Every community needs and deserves a successful college. It’s a simple vision which is clear and easy to remember. Much more difficult, it seems, for successive governments to achieve, though.
Colleges have a distinctive place in the education system and deserve much more recognition for what they achieve.
They fulfil three key roles: supporting young people in the transition from childhood to becoming adults and citizens; supporting adults who have missed out on education and who want to make that right; and delivering higher-level, technical education, skills and training for people to be successful in the labour market.
Across all three, they help people to grow, to develop, to achieve ambitions; they support more tolerant, inclusive, happier, healthier and vibrant communities. They help employers to find and develop productive workforces; they help our society and economy to grow. In short, they make the world we live in a better place.
Ignorance
Why then are they being starved of the investment they need to help more people succeed across all three key roles? The answer is far from simple but I think it boils down to three things: ignorance, prejudice and regulation. All are understandable, all need challenging and all can change.
Ignorance is a bit of an emotive word and is often used as an insult. I use it here simply as a descriptive term and, as an educator, I have never viewed it as a negative.
It’s also not an accusation, as if the ignorant should be ashamed of not knowing. But it is accurate. I’ve started of late to ask people in positions of power and influence whether they have ever even been in a college and it is striking how few have.
The same cannot be said of schools or universities. The most common reaction to a college visit I often hear is “I never realised...” followed by positive comments about what has been seen and experienced.
Prejudice
Ignorance goes deeper than that though, with too many people lacking a real understanding of the students who go to college. This is where the prejudice enters. Another emotive word, but appropriate nonetheless because it simply means that people have preconceived ideas and opinions about others without the necessary knowledge or experience on which to base them.
Typically, those in power sailed through the education system, notching up qualifications at all levels and smoothly progressing up to and beyond degree level. That’s great, and nothing to be ashamed of, but those very achievements can make it difficult to understand why everyone else can’t manage to achieve the same.
Did they not work hard enough, were they not clever enough, were they feckless? Perhaps more importantly, without an understanding of why and how the education system fails so many people, is it really possible to make and implement policy which “helps” them?
Regulation
My third word was regulation. Not so emotive, of course. Boring, parochial and bureaucratic? Perhaps. It is important though. It’s rare that a regulator or funder is ever loved whilst it exists, but they are often appreciated when they are replaced.
I wonder how many vice-chancellors wish that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) was still around, with its concerted focus on helping them succeed. It’s fascinating to see the Office for Students, understandably, taking a different stance, with its focus more on students than institutions.
In the college landscape, the Further Education Funding Council, which was wholly focused on colleges, reigned in the 1990s. It was replaced by the Learning and Skills Council, which had a wider remit in the 2000s, then the Skills Funding Agency and now the Education and Skills Funding Agency ESFA). The trend has been inexorably to move away from a focus on colleges and to apply a “provider-neutral” approach to its work.
The trouble is that colleges are not just another provider. They have a unique and distinct purpose and roles, are charities and have all sorts of constraints which they work under. Their regulation is messy, with some of it designed for schools, some for universities and some for private training providers.
Civil servants engaging with colleges more
Little of it feels like it was designed to help colleges fulfil their unique and vital roles, with colleges often jumping over hurdles which are right and proper for other types of institution, but burdensome for them, particularly when lined up with all of the other hurdles.
The good news is that ignorance, prejudice and regulation can all be addressed, and progress is being made by the Department for Education and the ESFA. The “immersion programme” which the DfE has is helping good and keen civil servants to learn more about colleges and about their students.
The DfE is increasingly seeking student and potential student perspectives when designing and implementing policies. Civil servants are intent on engaging and working with us and with colleges. The learning on both sides is powerful.
The post-18 review of education and funding has the opportunity now to remedy the regulation challenge. It’s clear that the big gap we have in England in post-18 education and skills must largely (not solely) be filled by colleges; but colleges need to be trusted and supported, with the right investment.
A new college-focused regulator?
The review, I hope, will recognise the unique and vital roles of colleges and agree with me that every community needs a successful college.
If it does then addressing the regulation issue will be an important part of the package of changes which we would like to see.
If that happens, then we may be saying hello to a new, college-focused and college-appropriate regulator. I, for one, would be happy to see that.
David Hughes is the chief executive of Association of Colleges
