1 / 21

Professor Robin Middlehurst Kingston University

The growth of private & for-profit HE providers in the U K: Implications for policy and practice. Professor Robin Middlehurst Kingston University. Outline. Categories of Private Provider Contexts, policies, rationales (UK & beyond) Scale & s cope of ‘Private Providers’ Myths & Realities

newton
Download Presentation

Professor Robin Middlehurst Kingston University

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. The growth of private & for-profit HE providers in the UK: Implications for policy and practice Professor Robin Middlehurst Kingston University

  2. Outline • Categories of Private Provider • Contexts, policies, rationales (UK & beyond) • Scale & scope of ‘Private Providers’ • Myths & Realities • Implications for policy & practice

  3. Categories of Private Providers

  4. Context - Knowledge Economy “Demands on universities outrun their capacity to respond…” • More students of different types seek access • More segments of the labour force demand university-trained graduates for specialized occupations • Governments expect more to be done at lower unit cost (Governments won’t support HE at same unit-cost level as for elite arrangements) • Knowledge outruns resources: “No university, & no national system of universities, can control knowledge growth.” (Clark, B. (1998). p129-30)

  5. Context – Mass Higher Education “Mass enrollment has created a need for diversified academic systems – hierarchies of institutions serving different needs & constituencies. Diversified systems – necessary for financial, academic & vocational reasons – will continue to be central to higher education worldwide. In general, governments will manage the diversification with ‘steering’ mechanisms that will control the scope & nature of academic systems.” (Altbach, P. (2009). p157)

  6. Context - Borderless Higher Education • Blurring of boundaries (functions no longer distinct) • Convergence (of activities, markets, providers) • Unbundling & commodification (of processes & provision) • Globalisation, internationalisation • Universities/polytechnics; HE/FE; public/private/corporate; education/media; Mode 1/Mode 2 research; national/international/’glocal’.… (Cunningham et al, 2000; Bjarnason et al, 2000; Gibbons et al, 1994; Nowotny et al, 2001; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002)

  7. UK – Policy Context • 1986 - Separation of teaching & research funding (growth in student numbers not matched by equal growth in research funds) • 1988 – Ed Reform Act - some polytechnics & advanced FE colleges become HECs • 1992 – F& HE Act – polytechnics with Privy Council approval have right to be called universities • 1992 – HEQC – 3 categories: T-DAPs, R-DAPs, University title (not mandatory) • 1995 > Growth of TNE • 1997 – Dearing Review – favoured FE expansion • 2003 – White Paper – proposal to break link between research & university title (no need for R-DAPs to be called a university) • 2004 – HE Act – relaxation of criteria for university title • 2010-12 – Browne & White Paper – HE as ‘private benefit’ • NB - Devolution

  8. Rationales for PP growth - globally • Unmet demand for TE (qualifications & skills) • Market(s) willing to pay tuition fees • Shortage of public funds to meet demand • Emergent entrepreneurs able to build private HEIs • Favourable government policies & regulatory environment (incl. incentives) • Government challenge to public HEIs to improve quality, enhance flexibility, increase choice (Fielden et al, 2010, p11)

  9. Public & private HE - global Source: PROPHE (2010). Public and private higher education shares for 117 countries, 2001-2009. (updated November 2010) Note: These figures are amalgams of differently defined data for different years (2001-2009) and are intended to give an approximate feel for the scale of provision.

  10. The private sector represents an important share of total enrollment in emerging markets at all levels The share of private enrollment is highest in South Asia, Latin America, and East Asia and Pacific It is significantly higher in secondary and tertiary education than in primary education Enrollment in private education grew by 58% (1991-2004) while public enrollment grew by only 10% in the same period. At the tertiary level, private sector growth has stabilized Share of enrollment in Private Education Institutions by Region (2009)

  11. The private sector is not yet used to its full potential in emerging markets Private % of total higher education institutions and enrollment in East Asian countries • Private sector grew quickly in countries of the middle technology cluster (Indonesia and the Philippines) and from the lower technology cluster (Cambodia) but face a quantity-quality tradeoff. • Sectoral growth is not always accompanied by quality • Private sector can play a critical role in supporting more diversified skill provision Source: PROPHE International Databases and WDI , in Putting Higher Education to Work Skills and Research for Productivity and Growth, World Bank 2011

  12. UK – Scale of PPs • Minimum of 674 privately-funded HE providers (75% in London & SE) • 27 lead providers of large provider groups (incl. multiple campuses & subsidiary colleges) • Most PPs are small (in UK & Europe) • 217 < 100 students • 35 > 1000 students • 5 > 5000 students • Est. of 160,000 HE learners in 2011-12 (c/f ca. 2.5m in HEIs) • Majority are for-profit (54.6% - typically Business & Management); non-profit (39% - typically arts/religious); ‘Other’ – 6.4% • Fees: < 3k-£9k + (pre-2012 data) (Fielden et al, 2010; BIS, 2013; UUK, 2013)

  13. UK - Scope of PPs - Students • Full time - 60.2%; Part-time 21.6%; Distance learning 18.1% • UK domicile 49%; International non-EU 41%; EU 10% (Just under 80,000 UK-domiciled students) • Full-time students – in creative arts/design; complementary medicine, law • Part-time students – architecture/planning; business/administration; education • 65.3% - aged 25+ • 67.2% - in paid employment(30% unemployed) • 52:48 male : female ratio (BIS, 2013)

  14. UK – Scope of PPs - Provision • Non-specialist (offering range of provision) - 34.9% • Business, Management, Accountancy, IT - 30.1% • Religious colleges – 9.2% • Arts-focused – 8.9% • Science & Technology focused – 4.6% • Alternative & complementary medicine – 2.4% • 54% offer post-graduate courses; also first & sub-degrees • Majority only offer 1 or 2 courses; 18% > 4 undergraduate-level courses (BIS, 2013)

  15. Why choose PPs? N = 1495 students • Personal interest in the subject – 93.6% • Career relevance – 90.5% • Range of options/modules available – 79.7% • Reputation of provider – 86.9% rated this as important • Range of subjects offered – 63.4% • Fee levels – 57.4% • Facilities – 59% (BIS, 2013)

  16. Implications for practice across providers • Innovation in teaching, learning & research (within & across sectors) • New organisational structures & partnerships • Staffing opportunities (& staff development) • New approaches to QA? • Blurring of boundaries, shifting missions? • Need for distinctiveness?

  17. Implications for policy • Regional variation • Subjects & associated challenges • Employment • Regulation & de-regulation • QA • Fraud • Level playing field?

  18. Regulatory challenges • Four types of regulation: DAPs, Title, course designation & Home Office • BIS, HEFCE, QAA were all involved, now HEFCE i/c • Operating Framework is aimed at equal treatment “with the publicly-funded sector” • V wide diversity of sector makes this difficult, particularly in governance • Coming into ‘SNC net’ & reporting (KIS etc) – opposed by many PPs • FP & NFP treated the same • Still large data gaps (eg TNE) – ‘policy blind’

  19. Key References • Altbach, P., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. Boston, Boston College/UNESCO. • Bjarnason, S., Davies, J., Farrington, D., Fielden, J., Garrett, R., Lund, H., Middlehurst, R., Schofield, A. (2000). The Business of Borderless Education: UK Perspectives. Vols.1-3. London, CVCP (now UUK) • Clark, B. (1989) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Paris, IAU/Pergamon Press. • Cunningham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Bagdon, K., Flew, T. & Coaldrake, P. (2000). The Business of Borderless Education. Canberra, DETYA • Fielden, J., Middlehurst, R., Woodfield, S. & Olcott, D. (2010). The growth of private and for-profit higher education providers in the UK. London, UUK. • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science & research in contemporary societies. London, Sage • Hughes, T., Porter, A., Jones, S. & Sheen, J. (2013). Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK. BIS Research Paper no. 111. June 2013 • Marginson, S. & Rhoades, G. (2002). “Beyond nation states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic”. Higher Education. 43 (3). 281-309 • Middlehurst, R. & Fielden, J. (2011). Private providers in UK Higher Education: Some policy options. www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy-Options.html • Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking Science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, Polity

More Related