Exploring the benefits and challenges of providing police education within the higher education sector

Abstract

This article reviews qualification routes linked to Higher Education (HE) for Police Officers in England and Wales. The work analyses open source data (2019–2024). Findings identify few standardised data sources. Those declaring a relationship with a HE provider fell significantly by a fifth, whilst across the timeframe over half the declaring police forces (28/41) changed their HE provider. PPD courses declined by a fifth (21-17). Comparably, PCDA courses doubled across the period. This article offers commentary on the potential drivers behind changes and summarises the benefits and challenges in HE and police force collaboration in the provision of police education.

Introduction

Despite an extensive history of policing in England and Wales, police education and undertaking a ‘policing degree’ through a defined policing route/apprenticeship is a relatively new concept within Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s). Most established professions have long-standing structured relationships with HEI’s - policing does not. Instead, prior to 2019 police education was largely insulated from external audit and developed, managed, and delivered ‘in house’ by police practitioners within each police force. What follows is an overview of the key changes concerning police education in England and Wales and an exploration of the entry routes into policing, and how these provisions evolved between 2019 and 2024. This article then examines the key challenges in this turbulent field, the benefits of retaining collaboration between police forces and HE, as well as ascertaining who might be best placed to deliver that police education.

‘Regional’ to ‘local’ training: IPLDP

Historically, police training in England and Wales was comprised of 14 weeks regionalised residential training (Macvean and Cox, 2012) before recruits returned to their respective forces for further training and support. Trainers were police officers who were required to obtain police-based training qualifications. However, an Inspectorate report criticised this process, arguing it was “not fit for purpose” and required restructuring (HMIC, 2002: 72). One reason for this is that residential training schools socialised and assimilated new recruits into police culture (Fielding, 1988), embedding the transmission of often dysfunctional culture and practices. More ‘localised’ training delivery by each force was intended to ‘interrupt’ these cultural transmissions.

In 2005 the impetus behind the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme (IPLDP) was to modernise training, professionalise the service and attempt to ‘change’ the negative aspects of police culture, particularly adversely impacted by the findings of “the secret policeman” (2003) (Heslop, 2011; Macvean and Cox, 2012). IPLDP essentially involved new police recruits being solely trained by police officers within their own force area, rather than being trained at regionalised residential schools. However, the global recession in 2008-2009, led to priority-based budget cuts for many police forces which in turn led to a freeze on recruitment, civilian redundancies, and the faltering of the IPLDP programme (Ramshaw and Soppitt, 2018).

The professionalisation agenda

It was Neyroud (2011) who recommended a radical change to pre-entry qualifications for policing, suggesting that forces should recruit individuals with high quality degrees and with a wide and diverse career experience. However, it was Flanagan, in an earlier review, which highlighted the need to move from the concept of police ‘training’ towards police ‘education’ (2008:53). In doing so he placed the emphasis on police forces undertaking partnership working with Further and Higher Education Institutions (FE and HEI’s) (2011:11). This resulted in the dissolution of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) (2011) and the creation of the College of Policing as a new professional body (2013) whose mandate is quality assurance and the provision of clear standards for FE and HEI’s through a chartered qualification framework and National Curriculum (Neyroud, 2011:45). The impetus was the desire to elevate policing to the status of a ‘profession’ (Bryant et al., 2014:382) and in achieving this from 2020 onwards all officers were required to hold a degree level qualification in policing (Bekhradnia and Beech, 2018).

However, the impact of the global financial market crisis (2007-2008), and the austerity measures that followed, resulted in England and Wales police forces reducing their internal capability and resourcing for officer training and development. In September 2019, the UK Home Office implemented an uplift policy to reverse the reductions in police numbers caused by austerity measures, by recruiting 20,000 new police officers over a 3-year period (Home Office, 2020), supported by almost £750 million in government funding (Home Office, 2019). These events created a ‘perfect storm’, with forces having neither the capacity to recruit or to train officers in the large numbers needed to meet central government targets, or the capability to provide this type of HE academic learning, and/or or properly recognised academic qualification.

The three main routes: DHEP and PCDA and PPD

In 2016 the College of Policing created the Policing Education Qualifications Framework (PEQF) as its foundation for developing academic programmes for all forty-three forces in England and Wales (College of Policing, 2020). Therefore, from 2019 onwards, and in response to the newly emerging market demand, a wide range of HEI’s began to offer three differing educational routes (Brown, 2018). The first was the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship Programme (PCDA), enabling non-graduate recruits to complete a degree program whilst simultaneously undertaking their police training. The second was the 2 year ‘Degree Holder Entry Programme’ (DHEP), representing a ‘conversion course’ for recruits already holding a degree, but not within the discipline of policing (Ramshaw and Soppitt, 2018). The third involved students undertaking an undergraduate Professional Policing Degree (PPD), informally termed the ‘pre join degree,’ where students might seek recruitment to police forces after completing their degree studies (Mahruf et al., 2020). PPD financially remains an attractive proposition for police forces, as it follows the ethos of candidates wholly funding their pre-employment education (Bryant et al., 2014; Flanagan, 2008), as opposed to police forces having to incur those costs; as recruits in this situation are technically ‘education ready’. Moreover, PPD involves a straightforward ‘two way’ relationship between student and HEI’s, where the immediate focus is education rather than employment, unlike the former apprenticeship schemes. All three programmes require providers to adhere to the PEQF framework set by the College of Policing, as continuing delivery requires accreditation and relicensing from the College of Policing, thus ensuring that police forces both ‘educate the recruited’ as well as simultaneously ‘recruit the educated’ (Ramshaw and Soppitt, 2018: 246).

Yet despite the burgeoning of these three new entry routes, some forces were wholly reluctant to relinquish the “in house” IPLDP that was formerly in place for new recruits within their own force area. IPLDP provides only a Level 3 qualification in policing practice, not a degree. Moreover, the existence of IPLDP, running alongside DHEP and PCDA, potentially sends out a message to all HEI’s that the police are willing and capable of training their own officers, potentially damaging the existing relationships that HEI’s have with police forces. IPLDP was allowed to continue until 31^st March 2024 (HE and Policing forum, 2023a). The closure of IPLDP now provides a level of consistency, in that all police constable entry routes are now underpinned by the same core national curriculum (College of Policing, 2024c).

The fourth entry route: PCEP

As a result of the consultation between Police and Crime Commissioners and NPCC Chief Constables a new fourth entry route, termed the Police Constable Entry Programme (PCEP), was formally agreed in April 2023. Unlike PCDA and DHEP it does not require a collaborative approach between a police force and a higher education institution. The aim of this 2 year programme is to equip recruits with the skills, knowledge and behaviours required of them (College of Policing, 2023). The College of Policing accept that it is unhelpful to have 43 differing forms of accreditation (HE and Policing forum online meeting, 2023b) and therefore the development, licensing and quality-assurance of PCEP is undertaken by the College of Policing, with all forces following a PCEP National Policing Curriculum, which sets a national standardised benchmark (College of Policing, 2023). PCEP is currently designed so that police forces can deliver the programme ‘in house’ with no requirement for external accreditation. It achieves this by blending classroom-based learning with ‘hands on’ practical policing experience. The College have developed guidance to accredit PCEP to level 5 accreditation, however it is stressed that such accreditation is optional rather than mandatory (College of Policing, 2024b).

Although the NPCC suggest that PCEP represents an ‘additional’ rather than a replacement of established routes, it does not complement the existing framework and, indeed, it directly contradicts it (HE and Policing forum, 2023a: 1). The fourth entry route is arguably a divisive manoeuvre, as the other routes require a professional university degree (DHEP/PCDA and PPD) whilst the fourth route allows candidates without a degree to become officers, which arguably undermines the core principles of the Policing Qualifications Framework (PEQF) and the ‘professionalisation agenda’ (HE and Policing forum, 2023a: 1; McCanney and Taylor, 2025), inferring that the original aspiration to deliver ‘professionalisation’ through FE and HEI’s has seemingly now been relaxed. Indeed, the very fact that some forces were allowed to continue to provide IPLDP as a non-quality assured course, inevitably means that this two-tier system of police education (those with degrees, and those without) has already been facilitated. Therefore, this new non-accredited fourth route thus appears to be the IPLDP ‘replacement’ (Aplin and Atkin, 2025).

Optimisation

The optimisation programme is essentially the ‘second phase’ for the introduction of new policing entry routes. The College realise that potential recruits, and the wider public, need to have a full understanding of all the options and ‘routes’ available, and optimisation intends to communicate this effectively. Therefore, optimisation has a strong focus on supporting forces and educational providers in the marketing of the degree, particularly PPD, as well as providing workshops and master’s classes (College of Policing, 2024c). A range of resources and marketing materials have been developed to support police forces to this end (College of Policing, 2024c).

Optimisation involves a revision of the degree requirements and provides a rationalised curriculum, which HEIs are expected to deliver from September 2024. Optimisation has also involved the introduction of a single procurement framework from Blue light commercial (College of Policing, 2024b). All programmes being delivered by HEIs must undergo a Quality Standards Assessment (QSA) in order to ensure consistency across programmes nationally, check adequate resourcing is in place, as well as identify promising practice to share with other HEIs (College of Policing, 2024b). It is also significant to note that the optimisation of these routes has involved the removal of the term ‘PEQF’. The expansive, yet very prescriptive PEQF mapping document (Brown, 2018; Williams et al., 2019), which all HE providers were formally expected to teach, is now replaced with a more fluid, flexible structure around which HE’s can more effectively design their modules and assessments, which is indeed beneficial.

Which route?

It will very much be a decision for individual forces to decide the blend or emphasis of different programmes offered to new recruits. The overarching ethos behind the different entry routes is to adequately prepare new officers; embed professional skills, values and behaviours at the outset and develop higher level critical thinking and problem-solving skills to meet the complex challenges of police work (College of Policing, 2024b). Indeed, as Bryant et al. argue, when recruiting and educating student officers we need to envision the kind of officers we want – those that are equipped to make sound professional decisions in emotionally charged situations (2014). College of Policing monitoring shows that the new Police Constable Entry Programme (PCEP) was delivered by four forces at inception (Jan-March 2024) and that a further 27 forces are due to recruit within the next 12 months. Currently all forces are taking a blended approach to delivering the four routes on offer. Some are using all routes (PCDA, DHEP, PPD and PCEP) and some forces are currently not recruiting (College of Policing, 2024a).

Who provides police education in England and Wales?

Identifying a composite ‘list’ of institutions providing pre entry policing programmes, and their take-up by the recruit, has always been inherently problematic. First, the range of institutional providers changes over time as they enter, evolve, or cease offerings within this competitive marketplace. Second, some HEI’s offer programs in partnership with other HE providers, whilst some forces place student officers on courses with multiple providers. Third, whilst PPD ‘pre-join’ students are self-funded and can apply to any FE or HEI, PCDA or DHEP students have no choice and the HE provider is ultimately decided by the employing force that the recruits choose. To complicate matters further, some forces, and thus students, change provider partway through their course. Some students also change courses (e.g. from ‘Detective’ to ‘Community Policing’) or move from PPD to PCDA ¹ . Finally, FE and non-traditional HE providers also now provide policing degrees. In summary, none of the key stakeholders offer data that effectively supports the quantifying of pre-entry students by HE provider or by Force, or the subsequent ‘tracking’ of students as they progress through these courses. Consequently, open-source data arguably offers the most consistent methodology for data gathering, specifically the published courses and providers as shared by key stakeholders (Police Forces, College of Policing, HEI’s).

Purpose of the article

Having established the different types of policing degree and PCEP accreditation, a key purpose of this position paper is to argue that identifying who provides police education Nationally is currently difficult to ascertain. This affects the ability to track and establish student outcomes. Open data findings that follow identify the requirement for metrics which may ultimately improve force, HE and individual student performance, whilst also providing a benchmark. It is further contended that there is both instability and competitiveness in the police education market. The second purpose of this article is highlight the benefits, ‘gaps’ and challenges in police education. This involves exploring the practical and cultural barriers in apprenticeship programmes between HEIs and forces, notably concerning IT issues; delivery location; procurement and financial constraints; the poor status of pedagogy and the “trainer”, compared to the ‘learn by doing’ ethos of the police trainer - both equally important aspects of the policing field. Assessment design, the perception of new recruits and the identified culture clash between ‘academics’ and ‘pracademics’ can directly impact on the student journey, as well as student retention, and can drive a wedge in the delivery of an effective policing programme. Yet there are some ways these concerns can be mitigated.

Methodology: Open source data

Local forces and HE providers may individually hold data on policing student numbers, types of programmes, retention and outcomes. However, these organisations do not share this data, therefore at a National level there is no strategic oversight. Due to the absence of any relevant, standardised National Datasets ² , and in an effort to quantify the organisational relationships between HEIs and Forces, open-source data from the websites of HE Providers and Forces was gathered at the commencement of the 2019 Academic year, and then again at the end of the Academic year in 2024, thus spanning five academic years. However, the researchers discovered that even open-source data presents risks and limitations. Firstly, not all HE providers publish, via open-source, all the courses that they offer. Similarly, not all forces publish the HE providers that they employ; for example, all 43 Territorial forces ³ in England and Wales are required to engage with the national training programme. Thus, whilst such data represents 100% of the Open Source sample used in this study, in the ‘real world’ these variables are an incomplete sample of the total population, thus precluding a more detailed examination of the findings.

Secondly, some police forces place students with multiple providers, or through intermediate organisations, (like ‘Police Now’), that in turn contract with HE providers to deliver HE who in turn act as the Awarding Body for the degree qualification. Due to these factors, this study, if uncorrected, might risk ‘double-counting’. To minimise this, in every case where this was evident in this dataset and analysis only a single count was made. Additionally, ‘Police Now’ was excluded from totals as a direct ‘HE provider’ on the grounds that its sub-contracting forces, and HE provider(s) had already been counted.

Findings and discussion

Open source findings

Despite the limitations of the data findings, they do offers some broad and relevant insights across the 5-year period (2019–2024). Summary data was extrapolated into the following bar Chart 1:

• Whilst the overall numbers of HE providers remained constant (n = 22) the number of England and Wales police forces declaring a relationship with a specific HE provider fell significantly by almost a fifth between 2019 and 2024 (n = 41–33).

Chart 1.

Police education HE providers to police forces in England and Wales (2019–2024): Open source data.

In some instances open source data identified there was very subtle, less visible marketing to identify police force relationships with HE providers. The reduction in the number of forces declaring a relationship with a HE provider seems to reflect the instability of the police education market. According to the open source data between 2019 and 2024 there were three HE providers who offered courses, but by 2024 had stopped listing these offerings. Alternatively two providers, who did not provide in 2019, identified relevant course offerings in 2024.

• 28 of 41 ⁴ of England and Wales forces (well over half) changed their declared HE provider between these two periods, which initially appears significant.

These changes may infer that since the original ‘rush to market’ by HE providers and police forces after the new programme was first introduced, some HE providers have decreased their ‘market share’, whilst some have increased their range and/or Force customer base. This might be understandable with the introduction of new programmes. However, the source data shows that, although the figure has fluctuated slightly over the 5 years as they won and lost contracts, ‘Police Now’ as a non-degree awarding body, provides courses to over half (26 of 43) of all England and Wales police forces. Therefore, Police Now holds the majority of market share in terms of market competitiveness. Generally a market share above 40% is considered a monopoly or dominant position and has a significant impact on overall industry trends (Remesh, 2024).

The fact that the data findings identify that 28 forces changed HE provider between 2019 and 2024 reflects the uncertainty, fluidity and/or evolution in the existing relationships between forces, HE providers and students. This change of provider may also indicate a rush by the forces/’Police Now’ to attain more value for money from other HE providers. It is worthy of note that Police Now’s decision to move from one university HE provider to another (2021-2022) led to 26 police forces changing HE provider. Such changes may not be attributed simply to merit or force preference, but may perhaps instead reflect changing contractual factors between the HE provider(s) and the intermediary contracting body, for example issues like contractual terms, including cost. It is not unreasonable to argue that this may have been undertaken to ensure ‘value for money’ per student by the private provider, as a financial business decision rather than ‘force’ or student initiated.

As the chart reflects:

• The total number of HE providers offering PPD pre join degrees fell significantly by almost a fifth between 2019 and 2024 (n = 21:17).

• PCDA figures have seen a 100% growth in providers since 2019 (n = 11:22).

The reduction in PPD programmes, followed with a rise in PCDA over the same period, may reflect that despite this type of programme providing students with a safe learning environment and no pressure of front line policing, the risks in opting for apprenticeship programmes are persuasive. Unlike PCDA, PPD cannot provide a guarantee of police employment at the degree conclusion (College of Policing, 2024); a limitation specifically written into the degree course specification. This is because each force has different procedures and criteria on their recruitment. From a recruit perspective, the PCDA benefit is financial, as funding a degree could be better financed by a force through their own apprenticeship route rather than the student themselves. HE may have realised in many cases these students already commit ‘geographically’ to a HE, rather than a course, but may have undertaken another degree on a related programme (i.e. Criminology), therefore not greatly impacting on their existing business. Additionally, because PCDA is a 3-year educational programme, in which students remain probationers across this period, it may be considered that recruits have the time and opportunity to receive the requisite training. Given that students do not possess a degree it is considered that this may also encourage greater retention, as PCDA students have less viable career alternatives.

• The total number of HE providers offering DHEP programmes remained constant (n = (22 + 7) = 29 to n = (18 + 11) = 29). However within these totals, whilst ‘Community Policing’ DHEP options declined by 18% (n = 22:18), DHEP Detective courses rose significantly by 37% (n = 7:11).

The slight changes in DHEP programmes may suggest that students with a generic non policing degree may prove to be a poorer business option for forces; either through recruits failing the 2 year intensive course or students leaving to pursue better employment options that their existing degree already attracts. Another factor to consider is that it may be precisely because of the incumbent need for forces to recruit on their DHEP detectives programmes that we undoubtedly see a drop in DHEP community programmes. Graduate students may be opting to move straight onto DHEP detectives as a career path.

This open source data, along with the challenges that follow, reflect the turbulence of the police education market, exemplified in England and Wales figures collected by Police Oracle (2019-2020) which show a ‘troubling’ numbers of student officers resigning before the DHEP/ PCDA probationary period is complete, 19.3% in the highest instance with the average at 9.1% ⁵ (Police Oracle, 2022).

There are no metrics in existence to capture the picture of the current provision for police education across all forces and HEs across England and Wales. Without metrics, how can best practice minimum standards be established, or how can issues of poor student retention begin to be addressed by HE providers/forces? Due to the lack of metrics it is difficult to know for certain whether recruits resigned due to the difficulty of the course itself (including assessment design); whether other professions were more attractive; the challenge in balancing learning within an apprenticeship, whether they failed to meet the requisite standard or a combination of factors. Is there an optimal percentage of leavers/retained students across these different degree provisions? To have 100% retention might suggest the particular course was insufficiently challenging. Equally, we have no comparison data from the former IPLDP courses, which were the forerunner of policing degrees, simply because IPLDP are non-HE programmes and were measured and evaluated at local/force level only. Therefore, neither HE providers nor forces can ascertain what ‘good’ looks like in terms of best practice models.

The challenges and benefits of higher education and police force collaboration

Despite the crucial benefits, which are evident across this article, key tensions and challenges exist in the relationship between HEI’s and police forces. Firstly, there are practical challenges to be overcome. Forces often want to retain delivery of training at their own sites and in their own force areas (Honess, 2023). This can result in university lecturers having to deliver training across a wider geographical area than ‘traditionally’ expected. These finer points can sometimes be either absent or decidedly vague within some job descriptions. There can also be problems with IT issues, in that students using police devices are often unable to access university resources or, for example, upload assignments to assessment portals, due to the ‘firewall’ that the relevant police force has in place (Honess, 2023). Although a single procurement framework is now of great benefit to police forces in terms of offering value for money for delivering apprenticeship programmes (College of Policing, 2024b), it remains to be seen whether HEIs have the appetite to continue to “support” programmes which essentially offer little financial incentive; because policing apprenticeships already pose a significant challenge to deliver for all the reasons that shall be explored.

Secondly, working within a police training unit does not confer much status within the police organisation (Brown and Fleming, 2024). Academics and practitioners alike allude to the negative cultural attitudes toward ‘training’ (Aplin, 2019; Fielding, 1988) as a back office function far removed from the ‘sharp end’ of policing the streets (Van Maanen, 1978:306). Established officers often tell new recruits to ‘forget’ what they learned from training school (Van Maanen, 1978:306; Bittner, 1978:49) leading students to ‘unlearn’ as they become indoctrinated with the established yet outdated cultural practices (Hannagan, 2005:228). Educators are derided as “plastics” (Aplin, 2019:8) because they are perceived to lack legitimacy. The training of new recruits is therefore wholly limited by the influence of strong “street cop” culture (Chan, 1996). Stanko and Hohl conclude that training is often considered a ‘dead zone’, housing personnel who are somewhat battle weary of frontline work, burnt out and in ‘need a rest’, or who cannot find an organisational niche. Moreover, training officers may have been out of an operational role for some time, and may not be perceived as the best practitioners; so in essence are training others to do what they no longer wish to do (2018). Whilst these disparaging attitudes exist, highly reminiscent of the term from George Bernard Shaw’s 1905 play “those who can, do: those who can’t teach” (Mintz, 2023), the denigration of teachers and lecturers will prevail. There is also an uncomfortable reality that the education and development of police officers is somewhat of a luxury, rather than of central importance, often because “you won’t get time” (McKue, 2023). Policing supervisors do not want officers abstracted from duties to attend training courses because this increases the workload pressures on officers that remain on shift. As Police Oracle notes, this is what has precipitated the more flexible recruitment policy of a non-degree option (now termed PCEP) (2022).

Thirdly, now that police education has come within the remit of HE, those individuals who teach new recruits (pure academics or ‘pracademics’) greatly matters to police force practitioners as well as to the student body. A key requirement when teaching policing students, as stipulated by the College of Policing, is to employ lecturers that possess skills in Law and Criminology (Ramshaw and Soppitt, 2018). Yet the shift of responsibility [and ownership] for police training from police forces to colleges and universities (Neyroud, 2011) continues to meet considerable resistance from police forces (Tong and Wood, 2011). There is a distinct air of protectionism from police force trainers around ‘who’ teaches policing students about the domain that is policing. Within current police education, police recruits are being educated by an uneven blend of retired police officers (some of high rank) with little educational training background or higher-level qualifications, ‘pracademic’ ex officers with higher level qualifications and teaching experience, and pure ’academics’ with educational credentials, theoretical knowledge of policing but no direct ‘practitioner’ experience.

Researchers highlight a scarcity of the ‘police practitioner’ turned ‘academic’ within the policing field (Mahruf et al., 2020). These are retired or former police practitioners with Masters degrees and/or PhDs working within academia, aptly and informally referred to as ‘pracademics’ (Dickinson et al., 2022:290). That convergence of theory and practice is sometimes referred to as praxis, which acknowledges that to exhibit a skill you need to have the knowledge and the know-how (Coxhead, 2023). Some would argue that ‘pracademics’ are best placed to illustrate this convergence within the policing classroom. Observers highlight the multiple benefits that pracademics can bring, exposing students to ‘real world experience(s)’, bringing the two worlds of practice and academia together, thereby enabling HEI’s to deliver on strategic promises in terms of developing ‘work ready’ graduates (Dickinson et al., 2022: 298). This is more succinctly encapsulated by Coxhead who explains that “what professional practice does is contextualise theory and knowledge within an applied framework, and that mix has many advantages over anyone who has practiced yet never researched, or researched yet never practiced” (Coxhead, 2023:8). There has been criticism that police degrees are ‘too academic’ (Honess, 2023) and this tension between theoretical (academic) and practical knowledge is said to be particularly strong within police education (Hagen et al., 2023). However, most academics will successfully argue that there needs to be an appropriate blend between presenting the theoretical underpinnings of “why” crime occurs, those exciting practitioner “war stories” (Van Mannen, 1978:297) presented by pracademics, as well crucial procedural and legal elements of ‘good policing’.

Interestingly, despite academic insistence around not labelling entire groups (Becker, 2008) there also paradoxically exists the ‘anti-police’ lecturer (Heslop, 2011: 305), some of whom actively decide against teaching on policing programmes. This is a non-issue when lecturers are former or retired police officer ‘pracademics,’ but clashes of ‘them and us’ (Reiner, 2010) cultures can serve to erode rather than build meaningful partnership relationships between police forces and HEI’s.

There is also a challenge to pedagogy in that because pure ‘academics’ teach new policing students; this leads some student officers to undermine the academic foundations of policing degrees. Notably, the unruly and disrespectful behaviours students illustrate to lecturers, such as ‘reading the paper’ in the lecture theatre whilst the lecturer tries to control the ‘zoo’ (Heslop, 2011: 304). What pure academics can provide is often not fully appreciated by the police practitioner, such as why certain actions are necessary, and attributes including softer people skills, effective and empathetic dealing with victims and witnesses, public protection, vulnerability, ethics, and integrity (Brown, 2018). The paradox is that policing students both seek and devalue theoretical knowledge (Hagen et al., 2023). Yet, embedding theory into vocational preparation is said to enhance the cognitive and intellectual capabilities of the practitioner (Birzer, 2002). Although workplace learning is crucial, policing recruits still unduly place superior value on learning by doing (Charman, 2017; Tong and Wood, 2011) which can undermine the appreciation of theory, reflective practice and other educationally oriented provisions.

As far as teaching credentials are concerned, there is also a disturbing ‘them and us’ divide within Higher Education between ‘pure’ academic experts in a particular field versus the police ‘pracademic’. To police students and police trainers, pure ‘academics’ may appear theoretical and too remote from the ‘coal face’ (Punch, 2009: 241) to understand the ‘sharp end’ of policing (Van Maanen, 1978: 306). Conversely, police practitioners may have the ‘street craft’ but may not possess teaching skills necessary to enable effective ‘learning.’ Equally, even when former police officers enter academia, as ‘pracademics’ they can often be treated as outsiders by HE and perceived as less credible than their academic counterparts, despite holding the equivalent academic qualifications alongside a wealth of practitioner experience. As Coxhead identifies, pracademics are not “just cops with PhDs” – which sounds decidedly like elitism and academic snobbery - these are professionals building on their tradecraft (2023). Logically, the snobbery is the wrong way around. The notion of a professor of surgery who had never been a surgeon would be regarded as ridiculous, as they would have initially be expected to have trained in practice, and then receive research training (Coxhead, 2023). Resolving these internal tensions whilst also providing valuable learning for students remains challenging. Moreover, the validity of police staff trainers within police forces also needs examination, to ensure that they possess the skills, qualifications and teacher training to deliver to the appropriate standard (Mckue, 2023). Having a blended approach to delivery, through the use of lecturers enthusiastic in their subject specialism, regardless of whether tutors are pure ‘academics,’ together with the more practical elements fronted by police practitioners, is the strategy advocated (Ramshaw and Soppitt, 2018). For all policing programmes to be effective, a fine balancing act is necessary between the academic and the practical (Coxhead, 2023; Honess and Clarke, 2023).

Fourthly, undertaking assessments can be problematic for policing students from a number of perspectives. Notably, students on apprenticeships express a struggle to be provided with sufficient protected learning time from their respective forces in order to complete assessments (Honess, 2023, see also Norman and Fleming, 2022). Having taught on ‘Police Now’, and in three different HEIs teaching PCDA and DHEP, one of the authors can attest this is a consistent complaint. There is anecdotal evidence that the duties officer provides students with time post rather than pre assessment, which makes the requirement totally redundant. Moreover, the adverse impact of having to undertake assessments without protected learning time means that students often need extensions. HEIs can facilitate extensions but these are often only for students with special educational needs possessing learning support plans or in the case of exceptional circumstances (i.e. ill health or bereavement). However, facilitating a “block” extension approval on a ‘large scale’ for apprenticeship students can cause logistical difficulties for lecturers managing such programmes, as well as impacting on the timely reporting of grades at exam boards. A further challenge with assessment design is creating a piece of work that is both authentic as well as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and completed within the Timescales). The benefit is that many policing assessments are now created with the application to ‘real policing’ as the central focus. HEIs also now invest in Work Related Experiential Learning (WREL) to ensure that pedagogy effectively embeds WREL within all university programmes, not solely apprenticeships, in order to enhance the employability of students. Previous criticisms from police forces have been on the volume of assessments created by lecturers, therefore these have been both streamlined and made more meaningful in terms of linked to operational policing (Honess, 2023). There can be issues in the consistency of marking (Honess, 2023), due to the disparity in staff experience. Whilst some staff are conversant with policing and teaching, others are less so, and this demands vigorous mentoring and moderation to ensure consistency across all lecturing staff.

The enormous benefit, certainly that optimisation brings, is the College of Policing’s less prescriptive stance in advancing one particularly narrow methodology such as ‘evidence based policing’. This change greatly supports assessment design as it allows academics the flexibility to present a wide range of philosophical quantitative as well as qualitative approaches such as feminism, intersectionality or critical race theory, which will broaden students minds and enhance their reflective and critical thinking skills.

Fifthly, the perceptions student officers have whilst undertaking their degree is that their studies are not necessarily valued by peers and line managers. Organisational justice literature shows that when leaders cultivate an environment where contributions are valued, staff are more motivated and committed to their role. Longitudinal research by Norman and Fleming indicates this valuing is absent in the policing organisation, with supervisors and senior officers having little “buy in” in not being receptive to the contributions that graduate officers can make within the police. Despite the enthusiasm and motivation to learn by students clearly evidenced in that study, one participant considered their graduate qualification was “wasted” in supporting the policing organisation, as they “don’t really give a toss” (Norman and Fleming, 2022: 167-168). In short, participants experience barriers and feel unable to apply their learning in the policing environment unless they are of a ‘privileged’ higher rank (i.e. Inspector/Chief inspector) and possess the autonomy to directly implement (Norman and Fleming, 2022: 168). As identified by Norman and Fleming, the college promotes policing as a learning organisation, but these opportunities to embed learning are lost at an operational level (2022). This study reinforces Hallenberg and Cockcroft’s research around the indifference of line managers to those undertaking a degree (2017). Ultimately these attitudes impact on police learning, identify a lack of organisational memory and may affect the long term retention of staff who feel disempowered and undervalued.

Graduate officers that may have initially been resistant to the degree gradually shift to enjoy academic work and go through a process of personal transformation (Lee and Punch, 2004 as cited in Norman and Fleming, 2022), especially in the final year dissertation process (Honess, 2023). Some officers felt a defensive attitude from the rank and file about their degree, they simply “did not accept academia” (Williams et al., 2019). McCanney goes further in suggesting that the rank and file are hostile to graduates, and yet these are the necessary change agents that will support organisational transformation (2023). Part of the problem is that officers on apprenticeships can feel very isolated because their peers, in addition to immediate supervisors, are still unaware of the requirements and needs of student officers, consequently professional development needed (Casey, 2023; Honess, 2023).

It is also worth noting the adverse impact of the PCEP fourth route on the confidence of those recruits on existing PEQF courses (DHEP/PCDA) who report “feeling marginalised and not supported by forces” due to the introduction of PCEP - “as the preference of senior officers is to train new recruits on programmes other than PEQF” (HE and Policing forum, 2023a: 3). This will inevitably affect the cohesion and sense of belonging officers have within their respective forces.

Sixthly, the diversity of these four routes may affect the ‘quality’ of those police recruits in terms of disparate skills and abilities. There is a concern that those entering through the PCEP route will become police officers but may have no formal accreditation and ‘no degree’ and therefore PCEP outcomes need to be carefully monitored (Honess, 2023). Indeed the change to ‘no degree’ has led some to conclude that this route may adversely affect the overall quality of the PCEP recruit (Mckue, 2023). However, whilst there is no measurement, this will be hard to determine.

Seventhly, from a business perspective the police education market is currently turbulent and highly competitive. The greatest impediment is that universities, police forces and FE colleges are directly competing against each other to attract policing students onto their particular ‘route’. There are recent instances where some police recruits leave PCDA/DHEP programmes to go onto PCEP, believing this may be an ‘easier’ route. However, some students ask to “comeback” to the apprenticeship programme because they realise PCEP is just as difficult but with no formal degree accreditation at its conclusion (Honess, 2023).

Additionally, anecdotal evidence shows that several students a year leave a PPD pre join university programme to join a PCDA programme, due to the financial incentives on offer, notably employment and an income alongside obtaining a funded degree qualification. One of the authors is aware that the College of Policing (2023) sent through questionnaires to all PPD students at university (level 4–6) asking them a number of questions, including their force of choice when their degree was completed. Despite many students still several years from completion, police forces utilised the questionnaire data in order to actively approach students, encouraging them onto PCDA courses. As explained, the pragmatic allure of having their degree paid for as well as being in full time employment, is a temptation for PPD students that they may feel is worth taking, without foreseeing the new difficulties this might occasion. This very much feels like unethical ‘poaching’ and makes HEIs nervous to divulge student details because it can, and does, adversely impact student retention. It is hardly a surprise therefore, that open source research shows a decline of PPD programmes within HE. Such students’ will inevitably ‘save’ on university fees, but lose learning and assessment preparation time, and face significant pressures in meeting the ‘policing’ workplace requirements of an apprenticeship programme.

Finally, the impact of DHEP and PCDA apprenticeship programmes at micro level is that despite student officers being newly recruited and in need of educational development, forces treat them as employee resources to be ‘used,’ instead of an investment that needs nurturing (Wood and Tong, 2009). Due to the thin line getting even thinner, police force are under considerable pressure to meet public demand. They do so using inexperienced new policing recruits. Unfortunately, the College of Policing sell this as a benefit of optimisation, in that it creates “reduced abstraction of student officers from operational policing, through the delivery of on the job learning and assessment” (College of Policing, 2024b). However, the immediate use of student officers as an available resource adversely impacts on the student, on their learning and ultimately on police force retention. The need to resource live incidents might result in the “compromise on quality” alluded to by Bryant et al. with the bare minimum standard as the threshold to be met (2014).

Conclusions

Preceding years have identified some improvements in the strategy around the delivery of policing programmes within Higher Education. For instance, the recent removal of IPLDP and its replacement with PCEP, means that forces, and HEIs, have to adhere to a national curriculum - which provides the necessary standardisation, thus making comparisons possible. Moreover, the move to Work Related Experiential Learning (WREL) in Higher Education has led to a focus on authentic assessment design specific to police learners, whilst also ensuring students do not become overwhelmed due to ‘over’ assessment. Through optimisation, the College of Policing has provided a less prescriptive mapping document which allows HE the flexibility and creativity to develop more innovative programmes. In many institutions there is an appropriate blend of pracademics and academics working across policing programmes, which can only benefit learners in the convergence of practice and theory, known as ‘praxis’.

However, challenges in police education remain, notably in the clash of very different ‘cultures’ (police vs academics); the perception of graduate students and of police educators; the financial constraints on HE; and crucially the lack of metrics around police education and the student journey. There may always be cultural resistance to the involvement of HE when police trainers continue to hold the intransigent view that only the police can train the police. In order for police education to thrive, HE need to appreciate the unique requirements of the sector and police forces must trust HE to deliver the aforementioned crucial benefits; not erode the crucial importance of training and development. If these are relegated police education will suffer, as will the service to student officers and the public at large (Aplin and Atkin, 2025). With trust, in-depth planning and collaboration, alongside the active involvement of retired or experienced ‘pracademics’ within HE, some of these cultural ‘them and us’ barriers may diminish over time. However, as the College rightly identify, force culture has an enormous impact on how well each route succeeds (College of Policing, 2024b).

The way graduates, and ‘professionalisation’ more broadly, are perceived in the policing environment needs to change if we are to appreciate and reap the rewards of police education.

Moreover, the status of the educator must be elevated, rather than belittled. Graduate officers need to be able to channel their learning back into their role and feel valued for their contributions (Williams et al., 2019) - or they will leave the organisation. Yet problematically, in hierarchical organisations it is not appropriate for those at the “bottom” to challenge those at the top. Alongside disempowering staff, this attitude impedes organisational learning and change.

The variety of programmes on offer (DHEP, PCDA, PPD, PCEP) is highly advantageous to the student recruit, who, based on their specific skills and experiences can choose the most appropriate route into the policing profession. However, the competitive way in which forces and HE clamour to attain the ‘cream of the crop’ is both exhausting and on occasion wholly unethical. However, the greatest challenge police forces have is in balancing the need to resource and prioritise incidents, against the necessity to provide a solid educational foundation for apprenticeship students. Any imbalance will ultimately affect the resilience, stress levels and retention of new recruits.

At strategic level, PCDA and DHEP programmes may be seen as contractually short-term for HE institutions, limiting the commitment to continuing investment or to long-term development, as these courses are unpredictable because they are wholly reliant on police recruitment. This makes the staffing such courses difficult, resulting in short term or fixed contracts. A single procurement framework, whilst beneficial and offering value for money to police forces, might potentially stifle the growth of DHEP and PCDA courses within Higher Education. A further move to streamline procurement in this area reduces apprenticeship costs for forces to £2000 pounds per student for a 120 credit DHEP programme, which fails to reflect the significant financial burden already faced by HEI’s (HE and Policing forum online meeting, 2023b). This financial cost potentially limits future programme viability for HEIs.

The open source findings underline that isolating what educational provisions are available in HE and within police forces is inherently problematic and represents a ‘moving feast’. The lack of direct marketing in advancing force/HE collaboration in police education might in some cases reflect the lack of long term commitment in sustaining these tripartite relationships (force, HE provider, student). Given the open source data findings and the challenges identified, this paper should encourage the College of Policing and the NPCC to recognise the value of data and metrics to better capture the picture of the current provision for police education across all forces and HEs across England and Wales. Having metrics enables students to be tracked on their journey, capturing good practice across police/HEI provision, as well as poorer performing forces in the recruitment and retention of student officers. Specific metrics may need to be developed long term to assess the consistency in standards and training across all four different routes to ensure that institutions develop well rounded candidates that can negotiate the complexities of policing into the future. In the long term this strategy would drive up HE and force standards and in turn improve the performance of the student officer.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Exploring the benefits and challenges of providing police education within the higher education sector

Supplemental Material for Exploring the benefits and challenges of providing police education within the higher education sector by Rachael Aplin and Howard Atkin in The Police Journal.