Models of collaboration

4.2 Common features of successful partnerships 4.3 Reaching agreement about collaboration 4.4 Working with employers

4.5 Working with networks

4.1 Models of collaboration

Types of partnership

There are many models of collaboration and partnership, some involving formal partnership agreements and others based on more informal linkages. The 2003 White Paper ‘The future of higher education’ placed particular emphasis on partnership, through increased collaboration and indirect funding relationships. Since 1999, the number of colleges with small directly funded numbers has reduced, and substantive and extensive collaborative FE/HE partnerships have emerged across the country. HEFCE’s review of HE in FECs, explained in the consultation (HEFCE 2006/48), demonstrated HEFCE’s support and promotion of effective partnerships between colleges and universities and a wider range of stakeholders.

HEFCE, as the funding body, and QAA, as the body responsible for the oversight of quality and standards in HE, have different definitions of partnership or collaborative arrangements (see boxes below). However, both are concerned to locate accountability: in the case of QAA, accountability for quality; in the case of HEFCE, accountability for public funds.

Whatever the funding model, there is a partnership dimension.

HEFCE definition

An indirectly funded franchise partnership is one in which the student is attributed to the HEI for funding purposes but the course is wholly or partly delivered in the FEC.

HEFCE’s code of practice for indirectly funded partnerships is being updated in 2009 following the review of HE in FECs. The revised guidance will not differ substantially from that first offered in December 2000 (HEFCE 00/54: ‘Higher education in further education colleges. Indirectly funded partnerships: codes of practice for franchise and consortia arrangements’).

QAA definition

The term ‘collaborative provision’ is taken to mean ‘education leading to an award, or to specific credit toward an award, of an awarding institution delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an arrangement with a partner organisation’.

The ‘precepts’ by which HEIs are expected to manage quality and standards within partnerships are set out in QAA’s‘Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Section 2, collaborative provision’. Although most of

the precepts relate to the actions taken by the lead HEI, it is important for an FEC working in partnership to be aware of what is considered to be good practice.

From 2008, QAA is directly involved with all colleges providing HE in FE, regardless of whether the funding is received directly by the college or indirectly through a partner HEI. This review methodology is known as Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review and is explored more fully in Section 10.

The above two definitions introduce the terms ‘franchise’ and ‘collaborative provision’. They are not, however, always used consistently, so it is important to be clear exactly what is meant by such terms when used in particular partnership models. (Annex D addresses the definitions of these and other terms.)

The simplest models of collaboration start from the funding arrangements: directly or indirectly funded. Table 9, prepared by HEFCE, identifies the numbers of HE students taught in FECs, through direct or indirect funding relationships.

Table 9 Student headcounts by registering and teaching institution

Category/year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Students taught at an FEC in partnership

with an HEI (indirectly funded) 43,025 46,548 47,472 50,017 Students taught at an FEC (directly

funded) 53,410 56,015 56,912 55,270

Note: students at institutions changing sectors between the data year and 2006-07 are excluded. This table excludes distance learners, students not based in the UK and all NPHE The language of collaborative provision and awarding bodies is not straightforward. These are complex relationships, and different institutions use terms in different ways in the context of validation arrangements. So it is important for colleges to check what their awarding body partners mean by these terms. The Council of Validating Universities (CVU), for example, has produced a set of collaborative provision categories which are concerned more with programmes and defining partnerships in terms of the

arrangements made for their approval and/or their delivery, as set out below.

CVU

• validation: process by which awards of an organisation are judged by the awarding body to be of an appropriate quality and standards to lead to its awards

• franchising: process by which an awarding body authorises the delivery of one of its approved programmes by another organisation

• accreditation: process by which an awarding body delegates authority to an organisation for a wide range of quality assurance functions while remaining ultimately responsible for quality and academic standards

• articulation: relationship between two linked programmes, usually between two different institutions, e.g. progression for Fds

• joint provision and teaching: arrangements between universities and colleges which involve either shared or ‘bought in’ teaching of students on particular programmes

Since these terms can be used variably, the importance of understanding how they are being used is critical. For example, the Foundation Degree Forward(fdf) model for employer based training accreditation (EBTA) described in Section 4.4 uses a very different definition to that of the CVU.

Partnership structures

As well as looking at models of collaboration from the perspective of funding or

programmes, it is possible to look to the structure of partnerships. These can range from loose networks to very tight, formal arrangements. Different models of collaboration reflect purpose and history. The characteristics and features of FE/HE relationships which drive the complexity and formality of partnership structures include:

• number of college partners involved; bilateral or multilateral partnership arrangements

• size and range of the provision; number of programmes, number of students, number of subject disciplines, number of programme levels

• funding flows (direct and/or indirect) • the funding of partnership activity

• who is involved in the partnership from the college and the university, seniority of staff, frequency of contact, formality/informality of structures specifically developed to support the partnership

• range of involvement in each others’ organisational structures, such as reciprocal committee membership, including the governing body

• extent of collaborative sharing of good practice and curriculum development between college partners as well as with the university partner

• strategic importance of the partnership to the college(s) and the university.

A college may choose to engage in a number of complex partnership models involving different HEIs and FECs and including Edexcel. At the other extreme, another college may have a single HEI partner and also be the only FEC partner of that HEI.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of bilateral and multiple partnerships for all colleges with HE provision.

Figure 1 shows that 85 colleges had one HE awarding body, while at the other end of the scale 22 had between six and 10.

The following case studies illustrate the diversity of features that different collaborative models embrace. The first example is a college which has both direct and indirect funding, with five HEI partners and Edexcel.

York College

Extract from higher education strategy

The College position, currently, in the establishment of HEI partnerships, can be

described as ‘best fit’. This ‘best fit’ is primarily based upon a [College] curriculum team’s relationship and understanding of the partner HEI programme content and delivery and building a working relationship to deliver a quality product.

This range of partnerships will ensure [that] future planned growth will be developed where the subject/sector expertise is complementary with each partner’s institutional portfolio, and where effective and strong academic/vocational staff links work well for the benefit of the students.

The second example is an indirectly funded college in a collaborative partnership with other colleges and one main HEI partner.

West Herts College and Hertfordshire Higher Education Consortium

The college is a member of the Hertfordshire Higher Education Consortium, which comprises the four FECs in Hertfordshire and the university. The five institutions work very closely together to assure quality and maintain standards across all HE provision at the colleges.

Distinctive features include:

• collaborative curriculum development activities, guided by a handbook for programme developers and reviewers

• strategic planning and marketing of the consortium’s provision, as evidenced by strategy away daysand a recent marketing plan developed at consortium level and funded by all five partners

• strong leadership and management and effective buy-in that includes college principals, HE managers, senior administrators, admissions and other student and business support staff

• highly effective peer support across the four colleges at strategic and curriculum delivery level, including cross-college setting and moderation of assessments and development of innovative blended learning strategies.

Benefits include:

• access to all university resources – including learning resource centres and sports and social facilities – for HE learners at the FECs

• joint delivery on some programmes, including one day per week at one of the university campuses for some learners

• progression opportunities for all HE students at the colleges to achieve an honours degree at the university, generally with only one further year of study (e.g. after successful completion of a foundation degree)

• access to the university’s excellent blended learning system

• highly effective staff development opportunities for FE staff in both scholarly activity and teaching and learning practice, including development of blended learning skills and expertise

• pooling of expertise and sharing of curriculum development and management responsibilities and tasks.

The University of Plymouth has one of the largest partnerships in the country.

University of Plymouth Colleges

The management hub, or nerve centre, of the University of Plymouth’s relationship with its partner colleges is somewhat unusual, in that it is a full faculty of the university – the UPC Faculty. This enables the colleges to have focused points of contact for all aspects of the partnership, while still benefiting from strong academic links to the subject faculties. In essence, colleges’ HE staff teams are full members of a university faculty, with all the benefits that status brings. It is also a faculty of strength, with 10,000 students (7,000 FTEs) from 21 partner institutions (15 FECs) and 296 ‘live’ HE programmes running in 2007-08.

The UPC Faculty essentially manages the university’s delivery across the whole south-west region, from Bristol to Penzance via the Channel Islands, and has enabled thousands of learners, often geographically isolated, to benefit from university-level education. One key partner, Cornwall College, states in its HE strategy that the partnership with the university extends beyond that of a validating HEI, as working together includes the Combined Universities in Cornwall initiative, the south-west LLN, the Aimhigher Peninsula Programme and the south-west RDA.

Key features of UPC include:

• registered university teacher status for staff, which allows full access to the university’s intranet and a wide range of staff development/CPD activities

• subject forums, which are an academic focus for staff; they deliver subject-specific staff development activities/days and events, and act as a medium to spread good practice and encourage collaboration

• subject forum chairs, who act as academic links between the university and the staff team at the college, or ensure that such activity is in place via another faculty member

• strong links for students between the University Student Union and college student bodies, via UPC-funded student union officers

• the HE Learning Partnerships Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (HELP CETL).

HELP CETL

This CETL is a full part of UPC and is a five-year project funded through HEFCE to build on,

promote and enhance good practice in teaching and learning across the UPC network. HELP has a number of development activities which partner college staff can feed into. An important one is the Award Holders Scheme, which funds and supports fellowships and CPD awards. These are given to help staff to develop projects and their own academic practice, based on development themes. The CETL works to encourage and support communities of practice and subject forums. The aim is to enable staff to participate in the network in order to enhance student experience and provide opportunities for personal and professional development.