½¿É«µ¼º½

The latest government highlights the fragmentation of post-compulsory education as a significant challenge. Deep divisions persist between higher education, further education and training providers, innovation and research activities, and academic and technical knowledge. These splits have raised debates on the effects of competition as a mode of regulation and the need for greater co-ordination, collaboration and coherence in England’s tertiary education. Moving towards a more integrated and cohesive tertiary education system will require a building process – that is, fostering trust, stronger relationships and policies supporting institutions working together. In this blog post, I argue that this building process must confront the inherently political dimensions of the tertiary education debate.

When I refer to the political dimensions of tertiary education, I do not mean issues restricted to the state, government interventions and parties – although these are crucial in this discussion. Instead, I use political in a broader sense to capture the ongoing contestation of ideas, values and power dynamics that shape our understanding and practices of tertiary education (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016; Glynos & Howarth, 2007). These contestations become clear within crucial debates about tertiary education, including marketisation, co-ordination regarding educational offerings and the criteria used to prioritise certain skills and knowledge over others. Our explores systems-thinking approaches in policymaking, as well as the challenges and opportunities for greater coherence, collaboration and synergies in England’s tertiary education sector. Preliminary findings from interviews and policy workshops reveal complex and competing perspectives on the system’s purposes, the role and positioning of different institutions, and the value of tertiary education approaches.

The political nature of developing a tertiary education system might seem evident, but it is crucial to address this challenge without falling into depoliticised narratives. They often reduce the education policy debate to technical and managerial concerns, assuming shared and consensual purposes (Clarke, 2012). Depoliticised discussions might reinforce the dominance of economic arguments that frame tertiary education primarily in transactional and instrumental terms, focusing on pecuniary goals, employability and economic growth (see Ashwin, 2020). This excludes relevant debates, essential voices and alternative perspectives. Without denying the relevant role of education in economic goals, the transit towards a tertiary education system also needs to respond to questions on the educational purposes of the system and how it can serve other broader public and collective benefits for society.

‘The political nature of developing a tertiary education system may seem evident, but it is crucial to address this challenge without falling into depoliticised narratives [that] reinforce the dominance of economic arguments that frame tertiary education primarily in transactional and instrumental terms.’

Recognising the political dimensions is also essential when considering the enactment of potential changes, structures and regulations to develop a tertiary education system. The well-established research on education policy enactment has shown that policies do not simply dictate the practices of education actors and institutions; instead, they are actively translated, reinterpreted and reconstructed according to contextual factors (see for example Ball et al., 2012). Developing a tertiary education system without engaging with these contested perspectives on its purposes, roles and practices can lead us to overly simplistic views of rational choice. These assume shared interests and predictable patterns of behaviour and decision making among students, families and institutions – assumptions that do not align with how policies are put into practice.

Transitioning from a tertiary education driven by quasi-market dynamics and competition to one grounded on collaboration, co-ordination and systemic coherence will be essential for addressing the current sector’s challenges. Undoubtedly, technical and management expertise will be crucial in enabling new forms of regulation. However, addressing the political aspects of developing a tertiary education system will also necessitate broadening the discussion’s terms and balancing economic goals with educational and social aims, fostering open and inclusive dialogue among diverse education actors, and adopting flexible approaches to achieve co-ordination at the local level. Moreover, relevant social research will be needed to explore existing successful initiatives, examine tensions and cohesive elements, and accompany the enactment of policies to inform the impact and dynamics of the proposed changes among institutions, professionals, families and students.

References

Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury Academic.

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.

Clarke, M. (2012). The (absent) politics of neo-liberal education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 297–310.

Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Routledge.

Funding acknowledgement

The project is funded by the John Fell Fund, University of Oxford.