2. Be part of something . . .
BIG!
The 150 million
question
3. Global post-secondary
education: seven propositions
1. mass education (97%) not elite education (3%)
2. market-driven value for money (affordability)
and successful participation (accessibility)
3. in-country or virtual provision (97%) not
cross-border mobility (3%)
4. total ability to pay (individual, employer, state,
family) rather than public/private contribution
4. Global post-secondary
education: seven propositions
5. skills more than qualifications leading to jobs
6. family opportunity (wealth, immigration) rather
than individual empowerment or benefit
7. global questions of change being addressed
by a highly unglobalized industry (viz. high
national regulation).
5. The Global Challenge
Affordable Quality Education: Value for
Money in an Age of Austerity
Education for the mass of HE aspirants
Affordable to the “whole community”, wherever the
widening participation may come from
Quality: “Decent education . . .”
Value: “For a decent price”.
An Age of Austerity: Declining living standards; reduced
government expenditure
In summary: The continuing massification of HE at a
time of, or because of, austerity.
6. Massification of HE
United Kingdom (Leitch, 2006) By 2020:
Basic skills: over 90 percent of adults Level 2 or above
Intermediate skills: over 70 per cent of adults Level 3 or above
Higher skills: over 40 per cent of adults Level 4 or above (degree)
“2020: Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills”
2020: 50 per cent of London jobs requiring Level 4 or higher skills
Australia (Bradley, 2008)
By 2025, 40 per cent of aged 25-34 with degree qualifications
United States (Lumina Foundation, 2011)
By 2025, 60 per cent of the population with degree qualifications.
7. Massification of HE: how?
1. Increasing HE productivity to serve more students
2. Tailoring curriculum, pedagogy (and consequently,
staffing) to meet social, economic or employment
goals
3. Designing new levels of efficiency in support services.
4. Drawing on the different intents of widening
participation, fair access, and massification, to
maximise utility.
Hence, affordable mass education. Of quality?
8.
9. Affordable Quality Education:
a case study
London Met, in its various guises, has been providing
Affordable Quality Education since 1848. Our Strategic
Plan’s No. 1 and No. 2 priorities are “providing a
quality learning experience for our students” and
“enhancing student participation and ensuring fair
access”. Our Plan adds, “on equitable principles”.
10. Affordable Quality Education
1. We are committed to affordable and equitable practice:
• We have set UK/EU undergraduate fees at an average of
£6,850 (approved) and are seeking to bring postgraduate
student fees to an average of £8,000 (recommended)
• We are seeking to harmonise UK/EU and international fees
where there is no government subsidy to students
(recommended)
• We are ensuring affordability both to our students and to the
taxpayers of the future – this is an important aspect of our
Strategic Plan’s commitment to social justice.
11. Affordable Quality Education
2. We are committed to providing value for money:
• We have redrawn undergraduate and postgraduate portfolios
(around 160 courses each) and are increasing teaching time
and term lengths for most of our students
• We are concentrating our research and research training work
so that it also is affordable, and has demonstrable financial
support
• We are process-redesigning our administration, as a prelude
to sharing services with other universities; through application
of a new resource allocation model, efficiencies will benefit the
student experience.
12. Affordable Quality Education
3. We are committed to an access approach:
• We recognise the debt aversion of many, particularly our
poorest students, so have set low, clear price tags
• We are keeping the message simple for prospective students
(e.g. limited fee waivers, rather than bursaries), so our fees
are transparent, and mean what they say
• We have bid for new “affordable” student numbers, and have
successfully been awarded 564 extra student undergraduate
places by HEFCE for 2012/13.
Source: Extract from “Affordable Education of Quality”, Australian HE Congress, Sydney, 26
March 2012.
13. Drivers for portfolio change at
London Metropolitan University
• Merger in progress from 2002
• Student funding debacles, 2007-9
• High student non-completion rates
• Low student satisfaction
• New strategic plan, 2010-13, involving UG and
PG education reviews
• Browne Review → new fees for 2012
• Changing configurations of demand
14.
15. Lesson 1
When you invent a new course,
establish tight time-lines for
assessing its success or failure, and
consequent renewal or deletion.
16. Lesson 2
Regularly weed the portfolio garden,
and dispose of weeds thoughtfully,
lest they just spring up again around
the corner.
17. i-MAP finding
“Three quarters [of institutions, i.e. 76%, in 2010-11]
undertake systematic review of their portfolio – a
relatively new approach for HEIs”
• University level, 29%
• School/faculty level, 23%
• “School level reviews integrating with university level
reviews”, 21%
• Another model, 3%
Source: Innovation in the Market Assurance of New Programmes, i-MAP project,
http://www.i-map.org.uk/documents/i-MAP%20Conference%2017th%20Nov%20-
%20Presentation%20-%20Survey%20of%20Practice.pdf
18. Lesson 3
Cost, demand, employability, and
affordability are key factors, and not a
cop-out to “vocationalism” or “the
professions-only” university. (There
are key associated factors of
mode/location, satisfaction and
reputation.)
19. Lesson 4
Keep the portfolio simple, minimize
administration costs, maximize pence
in the pound to “front-line” activity,
enhance ease in making study
choices. In short, a defensible
portfolio perimeter.
20. Lesson 5
Course reshaping needs to be guided
by what maximizes the institution’s /
faculty’s / department’s educational
and research opportunities. The
normally equates to “has
demonstrable student demand”.
21. Reversal lesson 5
Staff supply and resource supply
need to be taken into account, but
supply-led portfolios only really work
if reputation trumps “natural” student
demand.
22. Lesson 6
The most crucial person in the large-
scale reshaping of the portfolio is . . .
23. Lesson 6
The most crucial person in the large-
scale reshaping of the portfolio is
THE FACULTY DEAN
24. The role of the Dean
The Dean has delegations and
accountabilities for developing and
implementing institutional policy, in
particular through maximizing education
and research outcomes of the faculty and
its departments through the wise use of
human, physical and financial resources.
25. Lesson 7
Rigorous conformity to a costing
model may produce a “fair” result, but
rarely produces the best result, that
is, rarely maximizes opportunities.
26. i-MAP finding
“Exercise caution in the use of data so that
it is not used to make mechanistic
decisions but rather used to inform
judgements. However, taking decisions
without data or secure market intelligence
can constitute a serious risk.”
Source: Consideration 2.4, http://www.i-map.org.uk/documents/i-
MAP%20Conference%2017th%20Nov%20-
%20Key%20Considerations.pdf
27. Rigour and conformity
But rigour is still needed, in maximizing
resources in support of the mission;
and conformity is needed once the
decisions are made, otherwise a hopeless
confusion will reign, and orderly course
management and marketing will be
undermined.
28. Devolution or subsidiarity
“Staff are not fully appreciating that
decision-making is being devolved,
and faculties are being asked to
manage their portfolios with guidance
and help from costing models.”
29. Lesson 8
The exercise of portfolio review is
very valuable for building new staff
and student attitudes, and for
practising meaningful collegiality.
30. i-MAP finding
“. . . There is tension between the notion of
academic freedom and institutional efficiency,
accountability and responsiveness. A more
collaborative and collective approach, involving
managers/leaders, professionals and academics
in both programme development and portfolio
management may beneficially ease this tension.”
Source: Considerations 4.1 & 4.2, http://www.i-map.org.uk/documents/i-
MAP%20Conference%2017th%20Nov%20-%20Key%20Considerations.pdf
31. Lesson 9
Work out your communications
approach in advance, and try to get
there before those who will inevitably
oppose you. That said, sometimes
due process means that you must be
seen as reactive rather than
proactive.
33. Media attention: April-May
2011
• 61 per cent neutral
• 20 per cent negative
• 19 per cent positive
The key word: “cuts”
34. Neutral
‘“Bonfire of the lecturers’ begins as
courses cut” (Independent, 16 April 2011)
“London Met may cut more than half of
degree courses” (Guardian, 15 April 2011),
but also “Classicist, musician,
axeman” (Guardian, 3 May 2011)
35. Positive
“Worried about fees of £9,000? How a
degree need not cost so much”
(Sunday Times, 17 April 2011)
“Dressing the wounds of government
cuts” (New York Times, International Herald
Tribune)
36. Negative
“London Met applicants trapped in
limbo by course closures and UCAS
deadline” (Times Higher, 5 May 2011)
“Up to 10,000 student places could go”
(Islington Gazette)
37. Lesson 10
If you are the vice-chancellor be
prepared to be toasted, and roasted.
One person’s portfolio rationalisation
is another’s curricular barbarity, a
third’s denial of academic freedom,
and a fourth’s value for money.
38. The 150 million question
Course portfolio management:
• Part of a larger question of responsible
educational management
• Efficiency in use of resources
• Value for money, in balancing efficiency in
use of resources with quality of
educational outcomes
• Resulting in utility in serving stakeholder
needs.
39.
40. Portfolio Management:
Efficiency, Quality, Utility
Malcolm Gillies
London Metropolitan University
m.gillies@londonmet.ac.uk
07825 781 309
