Response to the HEFCE strategic plan 2003-08

HEFCE’s draft strategic plan 2003-08 sets out the broad vision for the development of higher education over the next decade, and the strategy and proposed activities for moving towards it over the next five years. UKCLE’s response (May 2003) is reproduced below.

Do you endorse the vision and the broad strategic direction set out in the draft strategic plan – and if not, what elements cause you concern and why?

UKCLE shares all the objectives identified for the sector and believes that most members of its community (law schools, vocational training programmes, professional associations) would also recognise the importance of each of the objectives for the sector as a whole. Taken individually the aims are unobjectionable and UKCLE fully supports widening participation, improving the quality of learning, building on strength, and pursuing links between higher education institutions (HEIs) and the local and regional community.

However, it is not clear from the strategic plan that sufficient consideration has been given to the implications of diversity of mission and focus for the range of HEIs and the scope of global, regional and local engagement. In relation to each other the objectives and targets set seem quite narrowly focused and could better reflect the differentiation between institutions, disciplines and departments that is necessary for the success of the strategy overall. So, for example, just as it is not feasible for all HEIs to be excellent in all areas, neither should all of them be expected to equally address all of the strategic objectives to the same extent. Since they start from different stages in the process, arrival at the same destination in fulfilment of the strategy is unrealistic. Some HEIs are already approaching excellence in more areas than others, and strength in breadth and depth may be more significant in the global arena than the national, regional or local, where all HEIs can aspire to achieve excellence in identified fields. We think that all HEIs should pursue all of the objectives, but that in doing so they should be required to consider and address the implications of the inter-relationship of the objectives for their institution and plan accordingly.

Viewed as a five year strategy, is this a sound and realistic plan to guide the development of the English higher education sector, and does it contain the right key themes and elements?

The strategic plan has the right key themes and elements in that it echoes the initiatives and focus of government policy and is directed towards ensuring that the sector serves the needs of society and the economy. UKCLE recognises the need for HEIs to develop their own strategies within such a timescale, but thinks that the overall strategy for higher education should encourage longer term vision and promise stability and consistency over a longer period. HEIs aspiring to global excellence in a range of areas or departments seeking to build their overseas student base may need to focus on a longer time scale and place a different emphasis upon their pursuit of the seven aims specified.

It is also possible that the relative significance of each objective could change within the five year period. Much progress has been made in recent years towards widening access and increasing diversity. The objective of achieving measurable progress, without increasing non-completion, whilst maintaining standards of excellence is both laudable and correct. Much headway in this regard has already been achieved, although the burden has fallen unequally on HEIs. Further progress can be expected to become proportionately more challenging, and it will be important to recognise that the increasing efforts that will be necessary will inevitably affect the capacity to address the other objectives in the strategic plan. Target setting for HEIs should be matched by appropriate funding responses. It is already unacceptable that HEIs with lower average admissions grades should be expected to attain equal graduation results on fewer resources than those with higher average grade intake.

The plan could also usefully address the issue of progression both in planning and funding as a successful department moves through its own strategic plan, progressing from local and regional excellence in one or two areas to wider spheres of research and teaching. Identification and selection of strengths and client communities could include roadmaps of expansion and development in teaching and research.

What, from your viewpoint, are the main unresolved issues and associated risks in relation to implementing the plan, and are the Council and the sector together adequately prepared to deal with these?

As we have already stated, the major unresolved risks lie in the contradictions implicit in the strategy. These include promoting diversity of mission but requiring uniformity of approach to all objectives; focusing upon regional and local links whilst pursuing global markets; addressing diversity and widening participation at an institutional level, whilst acknowledging that solutions require a wider regional and cross sectoral response; and placing heavy emphasis upon new funding sources that are more appropriate for some disciplines than others. Whilst clearly identifying some of the risk factors associated with each objective, it is not clear to us that the strategic plan addresses how the risks factors should be taken into account.

The strategic plan suggests that stakeholders will share all its objectives. In law there is considerable disagreement between the professions, individual employers and vocational providers of professional training about undergraduate law teaching. It is often the case that powerful employers’ interests contradict other aspects of best practice in higher education. These are not insoluble, but some solutions may have profound affects on other stakeholders’ requirements.

Do you endorse our proposal to develop a funding approach that supports institutions in building on chosen areas of strength and encourages collaboration?

UKCLE fully endorses an approach that encourages both building upon strengths and promoting collaboration. The move to specialisation needs to be based upon some rationale that presents a coherent framework for development. Such an approach should enable institutions and departments to select and address priorities in the light of the overall sector strategy, based upon transparent and dependable funding criteria. At present the aspiration for funding based upon strengths is discernible, but there is little assurance of the framework necessary for longer term development of the sector.

We welcome efforts to promote knowledge transfer and sharing of expertise within the sector. We acknowledge however some systemic disincentives in other parts of the higher education system towards collaboration. Both the Research Assessment Exercise and the Quality Assurance Agency focus upon departmental and individual expertise, and funding mechanisms reflect institutional and departmental strengths. In our experience it would be prudent not to underestimate some reluctance for inter-departmental or inter-institutional collaboration. League table culture and uneven resources have not produced an environment amongst law teachers for collaboration at a departmental level, although co-operation and collaboration at an individual and subject specific level remains very strong. Centres of excellence could provide the impetus for wider development, and within law there remains much scope for cross-sectoral collaboration and more widespread incorporation of effective approaches to learning, teaching and assessment. Hpwever, such incentives for one or a few institutions may increase rather than relieve the competitive culture, and for the majority it may be unrealistic to expect ‘rival’ institutions to work together effectively.

In recognising the importance of experiential and problem-based learning methods for legal education in particular (deeper learning, ethical values, professional skills) and the scope for practitioner involvement, it is unrealistic to expect that some developments can be accomplished within existing funding arrangements. In addition to the proposals contained in the strategic plan, UKCLE would welcome a review of formula funding of undergraduate teaching in appropriate disciplines.

Do you have comments on other specific elements of the draft strategic plan?

UKCLE strongly supports the proposals of the strategic plan for a more sustainable approach to rewarding staff and for developing a more demonstrably fair and supportive environment for staff. We suggest that the plan could provide more detailed guidance as to how institutions and departments might address these issues. We also believe that the legal education community will welcome moves away from audit-focused accountability. We are supportive also of the proposals for developing leadership, government and management within departments and beyond.

The strategic plan contains little, if anything, that we do not support and much that we applaud. The three areas for which we would appreciate more guidance and recognition are:

1. differentiation in addressing the inter-relationship between objectives
2. accommodating the diverse potential that different disciplines, departments and institutions may have for fulfilling the objectives
3. developing expertise in teaching and research for international clients

Last Modified: 19 July 2010