This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 03 December 2014, At: 14:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives: Policy and Practice in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpsp20

Will foundation degrees widen participation?Leslie WagnerPublished online: 25 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Leslie Wagner (2001) Will foundation degrees widen participation?, Perspectives: Policy andPractice in Higher Education, 5:1, 3-5, DOI: 10.1080/13603100150505181

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603100150505181

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Professor Leslie Wagner has been Vice-Chancellorof Leeds Metropolitan University since 1994 and,prior to that, was Vice-Chancellor of the University ofNorth London. His career as an economist was spent

in the Civil Service, at TheOpen University and at theUniversity of Westminster.Address forcorrespondence: ViceChancellor, LeedsMetropolitan University, CityOffice, Leeds LS1 3HE, UK.Tel: +44 (0)113 283 3100;E-mail: l.wagner@lmu.ac.uk

perspective

Will foundation degrees widenparticipation?

Leslie Wagner

The decision to introduce founda-

tion degrees is a radical act which

could have a revolutionary impact

on higher education. As with most radical

acts, events are moving quickly.

The idea was introduced in David

Blunkett’s Greenwich speech in February

2000 and was closely followed by a

consultation document. No one was

fooled by the word consultation’ . Nowhere in this

document was the reader asked to respond on whether

foundation degrees were a good idea or whether they

would work. The questions were not about if foundation

degrees should be established but how they should be

established, not about whether they would be effective

but how they could be made to be effective. This was

evident also in the establishment, at the same time, of a

group, under the chairmanship of Professor Ivor Crewe

of Essex University, to develop the proposal further.

And so it has come to pass. In July 2000, HEFCE

produced its prospectus inviting bids for funds for the

development of `prototypes’ to be introduced in

September 2001. From initial idea to delivery in

eighteen months is indeed moving quickly.

The foundation degree idea is so multi-faceted that it

is difficult to find a focus: two years instead of three;

degree rather than diploma; employability, employer

involvement and work experience; and vocational

rather than academic are all-important elements. These

elements, however, describe characteristics of founda-

tion degrees rather than their objective. The core

purpose nevertheless is clear, namely that

greater employability through new higher

education qualifications is the key to

widening participation. As David Blunkett

put it in his foreword to the consultative

document:

. . . a two-year route to a degree with

high market value because of its focus

on employability will offer a new option for

people, both young and mature, who do not feel

that a traditional three-year honours degree is right

for them . . .’

Tessa Blackstone made a similar point in her foreword to

the HEFCE prospectus when she claimed that the

foundation degree . . . will bring more people into

higher education with a richer mix of backgrounds than

ever before . . .’ . And HEFCE itself, in the opening

paragraph of the prospectus, states that the foundation

degree is intended to make higher education . . . more

affordable, accessible and appealing to a wider range of

students, thereby widening participation in HE and

stimulating lifelong learning . . .’ .

It is necessary, however, to get behind all this rhetoric

and ask in a more rigorous manner where the new

groups of students are to be found and whether they will

be attracted to foundation degrees.

One group should certainly find foundation degrees

attractive. These are people who left school at 16 or 18

for work and who, in terms of education and training,

have followed the part-time vocational route. Unless

they are seeking a specific vocational or professional

qualification at Level 4, what higher education presently

offers them isn’t adequate or, in many cases, appropriate.

Many universities have long-established and well-

developed part-time degree routes involving usually five

years or more of part-time study. That is daunting to

many potential students and they pass on by. Others join

to study individual modules without any intention of

getting to the end and that isn’t good for progression

rates. And many of those who have the intention to

succeed drop by the wayside due to other pressures.

Part-time degree courses are a bit like the Hampton

Court Maze. Some who enter get to the exit without

too much difficulty but many are lost, wandering around

perspectives ISSN 1360-3108 print/ISSN 1460-7018 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

PERSPECTIVES, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1, 2001 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:35

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

in a daze, wishing they’d never started, and waiting to be

rescued.

So the potential exists for attracting part-time

students to foundation degrees, both those in work and

those not employed. But what about full-time students?

Here matters are a little more complicated. There is no

doubt that a properly constructed, funded and marketed

foundation degree will attract full-time students. But

whether these students will be people who are

genuinely new to higher education or rather those who

otherwise would have enrolled on existing awards is a

much more open question. Where are the new students

to come from?

A major group to be attracted to full-time foundation

degrees is adults, the mature students who have been the

successful fruit of access policies over the past two

decades. Through Access courses, A-levels and voca-

tional qualifications they have been finding their own

routes into higher education for a long time. There are a

goodly number of adults who complete Access courses

and other pre-entry higher education qualifications and

yet who do not go on. So, the potential market is there

but whether it will be attracted by this new award

remains to be seen.

But what about the traditional full-time market,

namely school and college leavers, particularly those

from lower socio-economic groups and low-participa-

tion neighbourhoods? This is now the focus of

government policy for higher education more generally.

The key here is qualification levels. There is little

evidence that students from less advantageous back-

grounds with good qualifications do not come into

higher education although, as with Laura Spence, they

may not get entry to the university of their first choice.

. . . the dog tha t d id no t

ba rk can be as s ign i f i c an t

as th e dog tha t d id . . .

The fact that both the consultation document and

the prospectus are silent on the expected entry

qualifications of foundation degree students is a positive

development. As we know from Sherlock Holmes, the

dog that did not bark can be as significant as the dog

that did. Presumably the entry requirements will be up

to each provider to determine, as is the case for existing

provision. The more flexible (and courageous) the

requirements, the greater the chance of widening

participation. Linking foundation degree entry to some

of the more imaginative options available in Curricu-

lum 2000 could really open some of the closed

doors.

Of course, one answer to all these possibilities is that

a highly-respected two-year qualification already exists

in the HND. With its minimum requirement of one

A-level or equivalent it has become the de facto access

course for many students. Nearly half of all HND

diplomates go on to honours degree courses. At Leeds

Metropolitan University, because we have largely

integrated the HND syllabus with the appropriate

degree syllabus, the staying-on rate is over two-

thirds.

How can the foundation degree reach the parts the

HND cannot? There are two possibilities. The first is to

attract those with lower qualifications who are not

attracted to the HND because of its image or because

it does not confer the degree cachet. There will be

some in this category. The second is to attract those

who want to study subjects not covered by the HND.

This is an important feature of foundation degrees.

Their coverage is much greater and they are about

employability rather than vocationalism.

. . . f rom no w on ,

vo cat io na l ism is ou t and

employab i l i t y i s i n . . .

This could in the longer term be one of the

revolutionary impacts of foundation degrees, namely

substituting employability for vocationalism and thus

bringing the whole issue out of the ghetto of over-

specific knowledge and competence towards a more

general enabling usage. The word `vocationalism’ is

now a damaged brand in higher education. It is almost

impossible to use it without the adjectival prefix

`narrow’. Higher education has never been about

narrow vocationalism and, as the term general voca-

tionalism’ has never taken off, it might be best to drop

the word altogether. From now on, vocationalism is

out and employability is in.

So, foundation degrees may well widen participation

by focusing on the needs of part-time students, those

mature students embarking on access routes to higher

education and currently not continuing, and school

and college leavers with lower educational qualifica-

tions who are not attracted to HNDs. But, of course,

foundation courses cannot be ring-fenced to new

clientele only and there is a strong suspicion that they

are indeed not intended to be limited in this way.

Existing provision will find a new competitor ± indeed,

a possible cuckoo in the nest.

The qualification most directly threatened is the

HND, long-established, well-respected by employers

but showing its age. The foundation degree prospectus

makes unhappy reading for HND supporters as, in a

faintly Mafiosi style, it states:

4 LESLIE WAGNER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:35

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

It is widely recognised that some rationalisation

of qualifications below honours level is desirable.

Foundation degrees will build upon the best of

the existing two-year HE programme and it is

expected that, over time, the foundation degree

will become the dominant qualification at this

level. It is the government’s intention that the bulk

of any further growth in HE be achieved through

foundation degrees. In addition, we anticipate

that many institutions will wish to re-develop

existing programmes to conform with the foun-

dation degree framework.’

The policy seems to be that if the HND is ignored it

will go away. The glossary of terms at the end of the

prospectus has room for such exotica as AP(E)L,

Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, Graduate Appren-

ticeships and NVQ. But the HND is a qualification

that dares not speak its name. And, just to add to the

paranoia of HND supporters, they should look care-

fully at paragraph 5 of Annex B of the prospectus

where the Foundation Degree Group gives its view

that the degree should be placed at Level 3 in the four-

tier undergraduate framework suggested by QAA. The

HND is currently placed at Level 2. If this is not

changed, the HND will disappear even more quickly.

. . . the re is enor mous

pot en t ia l fo r m isch ie f and

mayh em . . .

The HND is not alone. There are a whole range of

widely respected diplomas in a number of professional

areas such as nursing which are also classified at Level 2.

There is enormous potential for mischief and mayhem

unless all this is clarified, which is why it now has been,

with equivalence being offered.

The honours degree is also at risk in the longer term

because the foundation degree presents a risk-free

alternative particularly for those students with below-

average entry qualifications. Why struggle to get into

the honours degree of your choice at the university of

your choice when a foundation degree is available and

easier to enter? It leaves the student with the option of

leaving at the end of Level 2 with a qualification or

making a decision then on whether to go on to the

honours degree. With financial constraints getting

tighter and top-up fees looming, the 2+1 option will

become increasingly attractive.

The key factor here will be the attitude of

employers. Their importance has been stressed from the

outset and they are the first of the essential features of

foundation degrees to be mentioned in the prospectus.

No prototype foundation degree bid will be successful

unless employers are involved in the development of

the programme. The prospectus also states that it would

be highly desirable if employers took an active part in

the delivery of the programme. Presumably member-

ship of the Institute for Learning and Teaching will not

be compulsory!

. . . the government w i l l

have squa red t he c i rc le o f

fu nd in g expans io n wi th

co nst r a ined p ub l ic

resources wh i l s t . . .

w iden ing par t ic ip a t i on . . .

The employers’ role will be much more decisive,

however, in an area not directly addressed in the

prospectus ± namely in offering viable career oppor-

tunities to foundation degree graduates. On this key

question, the jury will be out until at least 2003. If, in

due course, employers offer the same employment

opportunities to a foundation degree graduate as to a

lower-second-class honours degree graduate, the

implications will be enormous. Students are becoming

increasingly sensitive to market information. And if two

years get you the same job, a year earlier, they will take

it. The government will have squared the circle of

funding expansion with constrained public resources

whilst, at the same time, widening participation. That is

why this radical act could have a revolutionary

impact.

And the government’s determination for foundation

degrees to be a success is not in doubt. For the

prospectus points out that while HEFCE is inviting

bids for development funds to support the delivery of

`prototype’ foundation degrees, they will also be

inviting all HE providers to bid for additional student

numbers to deliver foundation degrees next year. So,

fully fledged foundation degrees, unsupported by any

development funds, will exist alongside the `proto-

types’ . The rationale for this policy is nowhere provided

and it is difficult to think of one, other than expediency

and getting foundation degrees up and running as

quickly as possible. And for those universities and

colleges who do not receive the first prize of

development funds or the second prize of additional

student numbers, there is the consolation prize of

being able to convert existing funded numbers to

foundation degree provision. As a colleague once said

about a previous innovation in higher education,

foundation degrees are doomed to succeed.

PERSPECTIVE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:35

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14