On 9 November, the Co-operative College hosted a conference on ‘Making the Co-operative University’, “with the intention of exploring its role in supporting and co-ordinating a federated model of co-operative higher education”, according to Joss Winn, a key player in co-op HE and a founding member of the Lincoln Social Science Centre (SSC) co-operative.
Following the conference and an “historic” decision to pursue the creation of a co-operative university (HE Marketisation, 16 October 2017), Winn said the Co-operative College intended to meet with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) “to understand the current regulatory landscape” following the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act, and to see what concrete steps must be taken to make this plan a reality.
The Higher Education and Research Act makes it easier for “alternative providers” – i.e. for-profit universities and colleges – to enter the still largely publicly-subsidised higher education sector.
While potentially extremely destructive, the reforms in principle also allow for the creation of co-operatively owned and governed alternative providers, as long as such institutions meet the radically de-regulated criteria for access to the student loan system – a source of funding crucial for the survival of such an offering.
“If the key requirements of demonstrably good governance, a good quality education, and a sustainable financial model remain the basic threshold for gaining degree awarding powers (DAPs),” Winn said, “then there is no reason why [a co-operative university], operating on 180 year-old, values-based principles of social organisation, couldn’t meet those requirements in ways that challenge the existing system.”
However, others were not so enthusiastic. “I found a day that should have been inspiring somewhat odd,” wrote Richard Hall, also a member of the SSC and long-time collaborator with Winn. “It had a revivalist feeling, yet a revival of co-operativism situated inside a pragmatically-accepted view of the market and profit.”
“I found myself questioning why we are building an alternative model of the higher education institution, rooted in an outdated model of educational practice and governed in a way that perpetuates that outdated model,” he added. “I found myself questioning whether this was a real alternative.”
“The reality that the new Office for Students can only drive a market agenda, rooted in strengthening the forces of production of knowledge, rather than democratising the relations of production of knowledge, acts as a brake on the alternative positions that any co-operative university can develop.”
A BBC Panorama investigation – which will air tonight at 7:30pm on BBC One – has found evidence of fraud at one of the UK’s largest ‘alternative providers’, the Greenwich School of Management (GSM).
Only the latest in a series of scandals related to higher education reform – the subject of this blog – the Tory utopia of a market in HE seems to be slowly crumbling along with its general credibility in UK Parliament.
The BBC documentary, which shows dodgy education agents at such publicly-subsidised providers offering to get “bogus students” admitted into a government-approved private so they could “fraudulently claim student loans” for a £200 fee, as well as offering to “fake attendance records and to provide all their coursework” for another £1,500, seems to confirm these fears.
How big is the problem?
According to the funding body for higher education – the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) – as of 13 March 2017 there were 115 alternative providers with specific course designation, which means students at these providers can access support through the Student Loans Company (SLC).
Student loans represent not only an investment by individual students, often supported by family, but also on the part of the public who will have to bear the cost of up to 45% of these loans due to non-repayment (see HE Marketisation, 29 October 2017)
Loans for tuition fees grew from £36 million to £175 million, during the same period, peaking at £236 million in 2013. According to BBC figures, “about £400m-a-year is received by 112 private colleges through the student loan system”.
Including other alternative providers that do not have access to SLC funding, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) estimated earlier this year that there currently over 700 alternative providers in England.
HEPI summarised the wide range of business models that such providers are based on: “‘catch-up’ for profit; sub-degree colleges; generalist colleges, serving both undergraduates and postgraduates; small specialist, not-for-profit colleges; exclusively postgraduate small specialists; for-profit providers focusing on international students; for-profit distance learning; and campuses overseas”.
“Alternative providers are hard to classify because they have different legal forms, different objectives and different target audiences,” HEPI commented. “They provide a diverse range of academic offers and have a variety of organisational arrangements.”
“They have also been subjected to extensive external pressures in recent years,” it added. “Many have closed or merged, while some have grown dramatically, fueled by the availability of more student loan finance for their students.”
Hunt is here referencing the new Higher Education and Research Act (HERA), which makes it easier for such alternative providers to become designated providers with access student loans, or in some cases become fully-fledged universities – a title protected by the Queen.
‘We do not believe that plans to increase the number of alternative providers can go ahead until we can quantify the risk to public finances and our universities’ global reputation from a rapid expansion of private for-profit education,” Hunt added.
Hunt also pointed to a history of “scandals with for-profit companies in US higher education, like Trump University”, which were not taken into account by Tory HE reformers, but “must surely serve as a warning to our government”.
Problems in the US
In a two-year investigation by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions into for-profit universities in the US higher education system, known as the Harkin Report, it was reported that:
Federal taxpayers are investing billions of dollars a year, $32 billion in the most recent year, in companies that operate for-profit colleges. Yet, more than half of the students who enrolled in in those colleges in 2008-9 left without a degree or diploma within a median of 4 months.
Many for-profit colleges fail to make the necessary investments in student support services that have been shown to help students succeed in school and afterwards, a deficiency that undoubtedly contributes to high withdrawal rates. In 2010, the for-profit colleges examined employed 35,202 recruiters compared with 3,512 career services staff and 12,452 support services staff, more than two and a half recruiters for each support services employee.
This may help to explain why more than half a million students who enrolled in 2008-9 left without a degree or Certificate by mid-2010. Among 2-year Associate degree-seekers, 63 percent of students departed without a degree … During the same period, the companies examined spent $4.2 billion on marketing and recruiting, or 22.7 percent of all revenue.
Publicly traded companies operating for-profit colleges had an average profit margin of 19.7 percent, generated a total of $3.2 billion in pre-tax profit and paid an average of $7.3 million to their chief executive officers in 2009.
He found that, despite having a student body of about 500,000 students, the University of Phoenix only had a completion rate of 9% in 2011. The university was also the subject of a controversial documentary ‘College Inc’, in which three Nursing graduates described their expensive diplomas as “worthless” because the course only “aspired” to professional accreditation, and could not be used to get a job in a hospital
Another US Government report found that the University of Phoenix pressured its staff to meet recruitment targets, encouraging the enrollment of unqualified students as long as they got “asses in classes”.
Despite all these problems, even during the 2008 Financial Crisis the Apollo Education Group turnover increased by 25% during the period 2008 – 2010, with top executives taking home $6m each in 2008, Hotson pointed out.
However, in 2008, the US Federal Court jury found the Apollo Education Group guilty of “knowingly and recklessly misleading its investors” and were forced to pay $280m in reparations, Hotson reported.