HEad start Preparation for Higher Education

2. HEadstart Preparation for Higher Education A study of collaborative partnerships in easing the transition to HE Helen Bussell & Lesley Mulcahy Teesside University Business School

3. ‘Spiky Profile’ (DfIUS, 2001). • Preparation for Higher Education (PHE) [Also PP & PEBP] • Aim • to remove perceived barriers to progressing to HE • to encourage more students to apply to university • to prepare students for working more effectively in HE • to improve communication & academic skills • to enhance partnership working with local CFEs • Important for the progression of students from local CFEs and as an element of TU widening participation strategy

4. Methodology • Stage 2 of a longitudinal evaluation study • Focus groups • Current CFE students • In-depth interviews • Progressing students at TUBS • Module leaders & deliverers at 4 CFEs & TUBS • Senior managers at 3 CFEs • Secondary data analysis

5. Benefits to students • ‘I think it has given them a greater understanding and clarified their perception of what’s required of them at HE level and I think certainly for some of the mature students it’s made them realise that perhaps it’s not quite something to be so intimidated of but also that it’s something that they’ll think ‘Well I can do this.” • “I have 3 who were dead set about university pre-Christmas and the more they went to the HE the more they thought actually I can do this, I’m not scared of it anymore” • “In my group none of them have anybody in their family who’ve gone onto degrees. They all have the opinion that universities are for rich intelligent people. Now ….we’re breaking those barriers down. ….They suddenly realise these are normal people.”

6. Partnership issues • Branding “…..confusing…..the students. It doesn’t actually ……give you a hint about the research process or the study skills that you gain as well. So I just think it doesn’t really encompass the true nature of the unit really.” • Delivery “It can be discreet if you want or it can be embedded as well so it’s the flexibility of it really that’s good”.

7. Partnership issues • Planning “We met before the beginning of the academic year so we knew what was expected of us”. • Teaching materials “There’s a lot of stuff on the Blackboard site, and when she showed me it this year, I said ‘Wow, it’s like Christmases all came at once!’” “We’ll pick bits and pieces, what’s appropriate” • Systems “Marking at Level 3 is not the same as marking at Level 4 and also I found there were different attitudes to marking” “We don’t have access to the university ‘U’ Drive from within the college.”

8. Partnership issues • Quality ”I think one of the main gripes has been from the staff really in terms of the marking of it and the feedback for each of the 4 tasks and all the documentation that went with that. They found that quite laborious and quite time consuming”. • Staff development “I would like to see regular meetings between ourselves and the university so we can discuss any issues, share good practice, standardise marking”

9. Partnership issues • Relationship “Working with the university is good and it is good in a way that it’s not too obtrusive as well. It’s kind of just that mutual respect that Yes, you know what you’re doing so we’ll just let you get on and do it but we’re here if there are any issues”’ “……The visits didn’t transpire. But that didn’t really affect us. We were just getting on with it. “ • Ownership “Are we considered to be academically and intellectually capable and valued and therefore working in partnership?” “I just didn’t feel part of a consortium or partnership group….”

10. Discussion Points • Investment • Knowledge partnership • Widening participation • Impact of recession • Admission policy