Leadership, management and strategy for higher education in further
education colleges: an expert programme for senior managers
Notes of discussions on HE strategies
During each session attention was drawn to the HEFCE Board paper included in the packs
and to the indicative content of an HE strategy.
There were five group discussions on HE strategies across the three seminars with each
group discussion focusing on a somewhat different range of issues. The key themes are
summarised here with the more detailed summaries for each group following below.
Key points arising from discussion
Colleges produce HE strategies following different models:
 a single corporate strategy including elements focused on HE
 an HE strategy flowing from overarching corporate objectives which are developed in
an HE-specific strategy
 a discrete HE strategy
 developing (or re-evaluating) the strategy in the context of IQER
 IQER informing the strategy
There are different models of managing HE:
 embedded v integrated – this is often related to volume and ‘critical mass’
 should an HE centre be mirrored by a 6th Form centre?
 developing an HE ethos/experience in each model
 conditions of service for staff – teaching HE only or HE and FE. Internal and external
(HEI partners) reference points
Issues for HEFCE:
 scope and length of the strategy
 how strategies will be used by HEFCE – monitoring and revision
 how strategies for growth and development can be managed if ASNs have been
frozen
 the relationship between a college strategy and HEI partners
 whether strategies will or should be published
 the link with the widening participation strategic assessment.
At each session a HEFCE representative was available to provide guidance on the
expectations of strategies and points raised in discussion informed the final version of the
guidance (2009/13 circulated in the first week in April). This included moving the submission
date from December 2009 to January 2010 and providing guidance on the length, scope and
format of the strategy. Colleges also expressed views on the relationship between the
strategy and the widening participation strategic assessment at briefings on this in London
and Leeds.
Staff development materials suggested
Proposals included:
 seminars on strategy writing
 feedback from colleges with strategies prior to and/or included in the pilot as to why
they took the approach they did
 exemplars of operational plans to underpin a strategy

‘user friendly’ examples of implementing the Academic Infrastructure
 materials to support scholarly activity including examples and definitions of research
activity
 case studies of management models including staff contracts (where staff teach only
HE or HE and FE)
 examples of how best to provide and describe the difference in the ‘HE experience’ –
taking into account volume of provision
 a checklist of what to do at each stage from receipt of guidance to sign off
 tools to facilitate internal dialogue – students, staff, managers, governors
 tools to measure the impact of an HE strategy
 models for operationalising a strategy
and:
 a forum for Directors of HE – facilitation of a network.
17 February, Manchester
Session facilitated by Peter Roberts, Principal Stockport College with Karen Moss, Stockport
Notes taken by Anne Thompson, Project team
Discussion
The initial part of the session focused on contributions on how colleges currently develop their
HE strategies with an initial input from Stockport and other participants contributing.



Contributors reported starting from overarching corporate objectives and then
addressing these for higher education in an HE Strategy and/or HE Operational or
Implementation Plan.
This process might take the form of specific HE objectives for each of the college’s
(broad) objectives or only some of them. Alternatively, there might be some of the
college’s objectives which related specifically to HE which were then elaborated.
Some colleges (both those already involved in IQER and those scheduled for later
review) linked preparation of evidence for IQER and their strategic planning.
Discussion reflected the diversity of provision: type of college (general or specialist), size of
college and volume and proportion of HE provision, funding stream(s) and relationships with
HEI(s), local and proximity to other providers.
Of particular interest to participants were the questions:
 should HE and FE be integrated or separated?
 Does separation physically and/or ‘culturally’ (for both students and staff) support the
provision of a higher education experience?
 Or, do students chose HE in FECs because it is a continuation of the further
education experience, providing a more supportive environment?
 How marked should the difference between FE and HE be? Should there be a clear
transition point or ‘seamless progression’?
 How far should difference in provision be accompanied by, or be dependent upon,
difference in conditions of service for staff, staff:student ratios and resources and
facilities for students?
 Should 6th form centres be mirrored by HE centres?
With regard to the production of strategies, participants were concerned to know:
 what HEFCE is going to do with the strategies
 how the institutional teams would relate to colleges
 how the strategy would or might inform funding
 how they would reflect relationships with HEIs and other awarding bodies
 whether strategies would need to be reviewed, revised and resubmitted
 the relationship with (where required) the widening participation strategic
assessment.
A proposal that the deadline for submission of HE strategies be extended to the end of
December in order to accommodate November/December meetings of Corporation was given
general support.
Staff development materials
Proposals included:
 guidance on the length and scope of a strategy
 seminars on strategy writing
 examples of good/effective practice
 feedback from colleges as to why they took the approach they did.
26 February, London, group 1
Session facilitated by Jan Hodges, Principal South East Essex College with Sue Murray,
Director of HE
Notes taken by Anne Thompson, Project team
Discussion
The facilitator introduced the discussion by focusing on the need for a clear HE strategy which
related to other college strategies and drew attention to the pilot – in which some members
had participated – and the introduction of widening participation statements.
Discussion covered:
 the place of an HE strategy – for some participants there was an automatic
expectation that there was/should be an HE strategy, while others noted that HE was
a relatively small part of their business and not necessarily embedded in a collegewide strategy and business plan
 the inclusion of NPHE and the importance of employer engagement and part-time
provision
 the challenge of expanding HE in this context without ASNs
 the relationship with HEIs for validation and/or funding streams
 the extent to which Principals and other senior managers were familiar with and
supportive of HE.
Participants noted:
 production of an HE strategy offered an opportunity for reflection and evaluation
 that FECs provided a different kind of HE – and that it could prove difficult to gain
support from an HEI for validation of vocational level 4 provision.
Participants questioned:
 whether partner HEIs would need to ‘sign off’ a strategy and the extent to which there
were two-way connections between institutional strategies
 whether there was still room for HNDs.
Staff development materials
Proposals included:
 a forum for Directors of HE – facilitation of a network
 ‘user friendly’ examples of implementing the Academic Infrastructure
 materials to support scholarly activity including examples and definition of research
activity
 case studies of management models including staff contracts
26 February, London, group 2
Session facilitated by Jane Wills, Head of Higher Education, City of Bristol College
Notes taken by Sue Vaudin, HEFCE
Discussion
The facilitator introduced the session by describing the process that City of Bristol College
had gone through to develop their strategy. One college in the group who had been part of
the pilot process which was the West London partnership.
Discussion reflected a diversity of approach to both strategies and operational issues. Of
particular concern was the issue of equitable contracts for teaching He and FE in FECs.
Discussion covered:
 how HEFCE would use the strategies – would they be ‘put on a shelf’?
 The relationship with HEI partners. Colleges expressed different views depending
on what their relationships were like with their HEIs, and how many there were.
Some colleges were happy to involve their HEIs in the process but strongly felt that
the college should have the ownership of the document. Other colleges did not want
to feel that their HE strategy turned into a partnership agreement. Some noted LLNs
were interested in seeing the strategy.
 The relationship with IQER. Some colleges found the process of the producing their
HE strategy helped them prepare for IQER and another that the IQER had informed
their HE strategy.
Colleges noted that:
 the lack of ASNs would have a huge impact on FECs, in terms of both their HEI partners
who could pull their numbers out of indirectly funded colleges and in the discussions that
FECs have with employers who are looking for training for their employees.
Staff development materials




Sharing good examples of academic infrastructure (making this more user friendly)
Examples of how staff have engaged in scholarly activity (how people handle the
workload)
Research – how do you define research in FECs with examples
Case studies where there are different approaches of utilising contracted hours to the
college’s best advantage – both where lecturers teach only HE and where they teach
both HE and FE
19 March, Birmingham, group 1
Session facilitated by Chris Morecroft, Principal, Worcester College of Technology
Notes taken by Anne Thompson, Project team
Discussion
The facilitator introduced the discussion by outlining the situation in his own college where the
production of the HE strategy had predated the pilot – although it had been submitted for the
pilot. He noted that applications to HEIs had increased and this was likely to lead to
increased applications to FECs.
The request for HE strategies, to cover both prescribed and non-prescribed HE, should be
seen as an opportunity to argue the case for HE in FE, a platform to lobby. The requirement
for colleges (with over 100 directly funded FTEs) to produce a widening participation strategic
assessment along with HEIs was also an opportunity to market their focus on widening
participation.
Discussion covered:
 the position of colleges with multiple HEI partners and the extent to which a strategy
should/could be developed with them or be agreed by them. It was suggested that
the reason for the partnership should be explicit
 the need for strategies to reflect teaching and learning philosophy and practice and
the student voice
 whether FECs should share their strategies regionally and whether strategies should
be public
 the distinction between a strategy (which could be public) and an underpinning
operational plan (which might not)
 the college’s ownership of the strategy and its use for the college in making internal
and external presentations
 the distinction (in the context of the requirement for strategy approval by corporation)
between governance and management, that is, between strategy and operational
targets
 the link between the strategy and the widening participation strategic assessment
 whether an HE strategy should or could be separate from a whole college strategy –
this was generally felt to be related to volume of provision
 FECs are not part of the sector, but are part of the system and provide a particular
service.
Participants asked for guidance on:
 the length of a strategy
 how regularly it would be submitted and what its role was
 whether it would be public
Staff development materials
Proposals included:
 exemplars
 examples of how best to describe the difference in the ‘HE experience’ – taking into
account volume of provision
 a checklist of what to do at each stage from receipt of guidance to sign off
 tools to facilitate internal dialogue – students, staff, managers, governors
19 March 2009, Birmingham, group 2
Session facilitated by Susan Griffiths, Principal, Wakefield College and Judith Foreman,
Director of HE, Wakefield College
Notes taken by Ruth Tucker, HEFCE
Discussion
The facilitator introduced the session by explaining the role of HE at Wakefield College, where
it forms 8% of provision. The impact of and interest in HE within the college is high, because
staff teach across the range of HE and FE provision. The HE strategy is subsumed within the
Corporate Strategic plan. This has meant governors have not considered its strategic
importance as much as if it had been presented for their consideration separately.
HE is important to the college because of the interest from government, especially in the
HEIPR target. This importance has been reinforced by local concern about HE achievement
at level 4 and above. Thus, the college is interested in raising aspirations, and providing
progression from FE level to HE. To facilitate this, an HE manager was appointed. HEFCE’s
interest in HE strategies has prompted further reflection about the role of HE in the college
and how to move the strategy forward.
Discussion focused on:

the HEFCE request for a WP strategic assessment (WPSA) and its relationship with
the strategy (for colleges with 100+ of directly funded FTEs) and Offa’s monitoring of
Access Agreements. The request provided an impetus to think constructively about
the role of WP within the HE strategy, and it would be beneficial to question the
assumption that colleges are good at WP.

One view was that this was yet another document to tick another box another that the
Offa monitoring agreement was difficult, and the WPSA might help with this.
On HE strategies it was noted that:

the HE strategy was regarded positively for levering resources from within the college

it was considered beneficial for the HE strategy to be approved by the FE
Corporation, and for there to be wider debate within college

on balance it was regarded as sensible for NPHE to be taken account of in the HE
strategy. NPHE added another level of complexity. It was remarked that the strategy
for NPHE amounted to survival

it was thought that the HE strategy should be linked to other policies. As examples
the LSC’s Training Quality Standard, and academic infrastructure were mentioned

there was a question, (but no answers) about finding good data to inform the planning
of provision to address local needs. It was thought that the data from RDA
observatories was at too high a level of generality

some considered the HE strategy should be brought together with the wider college
strategy; others considered it would be better to have separate HE strategy.
Staff development materials

Tools to measure the impact of an HE strategy

Models for operationalising a strategy.