Colleges and universities could be drawn into “turf wars” over students, a new report warns.
The report, published today by the Social Market Foundation and supported by the Further Education Trust for Leadership (FETL), says leaders have warned of possible “Hunger Games” that would undermine cooperation between institutions.
It predicts a higher risk of tension and conflict between the two sectors unless ministers take action to clarify their roles. The SMF interviewed more than 20 FE principals and university vice-chancellors about the working relationships between their institutions, and sets out “significant worries” that cooperation is being undermined by the increasing overlap in the courses offered by FE colleges and some universities.
Mental health: Almost 50 per cent of college principals experience ‘distress’ regularly
Background: Why FE people need to be part of policymaking
Prime minister: End ‘pointless, nonsensical gulf’ between FE and HE
The warning comes after, last year, prime minister Boris Johnson said the government would make colleges “better able to compete with universities”, and ministers have also suggested they want more students to do level 4 and 5 qualifications, including Higher National Certificates and Higher National Diplomas. While often run by FE colleges, the SMF says more universities are starting to offer them, in order to attract students and funding.
‘Hunger Games’ conflict between colleges and universities
The SMF says that a great deal of “apparently inefficient competition, sowing mistrust that undermines cooperation, occurs because of a lack of clarity over the respective roles of universities and colleges”. “These turf wars take place particularly in the level 4-5 space. With the Westminster government intending to expand technical education located in the middle of this disputed territory, a number of those we spoke to were concerned that conflict would intensify.”
Post-pandemic financial pressures, coupled with government funding for technical qualifications after the pandemic, might increase the financial incentives for “head-to-head pitched student recruitment battles”, the SMF warns.
The SMF report adds: “Ultimately, what is needed is a clearer demarcation of which institutions should do what. That does not mean an end to competition altogether, but rather a shift in the arena of competition - away from head-to-head pitched student recruitment battles, and towards a form of competition based around which institution can make an effective case to a coordinating authority that they are best placed to deliver each form of provision.”
Previous research by FETL has highlighted the benefits of collaboration between universities and colleges, including sharing knowledge and resources, providing a wider range of complementary courses and creating pathways for disadvantaged students into higher education.
FETL president Dame Ruth Silver said: “HE and FE must be united, not pitted against one other, as per our usual habit. Their roles, as argued in this report, are complementary - their respective institutions should not be obliged to fight it out in some ideologically-fuelled educational version of The Hunger Games.”
SMF chief economist and report co-author Aveek Bhattacharya said: “In theory, competition between universities and colleges is intended to drive up standards and increase student choice. In practice, though, differences in funding, scale and cultural cachet make it hard for them to compete on a level playing field.
“The actual effect of competition is to undermine effective collaboration, limiting options for students and making the system as a whole less effective at improving skills and increasing opportunity.”
