• Dave Foord
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,639 other followers

  • Dave Foords Twitter

  • Advertisements

The ‘Great HE financial swindle’

HE finances in the UK have hit the headlines recently – with the disgusting fat cat approach to pay of senior leaders, the current strikes, where University lecturers are making huge personal sacrifices to try and protect the future of HE in the UK, and then Theresa May ironically calling for a review into university fees.

Image of a student in a libraryIt is the level of tuition fees that I want to focus on in this post, but the other two points are connected and cannot be separated. The title of this post is influenced by the “Great Rock ‘n’ Roll’ swindle” – of the punk revolution in the 1970s, a movement that challenged the then status quo (not the band itself) of the music industry, and I feel that HE needs a similar style of challenge to move forwards, and to break its own historical shackles.

Introduction

Tuition fees where introduced in 1998 under the labour Government, with institutions being able to charge £1,000 per year. Although unpopular at the time there was a reluctant recognition that the cost of HE should partly be funded by the people that directly benefit most from it, and £1,000 per year seems (on hindsight) a fair and reasonable amount to pay. Fees where then increased in 2004, when organisations could charge up to £3,000 – and then again in 2010 to £9,000, and currently sits at £9,250

There are various problems with this model:

Most institutions charge the same

The idea of the introduction of fees, is that organisations can charge up to the set limit – e.g. they have the choice to charge less, and should base the charge on the actual cost of delivery. In reality what happens is just about every single organisation charges the top amount for all courses. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to predict this would happen, which is why I think the current review is so ironic – creating a model that will predictably be abused, and then carry out a review when it is abused – to pretend you are doing something about it!

If organisations where charging based on the actual cost of delivery, then we have 3 options:

  1. They have managed to accurately predict student numbers, manage budgets etc, so every single course costs exactly £9,250 to run.
  2. Courses cost more than this, and they are making a loss on everything they do.
  3. Courses cost less than this,  and the students are subsidising other parts of the organisation – e.g. the fat cat salaries that increase at a significantly higher rate than the salaries of all the other workers.

I think that option 1 is highly unlikely, so if we disregard that, and focus on the other two; it is possible that some courses cost slightly more to run, and some slightly less, and it all balances out – but if that is the case, is it fair that students on the ‘cheaper’ courses are subsidising those on the more expensive courses?

I expect many organisations will argue that option 2, is predominant – and through their good will and generosity they are subsidising the learning from other parts of their activity. This may well be true for some places, and is how traditional universities often functioned, but there are many organisations (e.g. the teaching focused ones) that have limited alternate fund raising ability – they cannot be using this model.

And so the big question is – how many organisations are using option 3 – charging more for the courses, than they cost to run, and effectively profiteering from the students and the system? Having worked with many organisations over the years, I cannot say that I have seen a significant wholesale increase in quality over the last 20 years – there are many good courses, but mixed in with that, there are many courses or units within a course, that are badly delivered, badly run, and not providing good value for money for the students.

The payback methodology is set to fail

The idea that students take out a loan to cover these costs, and then pay this back if and when they are earning enough to justify this, seems on the surface to be a good idea – but charging extortionate interest rates (currently 6%) is simply disgusting, and creates the wrong mentality. If someone studies at HE level, they often do so believing that this will lead to better job opportunities and a better salary. If they believe that they will reach the threshold of having to pay back their loan, then they would be better suited not getting a student loan to cover the cost, but borrowing money some other way, with a lower rate of interest. So why do students take out the student loans? – Because they know that if they don’t reach that threshold then they don’t have to pay it back, or to phrase it differently, they are encouraging graduates to not fulfil their earning potential once they enter the world of work as they will be penalised financially when they do.

Tuition fees hide the additional living costs

Another problem with the excessively high tuition fees, is that it masks the real cost of studying – the cost of accommodation, food, books, sports/lab kit etc. is now often over looked in the media who quote the tuition costs, but miss off the other costs, and many families wanting their children to do well, encourage them to go to HE, without really grasping the size of the debt that they will have on graduation, or the impact that it will have on them for many years following.

It doesn’t represent good value for the tax payer

Possibly the biggest loser in all of this, is the honest, hard working, tax payer. If a student doesn’t pay back their loan (and various predictions suggest this will be significant numbers), then the bill is footed by the tax payer, which isn’t ideal to say the least – but the fact that a large part of that bill will be the unnecessarily high interest rates that are simply boosting the profits of the privately owned loan companies, is quite simply a swindle. It is widely reported and understood that a better educated population, makes a country more profitable, with better output, which benefits all, so we should go back to encouraging people to study not deterring them.

Conclusion

I was lucky enough to attend University when we were given grants to cover most of the costs, and I recognise that model isn’t fully sustainable, and to a certain extent isn’t completely fair – so I don’t have a problem with students making some contributions towards their studies, however the current model is clearly broken. The Lib Dems, made a huge mistake when part of the coalition Government – when they rescinded on their pre-election pledge not to increase tuition fees, yes it is possible that a future Labour Government may change things for the better – but if they do, what do you do with the current set of students that are paying fees? If a future Government does reduce or drop tuition fees, although I would welcome the move, it is a little unfair for the current batch that are saddled with debt – would they get some sort of rebate?

It saddens me, that when I was working at a University full time, I was proud to be part of a system (the UK’s HE provision) that is considered to be one of the best in the world, and highly sought after – and here we now, with a broken system, attracting negative press stories, and punishing the future generations for the current and previous generations, financial mistakes.

Advertisements

Creating a RAG system in Excel tutorial

It may sound a bit sad, but I love Excel – once you have mastered a few simple techniques, you can put these techniques together in different orders to create some very powerful effects, and for me one of the most powerful things that I can do in Excel, is analyse some data in a way that will visually highlight an issue to me, so that I can act upon that issue quickly. One such technique that I (and many others) use is using a RAG rating system. RAG stands for Red, Amber, Green – (based on traffic lights), where things that are on schedule and up to date are Green, things that are a possible concern are Amber, and things that are a significant concern are Red.

Image showing a simple RAG system created in Excel

This following set of videos, are designed as a tutorial to teach you the skills required to create an effective RAG system within your own Excel files.

If you like this tutorial, then please subscribe to my YouTube Channel at:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWuDqvf7nO6-00JMMxm1lIw?view_as=subscriber


Introduction

The first video is an introduction, showing the end product of what will be created.


Using the Now() function

The Now() function is a very simple way to bring today’s date and time into a cell within the spreadsheet, which can then be used to compare against other dates within the spreadsheet, e.g. to see which are in the past or future.


Using a basic IF statement

The IF statement in Excel is one of the simplest and most powerful ways to carry out analysis of data in Excel.


Using a Vlookup function

The Vlookup function, seems a little confusing at first, but once used a few times is relatively straight forwards – and allows you to lookup a value in the left hand column in a table, and then return a value from a specified column in the same row of that table.


Using the Max and Min functions

The Max and Min function are very simple to use, and will tell you what the largest or smallest value is in a list.


Using Conditional formatting to create horizontal bars

Conditional formatting is where the appearance of a cell changes based on values (either the value of that cell, or different cells). This video looks at creating horizontal bars that move further right as the value increases.


Using Conditional formatting to create icons

Another option when applying conditional formatting is to add small icons to cells, for example up and down arrows, traffic lights, warning flags etc.


Putting this altogether to create the RAG system

The final video shows how the skills covered above can be put together to create the desired RAG effect.


I hope that this tutorial has proved to be useful.

If organisations want training providing in things like using Excel more effectively, then please get in touch via http://www.a6training.co.uk/contact.php

Template to quickly create a 2 Circle drag and drop activity in Moodle

On Monday I released a template that I have created allowing people to easily create a 3 circle Venn diagram activity in Moodle. Today I have created and released a similar template for a 2 circle Venn diagram activity.

The template is PowerPoint based, and allows the teacher, to quickly and easily create the Venn diagram with the correct dimensions, and then the required coordinates that Moodle uses to identify the different zones are provided for you, so it is possible to create such an activity in a matter of minutes rather than hours.

The following image shows how the activity looks in Moodle, in this case I have used a chemistry example – the beauty of this type of activity, is that it can be used in any subject area (not just maths).

Image showing the example activity

The template file for this, can be downloaded directly via:

http://www.a6training.co.uk/resources/2CircleVennDiagramActivityForMoodle.pptx

And a video explaining how to use this is:

I will be adding more similar templates to this collection in the coming days and weeks, and they will be available at:

http://www.a6training.co.uk/resources_Moodle.php

If you want to keep up to date with similar videos, then subscribe to my YouTube channel via:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWuDqvf7nO6-00JMMxm1lIw?view_as=subscriber

 

Strategic considerations if thinking of switching from Moodle to Canvas

Last week I attended a ‘Digital Innovation rOundtable’ meeting in London – this is an informal group of FE providers in the London area that meet regularly to discuss pertinent issues in the are of learning technology. Last week’s topic was around Canvas LMS – which caught my interest hence I decided to attend.

All of the providers at the meeting are either current or past users of Moodle, and 3 have made the change from Moodle to Canvas, and have been very pleased with the results.

The purpose of this post, is for me to reflect on the event and to provide some strategic considerations that need to be included in any decision making before switching VLE. I have met with various senior managers/leaders who have decided to make the switch, but the reasons they give are ‘we have heard it is better’, or ‘The college down the road is using it, so it must be good’, and these are not good reasons to make the switch.

At the meeting last week, many of the attendees were unhappy with their Moodles, but this isn’t the fault of the system, but faults in the way that it has been set up over the years, themed and supported. People were saying that they didn’t like Moodle because it doesn’t work well on mobile devices – when in fact if set up properly, Moodle works really well on mobile devices, and is one of its selling points. Other people complained that everything was too cluttered – but this again is down to the decisions made within the organisation. If a Moodle uses a 2 column theme like Adaptable, or the newer Boost them, then it isn’t cluttered at all.

During one of the presentations from an organisation that has switched, they kept highlighting things in Canvas that cannot be done in Moodle – but in fact most of these things, are things that can be done, and with the Moodles that I support are routinely done as standard, which highlights the problem isn’t with Moodle per se, but with the way that it had been used in that organisation. A lot of emphasis was made on the appearance and layout of Canvas, which for those that haven’t looked at it yet, is quite similar to the Boost theme in Moodle.

Advantages of Canvas over Moodle

  • The main selling point of Canvas is its simplicity – it is easier for staff and students to use, which is obviously a good thing, it has also been designed from the ground up based on the user experience, so is a lot less ‘clunky’ than Moodle (which having evolved over many years organically and by lots of different people , there are a few inconsistencies in the way things are done and the language that is used, which to an average tutor is confusing).

Advantages of Moodle over Canvas

  • Moodle has the potential to do a lot more than Canvas, with the huge number of plugins available, and its constant improvement, it is a far more powerful tool (in the right hands).
  • It is also a lot cheaper than Canvas. A typical sized college in the UK should be able to have Moodle externally hosted in the region of £5,000 – £10,000 depending in the specs, and levels of support etc. Speaking to people at similar sized institutions that are using or looking to use Canvas, they are being quoted in the region of £25,000 – £30,000, so there is a significant difference in cost here. If an organisation spent half of the difference between the 2 on training, external support etc. then they could make their Moodles work really well.

Breaking the decision making process down

Image of 2 characters looking at a signpostOne thing that became apparent at last week’s meeting, was the difference between people’s Moodles. Some are good, some bad, and some down right ugly. If you have a Moodle that is so ugly that people hate using it, it has a huge negative perception, then the decision to switch is going to be a very different one to if you have a bad or good Moodle, where investing a little time and money into what you already have is probably a better option moving forwards.

The first steps when considering whether to switch or not, is to consult as many stakeholders as possible – and for this I mean students, teachers, and whatever learning tech teams you have – find out what they like, don’t like, how they are using it, which features are widely used etc.

Then identify what you as an organisation need both now and in the foreseeable future. Many people are choosing options based on current behaviour – e.g. most teachers are sadly still using Moodle as a file repository for their learners, but as we move forward with the notions of blended learning, we need more than file repositories, and we have to be careful that switching to a ‘simpler’ system, may be a good thing for the current behaviour, but what about the expected and required behaviours in a few years time?

Thinking about the costs

As mentioned earlier, if done properly then Moodle should be the cheaper route to go down, which for FE providers at the moment, has to be a serious factor in the decision making process. When Canvas first appeared in the UK, it was seen by many as a cheaper option than Moodle. That is no longer the case, and what we don’t know is what the pricing will be in the future. I firmly believe that Canvas are not planning on following the Blackboard model, of hiking prices once people are committed to using them, but if in the future the company is bought out by a bigger company that does have different morals/pricing ideology then we cannot rule out this eventuality, and this has to be factored in as a potential risk (even if a small one). With Moodle being totally open source and free, there is no risk of a price hike – it will always be free, and if the hosting companies put up their prices, you simply move to someone else. From a risk management perspective, this is a significant advantage of Moodle.

[Edited on 17/01/2018 – Since initially releasing this post, Dave Perry commented that Canvas is owned by a venture capital company – as per this press release: https://www.instructure.com/news/press-releases/instructure-secures-pre-ipo-series-e-round so the risk of a price hike is slightly higher than I realised, as the venture capital firm is going to expect and demand a return on its investment]

Going back to earlier in the post, most people that are unhappy with their current Moodles, are due to poor decisions being made at various points in the set up and deployment, and probably associated with this, is insufficient money and support to get it right. I foresee that many organisations that got Moodle wrong, will see Canvas as a magic pill, that will solve all their ills, and will make the same mistakes with Canvas’ deployment as they did with Moodle’s deployment – the result will be, in 3 or 4 years time, we will be back again having conversations about the problems with Canvas and thinking about switching to whatever is next around the block.

Whether an organisations stays with Moodle or switches, then there has to be an additional internal investment to get the best out of either tool.

Strategic impact on switching

Something that is often missed during the decision making process, is the impact on the teaching staff. If all the teachers hate Moodle, then you don’t have a problem. However if you have some (even if only a few) who like it, and have used it effectively and over the years have invested significant amounts of time and love and energy into improving their courses, then they are not going to be happy to have to redo all that work again in a new system, and this has to be effectively managed. Thinking about myself as a former teacher and how I would react if this happened to me – I would be furious, and any future work that I do, I would make sure is more portable in case we change ship again, but in doing this I would be creating a weaker experience for my learners. If an organisation does have a few such teachers and decides that they are going to switch, my recommendation would be to set up a ‘super-user’ system. Any teacher can apply for this, you then select a handful of super users (based on their previous uses of Moodle). These are then given a single down payment to work an extra week in the summer holidays to transfer their Moodle courses into Canvas, and to use these as exemplar courses for others in the future.

Conclusion

Canvas and Moodle are both excellent tools, and I hope both will be around for many years to come. If an organisation doesn’t have a VLE or their Moodle is so horrendous then the choice of Canvas is easier. If an organisation has Moodle and is either Bad, OK or Good then the decision to switch needs a lot more thought. My instinct would be to first investigate what can be done with what you already have. I support various clients with their Moodles, and the ones where I have a high level of control, then the Moodle is clean, mobile optimised, has high levels of accessibility, a good user interface, and is a pleasure to use – so it is possible to create what you want with Moodle.

The decision making process about whether to switch or not, needs to be a properly run project in its own right, firstly to identify if to switch or not, and then what next steps to carry out to ensure that the development and deployment of whichever tool is properly managed.

Shameless plug

If an organisation wants an independent external person (who is a teacher by background, not a technical person) to come in and review what you currently have, what you could improve, and help you to make the sorts of decisions detailed above, then please get in touch. I have provided such a service for many providers, who have found the process extremely useful, and for many has resulted in significant cost savings, as well as the obvious quality improvements.


Image source: https://pixabay.com/en/away-fork-decision-waymarks-1020437/

Of course it is possible for universities to run 2 year degrees

Earlier this week the BBC reported that the universities minister Jo Johnson, has proposed that some degree courses could be delivered in two years rather than three, which would save the students approximately £25,000 in total on their education costs. Since this announcement, I have seen lots of comments from academics, and universities themselves, saying that this is a ridiculous idea that cannot be delivered in reality – and this both upsets me and worries me.

Image of a lecture theatreWhen I worked for a university over 10 years ago, we carried out a feasibility study and a project looking into accelerated degrees courses, and concluded that it was perfectly possible to do this in a way that was sufficiently attractive to both the learner and the university. And that was 10 years ago – when we look at how much technology and our understanding has evolved in that time, it should be perfectly straight forward to do this now, especially if some of the degree is delivered online.

I am not saying that a 2 year degree is a good thing, there are many advantages of 3 year degrees, mainly that the student has time to challenge their own thoughts and beliefs and change them over time as their studies progress – but recognising that there are now huge financial burdens on getting a degree, I feel that socially there has to be progression into looking into more flexible methods of achieving a degree, either via accelerated courses over 2 years, or via more flexible elongated courses, allowing students to work and study at the same time.

But my main worry here, is the fact that so many people have stated that it isn’t possible. If we look back 150 years, manned flight wasn’t possible, space travel wasn’t possible, Climbing Mount Everest wasn’t possible, people owning their own computer wasn’t possible etc. Of course it is possible to run a degree over 2 years. Yes one would have to look carefully into the logistics, and the make up of the teaching personnel within a team may have to change slightly to accommodate different ways of working, but from a student’s perspective, many degree courses work on about 30 weeks of study a year, which leaves 22 weeks of non-study time, of which some could easily be used for extra work.

So why have individuals and organisations been so quick to dismiss the possibility here – and this is what scares me. I believe that the organisations realise that if it is better value for the students, then it probably means less money for them, hence the resistance towards it. If this is the case, then economically this would suggest that what universities are currently charging the students is more than what it actually costs to teach them.

Whether 2 year degrees are a good thing or a bad thing, isn’t the key here – the key here is that anything which increases student options is good – I expect that most students would stick with the 3 year model anyway, but for the few that do choose an accelerated degree it could mean the difference between doing a degree or not. I hope that some universities out there see this potential opportunity positively and do take up the challenge to deliver in this way.

Blended learning is not ‘new’ – and calling it so is damaging

I was recently in a conversation about blended learning with a senior manager of a college, who kept referring to blended learning as being ‘new’, or this ‘new way of working’ or this ‘new approach’. At first I accepted these slips of the tongue, as referring to the fact that it was new to him and possibly his organisation, but as the conversation developed, I realised that he was seeing blended learning as being new in general, which of course it isn’t.

I don’t want to try and pinpoint the exact point in history that blended learning started (many other people have done that) – as that isn’t the purpose of this post, the point here is that it clearly isn’t new. Although we didn’t call it blended learning at the time, I was doing a form of blended learning about 16 years ago. In 2007 I started working on the excellent AASE programme at Loughborough College – which was and still is a hugely successful blended learning FE programme, and I have been working on blended learning projects almost exclusively ever since. So for me that is at least a decade, which in education and technology terms, is a very long time, and certainly not ‘new’.

Going back to the conversation with the senior manager. He was clearly scared of this way of working, and a way of coping with that fear, was to somehow make it sound that this was an untested, or experimental way of working that hadn’t been proven, and in doing so justified his lateness when arriving at the party. But the problem here, is that this inaccurate fear, and his overuse of the word ‘new’ (I don’t think he was conscious how often he did it) – is going to have a very negative effect on his organisation. If he has to stand up and inspire teachers to change their ways of working, he will struggle to do so, as he hasn’t even convinced or inspired himself.

Image of 2 characters, one on an upward arrow, the other on a downward arrowI also expect that this situation isn’t isolated to him or his organisation, and is quite widespread through education in the UK, and I predict is an issue that may take quite a few more years to go away. What I do expect to happen is a greater gap between those organisations that do and those that don’t, as the organisations with senior managers who simply don’t get it, being held further and further behind, whilst others progress into the future.

I cannot offer any magical solutions to this problem, as I feel it is possibly ingrained within the ‘DNA’ of the individuals – I just hope that over time enough people come into the senior positions that do get these ideas and notions, that there can be the widespread cultural change to stop treating things that have been around for years as ‘new’.


Image Source: https://pixabay.com/en/white-male-3d-model-isolated-3d-2064871/

A financial model for blended learning

I was recently involved in a training session with managers on blended learning, and the underlying issue for them was working out a sustainable financial model for this way of working.

The easy (but ineffective and ultimately expensive) approach is to simply ask teachers to develop the online learning elements in their own time, and then reward them by reducing their face to face contact time for each unit or module. This results in the teachers then teaching more units or modules in total, which means more marking (which as we all know, teachers do in their own time). Not surprisingly this method doesn’t work, but sadly it seems to be the approach that many are adopting – all that happens, is the good teachers leave to work elsewhere, and the organisation has to go through the expensive process of finding replacement staff, and the associated disruption to the team dynamics.

So the solution is to find a model that works for the students, the teachers and the organisation. This may sound like an unattainable Holy Grail, but it is possible, and  a college I supported recently used such a model in one of their HE areas which I will describe here.

Need

The initial driver came from the students; who didn’t like travelling into college 4 days a week, and then find the lectures were often not ‘focused’, and there were big gaps between lectures. The idea was to reduce the face to face element so they only had to attend on 3 more focused days. Each lecture would be reduced in length by roughly 25% and be replaced by an online element that students do in their own time, either as preparation for the face to face element (flipped learning) or as a follow up from the face to face provision (it varied from unit to unit).

Development

A pile of £1 coinsThe team invested money into developing this model, by actually paying the teachers a small amount to develop each of the online chunks. I forget the exact amount, but it was something like £10 per online session, and they had to develop the relevant resources/activities before they were paid. Most of the staff carried out this additional work in the summer months before the start of the next term, and they were supported by the in-house learning technologists, and myself.

First year delivery

In the first year of delivery, although the face to face time for students was reduced, the amount of teaching time allocated to the teachers remained the same, this allowed them to effectively support the online elements that they had developed – and to reflect on and improve them. This means there was no increase in the teachers marking commitments, and made the model attractive to the teachers.

Second year delivery

In the second year of delivery, the teachers allocation was reduced to more closely match the actual face to face delivery time, but they were still given a one third allocation for the online elements (e.g. for every 3 hours equivalent of online element, they were allocated 1 hour of teaching time). They also changed the pay mechanism, so the basic pay was effectively less, but the teachers were paid for marking on a per assignment basis – e.g. if a teacher has a particularly large cohort, they are paid more for marking than another teacher who has a much smaller cohort. This payment was again relatively small, but an essential part of the whole mechanism, as a long term objective of this process, was to increase the student numbers on the courses, which wouldn’t be possible if teachers are paid a flat fee for the marking.

Subsequent years delivery

Once set up and working, the model then becomes financially attractive for the organisation – even by paying the teachers to support the online elements, and changing the assignment marking element (neither of which were huge additional costs anyway) – the overall staff cost was less than before, but where the real financial gains came in, was in the courses where they were able to increase the student numbers – in some cases significantly, and easily offsetting the initial financial investment required in development and years 1 and 2.

Result

This model worked, as it met the needs of students (who preferred this way of working, and the reduced travelling times/costs). The teachers were happy, as although their work had changed, they didn’t feel like their workload had been increased. At first some teachers were apprehensive, but they recognised that this was happening whether they like it or not, so got on board. Many of the teachers involved in the initial development, found that as well as being paid for this extra work, they actually reduced their overall preparation time that they would have done anyway. And of course the college was happy as this became a very lucrative source of revenue for the college, as well as overall raising the quality of the provision.

Key points

This worked because the college had the ability and foresight to invest sufficiently in this area. They then approached this strategically, by planning, engaging with appropriate advisers, and then following this through. The initial driver for the change, was not financial, but was about raising the quality of the product/service being offered. The financial benefits although expected were secondary, and I think helped to make more money in the longer term. Yes, the college had a model whereby they could change the pay mechanisms for the staff involved, which was essential for this project, and some colleges will say they don’t have that flexibility, but if providers want to survive in these difficult financial times, then they will have to start to do things differently, or rephrasing this – be more business-like. And finally, they picked areas that they were confident they could increase their student intake, which was essential for the longer term sustainability.

Can other providers use this model?

Simply put – yes, of course they can. Many organisations will come up with reasons why they cannot adopt this model or a similar one, but most of the ‘reasons’ will be self-imposed, and if unpicked can be resolved. The key is to identify a small number of areas to do this initially, areas where it is most likely to work, and where there is potential to increase student numbers over time (which gives the financial benefit of economy of size). Once these areas have been set up, and are into years 2,3 and onwards (and thus bringing financial benefits for the organisation) – then start to roll this out to other areas within the organisation.

A different organisation that I worked with, when implementing a similar approach, we developed a model which started with investing in a single area initially, then the next year expanding slightly, and building up bit by bit, until after 7 years, all areas would have been ‘converted’. This required an initial investment in years 1 and 2, but after that, the financial savings of the early adopters, funded the development of the other areas, and from year 4 on-wards, as well as funding the development, would also return a ‘profit’. I am aware that organisations will tell me they ‘don’t have the funds to make the initial investment’ – but this is where the strength of the organisation leadership comes in – in that strong leadership will find that investment somehow, and then commit fully to make this work, to ensure that they get a return on the investment.

I have made reference on a few occasions about the financial benefits of increasing student numbers (which gives economies of scale), obviously there is a finite number of students out there, so all organisations cannot increase their numbers in all areas. I think providers will have to carefully identify which areas they are strong in, and which areas they are weaker in. They will increase their numbers in the strong areas and reduce the numbers in the weaker areas (probably getting rid of that area of provision). Ideologically I don’t like suggesting that organisations should cull entire areas, but the sad reality is that we live in difficult financial times, where education is grossly under-funded and if we want to survive, we have no option but to make these harsh business like decisions.

Image Ref: https://pixabay.com/en/background-british-budget-business-20126/