1 / 7

Challenger institutions: useful competition or unhelpful disruption?

Challenger institutions: useful competition or unhelpful disruption?. Professor Robin Middlehurst. Outline. What are we talking about? Terminology, categories, data Wider comparisons - the particularities of English policy? Regulatory issues & ‘level playing field’? Disruptive innovation?.

lundgren
Download Presentation

Challenger institutions: useful competition or unhelpful disruption?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Challenger institutions: useful competition or unhelpful disruption? Professor Robin Middlehurst

  2. Outline • What are we talking about? • Terminology, categories, data • Wider comparisons - the particularities of English policy? • Regulatory issues & ‘level playing field’? • Disruptive innovation?

  3. Terminology, categories, data • ‘Alternative HE providers’: • PAC report (2015) - • APs = approx.140 institutions offering HE (no govt. grants but access to student tuition fee loans) • Register of HE providers (2016) – • AP = Non-profit or for-profit HE provider • 124 APs with specific course designation + 7 with institution level SPCD (106 universities includes 7) • Home Office Register (Tier 4 sponsors) – 211 private providers (+ ‘embedded colleges’ listed separately) • QAA (in Reviews’ reports) – uses term ‘independent providers’ (c/f Study UK) • Survey for BIS (2013) – identified 674 named privately funded HE providers operating in the UK • UK HEIs operating overseas are ‘private providers’ in other jurisdictions • c/f US definition of APs = separate HE provision not leading to credits or degrees • Lack of clear categories or data – so how to accurately measure (or compare) contribution or impact of providers (or policy)?

  4. Wider comparisons – peculiarities of England? • Private HE - spectacular growth across the world in last 20 years (by 2010 – PHE estimated to hold 31.3% of global enrolment) – overwhelmingly growth is in developing countries & mainly NFP • Latin America: 49% of HE enrolment (Brazil largest); Asia 36%; most of western Europe marginal PHE (16% enrolment) • Drivers of growth globally are demographics & demand, economics & politics • US PHE enrolment (NFP and FP) share steady at c 28% for decades – new demand has been to serve working adults + career enhancement (linked to FP growth to peak in 2010) • Govt. policy in developed countries – typically for PPs ‘to complement’ existing HEIs (OBHE) • c/f English (AP) policy - ‘business case’ (demographics/demand) or ‘market failure’ (gaps in provision) not clear • Many APs are not new; many collaborate with HEIs; HEFCE-funded HEIs address demographics & demand (eg OU, new universities) • What/where is the national need (eg niche areas – new industries?; demographics in cities – location of most APs?; faster/more flexible routes to qualifications?) • Or is English need/demand different - eg for more open forms of innovation?

  5. Regulatory issues & a level playing field? • The field is not level & attempts to make it so are adding regulatory burden & cost to all providers (& this is likely to be passed on to students) • The problems are: • Policy objectives & outcomes have not been measured (PAC) • ‘With no reliable data the reputation of all PHE colleges is tarnished by a few’ (PAC) • International evidence does not appear to have been used (& previous research – UUK 2000; UUK 2010; HEPI 2011) • The commonly agreed objectives of regulation (HEC; BR Task Group) do not appear to have been paramount in policy, ie: • Protecting students, the taxpayer & the reputation of UK HE • England should look closely at regulatory issues, approaches - in US, Australia - & Brazil (‘holistic’ incentives, controls, requirements)

  6. But also deeper issues… …underneath the rhetoric is a debate between ‘so-called knights who serve the public interest & (perceived or real) knaves who are driven by self-interest’ (Kinser re US, also in England?)…. ….there are knights & a few knaves among all kinds of providers (& some students)…(NAO Report; also see CHEA-CIQG & UNESCO-IIEP work) ….and we do not yet have the systems or mind-set in place to focus on the right issues in this debate…(ex-Head of QAA Reviews) (Acknowledgement to Kevin Kinser, 2014)

  7. Disruptive innovation & emerging models? • Equity investors in US are shifting focus & looking at the ‘Ed-Tech’ market (OBHE) eg: • Alternative curricula (competency-based) • Alternative forms of assessment & credentials • Professional education & WBL • Personalised learning • Tools to augment or streamline aspects of student experience • Look also at large global networks of private universities like Laureate (investments) + PBC status; B-Lab accreditation – of interest in regulation? • MOOC developments (eg growth of FutureLearn etc) • Main competition for UK HE - international + from other players in ‘the business of borderless education’ (OBHE)

More Related