Margaret Hodge
IPPR seminar 'Diverse Missions: achieving excellence and equality in post-16 education'
We are moving closer to the launch of the long-awaited higher education strategy document.
I welcome this opportunity to reflect on some of the vital "big picture" issues which we shall address in the strategy document. And I'm particularly pleased to be able to do that at an IPPR event because Wendy (Piatt) has helped us so much in developing our thinking on some of the complex questions we are tackling.
The document will address a range of crucial policy areas as we set out our vision for higher education over the next decade. I trust that proper attention will be given to all the comprehensive and radical proposals we shall unveil.
I certainly hope that we can engage in a vigorous and constructive debate on our proposals and I look forward to conversations with many of you in this room over the coming months.
In the context of today's seminar I will focus on a couple of the policy areas which will be covered and which will, I expect, form part of the programme of research that IPPR will want to consider during this project.
One of the reasons this policy review has been extremely challenging but equally satisfying is that our ambitions for both higher and further education are so many and so diverse. In seeking to meet all our objectives we will inevitably create tensions which we need to address.
So, for instance, how can we have both research power houses which compete with the best in the world and an inclusive education offer which provides opportunity for all?
How can we develop a really mass system of higher education and still foster the best graduates Britain needs to succeed in the fiercely competitive global and knowledge based environment?
How can we promote both teaching excellence and stronger engagement in regional and local economies?
How do we expand numbers and still enhance quality?
How can we combine specialisation with cohesion?
And underpinning this all, what is the best way for our institutions to develop and organise themselves in response to these very different objectives and how can we, as government, best use our always limited resources to support all that we seek.
Not a mean task! If we get half way there we'll have done well!
One reason why we are all talking about "diverse missions" comes from the target that we have set ourselves for expanding the numbers who go through higher education. This is one of the more controversial targets that government has established and one that sometimes gets attacked so I'd like to spend a little time setting out our view.
First let me say that I am one who has long argued for the importance of targets for public services. Targets give a clear focus and direction to those engaged in delivering the service. They help to open our services to public account which in turn helps to drive up quality. They support a determination to switch from a traditional obsession with inputs to a concentration on outcomes.
That doesn't mean we should not constantly review and if necessary change our targets, especially if they begin to show unintended consequences. And it doesn't mean we have failed if we miss a target. I know of no private sector organisation that hits all its targets, but equally I know of no private company that doesn't have a set of targets it strives to achieve.
It's in that context that I approach our target for expanding participation in higher education. We want more people to achieve the qualifications and skill levels that higher education can provide.
I want to come back to the argument about plumbers versus graduates, but at this stage let me say that while we may all complain that we can't find a plumber for love nor money, I've never heard people say we've got too many engineers, teachers or doctors in Britain today. Yet they all need to be graduates.
The fact is that we need both more plumbers and more graduates. Saying we want one more than the other poses a false choice. There is room and a need to have both.
So is our expansion target reasonable and achievable? Yes it is.
At present over 43% of young people are entering higher education for the first time by the time they are 30. So we need less than a one percentage point increase each year to achieve our target - ambitious, but realistic.
And we are already beginning to see better achievement rates at GCSE. Our Education Maintenance Allowance pilots are showing very positive results in terms of staying on rates. The early evaluation of the Excellence Challenge programme confirms that we are having an impact on the aspirations of young people from non-traditional backgrounds. Things are moving in the right direction to support our ambition to expand.
And the last thing we would want to do now is to abandon our target and put a cap on the ambitions of those who are now beginning to "Aim Higher'".
Do we need the extra graduates implied by the target? Yes we do. All our best understanding of what the demands of the labour market will be over the next decade confirms the need for more graduates. The Institute for Employment Research suggests that 80% of the new jobs that will be created in the next 10 years will require the skills and competences which go with higher education. The most recent CBI survey shows that employers expect a 50% increase in demand for graduates coupled with a 30% cut in the demand for people with low skills.And all our main competitor countries have or are developing targets for expanding numbers in higher education. Australia is talking about 60% completing higher education, Sweden has a 50% target for those under 25, Germany is also looking to increase the numbers in academic rather than vocational further and higher education, and America has set out plans for expansion.
So our ambitions run with the mainstream and simply reflect the common understanding of the importance of high level knowledge and skills in the modern, knowledge-based economy.
I don't believe I have my head in the higher education clouds. My feet are firmly on sound economic ground. Like others, I recognise that the economy needs graduates as much as it needs skilled plumbers, electricians and gas fitters.
And the demand for higher education is robust. Year on year more young people seek a place at a university. They do so because they know it will fit them for a better future, with better job opportunities, higher earnings, and a better chance of staying in work throughout their lives.
What is so striking is that despite the explosion in numbers in the last decade of the last century, the graduate premium has sustained itself and there is nothing to suggest that this will change with the proposed expansion in the first decade of this new century.
The return to the British man or woman for investing in more years in education is still the highest in the OECD comparative league. The UK return for the individual is 17%, compared with 7% in Italy or Japan.
And those who believe that students do not know what they are doing when they decide to go to college are more guilty of a somewhat arrogant sense of thinking they know best rather than a proper understanding of what is in the best interest of young people. Students are becoming increasingly powerful and demanding consumers and no consumer will choose to invest in a course that doesn't provide them with the skills they need and the return they want.
But while I am convinced that the 50% target is sensible and realistic I am equally certain of two other things.
First, reaching it and failing to increase the proportion of non-traditional students going through university would be unforgivable. It would not just be an economic folly, but it would be an ugly scar on the face of our universities and a terrible indictment on British society.
Second, simply providing more of the same would be a terrible error. We cannot afford to dumb down standards.
Britain needs more graduates in a mass higher education system, but we also need to maintain a cohort of the most high achieving graduates who will fuel our future growth and prosperity.
And that is where diversity and specialisation come into their own. Universities must have diverse missions if they are to meet the workforce needs of the future. Some will continue to teach traditional subjects - although we will expect them to become more inclusive in their intake.
But most of the expansion of places will need to come from vocational degrees offered in both further education and higher education institutions or through collaboration between the two sectors.
What we are looking for is an expansion of foundation degrees where education combines with businesses in the local and regional economy to devise two year courses which meet local skill shortages and business demands. A key part of the strategy paper will focus on how we will expand foundation degrees even further.
Expanding in this way represents a win for everybody; a win for the university because they increase their numbers; a win for the business because they get the skilled workforce they need; a win for the regional economy because they get the growth they want; and a win for the student because if they succeed in completing the course they get a passport to a job.
And looking at the early successes with KLM at Kingston, BASF at Teeside, Carltonat Ravensbourne or the MOD with a consortium of universities around the country, we are clear that if we can get the right engagement between the higher education providers and the employers, we can ensure an appropriate and relevant expansion in participation.
At the same time simply stacking up numbers on Mickey Mouse courses is not acceptable. And we cannot tolerate the current situation where over 10% of our institutions lose more than one in four of their students before they've completed the course. Universities have to get better at providing the right advice and guidance before students embark on a course; they have to get better at providing the appropriate teaching and support to students while they are under their care.
And while we take responsibility for ensuring appropriate funding for both the universities and the students, we cannot accept the sort of drop out rates we saw in the latest HEFCE figures.
Yes we want to widen and expand participation, but no, we can't have so many young people being set on a false trail, undertaking courses in which they cannot succeed. I can accept that drop out rates will be somewhat higher at universities which take on non-traditional students, but 1 in 4 dropping out is simply not on.
And just because we need more graduates does not mean we must have fewer plumbers. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't take rocket science to work out that a 50% target for higher education leaves you another 50% for whom we have other equally important ambitions.
That is why our target that by 2010, 90% of those under 22 will have participated in a full-time programme fitting them for higher education or skilled employment is so important. We know that there is a shortage of skilled craftsmen and women. That's why we are encouraging better vocational routes through education with our proposals on the 14-19 curriculum and our new GCSEs in vocational subjects. That's why we are putting energy and money into a big expansion in modern apprenticeships. That's why we are encouraging the development of Centres of Vocational Excellence (COVES) in every region. That's why we are introducing Education Maintenance Allowances across England in 2004. That's why we are investing in the Sector Skills Councils to give employers a strong say in the development of vocational education and training programmes.
It's not fewer graduates we need, but less unemployability. That's why we have our 90% target. That's why we are investing in raising skills and qualifications across the piece. Education should never become an either/or. It has always to be a both/and. That's our aim and that will inform our spending.
So, what does that all mean for diversity of mission? We shall have a great deal to say about that in our strategy document. But as you know, we believe diversity is essential if we are to enjoy both centres of world class research excellence and a more inclusive route to higher education for more people.
Diversity of mission is essential if we are to build the excellence in teaching which concentration of mission is more likely to secure.We need diversity of mission if we are to make best use of public funding.
And if there are tensions between diversity and social inclusion we are best looking at how to resolve those tensions rather than rejecting diversity. That I am sure is the better route to a better future. I look forward to the help IPPR can give through this project to help us on our journey.
