Further education and training (FET) learner progression to higher education transitions

There are many issues being progressed by the different stakeholders involved in the sub-group and the group has served as an excellent mechanism to discuss ideas, share data and good practice that can influence relevant actions, while also providing a platform for considering opportunities for further work and collaboration. Set out below are the key policy areas that are being progressed by individual members of the sub-group, or which are being discussed as a collaborative response, for further consideration and development to support FET-HE transitions.

Strategic approach

1. Common objectives and targets: the Department of Education and Skills should consider, in partnership with the Higher Education Authority (HEA), the Further Education and Training Authority of Ireland (SOLAS), the Irish Universities Association (IUA), the Technological Higher Education Association (THEA) and Education and Training Boards Ireland (ETBI), further refining and developing objectives and targets for FET-HE access and progression (in addition to the existing access plan commitments).
2. Alignment of performance compacts/agreements: the next round of strategic compacts/performance agreements between the HEA/Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and SOLAS/ETBs should reflect commitments at institutional level to the delivery of these common objectives and targets for FET-HE transition, including progression, learner experience and retention.
3. Targeted FET-HE funding support: consideration should be given for additional funding and more flexible support for those learners who are identified as part of the access cohort who wish to progress from FET to HE. As a first step, the existing funding supports available should be mapped out. The positive progress of the initial teacher education access initiatives under strand one of the programme for access to higher education (PATH) Fund offers a potential template that could be replicated in other thematic areas. The outcomes from targeted FET-HE funding support initiatives need to be considered.
4. Transition process timelines: there should be further consideration of the impact of key dates and milestones in the FET-HE calendar year on the effectiveness of FET-HE transitions to explore whether changes could be made to enhance this process. This should include the calendar for completion of FET courses, processing of funding supports, application for and acceptance of places in HE and the start dates of programmes in both HE and FET.

Reviewing provision

1. Level 5/6 review: Quality and­­ Qualifications Ireland (QQI), working in partnership with SOLAS, the HEA and key stakeholders, will compare and contrast a selection of higher certificate awards/programmes with the outcomes of level 5/level 6 FET awards/programmes in cognate areas by examining learning outcomes, content, entry standards and progression.
2. Feasibility of a common points framework: the potential for a common points framework for progression with FET qualifications to the overall HE system should be explored to achieve a more transparent and consistent system of progression. This work could also consider existing HEI practices in accepting non-QQI awards (e.g. BTEC, City and Guilds) for progression. International practice, such as the methodology underlying the UCAS tariffs, merits consideration. Alongside this work, it may be useful to compare and contrast leaving certificate and FET awards, initially on the basis of learning outcomes, volume, NFQ level, assessment and quality assurance. Further research in this area is required.
3. Simplification of FET funding programme structure: SOLAS should continue to progress efforts to simplify the FET programme structure and more clearly identify FET courses with a primary purpose of facilitating progression to HE and ensure learners are informed of, and can access, relevant qualifications for HE entry/progression. Consideration could be given to the merits of identifying common prerequisites for progression to HE, whether by discipline or for FET as a whole.

Building the research base

1. Further analysis of existing transitions data: the existing data requires further analysis and in some cases validation. More data on the retention rates of FET students progressing into HE should be gathered and interrogated. Further work may be useful in capturing fully all the entry routes from FET colleges/programmes/qualifications to higher education. Additional data on the background of learners who transition would also be beneficial, particularly in relation to access learner categories.
2. Annual transitions report: the data produced as part of the sub-group's work on FET learner demand for HE, FET-HE progression and retention of FET students within HE should be monitored via annual FET-HE transition reports to assess development and inform work around FET-HE transitions.
3. Research on non-take up of HE offers: further research should be progressed to ascertain the reasons why a significant number of FET learners who are offered a place in HE chose not to take up a place.
4. Standardised coding of FET graduates within HEI student record systems: an agreed standardised system of coding FET entrants across the HEIs would help support the research process and the feasibility of such an approach should be considered, as there is a need for a more accurate reflection of what's going on about FET transitions.

Developing consistent approaches

1. Technological HE sector provision: THEA held a colloquium bringing institutes of technology (ITs) and technological university Dublin (TUD) together to consider short cycle (level 6) and long cycle (level 7 and 8) provision, including the role of FET in supporting pathways to this provision. This could further kickstart a discussion and process on further development of this approach.
2. Standardisation of university entry requirements: the new IUA-led further education progression sub-group will work towards an agreed framework for progression from FET to universities, which will include the standardisation and fairness of the minimum or essential entry requirements sought.
3. Thematic transition frameworks: overall, FET-HE transition frameworks, based on collaboration across the sectors and building on existing practice, should be explored around particular disciplines or themed groups of disciplines, with an initial focus on the following areas:

• social care;
• ICT;
• healthcare;
• early learning and care;

1. Widening awareness of FET programmes: the guide to FET provision produced for the sub-group should be regularly updated and distributed to relevant personnel within HEIs.
2. Non-post leaving certificate (PLC) FET progression: HEI access strategies and entry criteria should include recognition of the potential pipeline of those who have completed non-PLC FET level 5 and 6 programmes and achieved qualifications (e.g. apprenticeships, traineeships). A 'back to college' lifelong learning initiative/campaign targeting this cohort, with an interest in upskilling via HE, is worth considering in future.
3. Piloting of a cross HE approach to FET: the FET-HE network, involving universities, IoTs and ETBs, should be supported in considering how a common cross-HE approach to recognising FET qualifications and supporting transitions to IoTs and universities might be piloted.
4. Second chance opportunities: the issue of those HE students who withdraw from programmes should be further considered from a FET-HE transitions perspective. There is a need to identify why students withdraw and to consider whether there are appropriate interventions in FET for these students. This should include examining the feasibility of access to FET options, including access to FET programmes, awards and guidance.
5. Integrated approach to FET guidance: the progression of an integrated guidance strategy across FET should assist in ensuring a clear and consistent approach around transitions. This should include the clearer articulation of learner pathways and development of guidance supports and resources to help FET learners navigate progression to higher education on a more systematic basis and to raise awareness of the qualification requirements for progression.

As noted above, the sub-group has already brought value in facilitating a collaborative approach to FET-HE transitions. It should have an important continuing role in further considering, supporting and overseeing the progression of the areas for potential development flagged above, reviewing and responding to new data as it emerges, and helping to develop common approaches and address issues that may arise around FET-HE transitions in particular thematic areas.