Posts Tagged ‘policy’

Post

Careering out of control

In Uncategorized on October 21, 2011 by Tessa Stone Tagged: ,

A shorter version of this post appeared in Times Higher Education.

Students at the heart of the system? Savvy market operators armed with the information they need to make informed judgements about which course at which institution offers the perfect balance of cost and benefit? For those working in the HE ‘Information, Advice and Guidance’ (IAG) business – be it charities like Brightside, or university outreach services – we know that the reality is almost laughably far from this. There’s more information available than you can shake a stick at; a core plank of the Government’s scheme to empower the student consumer is to ‘publish more raw information from universities than ever before’. Yet, what’s utterly unclear is what students are going to do with that information in the absence of any coherent delivery system for advice and guidance. Because, just at the moment when it really matters that we get this right, the plug has been pulled on all the support systems simultaneously.

I’m not just talking about the demise of Aimhigher here; although, since one obvious consequence of an HE ‘market’ is that institutions will prioritise marketing over altruistic outreach, a national infrastructure with an explicit, cross-sector widening participation remit might seem worth inventing. No, there’s another, parallel market being created that should arguably be causing as much concern.

The Education Bill, when it receives Royal Assent in November, will give schools a new statutory duty: to secure access to impartial and independent careers guidance for every pupil in years 9 to 11. They will assess their students’ needs, and then develop appropriate careers guidance provision which meets these needs in partnership with independent providers. In short, they will be individual procurers in an all new IAG ‘market’ – but one for which there is no ring-fenced budget, and no centrally provided rules of engagement.

This new duty won’t be enforced until September 2012 but, in the current vacuum, many Local Authorities have taken advantage of this transfer of duty by making Connexions staff redundant en masse. So, gone is an infrastructure into which something better could have been fitted, and gone are very many of the trained careers guidance professionals who ought to be the core of any new offering. And don’t be lulled into a false sense of security by talk of the National Careers Service, to be put in place by April 2012; that’s for adults. And while they’re an equally important group of ‘consumers’ for universities, the signs that HE IAG will be prioritised by this service aren’t good either.

So, the schools that already do this well will continue to give their students the enormous advantage that sound advice and guidance makes. For those without access to such advice, the gulf will widen further. Universities provide masses of advice already, yet coverage is not universal and the market imperative risks seeing focused recruitment trump broader outreach work. But this is a risk we must guard against. You’d expect someone like me, running a charity seeking to connect, inform and inspire more people to achieve their potential through education, to argue strongly in favour of maintaining the broadest possible approach. But in my experience most of the staff who have tirelessly delivered outreach over the last decade, much of it altruistic, share my concern and frustration at it being undermined.

Silver bullets there are none, but one smart approach that some of Brightside’s university partners are taking is to provide combined initiatives that speak to a number of priorities. We provide an e-mentoring service that universities (and others) can embed into their outreach activities – making ongoing mentoring support available beyond the summer school or shadowing scheme, and generally being the thread that binds intermittent, face-to-face activities.

Moreover, our HEI partners are increasingly seeing this as a way not just of supporting outreach and providing volunteering opportunities for their undergraduates, but also of aiding retention and success (third years mentoring first years) and promoting employability (recent graduates and local employers mentoring second and third years). Hitting 3 OFFA priorities with one approach surely can’t be bad.

This is just one example amongst many, but whatever form such collaboration takes – and however much universities may understandably rail against yet again having to make up for problems for which they are not responsible – it is crucial that this collaboration happens. Notwithstanding all other pressures, we must respond to the serious and growing need for clear, impartial information and advice about the system. If we don’t, then it’s not clear at the moment who will.

Post

Why the White Paper is good for Brightside – and why that’s not necessarily a good thing…

In Uncategorized on June 30, 2011 by Tessa Stone Tagged: ,

I’m pleased with the HE White Paper. Firstly, Brightside got an indirect mention! On p. 59 Realising Opportunities, for which we provide the ementoring, is highlighted as an ‘excellent example of effectively targeting disadvantaged students in ways that will both support their attainment while at school, and encourage them to apply to higher education.’

Secondly, and rather less flippantly, the key proposition – to put students at the heart of the system – and the proposed methods of achieving that mean we’re going to be very, very busy indeed in the years to come. The proposition that students as consumers be given masses of additional information to help them access ‘the higher education they want’ (para 3.45) is coupled with ‘significantly increased expectations for the priority that institutions should give to fair access and widening participation’ (para 5.22). For a charity like Brightside, which uses online technology to connect, inform and inspire more young people to achieve their full potential through education, this is Big Society manna from Heaven.

But it’s manna from Heaven for all the wrong reasons. I’m by no means the first to point this out and I won’t be the last, but Higher Education is not a marketplace and students are not perfect consumers. Giving students endless comparable data and info on graduate outcomes, albeit in clearer and more usable formats than those currently available, will not in and of itself support informed decision making.

With the best will in the world students – at least standard age, 18 year old students – don’t always know what’s good for them, let alone what questions to ask and issues to consider as consumers of HE. What counts as ‘value for money’ in HE terms? What should a ‘good student experience’ look and feel like? What weight should they really give to the ‘informal sharing of students’ views’ on website forum such as The Student Room (para 2.17)?

Furthermore, the focus on graduate employment outcomes combined with higher fees will create perverse incentives. The risk is that non-traditional students will flock to already heavily oversubscribed ‘vocational’ courses such as Law, while the cannier and better informed will make a beeline for apparently ‘niche’ subjects at top institutions which won’t hurt their employment prospects (in Law or anything else) one little bit. I haven’t compared graduate outcomes for Classics, say, or Theology vs Law at Russell Group institutions, but I bet you any money there’s not much in it.

The elephant in the room here is Information, Advice and Guidance – or rather, the advice and guidance elements. The HE White Paper is big on the provision on information, but seems entirely to have missed the fact that information in a vacuum won’t help anyone –or at least, won’t help those who need it most. Sure, the ‘new careers service’ gets a mention in paras 5.9-10 and ‘improving the quality of careers guidance’ shows up in 5.11-12 but it’s a straight cut and paste from the Education Bill. The chance to really press home the message about the fundamental role of strong HE IAG in making the ‘student consumer’ idea a reality was entirely missed.

And so here at Brightside Towers we’re rolling up our sleeves, preparing to work even harder to help universities with their widening participation initiatives, and to provide the ementoring that disadvantaged and non-traditional students are going to need, now more than ever, to help them navigate the brave new HE world. And therein lies the problem – if the proposals in this White Paper were really going to ‘improve social mobility through fairer access’ then charities like ours should be looking for some other problem to solve, not bracing ourselves for more work than ever…


In the game of spot the internal inconsistencies in the White Paper currently being played, the one that really struck me is this. Para 3.5 on the National Student Survey says:

‘It is noteworthy that three very different types of institution do consistently well in the NSS: the Open University, Buckingham and Oxford and Cambridge. What they share, in very different ways, is a commitment to close contact with students and focus on academic feedback.’

Taking the OU distance learning example out of the equation for the moment, this is surely vastly at odds with the pull ‘em in and pile ‘em high aims of the White Paper in encouraging the expansion of the top end of the sector. What makes the commitment to close contact and focus on feedback possible is the size of the institutions (mediated through the collegiate system at Oxbridge) and the high academic to student ratio. As student numbers start expanding and in the face of reduced income to universities (whatever the Government claims to the contrary) that sort of service is surely going to be ever harder to maintain where it does occur, and impossible to implement where resources are already too stretched. Maybe the Russell Group will have to start taking a leaf out of the OU’s book after all…

Post

Is the end of the EMA the start of a slippery slope?

In Uncategorized on December 17, 2010 by Tessa Stone Tagged: ,

Monday’s protests against scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance may have been more peaceful than the recent demos against tuition fee rises, but the scandal they are protesting against is one that needs shouting about. Although the Government is doing a catastrophically poor job of it, there is at least an argument to be made for graduates contributing to the costs of their higher education, and for the current tuition fee proposals being more progressive than the system they replace.

However, in abolishing the EMA the Coalition risks doing serious damage to any pretensions they may have had of being ‘on the side’ of social mobility. To the last Government’s credit it was quick to recognise, and respond to, the national scandal that was our post-16 staying on rate. Their response – the EMA, which gives disadvantaged young people £30 a week to attend college – may have been a blunt instrument, but it nevertheless succeeded in getting those young people into FE and keeping them there, as the revered economists of the Institute of Fiscal Studies confirmed only this week.

Trying to persuade us that the tuition fee proposals will support access to university while cutting off the access pipeline to disadvantaged students does not look like joined up thinking. And the absence of any concrete information about the ‘Learner support funds’ which will replace the EMA will just fuel further disillusionment. Let’s hope that the Government takes the opportunity of the Christmas break to get its communications in order, and start the New Year with the serious reassurances that students and the sector need if they are to believe that 2011 isn’t going to see the beginning of a decline in educational opportunities.

Post

Tuition fee rises: let’s clear the air for a clear debate

In Uncategorized on December 1, 2010 by Tessa Stone Tagged: , , , ,

As students protest against tuition fees on the streets of England’s cities, the Welsh Assembly Government announced plans to keep tuition fees at current levels for Welsh students, wherever they choose to study, and make up any difference. The press is full of it this morning of course, with top marks for high drama going, as so often, to the Daily Mail for ‘Punished for being English’. Welsh Education Minister Leighton Andrews’ use of language was interesting though, and symptomatic of the problem with this whole non-debate.

Unlike their English counterparts, he told Assembly members, Welsh students ‘will not have to find either £6,000 or £9,000 to study. This is nonsense, and one of the starkest examples yet of the sort of flabby rhetoric that is going to ensure that any fee rise will have the very effect everyone claims to be most concerned to avoid – putting off the poorest students.

No-one will ‘have to find’ any money up front for fees. Not poorer students, not those in the ‘squeezed middle’, not their parents, no-one… They will, of course, have to pay more back after university, although for the most disadvantaged this will at least be on better terms than is currently the case. But whichever way you look at it – and whether you oppose tuition fees in any shape or form or see them as inevitable – it’s absolutely critical that we make sure we’re at least arguing about the right thing, and that’s debt, not up-front affordability.

That’s not to say that debt aversion won’t see some students rule themselves out of HE, and it’s that we must work hard to counter. Spurious scaremongering about ‘having to find £9,000’, especially from politicians who should know better, risks doing more harm than the proposals currently on the table….

Post

Is a school admission lottery the only route to equality?

In Uncategorized on November 16, 2009 by Tessa Stone Tagged: ,

admissionticketstub2660_smallIt’s school admissions time again, and parents’ desperation that their child will be able to go to the school of their choice in 2010 is being heightened by the fallout of this year’s admissions round.

 The Chief Schools Adjudicator has issued his report on those who lied to get into the best schools, Harrow Council has failed in its attempt to prosecute a parent accused of “cheating” the application system, and our new Supreme Court is hearing an appeal from the Jewish Free School in London against an earlier ruling that they can’t select pupils on the basis of faith. 

Fiona Millar, an impassioned commentator in this area, was surely missing the point though when she suggested that “most schools aren’t failing, and most children with a supportive home environment can get a perfectly good education in their local school if it is …. good enough.”

It’s been a long time since the middle classes have been satisfied with ‘good enough’, particularly when it comes to education. 

 In it for the long game that is university admissions, parents see each move in this complex journey as utterly critical, and ‘good enough’ is never going to wash when ‘the best’ might have been an option.  And of course, for many the credit crunch will have cut off the independent school escape route that they had been banking on in extremis

So all in all, admissions next year will be more, not less, febrile, and if Ms Millar thinks that a “warning on schools’ admissions forms” about a Local Authority clampdown on cheats will really “help restore integrity to the system” then she’s sorely underestimated the level of angst in middle England – angst which will only be fuelled by threats of prosecution.  If the problem is so bad we’re having to criminalise parents then it’s got to be even worse than we think, right?

 When I was at the Sutton Trust we advocated the use of lotteries in school admissions, on the grounds that it would at least be truly fair, and that it might just provide the fillip needed to sort out the much abused catchment area system.  Force middle class parents to engage with their second or third choice school and they’ll quickly make sure that bad becomes better and good enough becomes best, or so goes the argument. 

 The reality of a lottery can seem extremely unfair on an individual basis, of course, and as a parent the thought that my boys might be allocated to any school other than the village primary 10 minutes walk away fills me with abject horror.  But I still can’t see any other way, in policy terms, of sorting out this unholy mess.  Let’s all hope the Government can…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.