Towards a PractitionerLed Partnership Approach: Aimhigher Hampshire

1
Towards a Practitioner-Led Partnership Approach
Aimhigher (Hampshire Isle of Wight)

• Tony Acland, Rebecca Johnson,
• Kate Smith

2
STRUCTURE

• Purpose of paper
• To examine the strengths and limitations of a
  bottom up approach to partnership working
• What is Aimhigher?
• A campaign in England to increase and widen
  participation in higher education

3
EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIP WORKING

• Institute of Access Studies (2003) Report
  Findings
• Key ingredients for effective partnership working
  identified by the 2003 report included
• Recognition of shared market imperatives and
  synergy
• Regional and local co-ordination including
  consultation and representation from community
  representatives
• Well resourced central administration
• Developing a shared vision sharing good
  practice creating a bridging organisation.
• Effective communication
• Sense of geographical identity and local
  initiatives to involve potential students
• Involvement of FE as full partners
• Clear management structure which is non
  hierarchical and facilitates open and transparent
  decision making.
• Robust monitoring, evaluation and tracking

4
AIMHIGHER (HAMPSHIRE ISLE OF WIGHT) PARTNERSHIP

• Arrangements need to take into account the
  following context
• Limited previous experience of partnership
  working
• Each university has established their own
  widening participation programmes, local networks
  and marketing agendas
• Limited budget necessitated prioritising 40 from
  150 secondary schools and 15 out of 22 colleges
• High school attainment rates disguise local
  discrepancies
• Isle of Wight manages its provision of education
  in a unique way
• This political context required a devolved
  Aimhigher organisational structure

5
BOTTOM UP APPROACH SCHOOLS

• Schools not fully engaged in first year of
  Aimhigher
• Second year provided 3000 for School
  Co-ordinators with key roles
• School involvement improved markedly with 97
  of target schools attending On campus events and
  95 inviting in ambassadors
• Black Minority Ethnic groups and Disabled
  students under-represented in Aimhigher
  activities.
• New Action Programmes to address this PLUS small
  projects under Good Ideas Fund
• Confidence in the bottom up partnership
  approach has resulted in a school leading staff
  development programmes

6
BOTTOM UP APPROACH COLLEGES

• Previous Widening Participation partnerships were
  university dominated.
• As one College Principal stated Partnership is
  something done to you.
• Now four colleges lead Action Programmes equal
  with universities
• Colleges feel much more equal and engaged
  though would like more funds
• 97 positive feedback received from colleges in
  planning workshops.

7
BOTTOM UP APPROACH COMMUNITY LINKS
Competitive bids led to six successful community
projects, built on ideas generated from the
groups themselves. Projects are innovative and
include support for disabled and BME groups
8
ROLE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION IN A BOTTOM UP
MODEL

• General Role
• Ensuring effective communications
• Co-ordination of activities
• Overseeing the planning, tracking, monitoring and
  evaluation process

9
ROLE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION IN A BOTTOM UP
MODEL (2)

• Specific Advantages of well resourced central
  office
• Schools, Colleges and Community organisations
  feel that their staff time is respected
• There is one umbrella structure rather that
  individual contracts between schools and
  universities (this avoids competition between
  HEIs and schools easier financial control etc).
• The relationship between Schools, Colleges and
  Community organisations is subcontracted allowing
  them to liaise directly with target schools
  whilst reporting to the central admin
• Central administration can monitor participation
  rates of all Schools, Colleges and Community
  organisations and support them in delivery
• Central administration can provide outlets for
  output (conference staff development etc).
• Central administration can advise regarding
  similar projects and on methodology
• A large number of Schools, Colleges and Community
  organisations can be supported in a cost
  effective manner.
• Schools, Colleges and Community organisations can
  be linked to other projects and benefit from good
  practice examples.

10
LIMITATIONS AND DISADVANTAGES OF PARTNERSHIP
WORKING

• In a devolved structure the central office and
  Director have no direct control over the
  independent partners.
• No direct line management of Aimhigher staff
• Institutional managers have many different
  agendas, some competing with Aimhigher need for
  central co-ordinators to identify and work around
  these agendas
• Face to face communication is essential,
  supported by phone and email
• Sometimes decisive action needed if failure is
  threatened
• One size does not fit all Isle of Wight
• Adapt approach to changing education agendas

11
CONCLUSION

• Does partnership working widen participation?