What does it mean to be a specialist anyway?

Over the weekend, HEPI published a blog continuing the conversation about knowledge vs skills, and a blog on governance.

This blog was kindly authored by Emma Maskell, Head of Student and Academic Services, Norland.

As we all digest the recent Post 16 Education and Skills White Paper and what it means for us, we reflect on what it means to be a ‘specialist’ and how we think about our distinctive roles in the system. Here, we discuss what it means to be a specialist and the implications for the higher education landscape now and in the future.

In the UK and Australia, we are seeing a shift in central government narrative towards achieving impact through specialisation. It was a key feature of the recent Post 16 Education and Skills White Paper and in proposals from the landmark Strategic Examination of Research and Development in Australia. But can we all be specialists, and by whose definition are we being defined?

Specialisms are nothing new. Many universities started off as specialist institutions. The ‘red brick’ universities were set up in response to the regional demand for scientific and technical skills in the 19^th century.  Nearly a hundred years later, the Robbins report created a new wave of civic universities responding to a need for greater advanced technical skills in the workforce.

However, following the lifting of the student number cap and a prolonged period of below-inflation tuition fee increases, we are in an age where many universities have had to diversify and broaden their provision to survive. This shift has led institutions to adopt a more generalist, one-size-fits-all approach, often at the expense of their specialist identities. This has often meant chasing the same students, the same research grants and so on. So, have we lost sight of what makes us special?

What’s so special about you?

By most people’s definition, Norland College would constitute a specialist higher education institution. For over 130 years, we have been pioneering early years education and care. Indeed, when you ask most people about specialist institutions, it is our subject specialisms which most commonly define us.

But there are other ways providers can and do specialise. This is the type of specialists the white paper appears to refer to – defined by the type of research we do, our civic mission, serving the communities we belong to or our focus on outstanding teaching and learning.  Let’s not forget industry; the recent white paper was very clear that institutions should be working in conjunction with industry to deliver the skills needed for the delivery of the industrial strategy.

For Norland, it is not only our subject specialism that sets us apart, but also how we deliver our curriculum. Our unique four-year integrated programme – which combines degree-level academic training with rigorous vocational preparation and hands-on experience – equips our graduates with unparalleled industry-specific knowledge and practical skills. This is Norland’s ‘golden triangle’ of knowledge and understanding, skills development and practical application.

The government is concerned that in the current landscape, providers with similar offerings are chasing the same students, and there has been insufficient focus on each institution’s core purpose.  The government’s vision is that providers will be able to leverage specialisms whilst working more closely together to create a compelling regional offer that supports students and drives growth, building on existing good practice across the sector.

Norland is a great example of how specialist providers can and do thrive. Our students see our specialisms as our superpower, enabling them to achieve their life goals now and into the future. We have a unique offering with a strong core purpose through our community activities, student placements and graduate nannying opportunities via our agency, which in turn supports students and drives economic growth that complements the wider regional offer. We work closely with our neighbouring higher education providers. You might say that, under the current proposals, Norland is a model student.

Yet, being a specialist is not without its challenges. As others have pointed out, there is a risk that, rather than resolving cold spots, specialisation risks exacerbating these where providers exit certain subjects or research focus.  If specialist providers withdraw from certain regions, some areas could be left without any early years provision. As a result, students unable to relocate may lose access to these subjects, limiting social mobility. Alternatively, less well-funded research that might not be ‘REFable’ is dropped, restricting innovation and knowledge creation in vital subjects like education.

The right funding model will also be crucial for specialists to continue to succeed. Like the majority of the sector, Norland is a not-for-profit higher education provider. In some ways, we are fortunate as an ‘approved’ fee category provider that we can set our own fees, which cover the additional costs associated with our golden triangle, particularly in relation to the resource-heavy nature of our practical course. However, our students are only able to take out the basic student loan, needing to fund the difference themselves. This is a significant barrier to social mobility and equality of opportunity.  Becoming an approved (fee cap) provider would not resolve this, as we could no longer charge the higher fees to cover the cost of the very things which make our curriculum specialist and unique. It’s catch-22!

In summary

In recent years, the sector has sought to become more generalist in response to the reduction of specialist subject funding, competition for student numbers and the need to diversify income streams.  Up to now, market forces have largely driven this trend of generalisation of the sector. To achieve the aims of the Post 16 Education and Skills White Paper, the Government should work with the sector to ensure that any funding model allows providers to focus on their core purpose and what makes them special, or we risk perpetuating the status quo, undermining the Government’s aims to support the development of the skilled workforce the economy needs. This way, everyone can benefit from the transformative power of high-quality skills and innovation-led practice.