'Robbing HE to prop up FE is not the way forward' - University Vice-Chancellor

A new Policy Exchange report released todayahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review in November calls for £500 million to be cut from the higher education budget and for the money to be given to further education colleges to provide technical and professional skills training.

The issues raised in the report are pertinent. FE colleges in England have had to absorb cuts of 24% under the Coalition government and are facing a massive regional reorganisation. There is a need to expand our skills provision at levels 4 and 5 to supply the technical and professional qualifications employers are demanding.

But to simply slash funding to universities to plug the gap would be wrong-headed in the extreme – neither economically nor strategically astute. 

Our universities deliver on high level skills on any objective analysis in a way FE does not. According to the National Student Survey, 86 per cent of final year university students are satisfied with their courses – a level of satisfaction most FE colleges would give their right arms for.

Two-thirds of businesses expect their needs for staff with higher-level skills to grow in the coming years. The graduate earnings premium acts as a proxy for the extent to which employers value graduate skills: graduates earn almost £10,000 a year more than those without degrees. Recent CBI evidence shows employers communicating an 88 per cent satisfaction rate with the technical skills of graduates compared to 69 per cent for school and college leavers.

The reportclaims that FE colleges are best-positioned to offer technical and professional skills, suggesting that universities and colleges are typically in competition to offer qualifications – claims that are open to challenge.

Historically universities have excelled in training doctors, nurses, lawyers and engineers – disciplines that are hugely skills-focused.

In 2011 after lobbying from FE, Government Ministers introduced the 'core and margin' process in an attempt to move some places from HE to a cheaper FE route. This policy direction was ultimately quietly abandoned, because there was insufficient demand for the FE route. Students, given the choice, value HE more.

The Policy Exchange reporterroneously claims that the £500 million transfer in funding could be justified because universities have large reserves. Those reserves fund capital investment to modernise university facilities in the absence of public capital funding that FE received through the College Capital Investment Fund.

The authors concede that there are fine examples of collaborative provision of level 3, 4 and 5 qualifications between colleges and universities, offering meaningful pathways into both employment and higher-level study. This kind of provision offers the best value for because it avoids needless duplication and enables employers to draw on excellence wherever it exists. It would be impossible to deliver the government’s apprenticeships plan and deliver higher-level apprenticeships without the engagement and expertise of universities.

The comprehensive spending review must be about strategic economic investment. At a time of limited resource I do not think that FE has demonstrated that working alone it offers the taxpayer the best value for money. Instead, fostering collaboration and strategically targeting funding where there is demonstrably excellent provision must be the name of the game.