge, aspirations, hopes, goals, pleasure and enjoyment in our achievements not only for ourselves, but for our communities and our society.
We need lifelong learning.
May I suggest that contributers to this discussion read David Willet’s speech at http://www.davidwilletts.co.uk/2008/09/10/universities-funding-fees/
Relevant to recent discussion here is this section:
Part-time and mature students
The £100m cut in funding for second-chance students was first announced a year ago this week. Over the past 12 months, it has caused deep unhappiness and this is one of the reasons why we called a parliamentary debate on this specific subject earlier in the year. It is an injury universities have not forgotten. We want to see more part-time students. We want to see more mature students. And we want to see people given a second chance. So this cut in funding is the wrong policy at the wrong time.
I hope to see more people going to university in the future. That may be more 18 to 21 year olds with good A-Levels - that would be great. In a modern society more and more people expect to go to university. But it is just as likely that in future the growth will be from older and part-time students who missed out first-time round or who did a course that just did not meet their current needs and aspirations. High on the agenda for the finance review must therefore be a fairer deal for them.
Like the 50% target, the ELQ cut reflects the Government’s obsession with young people above all others. This might have played well in the heady days of Cool Britannia but the ELQ policy undermines the campaign to promote lifelong learning. And it also damages important professions, such as Pharmacy, and writes people off when they have more to give. The message ministers are sending out is: ‘If at first you don’t succeed, then you don’t succeed.’
One reason for the anger about the policy is that it was implemented in such a high-handed manner. A future Conservative government would seek to avoid such an approach. But it also opened up one of the worst injustices in our higher education system - the poor treatment of part-time and mature students. We cannot ignore this issue any longer. The current regime is indefensible.
We should not delude ourselves by thinking full equality between part-times students and full-time students is likely in the near future. It is not going to happen at a time of economic squeeze. But we must not let the best be the enemy of the good. There are other, more limited, steps we could take to produce a fairer regime.
This might mean reversing the ELQ cut. It could mean other ways of delivering better HEFCE support for mature and part-time students. It could mean offering some maintenance support to part-timers. This conference is an opportunity for you to tell us how you think this issue can best be tackled. What is the best way ahead? Are there other ideas that should be considered? Would a better part-time regime be cost effective by making part-time study more attractive compared to full-time study? We are looking at affordable ways to tackle this problem and are genuinely open to your ideas and views on this issue
I found this in the part time section of this blog and thought it would be better here.
http://hedebate.jiscinvolve.org/parttime-studies-in-he/#comment-242
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/23/accesstouniversity.universityfunding
I’ve pasted part of the article below.
“Another key way to broaden access and extend participation would be to encourage more part-time study and distance learning, for example among older learners. In contrast to the government’s £100m funding cut for second-chance students (so-called ELQs), this would particularly encourage students from non-traditional backgrounds. The current regime for part-time study is indefensible and many universities could do much more to improve their distance learning initiatives.
Full equality between part-time and full-time students, sadly, cannot be reached in the near future. But there are other, more limited, steps we could take to produce a fairer regime. This might mean reversing the ELQ cut. It could mean other ways of delivering better Hefce support for mature and part-time students. It could even mean offering some maintenance support to part-timers. We want to hear people’s views about the best way ahead because one thing is clear: our excellent HE sector and future potential students are ill-served by the current situation”.
David Willetts wants to hear our views for the best way ahead, so lets air them here. What better place?
Well thank you everyone- I am in the position of wanting /needing to return to University to get the qualifications to allow me to work again, and have just started attempting to plough through innumerable websites/helplines/info to see how on earth it might be possible to fund such studies- FINALLY I FIND I AM NOT ALONE IN FINDING THE SITUATON OF FUNDING PAINFUL!!
I am nowhere near as eloquent and well researched as everyone whose comments I have just read, but I can only wholeheartedly agree!
I have 10 years NHS (healthcare professional) experience, then stupidly gave it all up to relocate -to afford to have a family and look after my increasingly failing health/mobility- only to find that although the University I dream of attending would highly value my experince and skills, in order to build on ,update and send me off into my (very realistic and researched) new workplace, I may not get funded.
I have transferable skills, I have experience, I have motivation, I even have potential childcare sorted, I have a realisitc view of the sort of job I want at the end of my studies( in inclusive education- valuable I hope!), but I may end up staying on tax credits as I dont have the training/qualifications to get such jobs therefore I cant provide the “evidence” to apply!
As Ian Ground said
“DIUS has built its case for the ELQ decision wholly on a principle of fairness. ”
Can anyone out there explain why it is so “fair” that I cannot study and work my way out of the minimum wage (barely coping with bills) hell I am in??
I do hope I am not held back by all the decisions I made at 18!!
There’s a foundational general issue concerning the meaning and purpose of Higher Education. It argues out the benefits to individuals and to the widest of social catchments, in providing to as many persons as can be given it, a faculty for thinking and deciding from a point of informed humane detachment.
‘Teach us to care and not to care; Teach us to sit still.’
To enter into such a place of vantage is being made harder for many people, most especially young people, who are caught between receiving training and being taught.
Without experiencing an untrammelled exposure to learning, to think through to an understanding of the difference between these things becomes formidible.
Learning at its best provides the intellectual freedom to consider and decide without a person necessarily being tied to considerations of immediate or obvious utility.
In this sense the object of a ‘fit for purpose’ education breaks down, and a broader more comprehensive outlook arises wherein a person is educated to enable him or her to understand how s/he is able to move ever-nearer to the ’sweetness and light’ of ’seeing the object as it really is’.
This way is a way of apprehending alternative ways of living, of addressing old and chronic problems with a clear perceptive and hopeful mind.