Category / parliament

September 3, 2020

HE policy update for the w/e 3rd September 2020

Centre for Excellence in Learning, NHS jforster

So it’s back to school for pupils and teachers, and Parliament is back (although still mostly virtually). What’s in the news?

Ofqual fight back

The House of Commons Education Committee grilled Ofqual this week in a fascinating session – the transcript is here. Before the session, Roger Taylor, the Chair of Ofqual, submitted a written statement, which you can read here. We thought we would summarise the good bits for you.

Before you skip, though, the obvious question is “does it matter” – or is it all just a witch-hunt? Clearly it does matter, because some of the same issues that led the government to cancel exams this year still apply – missed school time, uneven opportunities to learn, the implications of a second wave. In our next segment, we look at the hints about next summer.

If you want to skip the next bit, the conclusion seems to be: Ofqual were handed an impossible brief by the Minister, who made it harder by changing policy on the hoof without asking them, they had a solution to it all in the form of a better appeals process to address outlying results (like high performing students in schools with poor previous performance) but never got a chance to roll it out because of the mocks fiasco, that they always thought exams should have gone ahead, and that the algorithm was fair and has been unfairly criticised by people who don’t understand the data! Gavin Williamson is giving evidence soon, so that will be worth reading. And Ofqual are going to publish correspondence so everyone can see that it wasn’t their fault….

David Kernohan has written about it for Wonkhe here.

The written statement starts with an apology to students, teachers, and HE and FE providers. As widely reported on the news channels yesterday, it confirms that Ofqual didn’t want the exams to be cancelled – they wanted them held in a socially distanced way. Gavin Williamson decided to cancel them because of concerns about lost schooling and the risks with getting students back into schools. So the well known solution and the well known moderation process was adopted.

You will recall this decision was announced on 18^th March – which was very early – and might be said to have shown decisiveness and the desire to provide certainty in a complex situation. But of course that assumes that the alternative was going to be a good and not a mutant one, which we all hoped it would be…..

In the evidence session, Roger Taylor said that after Ofqual offered advice on options:

It was the Secretary of State who then subsequently took the decision and announced, without further consultation with Ofqual, that exams were to be cancelled and a system of calculated grades was to be implemented. We then received a direction from the Secretary of State setting out what he wished Ofqual to implement.

In the statement, Ofqual say:

The principle of moderating teacher grades was accepted as a sound one, and indeed the relevant regulatory and examination bodies across the four nations of the United Kingdom separately put in place plans to do this. All the evidence shows that teachers vary considerably in the generosity of their grading – as every school pupil knows. Also, using teacher assessment alone might exacerbate socio-economic disadvantage. Using statistics to iron out these differences and ensure consistency Written submission from Roger Taylor, Chair of Ofqual looked, in principle, to be a good idea. That is why in our consultations and stakeholder discussions all the teaching unions supported the approach we adopted. Indeed, when we consulted on it, 89% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposed aims for the statistical standardisation approach.

And they knew there were risks but on the whole the averaged out effect was correct:

We knew, however, that there would be specific issues associated with this approach. In particular, statistical standardisation of this kind will inevitably result in a very small proportion of quite anomalous results that would need to be corrected by applying human judgment through an appeals process.
For example, we were concerned about bright students in historically low attaining schools. We identified that approximately 0.2% of young peoples’ grades were affected by this but that it was not possible to determine in advance which cases warranted a change to grades. That is why the appeals process we designed and refined was so important. But we recognise that young people receiving these results experienced significant distress and that this caused people to question the process.

In the evidence session, Roger Taylor was asked about this and he said:

It was clear that to make a valid judgment would require a degree of human judgment and therefore a form of appeal would be necessary to make this work, but we were also exploring with the exam boards how we could implement a system of outreach to those students through the exam boards to let them know on the day, “Look, we think you’ve probably got a very good case for appeal.” That was the direction we were moving in. When the mock appeals route came in, that question became less relevant.

And they are still defending it:

The statistical standardisation process was not biased – we did the analyses to check and found there was no widening of the attainment gap. We have published this analysis. Indeed, ‘A’ and ‘A*’ grade students in more disadvantaged areas did relatively better with standardised results than when results were not standardised.

They were challenged on this in the evidence session.

Robert Halfon, the chair, asked about it: The Department for Education confirmed on 14 August that pupils from lower socioeconomic groups were more likely than their peers to have their centre assessed grades downgraded by Ofqual’s algorithm at grades C and above. The difference between Ofqual’s moderated grades and teacher centre assessed grades for lower socioeconomic groups was 10.42%. In contrast, the difference between Ofqual’s moderated grades and teacher centre assessed grades for higher socioeconomic groups was 8.34%.
Michelle Meadows, Executive Director for Strategy and Research, replied: We had done a full equalities analysis, looking at the grades not just by socioeconomic status but by other protected characteristics such as ethnicity, gender and so on, and what we were able to see and we were very confident about was that any fluctuation in outcomes seen for these various groups this year was extremely similar to the small changes in outcomes we had seen in previous years. In other words, there was nothing about the process that was biased.

And when challenged about the impact on individual students, Roger Taylor said in the evidence session:

I disagree with the notion that this algorithm was not fit for purpose or that a better algorithm would have produced a different result; but I strongly agree with your statement that to say this was fair just fails to recognise what happens to students—just the level of accuracy that was fundamentally possible with the information that was available was too low to be acceptable to individuals, and we recognised this right at the outset. We identified this as a risk.

And on small class sizes etc

However, the impossibility of standardising very small classes meant that some subjects and some centres could not be standardised, and so saw higher grades on average than would have been expected if it had been possible to standardise their results. This benefitted smaller schools and disadvantaged larger schools and colleges. It affected private schools in particular, as well as some smaller maintained schools and colleges, special schools, pupil referral units, hospital schools and similar institutions. We knew about this, but were unable to find a solution to this problem. However, we still regarded standardisation as preferable because overall it reduced the relative advantage of private schools compared to others.
Ultimately, however, the approach failed to win public confidence, even in circumstances where it was operating exactly as we had intended it to. While sound in principle, candidates who had reasonable expectations of achieving a grade were not willing to accept that they had been selected on the basis of teacher rankings and statistical predictions to receive a lower grade. To be told that you cannot progress as you wanted because you have been awarded a lower grade in this way was unacceptable and so the approach had to be withdrawn. We apologise for this.

And here is the killer statement:

With hindsight it appears unlikely that we could ever have delivered this policy successfully.

And whose fault is it?

Understandably, there is now a desire to attribute blame. The decision to use a system of statistical standardised teacher assessments was taken by the Secretary of State and issued as a direction to Ofqual. Ofqual could have rejected this, but we decided that this was in the best interests of students, so that they could progress to their next stage of education, training or work.
The implementation of that approach was entirely down to Ofqual. However, given the exceptional nature of this year, we worked in a much more collaborative way than we would in a normal year, sharing detailed information with partners.
We kept the Department for Education fully informed about the work we were doing and the approach we intended to take to qualifications, the risks and impact on results as they emerged. However, we are ultimately responsible for the decisions that fall to us as the regulator.
…. The blame lies with us collectively – all of us who failed to design a mechanism for awarding grades that was acceptable to the public and met the Secretary of State’s policy intent of ensuing grades were awarded in a way consistent with the previous year.

Autumn exams: It was clear to everyone that autumn exams would be a problem for those intending to start university this year. No plan or proposal was made for this, apart from ministerial exhortations that universities should be flexible, and vague references to a January start. Put on top of an absolute prohibition on unconditional offers, it was hard to see what universities were meant to do. Ofqual say:

“the original policy was adopted on the basis that the autumn series would give young people who were disappointed with their results, the opportunity to sit an examination. However, the extended lockdown of schools and the failure to ensure that such candidates could still take their places at university meant that this option was, for many, effectively removed. This significantly shifted the public acceptability of awarding standardised grades”

I have no idea what that means….but it looks like blaming the context for the problems. Roger Taylor clarified it in the evidence session:

When the decision was originally made, there was a strong belief that the autumn series would be the compensation for that—that people would be given a chance and that university places could be held open for them that they could take in January, and that that would limit that damage. At the time, it was felt that it was a fair offer, but of course, over time, schools did not reopen; there were no arrangements for late entry to university; and by July, it was clear that the autumn series did not represent any sort of reasonable alternative that candidates felt would make up for being given an inaccurate calculated grade. At that point, we were in a situation where it was difficult to see how people would accept it as a fair way to have their grades awarded.

Autonomy and influence

Roger Taylor: The relationship is one in which the Secretary of State, as the democratically accountable politician, decides policy. Ofqual’s role is to have regard to policy and to implement policy, but within the constraints laid down by the statute that established Ofqual. Those constraints are that the awarding of grades must be valid, it must maintain standards year on year, and it must command public confidence. We can decide not to implement a direction from the Secretary of State if we feel that it would directly contradict those statutory duties, but if the policy does not directly contradict those statutory duties, our obligation is to implement policy as directed by the Secretary of State.

There was a bit more about this in the evidence session when Roger Taylor was asked about the mock appeals policy (see below) and he said:

It is important, in trying to manage public confidence, that we do not have a Secretary of State stating one policy and Ofqual stating a different policy. It also struck us that the way to resolve this was to move at pace and it needed to be negotiated and managed in an orderly fashion. But we were acting with full independence.

The comings and goings about the use of mock results in appeals were discussed at length:

Roger Taylor:… the Secretary of State informed us that, effectively, they were going to change policy. Until that point, the policy had been calculated grades plus an appeals process. The Secretary of State informed me that they were planning to change this policy in a significant way by allowing an entirely new mechanism by which a grade could be awarded through a mock exams appeal. Our advice to the Secretary of State at this point was that we could not be confident that this could be delivered within the statutory duties of Ofqual, to ensure that valid and trustworthy grades were being issued. The Secretary of State, as he is entitled to do, none the less announced that that was the policy of the Government.
That having been announced as the policy of the Government, the Ofqual board felt—I think correctly—that we should therefore attempt to find a way to implement this in a way that was consistent with our statutory duties. We consulted very rapidly with exam boards and other key stakeholders. We were very concerned that this idea of a valid mock exam had no real credible meaning, but we consulted very rapidly and developed an approach that we felt would be consistent with awarding valid qualifications. We then agreed that with the Department for Education and, to our understanding, with the Secretary of State’s office. We then published this on the Saturday. We were subsequently contacted by the Secretary of State later that evening and were informed that this was in fact not, to his mind, in line with Government policy.
….It was published about 3 o’clock on the Saturday. I think the call from the Secretary of State was probably at around 7 o’clock, 8 o’clock that evening. The Secretary of State first phoned the chief regulator. …
The Secretary of State telephoned me and said that he would like the board to reconsider. ….given the Secretary of State’s views, it felt appropriate to call the board together very late that evening. The board convened at, I think, around 10 o’clock that evening. I think at this stage we realised that we were in a situation which was rapidly getting out of control—that there were policies being recommended and strongly advocated by the Secretary of State that we felt would not be consistent with our legal duties, and that there was, additionally, a growing risk around delivering any form of mock appeals results in a way that would be acceptable as a reasonable way to award grades….

Grade inflation

Ian Mearns asked: This is the problem: Ministers are regularly telling us that we have more good and outstanding schools, with the most highly professional teaching profession that we have ever had. Given that process, that improvement and that continuing improvement, should there not be some increase in the levels of achievement by youngsters year on year that cannot be put down as grade inflation?
Roger Taylor replied: On your point about grade inflation, we were very aware that being very strict about grade inflation would only make this situation worse. That is why, in the design of the model, at every point where we could reasonably do this, we erred in the direction of making decisions that allowed grades to rise. Consequently, the final result of the moderated grades did allow for between 2% and 3% inflation in grades which, in assessment terms, is very significant and larger than would represent the sorts of effects that you talked about resulting from improvements in teaching, but we felt that that was appropriate in these extremely unusual circumstances, given the disruption happening in people’s lives as a result of the pandemic.

Issues with CAGs:

David Simmonds MP said that he has had more complaints about the u-turn and the fairness of the CAGs than the original grades. There is concern about the lack of opportunity for students to appeal these grades.
Roger Taylor said: It goes to the nature of the problem: there is not an independent piece of information that can be used to determine between these two competing claims. That is why the lack of any form of standardised test or examination makes this a situation that people find very hard to tolerate.

On private students (who have to take exams in the autumn):

Roger Taylor: I have huge sympathy with these people. Clearly, they have been some of the people who have lost out most as a result of the decision to cancel exams. I will hand over to Julie to say a little bit more about this, but once the decision had been taken to cancel exams, it was very hard to find a solution. We explored extensive solutions, but ultimately the situation was one in which, once exams had been cancelled, these people had lost the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and knowledge in a way that would enable them to move forward with their lives. That was the situation we were in.

On the tiering problem (students getting a higher grade than permitted by the exam, i.e. foundation students at GCSE who can’t get higher than a 5, who got a 6, for example):

Michelle Meadows: In the absence of papers this year, we felt that the fairest thing to do was to remove those limits on students’ performance. So there were a very small number of cases where, for the tiered qualifications, less than 1% of foundation tier students received higher grades and, for the higher tier, less than 0.5% received lower grades than they would normally achieve. We felt that it was a decision in favour of students—that they would not be constrained in the normal way.

And on BTECs:

Roger Taylor: It was not inevitable that there would be a domino effect, because the use of calculated grades inside the BTEC system was completely different from what had gone on with general qualifications. They were two completely separate pieces: one Ofqual was closely involved with and where we had the authority to make a decision; and the second was one that Pearson were responsible for and where we had no authority to determine how they were going to respond to the situation. That was their call.

And did the algorithm mutate?

Ian Mearns: At what point did the algorithm mutate?
Dr Meadows: I don’t believe that the algorithm ever mutated.

So what about next year

There are already discussions about delaying the exams, some elements have been changed, there are discussions about having an online option with open book exams, etc. Ofqual have now made it extremely clear in the evidence session referred to above that they didn’t want to cancel exams this summer and they certainly don’t want to next summer, but also that they don’t want to rely on moderated CAGs again. So some form of formal assessment seems likely. But this one has some way to run.

For what was announced in August, Schoolsweek have a nice round up of the changes to A levels and for GCSEs here. The Ofqual statement about A levels, AS levels and GCSEs is here.

In their statement referred to above, Ofqual confirm that amongst the lessons learned from this year are some things that will influence next year:

any awarding process that does not give the individual the ability to affect their fate by demonstrating their skills and knowledge in a fair test will not command and retain public confidence
a ‘better’ algorithm would not have made the outcomes significantly more acceptable. The inherent limitations of the data and the nature of the process were what made it unacceptable

And there should have been better comms and not just by them.

In the evidence session, Roger Taylor said:

I think we have been very clear that we think that some form of examination or standardised test, or something that gives the student an ability to demonstrate their skills and knowledge, will be essential for any awarding system that the students regard as fair. We have done some consultation, and have published the results of that consultation, but it is obviously a fast-moving environment, and the impact of the pandemic remains uncertain over the future, so it is something that we are keeping under constant review……I want to be really clear that, absolutely, we raised it in our initial consultation, and we are very conscious of the enormous benefit that would come from delay. We recognise the value in trying to find a way of making this work.

And Julie Swan said:

Content for GCSEs, AS and A-levels is of course determined by Ministers, and Ministers, as I am sure you will know, have agreed some changes to content for a couple of GCSE subjects—history, ancient history and English literature. We have published information about changes to assessment arrangements in other subjects that will free up teaching time, such as making the assessment of spoken language in modern foreign languages much less formal. …..as well as allowing, for example, GCSE science students to observe practical science, rather than to undertake it themselves….We are working with the DFE to get to conclusions within weeks, rather than months.

Gavin Williamson’s position

Gavin Williamson gave a statement to the House of Tuesday, on the first day back. He said very, very little, really. He apologised and then moved on quickly to talk about schools going back. David Kernohan has written about this for Wonkhe too.

The problem with having a Prime Minister who will only sack officials is that we are forced to watch senior politicians descent into near-Grayling levels of farcical inadequacy without hope of respite. Williamson’s haunted soul screams for release, but still he has to field questions about next summer while struggling to get through the next five minutes.

Research Professional cover it here.

Meanwhile in HE

The Office for Students have today launched a call for evidence into Digital teaching and learning in English Higher Education during the pandemic. It closes on 14^th October 2020.

The review will consider:

The use of digital technology to deliver remote teaching and learning since the start of the pandemic and understand what has and has not worked.
How high-quality digital teaching and learning can be continued and delivered at scale in the future.
The opportunities that digital teaching and learning present for English higher education in the medium to longer-term.
The relationship between ‘digital poverty’ and students’ digital teaching and learning experience

If you are interested in contributing to a BU institutional response please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk as soon as possible.

Inquiries and Consultations

Have you contributed to a Parliamentary Inquiry? Many colleagues from across BU have done so over the last year, and inquiries can be relevant for both academic and professional services colleagues. Your policy team (policy@bournemouth.ac.uk) can help you prepare and submit a response – there are some important rules to follow about content and presentation, but a good submission might result in a call to give oral evidence (by video, these days) or get people talking about your submission.

You can find the list of open Parliamentary inquires here. They include (just a few examples):

Police conduct and complaints (accepting written evidence until 14^th September 2020)
Digital transformation in the NHS {(until 9^th September)
Reforming public transport after the pandemic ?(until 24^th September)
Biodiversity and ecosystems (until 11^th September)
Black people, racism and human rights {(until 11^th September)

And you can also find Secre – a small selection (these have longer dates):

A call for evidence on a future international regulation strategy
Pavement parking
Marine energy projects
Distributing Covid and flu vaccines
Recognition of professional qualifications
Marine monitoring
Deforestation in UK supply chains
Waste management plan for England
Front of pack nutrition labelling
Review of the Highway Code to improve road safety for cyclist, pedestrians and horse riders

Let us know if you are interested in responding to these or any others.MinisSecre

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here.. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

July 23, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 23rd July 2020

Business Engagement, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, NHS, PG research, Public engagement, Student Engagement jforster

We’ve been inundated with words – Ministerial speeches this week, (g)rumblings over social mobility continue, and Parliament showed no signs of slowing down as they hurtled towards recess. Plus lots to look forward to as we look to the next horizon. With that in mind, for BU readers we have issued a horizon scan in our separate occasional series. And for staff outside BU, we have published the summary on the Lighthouse Policy Group blog site.

Spending Review

The Chancellor launched the comprehensive spending review which will conclude in the Autumn. Priorities:

strengthening the UK’s economic recovery from COVID-19 by prioritising jobs and skills
levelling up economic opportunity across all nations and regions of the country by investing in infrastructure, innovation and people – thus closing the gap with competitors by spreading opportunity, maximising productivity and improving the value add of each hour worked
improving outcomes in public services, including supporting the NHS and taking steps to cut crime and ensure every young person receives a superb education
making the UK a scientific superpower, including leading in the development of technologies that will support the government’s ambition to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050
strengthening the UK’s place in the world
improving the management and delivery of our commitments, ensuring that all departments have the appropriate structures and processes in place to deliver their outcomes and commitments on time and within budget

Note that the government response to the Augar report and the conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding is also due with the outcome of the review in the Autumn as confirmed by the Minister last week. This was (last) promised in the Autumn last year with the comprehensive spending review that never happened because of the election…..(seems so long ago!).

So with Augar in mind, perhaps, Boris took to the Telegraph last weekend to announce the Cabinet Office is considering restructuring HE fees. His piece sits behind a pay wall so we include the coverage from Wonkhe and Research Professional below.

Wonkhe: At the weekend, the Prime Minister unexpectedly revealed that variable fees may be back on the agenda. He said in an interview that Number Ten is reviewing the “pricing mechanisms” of university courses, in a move that could see “reductions in the cost of science and engineering degrees, with higher fees for some arts subjects.” We learn that Johnson believes that what went wrong was everybody charged the “maximum whack”, because no institution felt that they could accept the loss of prestige associated with offering a course that was cheaper. “In reality, it would have been much more sensible if courses had been differently priced. We are certainly looking at all that.” If that seems familiar, that’s because it sounds eerily similar to an Australian government announcement last month. Could we be heading in the same direction?
Research Professional: It would be easy to lump Johnson’s comments in with the recent spate of government attacks on ‘low-value courses’. Both education secretary Gavin Williamson and universities minister Michelle Donelan have in recent weeks used language that alluded to their beliefs on varying course quality, and it would appear that Johnson shares their concerns. By financially disincentivising study in the arts and humanities, you risk creating the perception that these broad disciplines (and all the cultural and societal capital they contain) are the sole reserve of the moneyed elite. Education for the poor is all about getting a job; education for the rich is about personal enrichment and development. And getting a job, too, of course—which doesn’t seem to have been too much of a problem for Williamson (social sciences degree), Donelan (history and politics) or Johnson (literae humaniores).

Research Professional have full coverage here and here.

The piece also states the Government intends to support FE the same way Governments have supported HE. Does this ring alarm bells for anyone else? Tuition fees for FE? Even if fees started small (as they did with HE) this would be a major change and many would argue a blow for social mobility (even if they are income contingent). Of course this is jumping the gun and what the Government probably actually meant by that statement is providing a good level of funding for the FE sector. However, FE fees must have crossed the Government’s mind – apart from anything else, the contrast between apprenticeships (paid for by employers and much grumbled about by government because the levy has not achieved what they wanted) and tuition fees is interesting.

There was lots of commentary following the Telegraph article on Twitter. This one summed it up for Sarah (read the two comments too!) and this one posts excerpts of the article.

Parliamentary questions

Government HE spending in last 10 years.
Interestingly: how much the cost of student finance is forecast to increase in the absence of further policy changes in the next three years.
The annual cost of student finance to 2030 assuming no policy changes; the cost of HE to the public purse for last 20 year by degree subject area; the cost of media studies to the public purse (last 3 years)

HE restructuring regime announced

The Government announced their scheme to support HE institutions in financial difficulties (detail here). They call it a ‘restructuring regime’ because it is – any institutions needing to access the loan to keep themselves afloat can expect full intervention – chopping courses and curtailing services to only deliver the aspects the Government considers in the public interest (fitting national priorities and any local demonstrated needs). The Government are clear the support isn’t for all providers, so if the Government doesn’t think the institution can deliver in the national interest it will be allowed to close – Government’s intention is not to provide a blanket bail-out to the sector. It is not a guarantee that no organisation will fail (WMS). If that happens the OfS student protection arrangements will come into force – see later in this section for the consultation on those.

An independently-chaired Higher Education Restructuring Regime Board will be established, which will include input from members with specialist knowledge external to Government. The Board will advise the Minister.
It’s a repayable loan only offered as last resort measure with specific conditions that align to wider Government objectives: The scheme aims to support the important role universities play in their local economies, and preserve the country’s science base.
If eligible, providers will need to comply with conditions ({harsh ones, see below) to focus the sector towards the future needs of the country, such delivering high quality courses with good graduate outcomes. As a condition for taking part in the scheme, universities will be required to make changes that meet wider Government objectives, depending on the individual provider’s circumstances. This could include ensuring they deliver high quality courses with strong graduate outcomes, improving their offer of qualifications available, and focusing resources on the front line by reducing administrative costs, including vice-chancellor pay.

Conditions would be determined on a case-by-case basis, but there are some baselines:

Clear economic and value for money case for intervention
The need for support is because of C-19 (ie not underlying and longer-term financial weakness) and there must be a clear and sustainable model following the restructure (i.e. once the Government has provided the loan the provider won’t fail anyway).
Providers will only be supported if their collapse would cause significant harm to the national or local economy/society (examples given are the loss of high-quality research or teaching provision, a disruption to COVID-19 research or healthcare provision or overall disruption to policy objectives including a significant impact on outcomes for students).
Providers must comply with their legal duties to secure freedom of speech. (How can this be demonstrated? And have the DfE just zipped through the last 5 University Minister’s pronouncements and added their pet projects in? Probably not or accommodation costs might have appeared (Skidmore). And they haven’t gone as far as printing costs Gyimah –although nearly, see below). So no, this is probably purely political.
The provider must continue to meet the OfS’ regulatory requirements.
In exploring whether the Government will provide support the institution must cooperate with independent business review advisers.

The business review will address a number of things, and this is where the direction of travel really becomes clear:

Provision – removing any duplication of provision, cutting out the dead wood and refocusing the offer on high-quality courses with strong student outcomes, low drop-out rates and high proportions of graduates achieving the high-skilled employment measure which ALSO develop skills aligned to local and national economic and social employment needs.
Revising the level of provision – could any of the provision be more effectively delivered at Level 4 or 5 or through a local FE college?
Governance – strengthening governance and leadership
Efficiency – reviewing admin costs to identify cost savings and efficiencies to achieve future sustainability (senior pay, professional services, selling or repurposing assets to repay loans, fund restructuring, closing down unviable campuses or provision, considering mergers and options for consolidation and service sharing including with FE). The growth of administrative activities that do not demonstrably add value must be tackled head on.
Ensuring student protection – current students to complete the course on which they enrolled or an equivalent course by remaining at the same or transferring to a different provider.

Some other choice snippets:

The funding of student unions should be proportionate and focused on serving the needs of the wider student population rather than subsidising niche activism and campaigns. (On this RP say: Is the government really suggesting that representation of students is overfunded? And are universities expected to interfere further in what student unions get up to?)

And this is telling:

We would encourage any provider looking to restructure outside the regime also to bear in mind the statement of policy direction set out in this document, to align with our overall strategic direction for HE in England.
Public funding for courses that do not deliver for students will be reassessed.
It is probable that the sector in 2030 will not look the same as it does now

The DfE have done a fantastic job of setting out all the Government’s priorities. This is not just about the restructuring regime, as it says very clearly, this is about government’s priorities for HE going forwards.

Research Professional point out that: Access and widening participation get no mention. And on post-graduation employment that doesn’t reach the ‘graduate’ level threshold they ask – what if the benefits of taking a [degree] course are mainly about gaining better opportunities than are available without it?

SoS Gavin Williamson stated: We need our universities to achieve great value for money – delivering the skills and a workforce that will drive our economy and nation to thrive in the years ahead. My priority is student welfare, not vice-chancellor salaries.

These latest rescue measures are not available to independent HE providers who do not already receive public funding. Alex Proudfoot, Chief Executive of Independent Higher Education, said:

The coronavirus pandemic has generated huge disruption and uncertainty in all walks of life, and higher education is no exception. We welcome the Government’s recognition that some providers may run into difficulties through no fault of their own…Independent higher education providers do not expect a bailout, but they do expect their Government to take ownership of the nationwide lockdown it ordered, and to recognise the impact this decision had in the form of significant lost revenues from the cancellation of intakes and the crucial summer short course market. Businesses in the hospitality and tourism sectors were rightly helped to make up some of the income lost from closures. No less of a helping hand should be extended to education businesses – SMEs, for the most part – for whom the lockdown directly caused cancellations which have hit their bottom line. They urgently need the same consideration of a Business Rates Holiday and targeted grants to sustain them past this difficult period, and allow them to play their part in the essential task of retraining the many thousands of workers displaced by this crisis.

It would be a difficult task for the Government to extend a similar ‘restructuring regime’ bailout to the independent sector (not least because the DfE don’t have their heads around these type of providers yet) but Alex makes a key point in highlighting the lack of arrangement for this sector. This Government is keen for the independent providers to be a success (and suitable competition to drive up standards in regular HE), these private providers are also a crucial part of the bridge between industry and education in the Government’s technical and vocation pathways agendas. Yet these providers may go under before the FE reforms are enacted.

RP comment:

The terms of the bailout for universities facing financial difficulties are such that no vice-chancellor could ever accept them—a merger would be a preferable option to being run by the board of the Restructuring Regime.
The consequence will be that in order to avoid straying into financial hot water, university managers will be much more hawkish than they might otherwise have been over cost-cutting. That means more job losses than might have been the case. Intentionally or not, the government has fired the starting pistol on a kind of anti-furlough scheme for university staff.
Not only will universities be reducing capacity at a time when they should be gearing up for the unprecedented investment promised by the R&D roadmap, but an exit from the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic depends largely on the success of university research teams like those working on vaccines…
The promising results coming out of these labs are not the product of lone geniuses but the outcome of a research ecosystem, which includes cross-border collaboration, and an institutional pyramid, which involves teaching and research in subjects other than the life sciences.
Those who are calling the shots in government education policy—this does not necessarily include Williamson and Donelan—are listening to voices telling them that the cure to the UK’s productivity problems is higher technical skills. However, the UK does not have an economy with extensive opportunities in advanced manufacturing—80 per cent of GDP is generated by services, which require graduates with broad and flexible skills.
Rather than producing graduates for the UK economy as it is, the education system is being pushed into training people for an economy that does not exist. Williamson wants a German-style further education system, but he does not have at his disposal the several centuries it took to build up the German guild system and the Marshall Plan that built up the German manufacturing base—or the euro, which sustains it.

OfS: consultation on new powers to intervene

Alongside this the OfS announced a consultation on a new targeted condition of registration allowing the OfS to intervene more quickly where providers are at material risk of closure and therefore there is increased risk to students’ studies. It is intended the new powers continue post pandemic: The implementation of proposals set out today would help ensure the protection of students on an ongoing basis, both during and after the pandemic.

OfS are proposing that providers comply with specific directions to take action to protect students such as:

continuing to teach existing students before closing
making arrangements to transfer students to appropriate courses at other universities and colleges
awarding credit for partially completed courses and awarding qualifications where courses have been completed
offering impartial information, advice and guidance to students on their options and next steps
enabling students to make complaints and apply for refunds or compensation where appropriate
archiving records so that students can access evidence of their academic attainment in the future.

Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive OfS, said:

Our regulatory approach has extended the protection available to students if their course, campus or provider closes. We had intended to consult on measures to strengthen our ability to protect students, including from the consequences of provider closure. But with financial risk heightened during the pandemic, it has become clear that we need to prioritise some elements of those plans. Nobody wants a university or college to run into financial trouble, but where this happens, it is vital that students are able to complete their studies with as little disruption as possible and receive proper credit for their achievements.
This proposed condition would ensure that we are able to act swiftly and decisively where there is a material risk of closure. We have been clear that, as a regulator, we wish to reduce unnecessary burden on higher education providers. For the vast majority of universities and colleges that are in a sound financial position, these changes will not have any effect.
This is a carefully targeted and proactive measure to protect students, particularly during these uniquely challenging times. Where universities and colleges are at material risk of closure, we will ensure that our focus is on the needs of students.

Meanwhile over in FE…

The Government (DfE) has set out proposals to strengthen relationships with colleges and promote better planning within FE provision. The Dame Mary Ney review on the financial oversight of colleges concluded 9 months ago and has now been published by the Government along with their response. It proposes:

Strengthened alignment between the Further Education Commissioner and Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)
A regular strategic dialogue led by the ESFA and Further Education Commissioner’s team with all college boards around priorities, starting from September 2020
New whistle-blowing requirements for colleges, including publication of policies on college websites
A review of governance guidance to strengthen transparency
A new College Collaboration Fund round

More changes are expected to be announced when the Government publish their FE White Paper (due Autumn).

Some key excerpts from the written ministerial statement:

Survey – Despite the Government’s intentions to invest in FE the Association of Colleges’ summer 2020 survey has revealed that colleges are providing hardship support exceeding the costs of what they have available, laptops and connectivity resource doesn’t cover enough of the disadvantaged learners and redundancies are imminent. The report states:

Redundancies:

46% of colleges are planning to make redundancies by the end of the autumn term 2020.
21% will have made redundancies by September 2020.

Hardship

88% of colleges have evidence of increased student hardship.
90% of colleges report that their bursary / hardship funds are under more pressure as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
56% of colleges reported that their existing and additional bursary funding from DfE has not enabled them to purchase laptops and/or connectivity (dongles) to support all their disadvantaged learners.
78% of colleges would need additional resources to support the provision of free college meal vouchers to current eligible students over the summer holiday period.

The level of additional resource needed to meet these hardship needs ranged from £20,000 to £2,000,000 with an average of £300,000 per college.

And on transport:

Four out of five colleges anticipate major transport difficulties around September re-opening.

Comments from FE sector on student hardship:

Support from government is not on a level playing field with schools.
We are providing meal vouchers over the summer, but we can’t really afford to do this.
Digital poverty is a major concern and pressure.
Access to a laptop without broadband is of limited use.
Laptop bursaries are wholly insufficient to meet demand.
Free transport would make a huge difference to learners. Removal of the oyster for travel will increase pressure on young people.
Bursary allocation has been reduced for next year.

FE Vision – The Independent Commission on the College of the Future has published People, productivity and place: a new vision for colleges – a vision for the college of the future, accompanied by a collection of short essays and case studies about the civic role of colleges.

Education Committee

Here is more coverage on what was said at last week’s Education Committee hearing with Minister Michelle Donelan. We covered this last week but the transcript wasn’t out. You can read it in full here.

Another ministerial speech

We’ve had quite a number of speeches on HE recently – Boris, Gavin, Michelle and Shadow Minister Emma Hardy have all spoken multiple times over the last few weeks. The Minister spoke again this week as part of the Festival of HE (even though it finished over a week ago). Research Professional (RP) cover the speech which reiterated the same themes as her previous speeches and appearance in front of the Education Committee:

Much of her address centred on what we may now be able to call the minister’s hobbyhorse: differentiating between what she terms “true”, “genuine” social mobility and the old social mobility…
She stated: I want to continue to make clear the passionate importance I place on achieving genuine social mobility…true social mobility is when we put students and their needs and career ambitions first—be that in higher education, further education or apprenticeships.
RP continue: To be fair to Donelan, it is too simplistic to say that simply attending university will be beneficial for everyone. There are good arguments to be made about how we measure social mobility…
Donelan: True social mobility is not getting them to the door, it’s getting them to the finish line of a high-quality course that will lead them to a graduate job.

The focus away from access only and onto student support, achievement and careers and post-graduation support is all within the current Access and Participation Plans. The big access-only push hasn’t existed since the demise of Aim Higher (and even then Aim Higher did so much more). So the Minister is really only bringing a focus to the aims the work is already pushing for – although likely (to use the words of a former access Tsar) the Government will want further, faster, progress. And this is the sticking point for most HE institutions – fast progress is not easy to come by.

RP state:

Donelan’s example raises many questions and legitimate problems. What it does not do is offer any evidence that slowing the expansion of higher education will address those issues. Surely it would be better, for example, to look at why progression rates are lower among some groups of students, rather than concluding simply that university is not for them. Although the Government may argue that this is what the sector has been doing – to little avail.
It also seems fair to ask why those with the same qualification but a different colour of skin are not being hired into top roles (although that is also a fair question to ask of universities specifically). It seems unlikely that the sole cause of this career discrepancy is their attendance at a university—and even less likely that their progress would have been more in line with that of white graduates had they opted not to attend university at all.
It would be wrong to paint the minister’s speech as another lecture on social mobility—that was only one part of the address. However, until Donelan addresses the issue of whether the demographic make-up of university attendees “matters” or not following her comments last week, it may be the issue that comes to define her tenure.

RP also have this article on the other aspects of Donelan’s speech in which the Minister called for more modular courses for adult learners lamenting the continued norm for three year degrees.

Donelan said she was “determined” the government would “support our universities to become more flexible” and deliver more modular courses, as “now is the time to innovate”…. modular courses are “tremendously desirable to adult learners looking to upskill, and it is likely to be more important than ever as the economy recovers from coronavirus”.
“If Covid has taught us one thing in reference to the higher education sector, it is how flexible it is – let’s utilise this flexibility. Now is the time to build on the recent innovation we have seen.

The Minister feels shorter courses are particularly important for portfolio careers.

The minister also stressed she wanted to see “more emphasis on part-time learning that links with labour market needs and skills gaps”, more degree apprenticeships, and more higher technical education at Levels 4 and 5. She also spoke favourably about two-year degrees.
“I…want the sector to think more about how it delivers learning differently,” she said. “Sadly, the three-year bachelor’s degree has increasingly become the predominant mode of study. But that doesn’t suit all students. Many young people would like to earn while they learn.”

Donelan also stated she wanted to see the practice of making conditional unconditional offers “end for good”. “I don’t want to see students making decisions that are not in their best interests. Quite frankly, there is no justification for such practices. Once again Donelan shows herself out of touch with those students for whom unconditional offers were originally designed. But maybe she doesn’t mean them.

The Guardian have a good article taking issue with the Government’s new stance whereby they want less pupils progressing to university and have glossed over the disadvantaged groups access. The article challenges the Government:

“We need to create and support opportunities for those who don’t want to go to university, not write them off,” says the education secretary. On this point, he’s right. But let’s be clear: it is the Conservative government who wrote off non-academic pupils as if they were bad cheques. Successive Tory education secretaries have made it harder to pass GCSEs, chopped vocational qualifications from the school curriculum, slashed FE funding by eye-watering amounts, and complicated the apprenticeship system so badly that only half as many young people now starting an apprenticeship as in 2017.
If Williamson wants us to believe that further and technical education can genuinely have parity in the future and this whole narrative isn’t just a way of pulling up the drawbridge on university access, here are a few things he could do.
First, if there are going to be fewer undergraduate places, in order to preserve social mobility a large portion should be reserved for those from low-income families or areas. Second, if apprenticeships are for everyone, not just “other people’s kids”, then why not set another target? Make it so that every school is expected to send, say, 25% of young people on to apprenticeships. No exceptions for grammar schools. No exceptions for schools in leafy areas.
Finally, make student maintenance loans (the ones used for living on) available to those on vocational routes. A big draw of university life is the ability to live independently, using the loan and topping it up with part-time work. Apprentice wages are often too low to live on, and long hours make top-up work difficult. Fund vocational routes fairly and the calculation becomes very different.
Do this, and Williamson’s announcement suddenly looks like a genuine revolution. Until then, I fear it’s just another way of cutting back and preventing people like me from going into higher education. Unimaginable? Not any more.

And the shadow minister speaks too

Shadow HE Minister Emma Hardy spoke at the Convention for HE (RP cover it here – see second half of article) and today in Conversation with HEPI.

RP report she commented on the Government’s social mobility stance:

More incisive were Hardy’s words on the issue of the week: does the background of the people who enter university matter, or is it getting in the way of “true social mobility”? In short, the shadow minister’s answer was: Yes, it matters.
“The government’s response to the looming university financial crisis has been to launch an attack on the sector, accusing it of offering ‘low-value degrees’,” she said, “astonishingly implying that if you don’t come from a family where your parents have gone to university, you could be tricked into attending university.
“To enable real choice for everyone, the government should be focused on identifying the barriers to learning and breaking them down, not establishing more.
“We cannot ever see a situation again where education is viewed as a privilege for the few and not a right for all… No country’s economy has grown on the back of reducing access to higher education. It matters which groups in society get access to university.”

On the Government’s rescue HE restructure package RP report that Emma stated:

Labour cannot countenance the loss of a single university,” she said. “At a time when the country is facing the possibility of the deepest recession in its history—when unemployment is set to soar and when retraining and reskilling will be more needed than ever—the government’s position is beyond rational comprehension.”

Emma Hardy’s focussed speech during this week’s Conversation with HEPI was interesting. Labour’s approach to HE agrees with several of the Government’s themes, however, the devil really is in the detail, and there was a world of difference in tone. She is a big fan of FE and HE working together seamlessly to deliver for their local communities. Of course, the Government have been pushing HE to support and work with the full range of local institutions from primary up for years. Labour’s approach is ‘work with to deliver’ not the ‘done to’ sharing of expertise that Theresa May originally envisaged.

Themes:

A passion for degree apprenticeships and level 4 & 5 qualifications, however, Emma took issue with the Government’s universal aim for all HE institutions to offer them stating offering degree apprenticeships is dependent on the local area – and this relies on the local infrastructure and Government investment to achieve that infrastructure in the area. She stated that the Government’s new found love of this sector is ringing hollow.
Post qualification admissions – the sector shouldn’t block a change in approach and it shouldn’t be dropped because it is just so difficulty to do. Instead Emma favoured a cross-sector collaborative approach dealing with the difficult elements in turn, gradually adjusting each aspect from FE to HE to produce a new system that works across the board.
Emma wasn’t opposed to student number caps (as a temporary solution) in principle, however she disagreed with the Government’s method and stated they haven’t got rid of the competition as intended. Looking to the future she wouldn’t rule out a form of student number limitation, however, she said she was new to the sector and hadn’t formulated her firm position on the matter yet.
Key differences were Labour’s approach to social mobility which opposes the reduction in courses and allowing universities to fail (although their position on private providers wasn’t stated). Labour believes genuine choice is needed particularly across disadvantaged groups whose personal life circumstances (such as caring responsibilities) and the limitations of the geographic area they live within may already limit available choices. Emma stated that no university should be allowed to fail – failure impacts on choice, aspiration and the local economy…potentially creating cold spots. Unsurprisingly Emma supported the civic university model.
While overall Emma was against differential fees and intervention to cut courses she did allow that some courses did need looking at. She also stated the sector shouldn’t leave itself vulnerable to lazy attacks [from the Government and media].
Emma was firmly behind the new 5 year targets in the Access and Participation Plans stating they could be revolutionary, changing the make up of universities, changing the system.
She also disagreed with the Government’s focus on graduate employment stating the rise in child poverty and early services cuts will undermine social mobility and that it is unfair of the Government to have removed such services and then blame the HE sector for not churning out socially climbing graduates.

Admissions

The OfS have updated their series of reports on unconditional offer making.

As we know, they, and the government, believe that unconditional offers are unconditionally bad, except where they are used to admit students based on a portfolio or similar. That much is very clear after the chaos of the moratorium/proposed retrospective ban/final new licence condition that we have worked through over the last few months. You can read more about the licence condition in our update from 9^th July in case you missed it.

Their press release makes it fairly clear;

The Office for Students (OfS) has today reiterated that unconditional offers risk pushing students into decisions that are not in their best interests, as updated analysis shows that young people who accepted unconditional offers before sitting their A-level exams are less likely to continue into their second year of study.
The analysis finds that, even after controlling for a range of characteristics associated with dropout rates, A-level entrants who accepted an unconditional offer in 2017-18 had a continuation rate between 0.4 and 1.1 percentage points lower than would have been expected had they taken up a conditional offer instead. This translates to between 70 and 175 of the 15,725 A-level entrants placed through unconditional offers that year.
UCAS analysis published in December 2019 found that applicants holding an unconditional offer in the 2019 cycle were, on average, 11.5 percentage points more likely to miss their predicted A-level grades by three or more grades. Today’s analysis by the OfS suggests that this lower A-level attainment then results in higher dropout rates in higher education.
The OfS has also previously highlighted that ‘conditional unconditional’ offers – now banned until September 2021 because of concerns around unfair admissions practices during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic – distort student choice and could be seen as akin to ‘pressure selling’.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the OfS, said today:
‘It is becoming increasingly clear that unconditional offers can have a negative impact on students. Unconditional offers can lead to students under-achieving compared to their predicted A-level grades, choosing a university and course that may be sub-optimal for them, and ultimately being at increased risk of dropping out entirely.
‘Dropout rates are overall low in England, so this is a small effect. But we remain concerned that unconditional offers – particularly those with conditions attached – can pressure students into making decisions that may not be in their best interests, and reduce their choices. It is particularly important that we allow students the space to make informed decisions at this time of increased uncertainty, which is why we have temporarily banned ‘conditional unconditional’ offers during the pandemic.
‘It is in everyone’s interests for students to achieve their full potential at school, enrol on a higher education course that best fits their needs, interests and aspirations, and succeed on that course.’

Their analysis says (excerpts):

The number of unconditional offers being made has continued to grow. In 2019, four in 10 applicants had at least one offer with an unconditional component and over a quarter received at least one ‘conditional unconditional’ offer. Meanwhile, the proportion of students receiving at least one ‘direct unconditional’ offer rose modestly (0.5 percentage points since 2018) and the proportion receiving ‘other unconditional’ offers fell slightly (0.2 percentage points since 2018).
As previously reported, there is little evidence that applicants placed through an unconditional offer are either more or less likely to enrol the following autumn. Regardless of whether they hold an unconditional offer, around three per cent of applicants placed through UCAS are not identified as starting higher education in the same year, or at the intended higher education provider. Applicants that have come through ‘other UCAS routes’ are roughly equally likely to be identified as starting higher education as those placed through conditional or unconditional offers.
For entrants in 2015-16, 2016-17, and now 2017-18, a lower proportion (more than 1 percentage point) of those entering with unconditional offers continued with their studies after the first year, compared with those who enter with conditional offers.
By contrast, the model estimates that 2017-18 BTEC entrants with unconditional offers were between 0.3 and 2.6 percentage points more likely to continue with their studies, relative to being placed through a conditional offer. The model estimates that between 15 and 135 additional BTEC entrants in that year continued with their studies having been placed through an unconditional offer, instead of a conditional offer. This is out of 5,115 BTEC entrants placed through unconditional offers in our 2017-18 modelling population.
- In addition, when looking at the different types of unconditional offer, A-level entrants in 2017-18 who were placed through ‘conditional unconditional’ or ‘direct unconditional’ offers are shown to be less likely to continue with their studies, relative to those placed through a conditional offer, after controlling for the same factors as above. ‘Direct unconditional’ offers are found to have the largest negative relationship with continuation rates (between -0.9 and -2.4 percentage points), compared to ‘conditional unconditional’ offers (between -0.1 and -1.0 percentage points). We find no statistically significant difference between the continuation rates of A-level entrants placed through ‘other unconditional’ offers and those placed through conditional offers.
- In our modelling of continuation rates, we control for predicted entry qualifications, instead of achieved qualifications, so that the model estimates include the impact of unconditional offers on Level 3 attainment reported by UCAS. Annex D contains results from an alternative model which controls for achieved entry qualifications instead (see Model II). This model finds no statistically significant association between unconditional offers and continuation for A-level entrants in all entrant years available. This would be consistent with what would be found if poorer performance at A-level, relative to predicted grades for those placed through unconditional offers, were driving the lower continuation rates of these entrants

NSS

The National Student Survey outcomes were published (interactive charts are here). Last week we highlighted the OfS analysis which suggested C-19 didn’t have a real terms impact on the responses given to the survey. This week OfS have published summaries of the data from the national position (the charts can be viewed here).

And as reported last week on the negative side students continued to report comparatively lower rates of satisfaction with how their courses are organised and how effectively changes are communicated by their university or college.

Research Professional report on the NSS. And Wonkhe have a blog examining which factors that improve teaching practice may improve positive outcomes within the NSS. The blog is keen on consistency.

Student Finance

The APPG for students has published Reforming Student Finance: Perspectives from Student Representatives.

Student finance and cost of living

Students generally felt that current levels of maintenance support are inadequate.
Support should be increased and non-repayable means-tested maintenance grants should be reintroduced
The system should better recognise the diversity of students and their particular needs
Tailored support should be offered to certain students through better means testing
Accommodation was identified as the main cost, with prices having increased significantly over the last decade – in many cases exceeding the maintenance loan available
The relative reduction in maintenance funding was a concern as household income thresholds had not risen with inflation
Other issues which were raised included travel costs, childcare costs, and that the current London weighting does not address the different costs of living all around the UK
Consideration could be given to moving to monthly payments, instead of the current termly instalments

Effects

Many students respond to the shortfall in money they faced, if they do not have savings or money from their family to plug the gap, by taking up significant amounts of part-time work and taking out commercial loans leading to serious effects on student wellbeing and mental health.
Attainment can also be affected both by the financial stress and through the impact of taking on too much part-time work on their ability to study.
The increase in drop-out rates over the last five years must be seen as a consequence of the above.
Student representatives were clear that the current funding system reproduces existing social injustices, as these issues predominantly affect those from poorer or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds.

Information, advice and guidance

Student representatives generally felt that there was not adequate information, either nationally or through institutions, about various costs of being a student. The ‘hidden costs’ of studying were a particular concern, e.g. textbooks and graduation – students felt they had not been made aware of these enough. Furthermore, the lack of information around funding, particularly for postgraduate students, was a real issue.
Student representatives were also angry about the way that UCAS advertised commercial loans.

Differences between funding agencies across the UK

The timing of students receiving payments was raised as a major issue of difference
The four funding agencies also differ in their treatment of estranged students
All agencies require and allow different levels of input from staff

Other issues identified

Students felt there needs to be better support for distance learning.
Changes were proposed to ‘lifelong learning’ to allow students to undertake further study later in life .
Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare students – a shortage of funding for these courses was identified; students on these courses were much less able to take on part-time work alongside their studies to support themselves.
The lack of support for childcare was a key concern, as well as a lack of information or support for placements

Loans – Quick repayment facility

Meanwhile Martin Lewis has attacked the Student Loans Company new website. He isn’t a fan and has called the new repayment tool irresponsible and dangerous, stating it gives UK graduates a damaging and demoralising picture of their debts by exaggerating their outstanding loans. He is campaigning against the quick repayment facility on the website and tries to remind the public that they are only required to repay 9% of their earning above the threshold. He stated that unless huge overpayments were made well above the 9% it makes very little difference to the overall debt, except for the reduction in income that the individual will feel (flushing money away unnecessarily). The BBC report that Lewis intends to write to Michelle Donelan to request the quick repayment facility be removed immediately. Given that it may increase the monies returning to the public coffers and Donelan’s track record of toeing the party line his campaign may fall on deaf ears – or only result in a reminder that they don’t have to make overpayments near the facility on the website.

Research Professional cover the argument, including the SLC’s response to Lewis.

Opportunity areas expansion

Donelan announced the expansion of the Opportunity Areas programme (additional £18 million) which will twin the 12 Opportunity areas with places facing similar challenges to help unleash the potential among young people in other parts of the country. It is the fourth year of funding for the Opportunity Areas programme and this year will focus on tackling the exacerbation caused by C-19. Catch up schooling, teacher recruitment and training, and early speech and language development are priorities to help narrow the attainment gap within the Opportunity areas. The article details some of the approaches currently in place to help these areas ‘level up’. Approaches include: improving the quality of careers advice, work experience, digital and other skills for employment, holiday clubs, support for excluded pupils, and opportunities to develop confidence, leadership and resilience.

Devolved news: Wales

Welsh Universities and Colleges will benefit from the announcement of a £50m support package to help them cope with the impact of the coronavirus crisis (£27m for HE; £23m FE). The support is part of the Welsh Government’s actions to support students and Wales’ major education institutions and provide the skills and learning in response to the economic impact of the coronavirus.

The HE Recovery Fund will support universities to maintain jobs in teaching, research and student services, invest in projects to support the wider economic recovery, and support students suffering from financial hardship.

The FE funds will increase teaching support following students’ time away from education due to C-19 virus and help new students with their transition to post-16 learning. Up to £5 million will be provided to support vocational learners to return to college to help them achieve their licence-to-practice qualifications, without needing to re-sit the full year.

An extra £3.2 million will be used to provide digital equipment such as laptops for FE students. £100,000 will also be provided to support regional mental health and wellbeing projects and professional development in Local Authority Community Learning.

Civic engagement rankings

King’s College London, the University of Chicago and the University of Melbourne have published Advancing University Engagement: University engagement and global league tables stating that universities need to better demonstrate their value to society. Universities around the world are making a positive impact through engagement but, unlike teaching and research, this is rarely recognised or celebrated. The report calls for societal impact to be recognised in university rankings and proposes a new framework to measure and rank this impact, or ‘engagement’ to be incorporated into global university league tables. The authors suggest this would encourage universities to ensure more of their activities benefit local communities and wider society, while better showcasing the existing benefits they produce.

Richard Brabner, Director UPP Foundation (which established the Civic University Commission), said:

… it would be much better if existing and new rankings included the value universities bring to society so that they provide a more comprehensive picture of our sector. The report provides an important contribution to this debate and includes a sensible range of indicators. I particularly welcome the report’s focus on embedding civic engagement within the curriculum. This is vital to fostering a student’s long-term commitment to service, as well as developing the skills and attributes to thrive in the outside world.
I would however caution any perception that a global ranking can define whether a university is civic or not. A truly civic university focuses on the needs of its community and region. It is important these local factors drive the activities of a civic university, not the benchmarks or indicators in a ranking.

Public Attitudes to Science

BEIS published the 2019 edition of Public attitudes to science which looks at the UK public’s attitudes to science, scientists and science policy. The survey shows that public opinion places scientists and engineers as the trustworthy professionals, that the public is supportive of spending on ‘blue skies’ research, and that UK adults are becoming more familiar with, and more adaptable to, an ever-accelerating pace of technological change. It also looks in depth on attitudes towards an ageing society, AI and robotics including their use in healthcare, genome editing within food security, and micro pollution and plastics. It finds the public continues to have an appetite for information about science and mainly use television, online news platforms and Facebook to stay informed. However, they’re unsure if they can trust media reporting of science issues – with online sources particularly mistrusted.

Of the range of scientific applications asked about, vaccination and renewable energy attracted near universal public support, while driverless cars, GM crops, nuclear power, and the use of animals in research were the most contentious. However, on balance, more people felt that the benefits outweighed risks in almost all technology areas asked about. The one clear exception was driverless cars, where more people felt the risks outweighed the benefits: only 23% agreed that driverless car technology will be safer than human drivers. It is notable that support for vaccination remained very strong (only 4% felt that the risks outweigh the benefits) despite prevailing media attention around the ‘anti-vaccination’ movement.

On the ageing society:

The large majority (84%) would prefer to live only for as long as they can ensure good quality of life
Two thirds (64%) of people had heard about life extension technologies to slow the ageing process, and 31% would choose this if available. However, people were more negative (62%) than positive (31%) about the impact this would have on society, with people concerned about burden on the NHS and increased taxes for working people.
When asked about different enhancement technologies to assist older people in later life, the public was largely in favour of cognitive enhancing drugs (80%) and to a lesser extent robotic clothing to improve mobility (59%). However, there was much less support for more medically invasive technologies such as brain chip implants to improve intelligence and cognition (24%).
54% had heard about the idea of robot caregivers to help older people and around half (45%) said that they would use one, either for themselves in later life or for a relative. People felt more comfortable with the idea of a robot helping with household tasks (61%) or healthcare (57%) than providing companionship (29%). Eight in ten (80%) thought that robot caregivers would lead to older people having less human contact.

On AI and robotics:

Nine in ten people (90%) had heard about the idea that AI and robots could begin to take over many human jobs, beyond the more routine jobs. Most working people recognised that aspects of their job could be automated in the future: 51% thought that their job could be at least partially automated within the next 5 years, rising to 69% within a 20-year timeframe. Overall, 49% considered this to be a ‘good thing’ for society and 45% ‘a bad thing’
A large majority felt comfortable about AI and robots being used to support a human doctor to make a diagnosis or recommend treatment (80%), or in surgery (71%). The opposite was found in relation to technology replacing human doctors, where a clear majority felt uncomfortable in both contexts (respectively 81% and 75% felt uncomfortable about technology replacing doctors in diagnosis and surgery). While 58% believed AI and robots used in healthcare will accelerate progress in medicine, only 37% thought that it could surpass the accuracy of human doctors. The chief concern was related to loss of contact.
For the purposes of developing healthcare-related AI, the large majority were willing to share their personal health data with the NHS (90%). People were somewhat less willing to share their data with research organisations (73%) and the government (61%), and much less willing to share their data with private companies (35%). This echoed earlier findings that the public is uncomfortable with the role of the private sector in scientific development.
There was widespread disapproval of the use of data to target online adverts and for political campaigning

Research

EU Budgets – The EU R&D budgets have come back well below the level expected. Research Professional report:

Heads of EU member states agreed their stance on a 2021-27 budget of €1,074bn (£970bn) for the bloc in the early hours of this morning, along with a €750bn Covid-19 recovery fund for 2021-23, after four days of tense negotiations.
The budget would devote €75.9bn to the Horizon Europe R&D programme, topped up with €5bn from the fund. The Erasmus+ mobility programme would get €21.2bn, all from the budget. These totals are much less than the European Parliament and research and education institutions wanted, so all eyes are now on the Parliament to see whether it will veto the deal.

This RP article has more detail and the responses from the European research alliances and guilds.

UUK, GuildHE, the Russell Group and European bodies have signed this joint statement aiming to reach agreement by addressing the sticking points on UK participation in Horizon Europe. It addresses:

Demonstrating UK commitment to the programme
Ensuring a fair financial contribution through a ‘two-way’ correction mechanism
Accepting EU oversight of the use of programme funds
Agreeing to introduce reciprocal mobility arrangements to support the programme
Clarifying that the results of research can be exploited beyond the EU

The statement argues that, with enough will on both sides, it should be possible to reach an agreement before the Horizon Europe programme is due to begin in January whilst acknowledging that time is rapidly running out.

UKRI – UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) published their (146 page) Annual Report and Accounts (2019-20). The report recognises the stated significant milestones and achievements as the work supporting the research and innovation community during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the delivery of significant

PhD to Academia – a challenging transition – HEPI published PhD students and their careers examining the professional ambitions of PhD students. Key findings:

Most PhD students (88%) believe their doctorate will positively impact their career prospects.
PhD students are equally more (33%) and less (32%) likely to pursue a research career now than before they started their PhD, with the majority choosing academic research (67%) or research within industry (64%) as a probable career path.
PhD students feel well trained in analytical (83%), data (82%) and technical (71%) skills, along with presenting to specialist audiences (81%) and writing for peer-reviewed journals (64%).
They are less confident of their training in managing people (26%), finding career satisfaction (26%), applying for funding (22%) and managing budgets (11%).
When considering future careers, PhD students are more likely to attend career workshops (76%) and networking events (60%) or to do their own research (64%) than to discuss options with an institutional careers consultant (13%).

The report incorporates qualitative research that captures the voices of PhD students:

‘I don’t feel qualified or prepared to enter a career outside of research.’
‘The requirement to move around in pursuit of short term postdocs is terrible for social and family life’.
‘The academic culture will be detrimental to my mental health.’

Post report the media picked up on the above stated difficulties of moving into an academic career for an early career researcher.

Research parliamentary questions covered:

Tackling diversity in UKRI funded PhD studentships
Encouraging former postdoctoral researchers to return to the profession
Expanding the R&D tax credit to include data and cloud computing costs
No details on the Office for Talent yet
Financial support for charity research sector

And an oral question:

Q – Daniel Zeichner (Lab) (Cambridge): What steps he is taking to secure the future of UK research and development.

A – Amanda Solloway (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy): The Government are now implementing their ambitious R&D roadmap, published earlier this month, reaffirming our commitment to increasing public R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024-25 and ensuring the UK is the best place for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs to live and work.

Q – Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate the recent announcements, but can the Minister reassure us that all universities will be able to access those loans, with freedom to invest in line with local priorities? Will she take a look at the proposals from the new Whittle laboratory in Cambridge, which needs to match the already secure £23.5 million in private sector funding to develop the first long-haul zero-carbon passenger aircraft?

A – Amanda Solloway: I give my assurance that one of the things we are addressing in the roadmap is ensuring that we become a science superpower. Within that, we are levelling up across the whole of the country. I am committed to making the workplace diverse and ensuring that we have a culture that embraces that throughout the whole of country. We will ensure that UK scientists are appreciated and rewarded.

And another oral question:

Mr Sheerman:…The Minister has a business background, so does she not realise that if she could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow Mrs Thatcher’s example and introduce a windfall profit tax on people who have made a lot of money—the gambling industry and companies such as Amazon—that could be ploughed into research and development? Universities will go through a tough time in the coming months and years, so let us put real resources into research and development as never before.

Amanda Solloway:…The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a taskforce that has been looking into how to support universities. It has enabled us to set up a stability fund, which will enable R&D to continue in our institutions. In addition, in the roadmap, which contains the place strategy, we are talking about lots of levelling up. We are making sure we have the opportunity to take this forward and become the science superpower that we all want to be.

Disability

Advance HE have published Three months to make a difference a booklet detailing seven areas which are challenging for disabled students alongside recommendations for their resolution. It draws on the content raised in a series of roundtables run by the Disabled Students’ Commission (supported by OfS). It highlights that rapid action is needed to ameliorate for the additional challenges C-19 creates for disabled students.

Provide disabled applicants with support and guidance that is reflective of the COVID-19 pandemic in the clearing process
Ensure ease of access to funding for individual level reasonable adjustment
Ensure student support meets and considers the requirements of disabled students during the pandemic
Consider disabled students when making university campuses and accommodation COVID-19 secure
Facilitate disabled students’ participation in welcome and induction weeks and ongoing social activities
Ensure blended learning is delivered inclusively and its benefits are considered in long-term planning
Embed accessibility as standard across all learning platforms and technologies

Parliamentary question: Disabled students’ allowances

Q (Mr Barry Sheerman) (Huddersfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of his Department’s announcement of 6 July 2020 on (a) changes to the Disabled Students’ Allowance and (b) the introduction of a maximum allowance of £25,000 applying to both full-time and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate recipients of that allowance on those students with the highest needs.
A: Michelle Donelan: Regulations will be laid in Parliament to effect this policy change along with the other elements of the student finance package for the 2021-22 academic year. An equality analysis will be published alongside that. The date that these regulations will be laid is yet to be confirmed.
Also Donelan confirmedthat for the vast majority of students receiving DSA funding greater than £25,000, this was driven by funding for the DSA travel grant, which will continue to remain uncapped.

Degree Classifications

UUK have published a press release stating that universities from across the UK have agreed new principles to tackle grade inflation, reconfirming the sector’s strong collective commitment to protect the value of qualifications. There are 6 principles and recommendations to be guided by when deciding the final degree classifications awarded to students. The principles will be added to the UKSCQA statement of intent which outlines specific commitments universities have made to ensure transparency, fairness and reliability in the way they award degrees.

The press release explains:

Alongside six new principles which cover the importance of providing clear learning outcomes, regular reviews, student engagement and transparency in algorithm design, the report includes examples of recommended good practice in the following areas:

Discounting marks – academic experimentation and risk taking by students are important elements to course design and learning, but there should not be the option of discounting core or final year modules. Clear instructions on how discounting applies to the final award and progression through their degree must be provided to students.
Border-line classifications – there should be a maximum zone of consideration of two percentage points from the grade boundary. Rounding, if used, should occur only once, and at the final stage.
Only one algorithm should be used to determine degree classifications and this should be clearly stated to students at the beginning of their studies.
Weighting given to different years within degrees – divergence from the four outlined models(p6; principles) should be limited.

Research Professional write about the announcement and comment:

…universities today find themselves playing catch-up with the government’s perceptions of higher education through a new commitment to tackling grade inflation…
The pledge is suitably vague so as not to impinge on institutional autonomy, covering four ill-defined areas: ensuring assessments continue to stretch and challenge students; reviewing and explaining how final degree classifications are calculated; supporting and strengthening the system of external examiners; and reviewing and publishing data and analysis on students’ degree outcomes.
Greater clarity over algorithms used to calculate degree classifications is in the frame. While there are plans to limit grade borderline boundaries and to stop discounting low grades in final year work. There will also be periodic reviews of how the system works.
Whether this statement of intent will make much practical difference to degree awards in the long run remains to be seen. However, it does show that universities are increasingly preoccupied with responding to the bêtes noires of ministers.

Nursing

The Royal College of Nursing has published Beyond the Bursary: Workforce Supply. It states to get more people into the nursing degree and successfully graduating in England, the Government must provide appropriate support both on entering and throughout the degree. This report details our modelling, undertaken by London Economics, which demonstrates the level of funding required to increase the number of applicants to the nursing degree. It calls on the Government to immediately:

reimburse tuition fees or forgive current debt for all nursing, midwifery, and allied health care students impacted by the removal of the bursary
abolish self-funded tuition fees for all nursing, midwifery, and allied health care students starting in 2020/21 and beyond
introduce universal, living maintenance grants that reflect actual student need.

Parliamentary question:2020 nursing applications so far

PQs

No detriment approach to assessment.
Care leaver outcomes
On the adequacy of predicted grades Donelan stated the disadvantaged groups were more likely to be OVERpredicted: Black applicants were proportionally 19% more likely to be overpredicted compared with White applicants. Disadvantaged applicants (measured using POLAR) were 5% more likely to be overpredicted compared with the most advantaged applicants.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Recess

Parliament is winding down. The House of Commons enters recess at the end of this week, with the Lords following shortly after. Although MPs will return to deal with constituency business and take their summer holidays Ministerial business will continue to tick over with possible, HE announcements during this traditional down period. We’ll continue to monitor the latest developments and keep you informed periodically through the policy update. We anticipate the policy update will be shorter and we won’t send it every week throughout the summer period we have our own recess too, after a very busy few months.

Other news

Levelling up: Guardian article on creating the MIT of the North.

Admissions: iNews has an article based on comment from an Ofqual former board member which states that universities should check with schools what teachers originally predicted because a ‘significant minority’ of students are likely to end up with the ‘wrong’ final grades.

Boys ambition: The Guardian has an article based on research by UCL suggesting boys are more ambitious than girls and more likely to reach to apply to higher tariff institutions. They suggest it could be a factor in explaining the gender pay gap. It also suggests that having firm or ambitious university plans means higher GCSE grades too (compared to pupils with looser intentions).

Nikki Shure, one of the co-authors of the research, said the data found boys to be more ambitious than girls regardless of family income. That ambition often translated into attending higher-status universities and more lucrative careers, which may help explain the gender pay gap.
“The goal of this paper is not just to tell girls to be more ambitious, but to get young people to think about making concrete, specific university plans. Of course it is a good idea to foster high-attaining girls to be ambitious and provide them with the information and support to achieve these goals,” Shure said.
“It is interesting that a boy and a girl at the same school with the same prior attainment and same family background have substantially different university plans,” she said.
“Making more ambitious plans could help narrow the gap, but of course it is not going to eliminate the gender pay gap, given issues around different returns to different courses even at the same institution.”
The research team found a similar pattern among pupils who were immigrants or the children of immigrants, who were more likely to aim for selective universities than their classmates. “First- and second-generation immigrants are hence much more academically ambitious than their peers of British heritage, even when they are otherwise from a similar background, of similar academic ability, and attend the same school,” the paper states.
Shure said: “One of the main things that we want to highlight is that making a concrete goal matters for academic performance. The young people in this data set had to type out the name of the top three universities to which they plan to apply, which requires some agency and thought.
“We are definitely not saying that everyone needs to plan to apply to a Russell Group university, but rather make a concrete plan to which they can work.”

Brace yourself: Diana Beech (ex HEPI, ex-Universities Minister’s policy advisor) writes for Research Professional’s Sunday Reading reflecting on the last year of Parliament’s HE changes and anticipating what is still to come. Here are a couple of excerpts looking forward:

Questions nevertheless remain on what the government will do about newer institutions, which might not have the resources and reserves to weather the oncoming storm but that remain anchor institutions in their local communities—creating jobs, attracting investment and producing hugely employable and socially valuable, but not necessarily high-earning, graduates. Depending on location, letting institutions like these fail may not tally with pledges to ‘level up’ the regions. So there are sure to be major turf wars ahead if the government is intent on convincing the electorate that levelling up, in this instance, means siphoning some places off and levelling their opportunities down.
Other battlefields to watch out for could include…measures to engineer student choice towards subjects leading directly to a particular job—all of which we could see addressed in the long-awaited response to the Augar review due in the autumn.
The past 12 months have been turbulent for universities, and the political roller-coaster shows no signs of slowing yet. Higher education would do well to brace itself for further challenges and changes ahead.

And that’s what we think too Diana!

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

July 22, 2020

Join a conversation with Clive Betts MP

Amanda Edwards

Policy Connect is hosting a discussion with Clive Betts MP, Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, Thursday 23 July 14:00-15:00 (via Zoom).

It is one in a series of discussions Policy Connect have planned with the Chairs of the various Westminster Select Committees, discussing their views and visions for these bodies as they scrutinise the work of Government and conduct research into a range of policy areas.

Clive Betts served as Leader of Sheffield City Council from 1987 until 1992, and since then has been Member of Parliament for Sheffield South East. He has been Chair of the Select Committee since 2010. As Chair, he has led on a range of cross-party research to improve the accountability and links between central and local government, including extensive work on the response to the Grenfell Disaster, council funding, and the planning system.

This event will offer the chance to hear from Clive about the future work of the Select Committee as it investigates a range of policy areas. Policy Connect’s Chief Executive, Jonathan Shaw, will discuss areas such as the devolution agenda, regeneration through place based policy, planning, housing and also new initiatives arising from the Chancellor’s summer statement.

The session will also be held remotely and open to Policy Connect members with an opportunity for Q&A during the final 20 minutes.

To register, click here. Please ensure you let Sarah Carter know if you wish to attend the event so we can track interest among academic colleagues.

June 3, 2020

HE policy update for the w/e 3rd June 2020

international, Student Engagement jforster

Parliament has returned from recess and happily so has your policy update. Here are the main stories from the last two weeks.

Parliamentary News

The FT reports that ministers are preparing to unveil a stimulus package in July, with money expected to go into training schemes and infrastructure projects plus support for technology companies. “With unemployment rising rapidly, the prime minister is also due to make a major speech in June aimed at encouraging Britons into work”. The fiscal event is not expected to constitute a Budget. Some No 10 officials are reportedly pushing for the national infrastructure strategy to be repackaged as spending to fuel the economic recovery after the Covid-19 crisis.

House of Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle wrote to MPs to outline new voting arrangements after hybrid proceedings were ended. Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg has tabled a Government motion on proposals for voting, which could include socially distanced queues through the halls of Parliament.

The Labour Party and other opposition parties tabled an amendment to the Government motion on voting in the Commons, which they lost. Valerie Vaz  MP, Shadow Leader of the House, said

“Jacob Rees-Mogg ‘s discriminatory proposals would result in two classes of MPs. Those who can physically attend and those unable to owing to the Government’s own rules, including having an underlying health condition or shielding responsibilities. The abolition of the hybrid remote parliament which allowed all MPs to take part regardless of their personal circumstances is discriminatory and would not be acceptable in any other workplace. We remain ready to work with the Government and all parties to reach a consensus that would allow all MPs to participate on an equal basis.”

In Wednesday’s PMQs, the PM appeared to say that proxy votes would be allowed, which contradicted the statement from Rees-Mogg – this debate will probably continue.

Apprenticeships

The DfE published an update to their Apprenticeships and Traineeships (England) statistics paper. In 2019/20 (up to March) higher level apprenticeships made up 24.1% of all starts (62,600). In the March – April 2020 (C-19 and lockdown period) 33.8% of starts were on higher apprenticeships – nearly double the proportion for the same period in 2018/19 (which was 17.1%). Overall the number of apprenticeships starting in this period were much lower meaning the almost doubled proportion of higher starts overtook the proportion of intermediate apprenticeships.

Postgraduate LEO data

The Government published statistics on the employment and earnings outcomes of postgraduates.

UK Postgraduates

2017/18 saw an increase in Level 7 (Masters level) postgraduate earnings one, three and five years after graduation, although earnings ten years after graduation saw no change in nominal terms.

For 2014/15 to 2017/18 tax year median earnings for the most recent postgraduates (one year after graduation) increased by £1,400 (5.6%) and by £1,200 (3.9%) for the five years after graduation cohorts. However, in real terms recent postgraduates saw no increase in their median earnings and those five years after graduation saw a fall of £500.

Five years after graduation, level 7 postgraduates earn more than first degree graduates (£32,200 compared to £26,600). However those who continue onto postgraduate study are a non-random subset of the first degree population and these figures do not control for differences in the characteristics of those who continue to postgraduate study.

The absolute increase in earnings between 2014/15 and 2017/18 for Level 7 postgraduates five years after graduation is largely equal for males and females but the gender gap is larger than that seen for first degree graduates. Five years after graduation male Level 7 graduates earn 19.1% more than females compared to first degree graduates where males earn 14.3% more than females.

International graduates

For EU domiciled graduates, those who completed a Level 8 qualification were more likely to be in sustained employment and/or further study in the UK after graduation compared to those who completed a Level 7 (taught) qualification. For example, 43.9% of Level 8 graduates were in sustained employment and/or further study one year after graduation compared to 35.3% of Level 7 (taught) graduates. This pattern is also true for Non-EU graduates where 28.9% of Level 8 graduates were in sustained employment and/or further study one year after graduation compared to 13.0% of Level 7 (taught) graduates.

Overall, within each study level, Non-EU domiciled graduates were less likely to be in sustained employment and/or further study in the UK than EU domiciled graduates. However, when looking at those who graduated with a Level 7 (taught) qualification ten years after graduation, nearly the same proportion of EU (18.1%) and Non-EU (17.6%) domiciled graduates were still working and/or studying in the UK.

Median earnings five years after graduation for Non-EU domiciled Level 7 graduates are in line with those for UK domiciled graduates (£32,100 compared to £32,200). Whereas earnings for EU graduates are higher at £35,000.

However, this pattern varies by English region. London has a similar picture to the overall national data but in a number of regions UK domiciled graduates have the highest regional earnings. This is particularly noticeable in the more northern regions. For example, in the North West median earnings for UK domiciled graduates are £29,600 compared to £27,400 for EU graduates and £26,600 for Non-EU graduates.

International Students

Immigration statistics

The Home Office published immigration statistics for the year ending March 2020.

In the year ending March 2020, there were 299,023 Sponsored study (Tier 4) visas granted (including dependants), a 23% increase on the year ending March 2019, and the highest level since the year ending June 2011.
Chinese nationals were the most common nationality granted Tier 4 visas in the year ending March 2020, up 18% compared with the year ending March 2019 to 118,530 (accounting for 40% of the total).
The number of grants to Chinese students is now more than double the number in 2012.
Indian nationals also saw a notable increase in the number of Tier 4 visas granted, more than doubling (up 136% to 49,844) compared with the year ending March 2019, continuing an increase seen since 2016
Those coming on Tier 4 visas bring relatively few dependants, with 94% of the visas issued being to main applicants, compared with 71% for Work visas.
The vast majority (97%) of those with Tier 4 visas expiring in the year ending March 2019, were known to have departed from the UK before their visa had expired. In 2018, 46,782 former Tier 4 visa holders extended their leave in the UK, either for further study or to remain in the UK for other reasons, such as for marriage or work.

Sponsored study visa applications

In the year ending September 2019 sponsored study visa applications rose 13% to 258,787. The majority (86%) of these were for study at higher education (university) institutions, whose number increased by 14% to 222,047, the highest level on record.

Applications per sector: higher education (86%), independent schools (5%), further education (5%), English language schools (3%), other (1%)

Frank words

Jo Johnson writes for the Spectator on movement in the role international students will play within the universities of the world. Some of the content is the same old but it is worth a read to hear the Ex-Universities Minister speaking frankly and adding nuance to newer aspects. Excerpts:

The UK’s ability to bounce back will be gravely impaired if international students are no longer around to underpin the foundations of institutions central to our performance as a knowledge economy. A drop in international student numbers of potentially 50 to 75 per cent will threaten the vitality of dozens of mid-sized British university towns from Chichester to Newcastle and send into reverse one of the great boom businesses of the globalised economy.
..The £7 billion they bring in fees provides an annual cross-subsidy that compensates for losses incurred in research and the teaching of high-cost subjects. These include not just laboratory-based sciences but also courses vital for our creative industries.
..So far, a plea from lobbyists Universities UK for a sector-specific bailout package has gone largely unanswered. Barring a £100 million dollop of research funding and the bringing forward of £2.6 billion of tuition fee payments, universities have been told to manage their financial risks with the same grant, loan and furlough schemes available to others.
To say the sector feels unloved is an understatement….It is a victim of its own relentless growth, itself a function of the poor quality of the alternatives, a demand-led higher education funding model and, above all, the changing occupational structure of the workforce.
But the message to the sector from government is clear: any university approaching the Treasury for special treatment can expect to emerge in a very different shape following a rigorous debt workout. Forced mergers and the closure of programmes deemed to be offering low quality or poor value for money will be the order of the day, even if measuring this objectively will prove to be immensely challenging.
…The return of domestic student number controls, ostensibly on a temporary basis to prevent an unseemly scramble to backfill places left empty by international students this September, will in time turn into a tool to dial back the expansion of the sector. It will make international students more keenly sought after than ever.
Those institutions that have the financial reserves to ride out the storm this coming academic year will find that pessimism about the medium-term future for international education is overblown. …As developing countries seek to improve their own league table performance and welcome overseas students themselves, international education will cease to be considered in terms of a mainly Western and English-speaking archetype.

Parliamentary questions relating to international students:

No plans to extend tier 4 service standards
Guidance for visas that have been extended but person unable to leave by that date
Increasing capacity and reducing bureaucracy for student visas
Whether EU/EEA nationals entering the UK for full-time study at a UK university in academic year 2020-21 will be required to apply for a Tier 4 visa.

Research

Ministerial Research Taskforce

The Ministerial University Research and Knowledge Exchange Taskforce has published its membership, terms of reference and ways of working confirming it will be a time limited endeavour.

The purpose of the taskforce is to provide an advisory forum for ministers at BEIS and DFE to engage with university research and knowledge exchange stakeholders with the aim of sustaining the university research base and its capability to contribute effectively to UK society and economy in the recovery to coronavirus (COVID-19) and beyond.

It will:

share information and intelligence about the health of the university research and the knowledge exchange carried out by and within higher education institutions (HEIs)
identify potential impacts on the sustainability of university research and knowledge exchange directly arising from the response to COVID-19
share intelligence on government and other sources of support or funding that may be available and develop approaches that building on these to address the impacts of coronavirus and protect and sustain HEI research capability and capacity
where possible share evidence of the impacts on university research and knowledge exchange of the taskforce’s advice

The taskforce will have an advisory role, providing views on these topics alongside a range of other sources of advice.

Regional Research & Development Funding Imbalance

NESTA have taken a look at the geographical location of R&D investment. It states Innovation drives economic growth. It makes people and places better off by creating modern, productive businesses and higher paid, more meaningful work. Research and Development makes innovation possible. Businesses and governments spend money on R&D to create and test new ideas. There’s a lovely little map which highlights how badly the South West does on R&D funds compared to other locations. And their Design the Future tool is interactive allowing you to adjust the priorities based on your view of their importance and see what impact it has on the regions. Maybe you can find the right combination of policy options for the South West’s prospects to improve but I found there wasn’t much movement even with extreme policy combinations! NESTA’s report: The Missing £4 Billion calls for things to be done differently. Excerpt:

The current situation is the result of a combination of deliberate policy decisions and a natural dynamic in which these small preferences combined with initial advantages are reinforced with time. For example, of a series of major capital investments in research infrastructure between 2007 and 2014, 71 per cent was made in London, the East and South East of England, through a process criticised by the National Audit Office. The need for continuing revenue funding to support these investments lock in geographical imbalances in R&D for many years. Imbalanced investment in R&D is, at most, only part of why the UK’s regional economic divides widened in the past and have failed to close in recent decades. But it is a factor that the government can influence. It has failed to do so. Where attempts have been made to use R&D to balance the UK’s economic strengths, they have been insufficient in scale. They describe the South West’s position as: low levels of public investment but slightly higher private sector spending on R&D, similar to Northern Ireland.

NESTA report summary from Wonkhe Monday – A report for Nesta by Tom Forth and Richard Jones, which explores the regional imbalance in research and development funding, estimates that it would take an additional £4 billion in funding for regions, cities, and nations to be funded at the same rate as London and the South East of England. Though stuffed with technical detail at its core, the report is calling for a review of political priorities in the allocation of research and development funds, incorporating an overt agenda for economic growth whose benefits are spread across the nation. An accompanying online tool allows users to explore the relative impact of a series of possible priorities for research and development funding. Though released with relatively little fanfare, we shouldn’t underestimate the likely influence of the report, which goes very much with the grain of current government policy thinking.

Research Budget

BEIS have announced the 2020-21 R&D budget allocations. Research Professional cover it here, and state on the face of it, the proposed science budget of £10.36 billion looks as if it has been trimmed from a previously promised £11.4bn. And there is no mention of the much-vaunted Advanced Research Projects Agency backed by Cummings—unless it is coming from within the UKRI budget.

Recent research parliamentary questions

Determining the length of doctoral extensions
When the Research Taskforce will publish its recommendations (it won’t)
This one includes mention of the REF

UCAS Plus

UCAS blog about Clearing Plus on Wonkhe:

Clearing Plus works by suggesting courses to students that are typically favoured by similar applicants, and that they are eligible for.

Two critical factors are involved:

Available courses and a university’s own recruitment criteria.
A match score of students and courses based on historical acceptances.

From early July, those not holding an offer or place can see their individual list of matched courses in Track (their online UCAS account) by clicking a button. From there, they can easily send an expression of interest to their chosen universities. After a conversation, the student can decide whether to officially add them to their application. As ever, admissions teams have the final say over who they admit onto their courses

University of X wants to recruit to their physics course, and therefore submits physics to Clearing Plus, stipulating that it is only visible to applicants with a confirmed A level grade B in maths. They will then receive the details of all unplaced applicants who have clicked on their course to register interest. Applicants won’t see the course if they don’t have the required B (or higher) grade, so admissions teams can have confidence in those registering interest. This means that the applicant’s achieved regulated grade is used, as it would be in any other year.

The widening participation opportunities are obvious. Admissions teams can also choose to use POLAR and SIMD as part of their criteria to effectively reach underrepresented applicants, helping them achieve a diverse student population.

The article goes on to explain matched scores and clusters and promises:

…by basing matches on clusters of students who have been previously placed on courses, using factors mentioned earlier (e.g. grades and not sex), students will discover courses which may not have been on their radar in the past, but are qualified to succeed on.

Admissions

Student number controls were announced on Monday with the regulatory adjustments presented to Parliament on Tuesday. Here is the written ministerial statement. A reminder of the main points:

Introduced to help maintain the overall health and stability of the higher education sector in these unprecedented times. Time limited as direct response to C-19 and the potential financial instability facing HE institutions. Student number controls aim to prevent large swings in the number of students between providers, with much higher levels of recruitment at some providers potentially leaving others in financial difficulty. They also aim to prevent recruitment practices which are against students’ best interests because they may encourage them to accept an offer from a provider that is not best suited to their needs.
Aim to prevent excessive recruitment. Allow for planned growth (based on submitted institutional plans). Grumbles within the sector state the cap favours the highest tariff institutions/those who normally recruit high levels of international students because they will be able to replace lost international students with more domestic students plus still have growth room. It remains to be seen if this will widen access at the highest tariff institutions. The other variable is whether international recruitment really turns out to be as dire as predicted.
Institutions who recruit above the cap will be penalised financially by a reduction in the fee level the following academic year (penalties on page 15 here). A loophole is institutions who already have confirmed offers above the cap level before they received their capped value.
Part time, most postgraduate and international students are not included within the capped numbers count. Foundation years are. Students with a family income above the level to access student loan funding are not included within the cap. On this Wonkhe say: providers that recruit many students from well-to-do backgrounds can, seemingly, fill their boots.
The number cap placed on each institution will not be published as it is considered commercially sensitive, but the methodology for calculation has been published.
Institutions can apply for a share of the additional 5000 places for nursing and allied health once the planned numbers plus 5% have been filled (and assuming enough clinical placements can be offered) . Alongside this an additional 5000 for ‘strategically important subjects’ (see annex B here for the list). For example, STEM, architecture, teacher training, social work, veterinary but not medicine. Institutions can bid for 250 of these places. There are other conditions such as a continuation rate of 90+% and 75% go onto highly skilled work/further study. Providers scoring highest on these two conditions are most likely to succeed in securing the additional places, this is the Government’s high-quality agenda.
For HE institutions in the devolved nations recruitment of English domiciled students is capped with 1.5% growth. You likely won’t have missed the arguments raging in the early part of the week from the devolved nations who feel their different funding rules and situations shouldn’t be subject to imposed restrictions. Penalties for devolved nations that go over their share of English domiciled students are set out at page 15-16 here. And if you’ve lost the threads of what is up and down within the devolved nations HE policies Wonkhe have a beginner’s guide.

There is a good article from Wonkhe here it critiques the approach and points out several loopholes, including students retaking exams in autumn and January starters. And a commenter on the Wonkhe article says: A topic that hasn’t had so much attention is that the fact that it’s Department for Education managing these rules rather than the Office for Students. Presumably the HE regulator felt it lacked the time and the legal authority to take quick action. Just two years after OfS started work and the department is stepping in to regulate where the regulator can’t.

Research Professional have the usual coverage of the cap and some interesting points on how the over recruitment penalties which reduce the fee levels the providers can charge in future years will make the ‘naughty provider’ more attractive to students who wish to pay a lower fee in the following academic year. Although it isn’t clear if students would be expected to take and pay the higher fee with the Government pocketing the difference between what the institution is allowed to charge. A dangerous policy for the Government’s PR! There are also the arguments equating a drop in income with lower quality teaching.

And a parliamentary question with a different admissions focus: Increasing the number of students enrolling on courses with a public service focus.

Returning to Campus

There has been much talk about returning to campus and how it affects recruitment and the student experience in recent weeks. Refreshingly. Wonkhe have a new blog looking at it more from the professional services perspectives of estates space requirements and timetabling. The blog also refers to this briefing paper produced by consultants which: explores the impact of Covid-19 on the process of timetabling, the timetable itself, and the way that academic space is used, both in transition and in the “new normal”. We include our thoughts on the impact of wider space use, including a challenge to institutions to think about space as enablers of activities, as places where people come together to co-produce something. This extends to digital space as a place where people come together and links both to digital education and other work that we are doing on digital service delivery.

The Times reports on Dublin City University which is offering flexible accommodation options – booking accommodation for just a few days or a week at a time.

Wonkhe report that Advance HE has published guidance on creating socially distanced campuses, with communication, humanity, inclusion, and partnership with SUs as four key principles.

Student Perspective

UCU and Youthsight surveyed (only 516) students due to start in September 2020:

32% of students are worried their university will go bust
71% support a delay to the start of term if it means they’ll receive more face to face teaching rather than online content
72% are concerned pandemic related funding cuts will negatively impact their education
A previous survey estimated that 120,000 students may defer this academic year. The deferral figures are interesting because it is unclear what prospective students would do instead – travelling abroad is limited, work opportunities are limited and there are high levels on unemployment, internships have been slashed, apprenticeships are disrupted and mean a longer term perspective change. Of course the danger is the student defers and then never returns to HE study. And ITV news have a short piece on the perspective of two students who are opposed to online study and considering deferring instead.

On their survey UCU General Secretary, Jo Grady, said:

It is hardly surprising that students are anxious about what the future holds for universities and for their education. Given the impact this uncertainty is having on students, it is now critical that government agrees to provide increased financial backing to the sector. Students need to be confident that they will get a high quality education, despite the hugely damaging impact of the pandemic.
Without increased support, our research has shown that thousands of jobs could go in a £6bn shock to the economy. While university staff and students will bear the brunt of this, higher education is also important to many local businesses around the UK who will be fatally damaged by this contraction.

Claire Sosienski Smith, NUS Vice President (Higher Education), commented:

COVID-19 has shown that university management is not prioritising staff or students at this time, but is forced instead to focus on how to bring money into an institution because the government refuses to sufficiently underwrite the higher education sector.
It is no surprise that university management would like to continue as if it is ‘business as usual’ for fear of losing out on the income students provide – but students and staff are not just figures on a balance sheet. Bringing students and staff members back onto campuses too early could result in deaths that are entirely preventable.
The government must underwrite the higher education sector to ensure its survival as a vital public good and integral part of our economic recovery. This should include a student safety net and funds to allow all students to redo this year at no extra cost, or have their tuition fees reimbursed or written off.

A parliamentary question on reopening with the response we’d expect:

Q – Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what plans he has for the re-opening of universities in autumn 2020. [48283]

A – Michelle Donelan:

We expect universities to be open for the autumn term, with a blend of online teaching and in-person tuition that they consider appropriate, taking account of the need to minimise risk to staff and students.
We are working with the higher education sector to identify guidance and best practice that will be needed for universities to make informed decisions about their provision. This will help them to decide when and how they can make facilities accessible again for staff and students in a way that minimises the risks and in line with public health advice.
Universities have remained open throughout lockdown and have applied their research expertise to finding solutions to the COVID-19 outbreak in this unprecedented period. They have also delivered some fantastic and innovative examples of high-quality online learning, and now the sector is working hard in preparation for the new academic year.

Summary of Intentions

The Student Crowd website is amalgamating a list of the type of learning providers plan to offer from September.

Strategic Guidance

On Wednesday UUK, QAA and UCEA released strategic guidance on factors to consider for HE providers to move forward as the UK slowly emerges from lockdown. The principles have been released rather late – BU finalised our principles three weeks ago. Here are our Major Incident Group planning principles for how we are planning our return to campus if you haven’t already read them. And all three sets of guidance cover what you would expect with nuanced differences relating to their organisational missions.

UUK published Principles and considerations: emerging from lockdown stating it is imperative that its universities can emerge from lockdown safely and in line with guidance from governments, public health advice and health and safety legislation. They offer 9 priority areas that HE institutions can use as a framework…to adapt to their own institutional settings and contexts. Here are the 9 principles in brief:

The health, safety and wellbeing of students, staff, visitors, and the wider community will be the priority in decisions relating to the easing of Covid-19 restrictions in universities.
Universities will make appropriate changes to university layout and infrastructure in accordance – at minimum – with public health advice, including guidelines on social distancing.
Universities will review their teaching, learning and assessment to ensure that there is the required flexibility in place to deliver a high-quality experience and support students to achieve their learning outcomes in a safe manner.
Universities will regularly review the welfare and mental health needs of students and staff, and take steps to ensure preventative measures and appropriate support are in place and well communicated as restrictions are eased.
Universities will develop effective processes to welcome and support international students and staff, including throughout any self-isolation period.
Universities will regularly review their hygiene and cleaning protocols in all university spaces, and adapt them in response to changing public health advice and risk levels, to ensure students, staff and visitors have confidence in their safety.
Following appropriate risk assessment, universities will introduce measures to enable research to be conducted in a safe and responsible manner, following government guidance specifically designed to protect researchers in laboratories and other research facilities and spaces.
Universities will engage with students and staff, including consultation with recognised trade unions, to ensure the transition from lockdown both protects the wellbeing of staff and students and enables the safe resumption of university activities.
Universities will work with civic or local partners wherever appropriate including councils, local resilience forums (in England) and community groups.

The full 21 page document pads out these headline principles with further details to guide institutions.

The Universities and Colleges Employers Association worked with the major HE unions to publish: Principles for working safely on campus during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. It covers health & safety, risk assessments and, as you would expect, a focus on consulting with unions, communicating with staff and assessing the impact of different staff groups alongside a close eye on equality. It advocates for reasonable actions to mitigate possible adverse impacts on specific group/s including those, or those living with, people who are shielding or vulnerable. The UCEA press release is here.

QAA published Preserving Quality And Standards Through A Time Of Rapid Change: UK Higher Education In 2020-21 it focuses more on ensuring the quality of curriculum delivery alongside the familiar messages of ensuring any onsite delivery is safe, engaging with and providing flexibility for staff and students whilst maintaining quality. Page 5 looks in more detail at the 3 possible models of attendance. And they have an interesting fact for onsite delivery: early sector-wide studies suggest that incorporating an approved physical-distancing requirement per student reduces useable capacity to 10-20% of actual space. There is a comprehensive section from page 8-13 on how changes to delivery will affect quality and standards. QAA’s press release launching their guidance report is here.

HEPI are also of a quality mindset and have a new blog on the topic: How can we assure quality in online higher education?

Wonkhe blog on the principles. And Research Professional have a lighter hearted and different perspective in their coverage of what was said in the pre-launch conference of the UUK proposals on Tuesday.

On the release of the UUK guidance Shadow Universities Minister Emma Hardy stated:

The coming academic year will be a very different experience for students and staff alike and producing a clear set of principles on which to proceed, with a focus on the wellbeing of staff and students, is exactly what is needed.
At a time when leadership is called for it is a matter of regret that the Government has so far remained on the sidelines, introducing heavy handed powers to the Office for Students and allowed uncalled-for caps on English student numbers on the devolved regions.
Labour urges the Government to take this opportunity to work with UUK to ensure all universities are adequately supported through this crisis.

Mental Health

Student Minds have published Planning for a Sustainable Future – the important of university mental health in uncertain times.

Parliamentary Questions

Students

No adjustments to the Universal Credit rules will be made to accommodate student hardship
(No) free access to educational website for HE and FE students
Student Loan Company tender for assistive technology services

HE Sector

Impact of C-19 outbreak on the HE sector
Still no publication date for the independent TEF review.
No plans to convert some universities back to polytechnics
What consideration has been given to converting the 30 poorest-performing universities to vocational training colleges following the COVID-19 pandemic.
The usual question fishing for progress on Horizon Europe membership and keeping the topic on the Government’s mind: whether agreement can be reached on Horizon Europe irrespective of whether a trade deal is agreed with the EU by the end of the transition period.
STEM funding in light of cross subsidisation from arts subjects.

Outreach

Whether schools pupil premium funding will continue at same funding level post C-19

The PM was questioned by the Liaison Committee last week:

Q – Robert Halfon: Cambridge University has announced it would move all courses online while Nottingham Trent said it would have a mix of campus and online learning. Which example should HE institutions follow? And second question: Should every student working in the NHS be reimbursed this academic year at the very least?

A – Johnson: I will come back to you on the question regarding the NHS students. On your point on Cambridge and Nottingham Trent, it is a matter for universities but clearly I think the implication of your question is that face to face tuition is preferable. I hope all universities understand that this is also important for their students and for social justice.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Other news

Student Accommodation (Scotland): The Scottish Bill allowing students to terminate their accommodation contracts has passed and is now law.

Nursing fees: The Royal College of Nursing is still pushing for the Government to abolish nursing tuition fees. The Government has not responded to their letter.

International Students: OfS have a briefing note containing advice and best practice examples in relation to international students.

Student Panel: The OfS will open a call to seek students to sit on their student panel from 8 June. Information will appear here on the 8^th.

Graduate Skills: Gradconsult has published a series of resources including developing skills and experience in a time of reduced employment; connecting students and employers in a virtual world, and planning your early careers strategy (this one is basic – a jumping off point resource). You can access a wider range of resources here.

DSA: Wonkhe have a new blog on the additional assistance (non-medical help) utilised by students in receipt of Disabled Students’ Allowance during C-19.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

May 20, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 20th May 2020

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, open access, PG research jforster

A bumper week (again) – here is your easy way to catch up on everything all in one place

Student support

Emma Hardy, the Shadow Universities Minister, has written to Michelle Donelan (Government’s Universities Minister) to highlight students facing significant hardship.

In our last meeting we discussed the fact that many university students needed urgent financial help to cope with the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. You assured me you were confident that every university would be in a position to help every student in genuine need through its hardship funds. However, after speaking to universities and the NUS I do not share your confidence.

She goes on to describe universities so overwhelmed by the demand for hardship funds they have begun crowdfunding and another university with tricky fund rules which Hardy says prevents those most at need from applying. She also explains that students without children are ineligible for Universal Credit, and few have been furloughed due to the nature of their part time work contracts.

I do not have to emphasise the fact that it will mostly be those students who have overcome the greatest barriers to get to university who will be affected the most. I have already heard concerns from those in the sector that the drop-out rate will be higher this year and the news I am hearing, about the failures of hardship funds to support all those who need help, adds to my worry… It cannot be right for their welfare to be considered the sole province of individual universities, which under current circumstances means consigning it to the luck of the draw—a lottery which has left some unable to manage…I would urge the Government to take a pro-active role and I would welcome any proposals for guaranteeing there is adequate financial provision for the young people who have been caught in this storm.

Research Professional say:

This is not a shouty letter venting outrage but one that begins by thanking the minister for listening to different points of view, before shining a light on an area of government failing.
There has been no mention so far of universities in the UK government’s strategy for national recovery after lockdown. This is something of an oversight and one that the opposition parties might want to start asking questions about as we all begin to emerge from our houses blinking into the early summer sunlight.

They also highlight that the Shadow letter doesn’t set out suggestions for how the Government should support students. Their daily email runs through some possibilities and effectively discounts them.

Student Petition: And if you’ve been wondering what happened to the student petition to have tuition fees reimbursed due to this year’s strike and the loss of face to face teaching due to C-19 the official word is – The Committee decided to take further oral evidence on this petition, from the relevant Government minister.

Parliamentary questions

Students recovering possessions in vacated accommodation.
Whether the needs of students still resident in accommodation are being met and housing is adequate.
Avoiding financial penalisation for students experiencing a delayed academic year

Financial Stability

The Government listened to the measures UUK requested on behalf of the HE sector and issued their support package cherry picking the elements that fitted with the Government’s aims and doing little other than moving payments forward with the rest. Research Professional have an interesting article rethinking it all from Pam Tatlow (ex-MillionPlus Chief Executive).

The deal that universities need to support them through the coronavirus crisis is not the one that they asked for. Nor is it the one that was begrudgingly put on the table by the Westminster government, which is little more than a lend-lease agreement with strings.

The article critiques the UUK approach in compiling and launching their request to Government.

UUK’s first requests focused on research…Its proposals would undoubtedly have benefited the small group of universities that receive the lion’s share of taxpayer-funded research monies. In the event, only a very modest amount of quality-related funding (£100 million) has been brought forward.
Universities that have used international fees to subsidise their reputations as world leaders in research will undoubtedly claim that without additional funding they will no longer be financially viable. This may well be so, but if such a bailout is forthcoming there should be conditions attached. For example, these institutions could be required to demonstrate that they are financially viable within five years based on their UK activities.
UUK’s own estimates suggest that there may be up to 15 per cent fewer home and European Union students progressing to university in 2020. It is therefore difficult to understand its proposal that universities in England and Wales should be able to recruit up to 5 per cent more students than the numbers they forecast
Nor do the elaborate rules and stern warnings from the Office for Students about unconditional offers and admissions practices add up. All a university higher up the hierarchical food chain has to do is issue many more offers at lower grades in the first place, leaving the majority to keep afloat by reducing courses, student opportunities and staff.

Pam concludes:

The right deal for universities has to mean a return to collaboration and an end to the market that has bedevilled higher education for a decade. It has to mean a return to the idea (which students have never abandoned) that studying a subject that you love for its own sake is as good a rationale for higher education as the money that you will earn (or probably not earn to the same extent in a long recession).
It has got to mean more and not less funding for social justice, giving the students who study at the most socially inclusive institutions the same resources as those whose institutions are well endowed through decades of public funding, private endowments and capital investment.
And of course it must mean a return to the direct funding of universities, the restoration of maintenance grants and an end to the tuition fees that have restricted the ambitions of those who would have liked to study at university when they were older, or to return to study, including as postgraduates and part-time.
Universities, with all their talents and ideas, should be on the front line and on the front foot in arguing that the crisis should not be paid for through extra taxes and pay freezes but that the government should borrow to invest, especially in higher education as a right for all.

Parliamentary questions

Many questions from both MPs and Lords asking about additional financial support for the HE sector, to which the response always points to the already announced support package. Here is just one example.
Mitigating the reduction of international students (answer: just the package already announced). And attracting international students to creative and specialist universities.
Increase in midwifery places.
Availability of courses (and welcome) to international students.
Consideration of replacing tuition fees with a teaching grant for health professions and other key workers.

Education Select Committee

The House of Commons Education Select Committee met virtually to explore the effect of the coronavirus on children and young people’s services (including HE). You can read a summary of the sessions compiled by Dods here, one by Research Professional here, Wonkhe’s version is here, or watch the full Committee sessions here. In brief it covered:

Session 1

2020/21 recruitment ramifications will not be known until September.
The Government’s support package isn’t enough to support the HR sector. Criticism included that it simply brought forward payments rather than provided additional funds and that the student number cap benefitted the wealthier universities at the expense of locally based universities.
Students have lost their supplementary incomes and are struggling financially. Wellbeing, mental health and the option to redo the year without cost were mentioned. Concerns over PhD students were raised.
The increased workload on HE staff was a concern.
The student rent situation was discussed and calls were made for the Scottish move to release students from their private rental agreements to be adopted in England.
Quality of online tuition was discussed covering that it wasn’t what students had expected from their degree programme and online access and assessment issues. (The Financial Times has a nice counterpoint to this emphasising the positive benefits since the move online, and why is should continue to some degree.)
There was discussion on fees being revisited during the pandemic.
The importance of how UCAS ‘control clearing’ was mentioned.
UCU stated Government should indicate when universities should reopen their campuses rather than it being an individual decision taken by the university itself. Research Professional give this aspect a lot of coverage in their description of the Committee’s session. iNews specifically covered this aspect of the session, as did the Telegraph.

Session 2

Session 2 focussed on disadvantaged students. The OfS reiterated the importance of the access and participation targets, including discussion on degree apprenticeships. The access gap and unconscious bias faced by black and disadvantaged communities were mentioned. The OfS stated they believe the next 5 years will show the biggest step forward in social mobility and social justice for 2 generations.
On a return to ‘normal’ campus based learning in autumn 2020 OfS stated that they required universities to be as clear as possible in explaining students what to expect if they accepted an offer. They did not want any promises of a return to university life when it might not be possible. The Times and BBC covered this.
OfS stated there were not any HE institutions at immediate risk of collapse but they do expect the financial sustainability of the sector to be affected by the pandemic and C-19 poses serious risks to the sector. They also stated that international students were not being chased simply as cash cows. Research Professional disagree and name SOAS as teetering on the financial edge.
OfS stated they have disseminated good practice examples in student mental health and accommodation and that sharing good practice examples is a powerful way to influence the agenda.
OfS dodged an answer to whether student paying full tuition fees was justifiable if they were only receiving partial online learning stating it was a ‘live’ question and that it depended on the quality of the university provision. However, at present students should pay full fees and if the provision is inadequate take this up with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Chair, Robert Halfon, followed up on how OfS judged quality to which they responded they measure through output indicators and student complaints. (Wonkhe give this a mention here.)

Research Professional cover the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee who have

issued a 19-page letter to prime minister Boris Johnson, setting out “10 key lessons the UK government should learn from its experience of handling the first months of the pandemic”. The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee is the ex-Secretary of State for BEIS, Greg Clark.

Virtual Parliament

Prospect Union, who represent staff working in the Houses of Parliament, will be resisting government plans to cancel the virtual parliament and bring MPs back to Westminster as early as next month over fears about safety and the practicality of social distancing. Prospect says it will work with government on restoring any essential functions but that the key elements of the system must be retained for now. Politics Home have an article on the return to parliament schism.

However, a survey by The House says only 23% of MPs believe the virtual ability to ask questions and take part in debates remotely via video link should be retained. Only 11% believed the right to vote remotely under any circumstances should be retained. Although 55% agreed that remote or proxy voting for MPs unable to attend due to ill health should be retained and there was some support for parental leave remote measures. MPs representing remote areas of the country (such as the Outer Hebrides) have called for online voting to continue and emphasised it would stop a huge amount of unnecessary journeys by MPs and 35% agreed MPs on overseas trips should be allowed to vote remotely. Yet only 19% of MPs agreed that MPs with constituencies over 4 hours travel away should be allowed to vote remotely. Some MPs are opposed to the remote working because it would restrict access to

get hold of government ministers in person. The fact that we can nab the chancellor of the Exchequer in the division lobby is worth an awful lot. I think that would be a huge mistake.

Another says

Though the temporary measures are working “reasonably well”, he fears that MPs could risk losing out “on reading the mood of the room and picking up water cooler chat” if they continue to work remotely in the future. He adds: “I am sceptical about this becoming the default. I don’t ever want to be the moaning voice on the screen and the wall that you can basically mute and ignore.”

Others point to gender equality and greater diversity measures that can be achieved through the technologies.

Conference Recess

The Labour Party has cancelled their annual September conference due to C-19. It remains to be seen if the other parties will follow suit and Parliament will continue to sit rather than take recess.

Autumn opening

The Financial Times talks of a blend of online and in-person education post pandemic, not just as a temporary measure but as a more accessible and comprehensive overall offer. It states it

could revolutionise universities, help them survive the economic crisis and bring higher education to tens of millions of people who have never set foot on campus…Many “left-behind” adults everywhere would love to learn from home, get qualifications and change their lives, especially if the pandemic has left them jobless…We need more adult learners. Their numbers in the UK almost halved between 2004 and 2016…As lifespans expand, and technology changes, we should top up our education over the decades, while keeping our jobs and families. University is wasted on the young…Blended teaching could help more students enter higher education, argues Chris Stone of Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government. He proposes a model in which some students spend a month on campus, then months studying from home, before returning to campus for the final weeks. That would allow universities to teach multiple cohorts a year, cutting tuition costs…Anita Pilgrim, who teaches at the UK’s Open University, which pioneered blended learning, cautions that remote learners need lots of support. Her university has educational advisers who help students find a study-life balance, apply for funding, access resources for dyslexia etc…Teaching online has shortcomings — but so does in-person teaching.

OfS, UUK, Advance HE and the QAA are all rumoured to be putting together guidance for the HE sector on autumn 2020 possible commencement. Whilst answering questions at the Covid-19 press conference Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary, stated that: The education secretary will be returning to the subject and providing guidance. Meanwhile more and more sector sources are acknowledging that the teaching model is likely to be a blended approach from the autumn.

Wonkhe have a blog ostensibly about student spirit with a nice slant looking at how online interaction and socialisation worked well during lockdown for a sporting tournament. Rather than the deficit approach of what has been lost during lockdown it illustrates new self-organised approaches which were different and positive.

On Tuesday evening Cambridge University stated it intended to conduct all teaching online possibly with some smaller in-person taught groups if social distancing could be achieved. Of course, they intend to adjust their model in-year should restrictions be relaxed or further curtail contact. The University of Bolton takes a completely different approach – they intend to open for in-contact teaching: be able to study and engage in person regularly with other students and staff. With students allocated 12 hours on campus per week. Of course, the remaining time will be topped up by online and self-study.

Wonkhe cover both stories and provide media links:

Cambridge may be one of only a few universities that could still expect a full, or near-full cohort to start in the autumn with the year ahead expected to be online – as other providers that have struggled to recruit in the past may yet find it challenging to convince students to turn up to a fully online academic year. The position is complicated further by the fact that the college system may not be an easy point of comparison for others that rely more on large lectures.
The news was originallybroken by Varsity, was picked up last night by the BBC, and is covered this morning by the Times, the Mail, the Telegraph, the Express, the Evening Standard, the Guardian, the Independent, the Tab, the FT and is on the Press Association It’s also on several international news sites including Forbes.
Meanwhile, the University of Bolton has moveddecisively in the other direction, announcing a number of technical measures – from temperature sensors, to queueless catering, to bike loans – to support a return to campus in the autumn. Manchester Evening News has the story, and the university has released an animated video.

Here is the full list of Bolton’s intended changes to enable on campus teaching:

Providing regular socially distanced face-to-face tutorials, laboratory experience, access to arts studios and specialist facilities, etc
Implementing an effective scheduling system, limiting significantly the number of students on campus at any one time to keep you secure
Dividing sessions for access on campus into set times per day, for example, possibly between 8am-2pm and 2pm-8pm
Strictly observing recommended social distancing guidelines at all times
Installing sophisticated airport style walk through temperature scanners at every building entry
Making bicycles available for loan by students, enabling them to avoid crowded public transport
Providing on-campus bike parks as well as car parks
Ensuring there are adequate additional sanitiser stations
Providing and making the wearing of face coverings on campus compulsory for the foreseeable future to safeguard the safety of those around you. In exceptional circumstances, such as misplacing or forgetting face coverings, students will be issued with replacements
Carefully managed walking routes including one-way navigation
Multiple ‘learning zones’ being created across the campus, by identifying and transforming large spaces into areas featuring tables with plastic dividing screens to allow communication between people facing one another. (E.g. The ground floor of the National Centre for Motorsport Engineering will be cleared to become such a zone and other areas will also be repurposed)
Additional self-service, café-style takeaway food and drink stations to minimise queues
Instigating a rigorous cleansing programme throughout all university buildings.

On Bolton the Manchester Evening News says:

Students are currently using video calls to take classes virtually and the campus is unable to reopen until the government gives the all clear.
This will mean widespread changes to create a ‘new normal’ on campus and enable all students to physically attend the university campus safely at specified sessions.
During those sessions they will be able to work in laboratories, studios and workshops, attend tutorials, meet other students or converse with their tutor, on top of continuing their learning online.

This British Council article on how Chinese Universities are returning (in part) to face-to-face teaching contact is worth a quick skim through.

Parliamentary questions:

On reopening universities and other educational institutions (answer – it is up to the individual university).
Another on the Government’s plans for reopening universities in Autumn 2020 (this won’t be answered until 2 June but the answer will pop up on the hyperlink once it is answered)

Access, Participation & Success

This week one of the main discussion topics has been access to university and disadvantaged success whilst at university. This isn’t surprising – as lockdown ‘eases’ and contemplation of what the autumn 2020 restart may consist of, alongside the constant recruitment conundrums – attention focuses more and more on how the national situation may play out for equalities.

Advance HE have a blog on the entrenched structural inequalities in HE. Looking through the lens of the student lifecycle in the UK, these have resulted in many challenges, including:

Underrepresentation of specific student groups: both generally, and in different disciplines, levels of study, and types of institution.
significant degree awarding gaps for different student groups – particularly relating to ethnicity (and gendered intersections) and disability.
differential experience of safety and harassment
unequal progression to highly skilled employment, and postgraduate study
teaching staff and senior academic staff who do not yet reflect the diversity of student cohorts.

OfS have relaxed the monitoring requirements of the Access and Participation Plans, whilst emphasising institutions should still do all they can to deliver the chosen goals. Advance HE continue:

all these external drivers – APPs (or equivalents), transparency returns, funded projects, Equality Charters – should ultimately be considered instruments collectively working to achieve a greater aim: a vision of an equitable student learning experience. The test of COVID-19 is how embedded that aim is in an institution’s vision of what sort of educational experience it can and wants to provide coming out of this crisis, and for whom.

The article concludes with 5 suggestions to keep student equity momentum going.

SRHE published the blog: Paid, unpaid and hidden internships: still a barrier to social mobility.

It explains the different sources of data from which to judge whether and how big an issue unpaid internships are. At the end of the article it puts the current data into perspective:

These findings show that, whilst unpaid internships appear to be declining in most sectors, they are still a key access route in some key industries and occupations and that this is likely to present a barrier to entry for less privileged graduates. The fact that graduates with better grades or from more prestigious institutions are more likely to do the paid internships reinforces findings from previous studies that suggest paid internships are more competitive and sought after. The findings also show that participation in graduate internships, paid or unpaid, is more commonplace in less vocational subjects, such as mass communication and documentation, historical and philosophical studies and creative arts and design. This may suggest that graduates of these subjects feel more need to supplement their educational qualifications with internships to ‘get ahead’ in an increasingly competitive graduate labour market.

The Wonkhe blog In this pandemic, admissions policy is being developed in real time urges organisations to work collaborative on the principles of admissions implying the Government will impose changes if the sector doesn’t move on its own consensus and practice first. It also states

Now is certainly the time to think about what to do if demand for places drops significantly in September. If selective courses start forecasting to under recruit in 2020 then maybe some of this demand can be absorbed by a greater focus on helping previously excluded WP students gain access to these programmes and a new way of thinking about how these courses recruit and select students.

Another Wonkhe blog, Delivering remote support for neurodiverse learners. this time by an assistive technology trainer, highlights the positive and negatives within an online learning environment for some students. The comments at the end that remind about autism are worth a read.

The admissions problem isn’t just about “prediction” takes a good gallop through why the use of predicted grades will double hit disadvantaged students, mentions other contributing factors, and gently calls for admissions reform.

Andrew Ross from University of Bath talks digital outreach.

A Bridge Group blog argues we should ensure that disadvantaged students are admitted to university at the same proportion as previous years so as not to lose progress on widening participation after the lockdown.

The OfS published a briefing note on the needs of students without family support during the pandemic. It covers all the main concerns and aims to share ideas, case studies, and signposting between universities to support these most vulnerable of students. Examples include:

offering personalised financial support in the form of hardship funds and graduate bursaries
tailoring mental health and wellbeing support and providing a buddy system to mitigate the isolating effects of lockdown
prioritising the provision of internet access, laptops and any other necessary course equipment for care experienced and estranged students.
The importance of addressing challenges faced by prospective students – whose access to information, advice and guidance to make informed choices for next year may have been affected by school closures.

And Wonkhe report that: An open letter promoted by NUS and UCU is circulating regarding specific reasonable adjustments during the pandemic for disabled, chronically Ill and neurodivergent PhD students. It argues that many actions being taken by universities and funding bodies do not provide for the differentiated impacts and pressures experienced by disabled, chronically ill or neurodivergent students – or if they do, frame them entirely as matters of “health and wellbeing” rather than marginalisation, inequity, or structural discrimination.

It’s foster care fortnight and care leavers across the UK have amalgamated their definition of care into an online collaborative poem.

Wonkhe report that: New research from the Cardiff University’s Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre finds that young people who were either in care or care-experienced at 13- or 14-years old, had significantly lower expectations of attending university than their peers. The report recommends that social workers, teachers, and higher education providers can all contribute to closing this gap.

Marginal prospective students

The Research Professional (RP) blog All being equal reports that TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE) met this week with RP stating that:

One worry is that Covid-19 will not only widen existing gaps but also make it harder to collect the evidence needed to find what works in reducing them. The group has already had to cancel plans to assess the effectiveness of summer schools, since none are happening this year. Given all this, the ambitious target set by the OfS to eliminate gaps in entry and dropout rates and degree outcomes between different groups of students in higher education within 20 yearslooks to be at risk.

However, they report that

Anna Vignoles, professor of education at the University of Cambridge, suggested Covid-19 could also potentially offer “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a big widening participation intervention”.
While going to university just to hide from a difficult labour market is not ideal, the evidence still points to higher education generally benefiting young people both economically and psychologically, Vignoles said. The chances are that they will be better off if they go. And she suggested to Playbook that stronger communication from higher education institutions was needed to make this happen.
Her main concern is for the students “at the margins”—not those who have always assumed they will be going to university. It is these “marginal” students who will suffer most from a bad labour market, she says, including the many apprentices likely to see the firms they work for go under, leaving their qualifications up in the air. Higher and further education institutions need to work together to help this group, she argues—and by this, she means those higher education institutions with traditional roots in their communities, that are used to responding to local skills needs.

Science Outreach for School Pupils

UKRI is funding to I’m a Scientist, Stay at Home! a school-age outreach platform for pupils to engage with STEM research during the school closures. UKRI say it is a unique programme where students can engage with scientists over fast-paced online text-based chats. Pupils can ask them anything they want such as: What’s the nearest meteorite to us? What’s your favourite thing about being a scientist? These chats are complemented with lesson plans for teachers to engage their students and at the end students vote for their favourite scientist. Part of the UKRI’s vision for public engagement is to nurture a future generation passionate about research and innovation and they state that I’m a Scientist provides a safe, moderated space for students to be inspired by science through conversations with active research staff.

UKRI state that with limited opportunities for practical science classes and engagement with research, I’m a Scientist provides a unique opportunity for classes to reconvene and explore cutting-edge scientific research together. Taking part in I’m a Scientist has been shown to help students get a better understanding of research and gain confidence in asking questions about science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). It also supports researchers to improve their communication skills and enables them to engage with young people from regions across the UK.

Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded the Medical Research Zone with around 30 MRC-funded researchers and technicians engaging in conversations with school pupils.

Tom Saunders, UKRI Head of Public Engagement, said:

“This is a great opportunity for us to support STEM teaching during this difficult time for everyone. I’m a Scientist, Stay at Home! will inspire young people about research and the role it plays in our lives as well as provide a great way for UKRI researchers and technical staff to engage with young people,”

Parliamentary questions

How DfE is supporting school leavers to prepare for HE study, vocational training, or employment.
A level grades (interesting because it asks how will handle grading in improving schools within disadvantaged areas)
Assessment of the impact of C-19 on drop out rate of low income HE students.
Amending Universal Credit to allow students in financial difficulty to access it.
FE & HE Disabled students’ access to home learning and educational support.
Entrepreneurship programmes for HE graduates 2020.
A question pushing Government to offer emergency hardship grants to HE students from low incomes (to no avail).
Enabling international students to return to UK to complete their studies.
Students at risk of homelessness due to on-campus accommodation being terminated.

Postgraduate Education

HEPI and the British Library have published a 154 page report: Postgraduate Education in the UK. It considers the changing postgraduate landscape over the last decade. It takes a pre C-19 perspective, however, it does tackle how postgraduate education was affected by 2008 recession – when students sought out additional education to help surmount the economic challenges and when those who already had postgraduate qualifications fared better than others in the labour market.

The 8 page executive summary is a quicker read for those with only a passing interest.

Some key Points taken mainly from HEPI’s press release:

There were 566,555 postgraduate students in 2017/18, of which 356,996 (63%) were in their first year – up by 16% since 2008/09
Two-thirds (65%) of new postgraduates are studying for Master’s degrees, 10% are taking doctorates or other research degrees, 7% are doing teacher training and the rest (18%) a range of diplomas, certificates, professional qualifications and modules
The most popular discipline is Business & Administrative Studies (20%), followed by Education (14%) and Subjects Allied to Medicine (12%). Research postgraduates (64%) are more likely to study STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) but most taught postgraduates (68%) take non- STEM subjects
Just over half of new UK-domiciled postgraduates (53%) study full-time, reversing past trends favouring part-time study – back in 2008/09, most postgraduates (59%) were part-time students
More than half (60%) of new postgraduate students at UK institutions come from the UK, while one-third (32%) come from outside the EU and 8% come from EU countries. The majority of Master’s students (53%) come from outside the UK
The female:male ratio among new postgraduates is 60:40, or 62:38 among UK-domiciled students alone. This reflects greater female participation over time – in 2008/09, the overall female:male ratio was 55:45
The gender ratio varies considerably by discipline: women are in a big majority in Subjects Allied to Medicine (77%), Veterinary Sciences (72%) and Education (70%) and men are in a big majority in Engineering & Technology (78%), Computer Science (76%) and Mathematics (71%). Males outnumber females among PhD researchers (51%)
White men, particularly disadvantaged White men, are less likely to undertake postgraduate study than others. Among UK-domiciled postgraduate entrants from the poorest areas, 64% are women and 36% are men
The proportion of postgraduate students aged under 30 has grown from 52% to 57% since 2008/09, reflecting a broader decline in people accessing lifelong learning opportunities
The introduction of £10,000 Master’s loans for home / EU students in 2016 has had a big positive impact: UK-domiciled student numbers grew by 29% in one year and by 59% among those from the most disadvantaged areas. The loans have also encouraged above-inflation fee increases
The number of people taking Taught Master’s courses grew by 30% from 2008/09 to 2017/18, but the total has been volatile, particularly among UK students. Among all new postgraduates, just over half (51%) were full-time Taught Master’s students in 2017/18 (Table 3.1 and p.23).
Between 2008/09 and 2017/18, UK-domiciled postgraduate entrants increased by 10% but students from overseas grew faster: EU-domiciled student numbers increased by 11% and non-EU international students grew by 33%
Chinese students formed 38% of the non-EU postgraduate cohort by 2017/18. Such heavy reliance on a single country exposes universities to greater risk from geo-political events
Since the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the number of new postgraduate students from EU countries has fallen (by 2% in 2017/18 and another 2% in 2018/19), but the reduction in the value of the pound contributed to a 10% increase in non-EU postgraduate starters in 2017/18
The great recession following the 2007/08 financial crash witnessed a marked rise in Master’s take-up, as employment opportunities were restricted and people brought forward their plans to study
The abolition of post-study work visas (announced in 2011 and implemented in 2012) had a negative impact on demand for postgraduate study, most notably within India. The announcement that this policy is to be reversed is welcome but needs communicating quickly and clearly
Women have a bigger boost to their earnings from postgraduate study, earning 28% more than women with only undergraduate degrees – the comparable figure for men is 12%. But women with postgraduate qualifications still earn 14% less on average than men with the same level of qualifications
In the last crash, employment among those with postgraduate qualifications was slower to fall and faster to recover than for those with only a first degree, which may signal how the labour market will respond to the current Covid-19 crisis
Demand for postgraduate education is likely to grow over the long term: there could be an additional 22,750 undergraduates moving directly to postgraduate study by 2030 in England alone. While Brexit could mean a drop of around 11,500 EU postgraduates, successful implementation of the UK Government’s International Education Strategy could see an increase of 53,000 in other overseas postgraduates by 2030, although this partly depends on how the world recovers from the current Covid-19 crisis
Transnational education, where people take UK qualifications abroad, has seen substantial growth, more than doubling since 2007/08 to 127,825 postgraduates in 2017/18 and overtaking the number of overseas postgraduate students in the UK. Students studying in this way are excluded from the other figures in the report.

Dr Ginevra House, report author, describes her concerns for fair access to postgraduate study:

Despite a tumultuous decade, including the 2008 financial crash, restrictive changes to visas and Brexit, the UK’s postgraduate sector has emerged bigger and more diverse than ever before. However, the gains in fair access to postgraduate education – and by extension the professions – delivered by the introduction of Master’s loans may yet stall as rising fees consume most of the funds, leaving little or nothing for living costs. Other challenges to fair access remain, with under-participation by males, by White British students, and by those from less advantaged backgrounds. When writing this report, the Covid-19 pandemic had yet to reach its current height, but the risk posed by universities’ increasing reliance on international students was evident. The crisis is providing a timely reminder of the importance of a diverse and balanced student body to weather future shocks to the system, supported by government policies that foster international co-operation and mobility of the world’s brightest. With the shadow of a new recession ahead, combined with a rapidly changing, more automated job market, postgraduate education has never been more important, to build the highly skilled, knowledgeable, flexible and independent workforce needed to tackle the challenges of the future.

Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, said:

‘A proper study of UK postgraduate education is long overdue, given the growth it has enjoyed in recent years and the changing demographics of postgraduates. Postgraduate qualifications are increasingly expected by employers and more people want to achieve them. In some respects, postgraduate education now more closely resembles undergraduate study, with today’s postgraduate students more likely to be women, full-time and young. A higher proportion of postgraduate students are also from overseas. The higher education sector is in the midst of an horrendous and unprecedented crisis that is pulling the rug from under our institutions. But the story in this report is a positive one, showing the power of higher education to do good, extending people’s options, delivering the skills employers need and pushing forward the boundaries of knowledge. Another big positive in this report is the power of public policy to help individuals. The introduction of taxpayer-supported loans for postgraduate study has opened doors that were previously locked for many people who wanted to continue studying. If international postgraduate numbers fall, some courses will become unviable – this is true even if there are more home postgraduates because of the higher fee levels for international students.

Wonkhe describe the media sources covering the report:

The report is covered in the Times, the Telegraph, and ITV. HEPI also has a response to the report from Diana Beech, Head of Government Affairs at the University of Warwick [and who used to write for HEPI]. And Research Professional also describe the report in: Avoid ‘shocks’ by diversifying postgrad intake, says think tank.

Following on, some days later, Wonkhe state:

What that [HEPI] report didn’t set out to cover was what it’s like to study at postgraduate level, especially if you’re doing so with a view of trying to enter academia. And so today’s publication of initial findings of a survey by the Student Mental Health Research Network and Vitae exploring the impact of Covid-19 on doctoral and early career researchers provides a complementary and concerning picture.
Of the early career researchers whose contracts end in 2020, only 10 per cent report their funding has been extended. Only 12 per cent of doctoral researchers said their institution has provided an option to extend their doctoral studies. The impacts on research progress are largely negative, ranging from reduced access to essential software and reduced ability to collect and analyse data, disseminate findings, and maintain contact with colleagues to widespread stress about work, future plans, and finances. Four-fifths of doctoral researchers are showing some level of mental distress.
For many students, postgraduate study and early career research are a high-stakes endeavour, whether because of the investment of time and money, or because they’re trying to accrue enough academic capital to take the next step in a hugely competitive career path. It’s not entirely surprising, then, that a crisis like Covid-19 is causing serious distress – many of these people were walking on a knife edge before the pandemic hit.

Research

Research Professional have been on a reporting mission to find out all they can about the University Research Taskforce. They describe the run around they got trying to obtain the names of the taskforce members. The membership list is here and on the membership RP say: That is a lot of know-how in the room: the people who know the right questions to ask but also have their hands on the levers that might actually lead to solutions.

On the group’s purpose RP state:

The terms of reference for the group have not been released, but Playbook understands that this membership will be flexible—waxing and waning—depending on the topic under discussion. The taskforce certainly has some firepower and no shortage of issues to discuss.
However, it is clear from this membership that universities are very much outnumbered by politicians and civil servants. The purpose of this group is not to receive future requests for a bailout from higher education.
Rather, it is there to gather evidence on the state of university research during the Covid-19 pandemic, to look at possible policy solutions and to present all this in a coherent way to the big bosses who really matter: the UK Treasury, the prime minister’s office and the leaders of the devolved nations (in that order).
There is no union representation, nor are there multiple voices from the mission groups that represent smaller but no less important research efforts in higher education. There is a strong sense that this is a task and finish group that will put something of substance on the table, even if it is not necessarily something that universities have a casting vote over.
It is to be hoped that, when the need arises, the taskforce will take soundings from independent voices in university research—such as a Graeme Reid, a Richard Jones or an Athene Donald—because it is always wise to consult those you are about to do something to before doing it to them.

PG Research Degrees – The UK Council for Graduate Education released a guidance note on the potential impacts of Covid-19 on the delivery of postgraduate research degrees and the institutional support doctoral candidates should expect to receive, including possible mitigation strategies. And as mentioned earlier there is an open letter circulating which request reasonable adjustments and time extensions for chronically ill and neurodivergent PhD students as a result of C-19.

New UKRI Head – Professor Ottoline Leyser has been appointed as the new CEO of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and will replace Sir Mark Walport on 29 June. One of her key functions will be to guide the delivery of the government’s ambition to increase investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, establishing the UK as a global hub for science and technology.

Professor Ottoline Leyser commented:

UKRI has a unique opportunity to make a profound contribution to tackling the many challenges facing the world. During my career, I have seen the power of genuinely collaborative cultures to catalyse the transformative thinking needed to create effective solutions. I look forward to working with the UKRI team to ensure that the UK’s superb research and innovation system continues to work for everyone, by pioneering new partnerships, developing innovative funding models and strengthening international collaboration.

You can read UKRI’s press release on the appointment here, the Government’s press release here and Research Professional’s coverage here. Research Professional have also dug two articles by Ottoline out on UKRI (written in 2018 as UKRI was about to begin official operations) and the REF.

UKRI also published their preventing harm policy for safe research and innovation environments this week.

The British Academy have published a comment ahead of their formal response to the UKRI Open Access Review Consultation.

Other Research News

A parliamentary question on the research package to support universities through the C-19 turbulence (no new news). And others on Horizon 2020 and Erasmus Plus, and another on Erasmus+ continuation during the transition period, the Research sustainability taskforce, guidance for STEM PhD students unable to complete lab work and the UKRI consultation on Open Access policy.
Research Professional has an article describing how researchers and doctoral students are concerned about their research and personal situation due to the confines of lockdown.
CaSe have written to the Science Minister calling on the government to ensure that all areas of the UK research base are protected from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Mental Health

UUK have updated their mental health framework in Stepchange Mentally Healthy Universities. The framework calls on universities to take a whole university approach, meaning that mental health and wellbeing is considered across every aspect of the university and is part of all practices, policies, courses and cultures. The four areas cited in the framework are: Learn; Support; Work; Live. These map onto the University Mental Health Charter, developed by Student Minds.

Recommended actions within the new framework include:

demonstrating visible leadership and senior ownership of mental health as a priority to promote open conversations and sustain change
working closely with students and staff to develop mental health strategies and services
ensuring accessible and appropriately resourced support for mental health and wellbeing for all students and all staff
focusing on staff mental health; inclusion of mental health in staff performance discussions and provision of appropriate training for line managers and supervisors
clarification of the key role of academic staff in supporting the mental health of students through appropriate training and development
commitment to assessments and course work that stretch and test learning without imposing unnecessary stress

The Guardian have an article looking at the value and changes to Nightline mental health support on its 50 year anniversary.

Admissions – offer making

The sector is (almost) over talking about OfS’ intention to obtain temporary powers to prevent what OfS consider unscrupulous admissions behaviour that is not in the student interest. There is a consultation currently open on the topic. However, HEPI have a new blog written by Dean Machin (Jane’s equivalent over in Portsmouth) – The Office for Students’ new power: a ‘necessary and proportionate’ response to the pandemic, or not wasting a crisis? – challenging the OfS thought process on the student interest. The blog concludes by calling on the OfS to address 6 concerns:

Will the OfS publish its evidence that the proposed non-compliant conduct has systematically and non-trivially increased since 11 March?
Given the Government’s prompt action on 23 March, why has the OfS taken so much longer to act?
Will the OfS publish the criteria it will use to form its opinion on whether the new condition is violated and what constitutes a material negative effect?
Will the OfS explain how it understands the ‘student interest’ in this area and what steps it has taken to get students’ views on the student interest in the pandemic?
Has the OfS considered the effect on students’ interests of fining universities potentially millions of pounds just at the time they are expecting a significant decline in income? This question should be viewed in light of the fact that the Government support package for universities includes no extra funding.
Finally, if the problems the condition seeks to solve are pandemic-specific and created by the conduct of a small number of universities, why is the condition ‘broad and onerous‘ and why will it be in force until at least the middle of 2021?

In fact the OfS have published frequently asked questions including covering the time-limited condition of registration and other topics (although the regulatory answers are a bit hard to navigate).

Degree Apprenticeships and Social Mobility

The Sutton Trust have published COVID-19 and Social Mobility Impact Brief #3: Apprenticeships. Here I include detail only on the aspects most relevant to HE.

Many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds undertake apprenticeships. They are more likely to be concentrated in apprenticeships at lower levels, be paid lower salaries, and work at smaller companies. At early April, employers surveyed reported that on average just 39% of apprenticeships were continuing as normal, with 36% having been furloughed and 8% made redundant. 17% of apprentices had their off-the-job learning suspended.

The Sutton Trust has previously raised concerns over degree apprenticeships and the prioritisation of spending in the levy. Degree Apprenticeships (level 6 and 7) are dominated by those from less deprived areas – there are twice as many degree level apprentices from the wealthiest areas as there are from the poorest.

The number of degree apprenticeships has grown rapidly, from 756 in 2015/16 to 13,587 in 2018/19.

Since 2017, there has also been a big rise in other degree-level apprenticeships, award qualifications equivalent to a degree but not from a university, from just 19 four years ago, to 8,892 last year.
Much of this growth has not benefitted young people, with more than half of degree apprenticeships taken up by people over 30
Senior leadership courses – equivalent to an MBA – have expanded significantly, growing six-fold from 552 to 3,410 in 2018/19
Conversely, the proportion of young apprentices from deprived communities taking degree level apprenticeships up has fallen (from 9% in 2016 to 6% last year).
The number of older apprentices from well-off areas has more than doubled (from 5% to 11%), leading to a growing access gap for those under 25.
Senior leadership and chartered management courses alone now make up almost half (46%) of the entire degree apprentice cohort as employers look to put their senior staff through these courses rather than train younger, less affluent employees.

Recommendations

At a time of economic downturn and limited resources, apprenticeship levy funding should not be spent subsidising senior executives taking MBA-style qualifications, but should instead be focused on providing new opportunities for young people facing a challenging labour market. The Government should consider a maximum salary ceiling for levy-funded apprentices to avoid it being spent on highly paid and well qualified senior staff. Employers could also be required to top up level funding for certain categories of apprentice or conversely incentivise apprenticeships to increase opportunities for groups who need it most.
The priority for current apprentices should be to continue training where possible, even when on furlough or if redeployed within a company
In order for apprenticeships to deliver on the social mobility agenda as we come out of the coronavirus crisis, social mobility and widening opportunity should be an explicit criterion in the government’s review of the apprenticeships levy.

FE Week covers the brief with good volume of content on degree apprenticeships.

International Students

The surveys and speculation on international students’ intention to commence UK universities in autumn 2020 disagree. Some predict dire impacts with low recruitment, others suggest there will only be a smaller reduction. Wonkhe round up two news points from this week:

A new survey from QS suggests that seventy two per cent of prospective international students are interested in starting their UK course online this autumn. This breaks down to 46 per cent being definitely committed to the idea, and 26 per cent being unsure. Sixty-two per cent of international students have had their plans to study abroad affected by Covid-19.

The Russell Group has set out proposals to support international recruitment, which includes further improvements to visa conditions and a new international marketing campaign. PIE news has the story.

Research Professional also cover the Russell Group’s proposals in Big Ask and talk of the Group distancing themselves from UUK after the Government snubbed their bailout proposals. Excerpts:

The government is being asked to continue “reforms to ensure Britain remains a globally attractive destination for students”. What this means in practice is passing “the two-year post-study work visa through emergency immigration rules (secondary legislation) immediately”. The Jo Johnson-Paul Blomfield amendment has yet to pass into law and surveys suggest it is not well known among prospective international students.
The Russell Group also wants: international students to be prioritised in visa applications once travel restrictions are lifted; the government to increase the visa to 30 months to give UK universities a competitive edge; students to be allowed to apply for their visa six months in advance rather than three, to avoid those taking online classes facing the prospect of starting courses and then potentially being refused a visa; visas to be extended for current students affected by the pandemic; rules to be relaxed on monitoring students in the UK, such as reporting to police stations; European Union students to be allowed to apply to the EU settled status scheme; and universities to be allowed to conduct their own language capacity assessments.
…
The problem is that “many overseas governments do not recognise degrees which are comprised of significant amounts of distance learning. This lack of recognition could deter students from studying in the UK where they fear their qualifications will not be recognised.” This is a particular concern in China, the UK’s primary market for international students… Accordingly, the Russell Group is calling on the government to work with the international community to agree reciprocal recognition of online classes following the impact of Covid-19. The problem is also that international cooperation is in short supply at the moment, especially where popular nationalism encourages both protectionism and undercutting of rivals.
…
Recently, one forlorn international recruitment expert in the north of England told Playbook that if the student cohorts did not return to Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham and Durham, the economic impact would be like closing the mines all over again. That might be an argument worth making to those still aspiring to level up.

Graduate prospects and student employment

The Resolution Foundation published a report on young workers in the coronavirus crisis using evidence from a survey they conducted. The report finds that younger and older workers have experienced the brunt of the hit to jobs and pay, with the very youngest in the most challenging position.

A third of 18-24-year-old employees (excluding students) have lost jobs or been furloughed, compared to 1 in 6 prime-age adults.
Similarly, 35% of non-full-time student 18-24-year-old employees are earning less than they did prior to the outbreak, compared to 23% of 25-49-year-olds.
The proportion of 18-24-year-old non-fulltime students who have lost their main job since the coronavirus outbreak began (9%) is three times as large as the figure across all employees
Young people are more likely than other age groups to work in atypical jobs. Recent analysis shows that people in atypical work are concentrated in ‘shutdown sectors’ directly affected by lockdown measures, such as hospitality and non-food retail.
Those aged 25-39 are most likely to be working from home during the crisis, and most likely to expect to do more of this in the future. Conversely, the youngest employees and those aged 55 and older are the most limited in what they can do from home.

Maja Gustafsson, report author said:

Our findings show the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus crisis on the youngest and oldest earners. These employees are more likely to have lost work or been furloughed due to the crisis than those of prime age, and have experienced the biggest pay swings with large proportions losing earnings. Government support through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is helping many of these affected workers get through the crisis. As the crisis continues to unfold, comprehensive support across ages and targeted support for the very youngest workers will be essential to minimise the damage done, and especially to minimise long-term employment and pay scarring for the young.

The Institute of Student Employers has issued a report on the graduate labour market and Chief Executive, Stephen Isherwood, writes for the Guardian. He explains there are still glimmers of hope for graduate employment – although overall volume is down (12% cut in graduate jobs and 40% cut in placements) many employers are still recruiting or delaying induction programmes until later in the Autumn. Furthermore, certain sectors are not anticipating a downturn and this alongside vacancies in key sectors (STEM and digital) offers many opportunities. The article states interviews, assessments, and seeking out recruitment talent have been online for some time, but C-19 has increased the overall volume of virtual activity and that we can expect this increased practice to continue post-virus:

Many of these practices are long-term trends accelerated by coronavirus. Even though broadband can falter, interviews and assessments are delivered faster and more economically online. Employers won’t revert to labour intensive methods as business returns to normal. Finally, Stephen warns about the lure of a Masters. Stating There is absolutely nothing wrong with the pursuit of postgraduate study for the love of learning, if students are making an informed investment decision. And warning that some employment sectors did not value a Masters above an undergraduate degree.

The Financial Times has an article which begins with the doom and gloom outlook (worst economy since the Depression, UK hiring intentions at their lowest level in 15 years). However, it goes on to highlight how some larger firms are running their summer programmes online with almost-guaranteed jobs at the end to fill their need for ‘fresh blood’.

… the onus on companies that can work virtually to step up and prevent this generation from paying a disproportionate price. We’ve had a lot of talk during this crisis about stakeholder capitalism and the need to prevent economic scarring. This is one of those moments where push comes to shove.
…the big Wall Street banks, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, are pushing ahead with online summer programmes and will bring in thousands of new trainees on schedule in the autumn. “We want to be there for our communities. We need new blood to make sure that we can forge ahead,” says Ryland McClendon, who runs career development programmes for JPMorgan. Citi has also guaranteed that participants in its abbreviated summer intern programmes will be offered full-time jobs in 2021, as long as they meet minimum requirements. “We saw an opportunity to relieve some of the stress and uncertainty so many young adults are feeling right now, especially those preparing to enter a job market in the midst of great economic uncertainty,” bank executives explained in a
That is not only admirable but good business. Recovery from Covid-19 may come slowly. But, when it does, some companies will have well-trained young staff ready to get to work. Others will only have a string of disappointed youngsters with bitter memories.

Wonkhe have new blogs:

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Other news

New loans: The Guardian have an explainer article on loan application following the Student Loan Company who have urged prospective students to apply for their 2020/21 loans early to ensure they don’t face delays.

Devolved consequences: Both Wales and Scotland are reporting significant consequences of C-19 on universities finance, recruitment and stability. If you are interested in the devolved position Wales Fiscal Analysis has issued a paper.

Home School: The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a report on learning during the lockdown focusing on the experience of children.

Immigration: With the Immigration Bill passing the vote Wonkhe talk about the Impact Assessment: The Impact Assessment for the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill suggests that 20 per cent of EU/EEA students would be deterred by newly applicable visa requirements – around 15,000 per annum during the first five years of the policy, an estimate of up to 25,000 fewer EU higher education students in the UK by academic year 2024-25 relative to the baseline.

However the projections of an increase in non-EU/EEA international students following the implementation of the Post-Study Work Visa dwarf these changes – a 10 per cent increase in enrolments would mean an estimated annual increase of around 25,000 over the first five years of the policy. The projected increase in international tuition fee income would be between £1 billion and £2 billion over the first five years.

Behavioural changes and migration flows are notoriously difficult to predict, so the document cautions that these figures are indicative only.

Home working: in non-policy news the CMI have found that many managers have found working from home a largely positive experience and intend to incorporate it into their regular working week post-virus. And New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern urged employers to consider flexible working options, including a four-day week , as part of efforts to rebuild the economy after the pandemic.

Online graduation: Wonkhe have a comedy round up of the latest (mainly American) virtual graduation antics.

Post Covid Society: Politics Home cover a survey by The House (parliament) on MPs expectations of a post Covid society.

Three quarters of MPs believe taxes will increase to fund public services in the wake of the coronavirus crisis.
Almost two-thirds of MPs believe pay for NHS and care workers should be higher, while 56% say the pay packets of key workers such as bus drivers should also increase
72% of MPs agree that “taxes will increase to fund public services”, while 83% agree that “the state will play a greater role in the economy”
73% agree that “tough spending choices will have to be made” – but just four in ten would back cuts to public services to rein in spending
Freezing public sector pay was opposed by the majority of MPs
90% believe that unemployment will be higher
65% agree that “people will be kinder to each other” after the pandemic – but just 10% say politics will “be less partisan”
Just 8% believe the public will have more trust in politicians
51% of MPs support a further extension to the Brexit transition period (49% don’t)
On handling coronavirus 9 in 10 MPs believed the NHS had performed very well, with half of those selecting performed ‘very well’. 60% of MPs surveyed believed the police had performed well. 63% of MPs felt the British media had performed poorly (10% felt had performed well).
Conservative opinion on the debt is split. Some warn against increasing taxes to pay off the debt accumulated from tackling the virus. However, a number of Conservative backbenchers would prefer Sunak to pursue economic growth and pay off the obligations over time.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

May 20, 2020

BU academics contribute to initial findings from Covid-19 expert database

Knowledge Exchange Amanda Edwards

In March, POST launched the Covid-19 outbreak expert database, inviting anyone who wanted to support Parliament in its work, and had expertise in COVID-19 and/or its impacts to sign up. In April, more than 1,100 experts on this database responded to a survey put out by POST, asking them to share their immediate, short, medium and long term concerns relating to COVID-19 and its impacts. Having analysed the responses, and determined there to be 15 broad areas of concern, POST is now publishing syntheses in these 15 areas.

The 15 areas of concern are listed here, along with the methodology for both conducting the survey and synthesising the insights. The 15 syntheses are being published on POST’s Horizon Scanning pages.

Those respondents who said they would be happy to be publicly acknowledged are listed in full here and the list includes the following BU academics:

Professor Katherine Appleton – Psychology
Dr Emily Arden-Close – Psychology
Professor Christopher Hartwell – Financial Systems Resilience
Professor Ann Hemingway – Public Health and Wellbeing
Dr Sarah Hodge – Psychology
Dr John Oliver – Media Management
Dr Karen Thompson – Leadership Strategy and Organisations
Dr John McAlaney – Psychology
Professor Lee Miles – Crisis and Disaster Management
Dr Andy Pulman – Digital Health and User Experience
Professor Barry Richards – Political Psychology

You can still sign up to the expert database here.

May 7, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 6th May 2020

international, NHS, Student Engagement jforster

Dissection of the Government’s HE support ‘package’ has dominated all this week and the Sutton Trust have a new report reminding us of the importance of considering disadvantage within HE access and participation.

HE ‘package’

The Government announced its ‘package’ to support the HE sector through the financial trauma caused by C-19. It has dominated all HE news this week so we’ve included a big feature on the most relevant content here. We will outline the facts, then unpack and interpret it, followed by sector stakeholder reaction, and a little humour.

The package doesn’t provide new money for the HE sector, it is not a bailout, rather it moves payments forward (a bit) to ease cash flow and, although it has not been explicitly stated, the Government continue their watch and see approach awaiting the outcome of the autumn term recruitment. There may be some emergency cash earmarked for OfS distribution should recruitment turn disastrous, however, Government have consistently stated they will not bail out what they consider as poor quality or failing HE providers and this will be an absolute last resort.

The ‘package’ has been about as popular as the proverbial regifted toiletry set from Great Auntie Doris. While the wait and see is an understandable policy measure (universities are way down the priority list, and it isn’t “urgent” (yet), the C-19 crisis has finally provided an opportunity for the Government to change aspects of admissions and quality that were previously limited by institutional autonomy (as enshrined in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017). While student number controls and new licence conditions are described as temporary, there may be long term impacts of these changes.

The (English) package aims to stabilise admissions across all providers as the recruitment of domestic students takes higher precedence against the expected drop in international student enrolment. To this end:

Stabilising admissions

Temporary student number controls will be put in place for domestic and EU students for academic year 2020/21, to ensure a “fair, structured distribution of students across providers”. These measures mean that providers will be able to recruit students up to a temporary set level, based on provider forecasts, which allows additional growth of up to 5% in the next academic year. We await more details of the actual numbers by institution.

If a provider does not abide by its student number controls, the Government will reduce the sums available to the provider through the student finance system in the subsequent academic year.

The Government have also made funding provision for an additional 10,000 places on top of 5% growth student number controls. 5,000 of these places are ringfenced for students studying nursing or allied health courses. The remaining 5,000 places will be allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Education. Again, we await more details of where these will go.

The OfS is running a consultation on a new temporary condition of registration which intends to prohibit (registered) HE providers from any form of conduct which would have what they describe as a negative effect on the stability and/or integrity of the English HE sector.

Examples include conditional unconditional offers, mass unconditional offers, offers not linked to prior educational attainment, tempting students with incentives such as free laptops (a strange choice of example given the current virtual learning concerns for disadvantaged students) or cash incentives.
Any admissions tactics which are considered to put undue pressure on students or conduct leading to commercial advantage over other providers are a big no no, with a whopping fine per case (£500,000+) if the institution breaches this. The justification for the fine is to negate the positive financial effects any institution would feel from the recruitment boost as a result of engaging in the prohibited behaviour.
There is also concern over how the OfS intend to implement this retrospectively – with some concerns it may seek to outlaw and punish activity that was not prohibited before the C-19 crisis. The proposal is to look back to behaviour since 11^th March and for patterns or linked actions by institutions since then.
Although this is a consultation, the sector is expecting the conditions to be implemented and there are questions over how temporary it will actually be given the expected long term effect of C-19 on university finances. This condition is seen as a significant erosion into the autonomy of universities over their admission policies which has always been enshrined in law, most recently in the HERA legislation.
OfS have blogged regulator warns of penalties for recruitment practices.

UUK is working on a new sector agreement and statement of fair admissions practice. Including adhering to a new principle where HE providers will not put undue pressure on students, and new rules to restrict destabilising behaviours such as use of unconditional offers at volume. Both key aims the Government has been trying to influence for several years.

Wonkhe added more detail on the conditions:

Outlawed actions would include making conditional unconditional offers, making a lot of unconditional offers (or very low offers), offering gifts or discounts designed to attract students away from their original choices, and making false or misleading statements (including comparative claims) about one or more providers.
Outlawed actions would also include using financial support packages made available by the government for purposes that do not serve the interests of students or the public, failing to secure the standard of qualifications awarded to students, making offers to international students that significantly lower the academic or language requirements for a course, taking advantage of OfS relaxing particular regulatory requirements during the pandemic, and even “bypassing, or seeking to bypass, the admissions processes of the University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), where the provider would normally use UCAS processes”.
If that all sounds wide, it’s because it is. It’s another of these huge, open-to-interpretation regulatory nets designed to catch all sorts of behaviour. It’s significant – the new condition would enable OfS to consider imposing penalties that would “cancel out any financial benefit to providers of acting inappropriately”. It doesn’t so much chip away at as kick a big chunk out of institutional autonomy. But the question remains whether now is the right time for providers to kick up a fuss about autonomy, when the sector is desperate for financial support?

Research Professional reported that failing to abide by “voluntary requirements” is also included. Quite the catchall! On the conditions consultation Research Professional state: …But these are not normal times. The condition—which is out for consultation but is almost certain to be implemented—could even be “actively renewed” in the future. Take a look at RP’s article here – well worth a read! Key excerpts:

When considering a fine, the OfS would look at whether universities have stuck to Universities UK’s framework on fair admissions practices for 2020-21, agreed as part of the government’s so-called bailout package to help institutions through the coronavirus crisis.
But Smita Jamdar, head of education and partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, warned the proposals in the consultation were “so much broader” than admissions and could mean the condition applied to institutions’ actions in other areas such as employment.
“It has got a huge potential for unintended consequences”, Jamdar told Research Professional News, adding it was a “quite frightening set of proposals when you put it all together”. Jamdar also warned universities could expect fines to be handed out if the current proposals are carried out, and pointed out that breaches could be back-dated to 11 March. “It’s quite clear they are putting this in place and they intend to use it,” she said.

Smita has more detail on her viewpoints in her own blog on the topic.

Supporting Students

The last few years have seen an increase in the number of students entering clearing, many joining the admissions process for the first time at clearing having not previously applied to university. The government package sets out to boost the role of clearing – and specifically the adjustment part of it – even further.

In conjunction with UCAS the Government have arranged for both ‘placed’ and ‘unplaced’ students to have a greater – or at least more visible – opportunity to change their choice of provider/course once they receive their grades. This will be supported by a new service that can suggest alternative opportunities, based on their achievements, their course interest, and other preferences.

UCAS is also working with BBC Bitesize to give students enhanced advice on applying to university and Clearing. In the weeks leading up to results day, UCAS will be running a high-profile and multi-channel campaign, ‘Get Ready for Clearing’.

This fits well with the Government’s agenda – they are concerned that able students, especially disadvantaged ones, are not accessing high tariff ‘prestigious’ institutions– and therefore not receiving the social mobility employment boost associated with graduating from certain HE institutions. As has been pointed out by many, this does not support the stability of the sector, and confirms that protecting the sector is not the government’s first priority .

The 5% increase cap will allow room for growth and many “prestigious” institutions will have a significant amount of capacity as they usually take high numbers of international students, who are expected not to come this autumn. This is interesting as these same institutions have fought back for a long time against arguments that “foreign” students take places that home students could take. The reality of course is that international students help to fund places for home students by paying higher fees – so the financial impact of this change in balance is quite complex.
The UK is still coming out of the demographic dip and there was already increased competition for domestic students. The lowest tariff institutions are expected to fare worst. These may be the institutions which also have the lowest financial reserves, take the highest number of disadvantaged and local students, and have higher associated drop out rates (at least partly as a result of their student profile). A gloomy picture given the Government has stated it won’t bailout “failing” or “poorer quality” providers.
However, a little discussed element in recruitment is localisation – students attending institutions near to them locally or regionally. This year, students may choose to stay close to family for lots of reasons, including ongoing restrictions on travel, or a wish by students to stay closer to home. Given the publicity about rent payments this summer, some new students may decline to commit to accommodation contracts and choose to stay closer to home instead.

On the 5% admissions cap Research Professional state:

That is quite a loose cap and for some institutions it represents the opposite of a bailout—they will feel that the pistol has been fired for open season on their students. For universities struggling to recruit before the pandemic, the news that other institutions can now maximise recruitment of the limited number of UK school leavers will seem like the government has just poured a bucket of water into an already sinking canoe.

Wonkhe comment:

From a student perspective, the offer is even thinner – the Office for Students has clarified that universities can allocate student premium funding and expenditure committed in access and participation plans to provide additional financial support for students, which is far from addressing the economic impacts of Covid-19 on students’ families or the inherent lack of protections in the system for students.

Michelle Donelan also confirmed that students should continue to pay full tuition fees even if provision from Autumn 2020 is online. While this supports Universities (and stops Government from having to fund even more to stabilise them) there is, of course, a policy point emphasised in her tweet: To be clear, we only expect full tuition fees to be charged if online courses are of good quality, fit for purpose & help students progress towards their qualification. If Unis want to charge full fees they will have to ensure that the quality is there. Reading the comments to Donelan’s tweet also paints an interesting picture of the public’s perspective.

Student Fee Petition

The Commons Petitions Committee has rejected the government’s initial response to a petition requesting the reimbursement of 2019-20 student fees due to Covid-19 and industrial action. The committee felt the initial response did not address the issue directly. The petition received 336,265 signatures (see this map of the signatures’ locations, including Bournemouth West – BU’s constituency). The Petition is now awaiting a date for a parliamentary debate (which may not be as exciting or drastic as it sounds, and potentially will go over the same Government messaging we have heard already).

The petition stated:

All students should be reimbursed some of this year’s tuition fees as universities are now online only due to COVID-19, with only powerpoints online for learning materials which is not worthy of up to £9,250. Furthermore, all assessments are being reconsidered to ‘make do’ and build up credits.
Field trips have also been cancelled which our tuition fee was to pay for. There is also no need for accommodation which students have paid between £4,000-£8,000 for in advance and adding to their student debt. Lastly, the extended strikes of this year have severely disrupted student-staff interaction and personalised help, with staff not replying to emails or available for meetings. Grading is also being delayed. Overall, university quality is poor this year and certainly not worth up to £9,250.

If you scroll down on this page you can read the Government’s response to the petition. The Petition’s Committee rejected the government response. They require the Government to provide another response because they felt that the response did not directly address the request of petition. Once the Government issues a further response it will be published on the same page.

Parliamentary Question:

Q – Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether (a) his Department and (b) the Student Loans Company plan to provide support to (i) current and (ii) prospective students whose parents have lost their jobs as a result of the covid-19 outbreak by (A) facilitating access to full maintenance loans and (B) reinstating maintenance grants. [38455]

A – Michelle Donelan:

Many higher education providers will have hardship funds to support students in times of need, including emergencies. The expectation is that where any student requires additional support, providers will support them through their own hardship funds. Contact details are available on university websites.
In addition, students will continue to receive payments of maintenance loans for the remainder of the current academic year, 2019/20. Students who need to undertake additional weeks of study on their course in the current academic year may also qualify for additional long courses loan to help with their living costs.
Parents who have lost their jobs and whose income has dropped by 15% or more in the current financial year will be able to apply to Student Finance England to have their children’s living costs support reassessed for the 2020/21 academic year from 1 August 2020 onwards. This will increase the amount of support students and prospective students are entitled to in 2020/21.
Information for parents on how to apply for a current year assessment is available on the Student Finance England website at: https://media.slc.co.uk/sfe/currentyearincome/index.html.

International Students

The Government has stated it will work to update the International Education Strategy, designed to support the recruitment of international students, by autumn 2020, in respond to the impact of COVID-19.

They have also restated the commitment to a graduate immigration route launching in summer 2021, giving international students (who graduate summer 2021 onwards) the right to remain for two years after their studies and providing an incentive to study in the UK. This includes students who have already started their courses, even if, due to coronavirus, they have needed to undertake some of their learning remotely.

The Government is ‘applying discretion’ to ensure that international students are not negatively impacted if they find themselves in a position where they cannot comply with certain visa rules as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Much of the media coverage on the prospects of international students to commence HE provision in autumn 2020 has been negative. However, several opinion surveys have hinted that prospective students remain committee to UK study. Here is another one – Wonkhe report that it might not be all bad news for international recruitment – a new survey today from IDP Connect finds that 69 per cent of a sample of nearly 6,900 prospective students applying to universities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US are intending to commence their studies this year as planned. Only 5 per cent expect to abandon plans to study overseas.

However, the UK face to face nature still seems to be the sticking point. Wonkhe continue: The survey found a huge willingness to start learning in January 2021 if this meant that the course could begin with face-to-face learning. Just 31 per cent would be happy to start online and move to the campus later on. Exposure to international culture is clearly a key component of the decision to travel for study.

Of course, another unanswered question is what happens if lockdown goes really long – would the post-study work visa still be honoured if all of the course is delivered online and the student is never resident in the UK?

Financial Sustainability

The Government will bring forward the second term tuition fee payments (expected to be worth £2.6bn) for providers so that they receive more cash in the first term of academic year 20/21 to help with cashflow issues. Currently HE providers receive the tuition fee payments in this profile: **25% on October, 25% in February, 50% in May. Instead the second payment will be brought forward – it’s not clear when it will be paid. That’s not a big shift.

Alongside this the Government have reiterated that HE providers are eligible to apply for Government support schemes, including the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS), Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS, COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. All of which are not straightforward for the HE sector due to the sources from which our finance comes. However, the OfS estimates these schemes could be worth £700m to the sector.

It comes with strings attached. HE providers are expected to make efficiencies. Furthermore, the bringing forward of tuition fee payments will mean very careful management of finances to cover the whole academic year and avoid fresh cashflow problems further down the track.

The Government state that they

“will only intervene further where we find there is a case to do so, and only where we believe intervention is possible and appropriate, and as a last resort. In such instances, DfE will be working with HMT and other Government departments to develop a restructuring regime, through which we will review providers’ circumstances and assess the need for restructuring”.

The sector has interpreted this as bespoke individual support, with a host of conditions attached (potentially including losing land), and the erosion of the management of the institution.

Research Professional comment:

The £2.6bn on offer is neither a grant nor a loan. It is an advance payment of tuition fees from the next academic year. Theoretically, this will smooth immediate financial shortfalls. But it will also mean that universities have to cut their cloth further down the line.
A haircut is coming, says the department. The advance payments will “help universities better manage financial risks over the autumn, including taking steps to improve efficiencies and manage their finances in order to avoid cash flow problems further ahead.” ‘Efficiencies’ is an ominous word at the best of times… It is very clear indeed that the government has no appetite to bail out badly run universities.

The Government has also set aside £100 million to purchase land and buildings to create new or expand schools and colleges. While this money isn’t solely for purchasing HE assets many HE institutions do have large estates with substantial potential. Once again, the Government has thought carefully about its ideals and seen an opportunity to acquire land to meet its policy ideals. During Theresa May’s time as PM one of her big pushes (which was unsuccessful) was to bring HE, FE and schools together in collaboration to improve quality, opportunity and cohesion within communities. Sharing resources and expertise. Potentially acquiring land and placing conditions on failing institutions seems another wizard wheeze for overcoming the reluctance of the HE sector to get behind the initiative.

Wonkhe comment:

The Government expects [that] access to the business support schemes, reprofiling of public funding and student number controls should be sufficient to help stabilise most providers’ finances, and that should certainly be the first port of calls for providers.
This implies that a calculation has been carried out using OfS financial sustainability data and projections on student numbers that may or may not turn out to be accurate. We can’t see those calculations, as OfS’ annual report on the financial sustainability of the sector is missing in action. The sector would want to see the workings so that if the wider situation follows worst-case scenarios (mass deferrals of current students, even worse international numbers, etc.), the government could be approached with a freshly minted begging bowl.
That ominous paragraph also describes the development of an HE “restructuring regime” in which DfE would review providers’ circumstances and assess the need for restructuring – and where action is required, this will come with “attached conditions.

And some breaking news – the OfS on 6^th May published the outcome of their recent consultation on cuts to OfS spending. Bad timing, as the cut in budget and the consultation all started before the pandemic hit.

A selection of Parliamentary Questions

Q – Colleen Fletcher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on (a) the number of (i) international student numbers and (ii) domestic student numbers intending to take up a university place in the 2020 academic year and (b) research and innovation funding. [39637]

And

Q – Rachel Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department is taking to support UK universities affected by reduced international recruitment as a result of the covid-19 outbreak. [38988]

A- Michelle Donelan:

We are very grateful for the work that universities are doing in supporting students, undertaking ground-breaking research and providing specialist equipment. We are working closely with them to understand the financial risks and implications that they might face at this uncertain time.
The COVID-19 outbreak will have an impact on international students. The government is working to ensure that existing rules and regulations relating to international students, including visa regulations, are as flexible as possible under these unprecedented circumstances.
My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has also announced an unprecedented package of support, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and a range of business loan schemes, to help pay wages, keep staff employed and support businesses whose viability is threatened by the outbreak. We recently confirmed universities’ eligibility for these schemes, and we are working closely with the sector, the Office for Students (OfS) and across the government to understand the financial risks that providers are facing, stabilise the admissions system and help providers to access the support on offer. [This response was provided before the package was announced.]
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and UK Research and Innovation analysts are working closely with the Department for Education, OfS and wider non-government stakeholders to undertake a rapid programme of analysis to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on a range of research institutions including universities and analyse suitable policy responses.

Q – Emma Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps he is taking to engage with (a) small and specialist higher education institutions, (b) institutions that are not members of Universities UK and (c) universities in remote, rural and coastal areas on their financial sustainability as a result of the covid-19 outbreak. [41578]

A – Michelle Donelan: answer here, but it doesn’t specifically mention rural or coastal universities

Research

In England, the Government will bring forward £100 million of quality-related (QR) research funding for the current academic year for ‘vital’ activities to address some of the immediate pressures being faced for university research activities and “to ensure research activities can continue during the crisis”. The QR top up is intended “to offset short-term impacts caused by the coronavirus outbreak, including alleviating immediate cash flow issues and where other income which would normally pay for research is no longer available”. Research Professional state: This does not come close to the cross-subsidy that research receives from the £7bn in tuition fee income that international students provided last year.

A joint DfE/BEIS Ministerial Taskforce – the University Research Sustainability Taskforce – will also form, jointly led by Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, and Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan.

It aims to act as an advisory forum for ministers and will:

share information and intelligence about the health of the university research and the knowledge exchange carried out by and within HE providers
identify potential impacts on the sustainability of university research and knowledge exchange directly arising from the response to coronavirus
share intelligence on government and other sources of funding for research, and develop approaches building on these to address the impacts of coronavirus and protect and sustain HE research capability and capacity
where possible share evidence of the impacts on university research and knowledge exchange of the taskforce’s advice

The Government have stated they expect universities will also want to develop their own proposals to build an efficient, effective and sustainable research and development system, focused on driving recovery. (See Chris Skidmore’s comments below.)

Research Professional have this to say:

It is the research proposals that have received the most criticism. A £100 million advance on quality-related funding represents just 5 per cent of what Universities UK had asked for…Why, then, was there so little in this announcement about shoring up research? If the research budget is due to double in five years, why the reluctance to spend now?
Writing exclusively for Research Professional News today, former universities minister Chris Skidmore appears to think there is more on the way—accepting that while £100m “may not be what the wider sector was hoping for…it remains a promising start”…“This first £100m of additional QR funding should be welcomed, but universities should try to do all they can to demonstrate its vital importance for the Covid-19 recovery—by going out to sell its benefits together,” he says. “Ideally, institutions should publicise and highlight where this money will go, working in collaboration where possible to demonstrate its necessity.
…Was there a clue too in the statement from Research England’s executive chair David Sweeneyyesterday? He said: “The higher education package announced today builds on some detailed proposals recently from UUK…English universities will want to similarly develop more detailed proposals to build an efficient, effective and sustainable R&D system and Research England looks forward to working with them and the government to achieve that end.” In the politesse of statements from senior civil servants, ‘universities will want to’ usually means ‘universities should hurry up and get on with’.
Following the announcement of the underwhelming bailout plan, we spoke to several well-placed figures in the research firmament. According to one of them, the government feels that while there has been some good thinking on the education side from universities, there has been less thought on the research side. They have “talked turkey on education, now it is time to talk turkey on research”, we were told.
In other words, ministers are not simply going to release £2bn into university accounts without a quid pro quo. As a number of sources close to government told us yesterday, there will be no substantial cash injection for research without recognition from universities that they have a shared responsibility to contribute to the post-coronavirus recovery. In other words, what are universities going to put on the table and what is the government going to get out of it? We understand that the government is looking for movement on topics such as: regional inequality, or levelling up; skills and training; and precarious contracts for researchers.
…By allowing the Office for Students to consult on sweeping new powers, universities have put their admissions autonomy at risk. Do they really want to do the same with research in return for the false security of 100 per cent full economic costs?

Meanwhile Wonkhe note that:

UKRI hasupdated its useful “guidance for the research and innovation communities” to incorporate research focused aspects of yesterday’s government announcements. It links to Research England’s brief note on the funding advance related to next year’s QR allocation.

And Scotland have announced their own £75 million research boost for Scottish universities.

The Guardian has an article by Chris Skidmore

On HEPI former director Bahram Bekhradnia describes the proposed student number cap as “unworkable”.

Legal firm Pinsent Masons ran the article UK higher education restructuring ‘inevitable’ without targeted support stating the UK university sector should brace for potential insolvencies and reluctant mergers as the medium term impact of the coronavirus pandemic becomes clear. They base their analysis on the London Economics & UCU report of several weeks previous (the report has not escaped criticism for aspects of its calculations and assumptions).

Wonkhe also have lots of blogs, of course, here are some:

What’s in the support package and what does it all mean? Debbie McVittyreviews the government’s support package for universities.
There is mention of a higher education “restructuring regime” buried in the DfE press release – Jim Dickinsonwonders what that might mean if the package falls short.
It unexpectedly appears in the sector support package, but what might Clearing Plus mean for an already unstable 2020 UCAS cycle? David Kernohanapplies himself.

And Michelle Donelan also responded to a parliamentary question outlining the Government’s package.

Finally Research Professional’s spoof column Ivory Tower has a particularly good grasp of the ‘bailout’, especially as it was published in advance of the Government’s announcement of the ‘support’ measures. Do read Spads: bailout for a little light relief. (If you hit a log in page from the link select Bournemouth University and then log in with your BU username and password.)

What next?

The support package has been announced and whilst the dust is settling sector press is asking what next for the ‘new normal’? Both Wonkhe and Research Professional (RP) ran features on it on Wednesday. RP considered the new normal from the institutional perspective of what could open and how social distancing could be maintained. The blog is a neat consideration of the complexity of the HE context. Excerpt: The pressure will therefore be on institutions to open their doors for educational business as soon as possible, especially given student grumblings about paying full fees for courses that are now being delivered entirely online. However, as an educational setting, it is probable that universities can expect to be handed guidelines by the Department for Education as well.

Wonkhe tackle risk, audit and the student interest but from a strategic University Board perspective. Here are their series of blogs:

Despite the challenges boards of governors are facing, Debbie McVitty discovers an appetite to use the Covid-19 crisis as an opportunity for innovation.
Boards of governors are moving from crisis management to strategic planning. KPMG’s Justine Andrew – herself a university governor –sets out the big strategic questions, and how boards can be confident they’re getting the right answers.
Risk management, audit, and strategic planning have all had a role to play in the way the sector has responded to Covid-19. And, as David Kernohan finds out, they will play a huge role in the return to a “new normal”.
Jim Dickinsonthinks through the trade-offs that may be required as boards of governors consider how to protect the student interest during Covid-19.

RP also state that AdvanceHE is launching an international project this week to help university leaders share information and find solutions to the difficulties posed by a socially distanced campus.

Education Select Committee

The Education Select Committee met this week to question Secretary of State for Education Gavin Williamson. Much of the Committee session focused on school aged children alongside disadvantage and SEN concerns; exam grades for FE courses including BTECs were touched upon. HE content has mainly been superseded by the Government’s support package announced after the Committee met. However, it also covered international students (no answer from Williamson), the difficulty in taking English language tests, and there was still no answer on nursing tuition fees. Dods summarise the nursing exchange:

Halfon [Select Committee Chair] said that “apparently” the Department for Education had not clarified whether nursing students who worked for the NHS during the pandemic would still be paying tuition fees. Pressed on this, the secretary of state said he would come back to the committee.

The Minister reiterated that a response to the Augar review is still expected around the time of the next Spending Review. Also that T Levels will go ahead in the original timeframe set out because the introduction of T-Levels and raising the status of vocational qualifications was “one of the most important tasks this Government had”.

Finally Johnson asked about domestic students who were stuck at university alone and unable to return home. The Government would “very much” want to facilitate their return, Williamson said.

On lessons the DfE have learnt from the crisis Williamson thought there were many. The ability to support children within the home and through holidays had been really transformed, he said. The department recognised that resources could be much more rapidly shared and they would be looking at how this could be used to reduce the workload for teachers. Additionally, by moving tribunals online, the department were getting through them much more rapidly, the committee heard. (Summary of the Minister’s response supplied by Dods.) The Education committee also published Ministerial letters for transparency:

Letter from the Secretary of State – Update on the Department for Education’s response to COVID-19
Letter from Vicky Ford (Minister Children & Families) on vulnerable children and other updates from DfE response to C-19
Letter from the Secretary of State on the Spending Review

Sutton Trust

The Sutton Trust published a brief on the impact of covid-19 on university access. The research surveyed 511 university applicants (pupils aged 17 to 19); found that working class applicants are more likely to be worried about the impact on them than their middle-class peers. Also that almost half of university applicants think that the coronavirus crisis will have a negative impact on their chances of getting into their first-choice university. The report also covers poll of 895 current university students raising their financial concerns resulting from the pandemic.

Access, Participation & Success

Social Mobility Commission

Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, Dame Martina Milburn, has resigned. The press points out that the social mobility commission has lost two Chairs in 2.5 years. Her predecessor Alan Milburn resigned (en masse with all other members of the Commission) in frustration at the Government’s failure to do more to tackle social mobility. Dame Martina stated she was resigning “with deep regret, and after several sleepless nights” her substantive role as Group Chief Exec of The Prince’s Trust required her full commitment. Her letter states:

I am extremely proud of what has been achieved at the Commission in the last two years – appointing the 12 very diverse commissioners, re-establishing the secretariat and commissioning a variety of reports from the State of the Nation to an employers’ toolkit. Currently, we have 16 reports in the pipeline, have conducted a popular series of webinars for employers and have begun to form partnerships with bodies such as the metro-mayors and with other important commissions. We have also brought the social mobility charities together and appointed a range of social mobility ambassadors.
However, it is not nearly enough and given the strong links between social mobility and poverty I fear this current crisis will only serve to make social mobility harder than ever. My reflections from my time in office are that appointing a Chairman on three days per month, as I was, has proved a real challenge. To make an impact, what the secretariat needs is an executive chairman on at least three days per week or a different structure perhaps something more akin to that of the Children’s Commissioner?

She also stated that either of the Deputy Commissioners she appointed are capable of taking over her role.

Education SoS Gavin Williamson responds to her letter here.

Other blog posts

The BAME degree-awarding gap is likely to be an even bigger issue now. Gurnam Singhreflects on what universities should do next (Wonkhe blog).
The University Mental Health Advisors Network (UMHAN) blog covers the OfS briefing on supporting student mental health. Excerpt: given the disruption to normal study patterns, and potential longer-term changes to higher education as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, it is possible that universities and colleges will see new patterns in their students’ mental health and wellbeing emerge. They also plan a White Paper setting out good practice and recommendations.
The Guardian has an article written by the Master of Birkbeck explaining why unconditional offers for foundation years are important for social mobility

Finally another Guardian piece bringing to life the rhetoric around disadvantaged students struggling with online access

Disadvantaged Catch Up Plan

The Education Policy Institute has published a policy paper with proposals to prevent the disadvantage gap from increasing due to C-19. Before the outbreak of Covid-19, EPI research found that disadvantaged children are already on average one and a half years of learning behind other pupils by the time they take their GCSEs.

Graduate Employment Outlook

Wonkhe report that

the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) forecast of a 6.1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate due to the impact of Covid-19 will have a disproportionate effect on the employment prospects of young people, according to a new briefingfrom the Resolution Foundation. Graduates would have a 13 per cent lower likelihood of being in employment three years after completing their education, with non-graduates seeing an even worse impact.
There’s also bad news on pay – with forecasts suggesting real hourly graduate pay would be, on average 7 per cent lower two years on. But the recession will disproportionately hit sectors where young people tend to work – non-food retail, hospitality, travel, the arts, and entertainment. One year after having left full-time education, more than one-third of non-graduates, and more than one-in-five, graduates would expect to work in a sector that is now mostly shut down.
The briefing suggests that – as in previous recessions – young people will be more likely to remain in education rather than enter the workforce. However, the demographic dip will make it easier for the government to offer support for those making this decision.

Youth movement:

70 of the country’s leading youth charities, employer groups and experts have united to form the ‘COVID-19 Youth Employment Group’, a cross-sector emergency response to rising concerns about the economic and educational impact of coronavirus on young people. The Youth Employment Group is led by Impetus, the Youth Futures Foundation, The Prince’s Trust, Youth Employment UK and the Institute for Employment Studies. It will design, deliver, and campaign for solutions to the immediate and long-term impact on young people’s employment prospects, particularly those who already face considerable challenges entering the labour market.
As research increasingly warns of the potentially catastrophic impact on young people’s future employment prospects, there is a clear need for a rapid cross sector approach. The group will work to ensure young people receive quality support now, as well as helping plan for a healthy recovery of the youth labour market post-lockdown.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned that younger workers will be hit the hardest, as they are nearly two-and-a-half times more likely to work in a sector that is now shut down. The research also shows that on the eve of the crisis, sectors that shut down as a result of social distancing measures employed nearly a third (30%) of all employees under 25; compared to just one in eight (13%) of workers over 25.
The group’s membership meets virtually every week as they begin to pool together expertise and develop rapid solutions during and after lockdown. They have set up a LinkedIn Groupfor those interested.

Parliamentary updates

Online Voting: Chair of the Commons Procedure Committee, Karen Bradley, has written to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to confirm that the remote voting system for MPs is now ready to go live. The confirmation stated the system is suitable ad secure as long as MPs behave: MPs will have a “personal responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system”, a warning against letting others vote on their behalf. And with a tone as stern as the OfS’ she emphases: It is highly likely that any action by a Member which led to an authorised person casting a vote in a division would constitute a contempt of the House and a breach of the Code of Conduct, and would be likely to be punished accordingly.

Parliamentary Questions

Schools – Q – Alex Sobel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether his Department plans to allow parents who are in the covid-19 at risk groups to decide whether their children return to school, when schools reopen. [39792]

A – Nick Gibb: Schools will remain closed until further notice, except for children of critical workers and vulnerable children.

Heath Professions – Training – Q – Geraint Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether final year trainee (a) doctors and (b) nurses will be charged tuition fees while working for the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak. [37381]

A – Helen Whately:

Medical students and student nurses will continue to be required to pay tuition fees for their final term. Given the extended length of medical degrees, which can be up to six years in length, Health Education England pay medical student tuition fees from year 5 of study.
As part of the Government’s COVID-19 response, current year 5 medical students are currently being graduated by their medical schools early to enable them to apply for Provisional Registration with the General Medical Council, and if they so choose to deploy in to Foundation Year 1 posts. Those that do so will be contracted from the date they start their employment and employed under the 2016 terms and conditions for doctors and dentists in training. They will also continue to get their National Health Service bursary and student maintenance loan.
Year 3 nursing students have been invited to opt in to paid placements in the NHS. All students who do opt in to support the COVID-19 response will be rewarded fairly for their hard work. Students will be getting a salary and automatic NHS pension entitlement at the appropriate band. They will also still receive their student maintenance loan and Learning Support Fund payments too.
Decisions about the NHS workforce in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, including the funding that they provide for students, are a matter for the devolved administrations of those countries.

Scam Risk

C-19 and lockdown have increased fears that loved ones, particularly those newly venturing online, will experience attempts by scammers to obtain money, resources and personal information. You may be familiar with the work of BU’s National Centre for Post-Qualifying Social Work and Professional Practice. Professors Keith Brown, Lee-Ann Fenge and their close knit team have published many freely available downloadable guides in recent years, worked closely with Government agencies and held successful parliamentary receptions to raise the awareness of policy makers. The team have a new publication out – Scams the power of persuasive language. Do download it to take a look and share with loved ones, neighbours and vulnerable contacts. All the team’s publications on fraud, scams, mental capacity and advanced care planning can be accessed here.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

New consultations and inquiries this week:

The Skills Commission have launched a new inquiry, entitled; The Workforce of the Future – ‘Learning to earning’ transitions and career development in a challenging labour market.

Other nes

Student complaints: The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE (OIAHE) published the 2019 annual report setting out:

The number and outcomes of complaints received and closed
Examples of the complaints students make
Trends and common themes in complaints and lessons learnt

NUS VP for HE Claire Sosienski Smith commented on the report release making the same calls for action as in previous weeks:

“We know that next year, the number of complaints as outlined in the report might look quite different: NUS’ Coronavirus and Students Survey of 10,000 students showed that 74% of students are worried about the impact of the pandemic on their final qualifications and 20% of students who had been offered online learning did not agree that they were able to access it adequately. A lot of providers have been leading the way by offering ‘no detriment’ policies, to ensure that their students’ attainment is not unfairly captured by end of year exams this year. We believe a policy of no-detriment should be the way forward for the sector as a whole.
Students need a safety net, and urgently. The OIA is a fantastic service to make students more powerful, but it is set up for individuals or for small groups of students on courses. The pandemic has impacted every single student in the UK, and we need a national-level, government solution to this problem: that can only be the ability to redo the year at no extra cost, giving students the chance to make up for the education they are missing out on, or have their debt and fee payments written off or reimbursed.”

Graduate Outcomes: HESA announced dates for the publication of the first datasets from the Graduate Outcomes survey – high-level findings on 18 June and the full release (including provider level data) on 23 June. This is a month’s delay to existing plans, and reflects the time required to prepare and assure data under lockdown conditions.

Virtual Open Days: Wonkhe have a thought nudging article on the benefits of a virtual campus tour for recruitment.

Evidence based policy making: Research Professional report that trust in science in at a record high in Germany with approval for evidence-based policy skyrocketing.

Apprenticeships: The Government have published their annual update on the apprenticeship reform programme. It reports progress towards the 3 million starts apprenticeships target between 2015 and 2020. The Government have achieved 69.6% of the 3 million target (2.09 million starts). Much fuller detail on other factors within the apprenticeship report is contained in the above link.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update BU staff can simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

May 1, 2020

COVID-19 and Parliament: opportunities and resources for researchers

Amanda Edwards

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) board has approved four new POSTnotes on:

AI and healthcare
Developments in vaccine technologies
Distance learning
Regulating product sustainability

Work on these will be starting in the following months. They are looking for experts to contribute their insights, literature or as external reviewers. For more information on what contributing to a POSTnote entails, click here. And if you’d like to receive updates about POST’s work directly to your inbox, you can subscribe to the monthly newsletter here.

Please ensure you notify the policy team and impact officers if you intend to contribute to any of the POSTnotes.

POST also has two new resources to give you all the information you need on engaging effectively with Parliament:

Webpage on researcher engagement with Parliament around COVID-19 and its impacts

If you want to know where the opportunities to engage with policymakers lie, go to: Engaging with Parliament as a researcher around COVID-19 and its impacts. It contains details of the Expert Database, which some of you have signed up to, and up-to-date details of all select committee inquiries relating to COVID-19. If any new opportunities come up, this page is where to find them.

A short guide to producing research to support the work of UK Parliament

Some of you may already be drafting project proposals for research relating to COVID-19 and its impacts. If you want help and guidance on how this can translate to policy impact, POST has also produced this guide. It gives an overview on what Parliament is and does, how it uses research, KE mechanisms, and a page of tips on shaping proposals and what to do when conducting research and disseminating findings.

April 22, 2020

HE policy update for the w/e 22nd April 2020

Business Engagement, Funding opportunities, HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, Public engagement, Research assessment, Student Engagement jforster

Lots of MP commentary on universities this week including the (lack of) HE financial support measures. Virtual voting in the Commons wasn’t a great success, HEPI re-examine student experience across the 4 regions of the UK, concerns for graduate employment abound, and there is news on REF and KEF.

Most importantly, happy World Earth Day! Do try the google animation – it is particularly special (you get to control the bee!).

Parliamentary News

Virtual Commons – The House of Commons intends to follow a hybrid approach sitting Mon to Wed for approximately 2 hours (and with restrictions on volume of attendance and contact for those (up to 50) actually present in the chamber). These sessions will also be attended virtually to allow a fuller range of MPs and urgent business to take place. Question sessions will be facilitated online through Zoom (let’s hope the Treasury has stretched to procure the paid version otherwise debates may be shorter than usual – and are using passwords!). These sessions will mainly consist of parliamentary, departmental and urgent questions (30 minute sessions) and ministerial statements followed by the standard scheduled business. Operational detail for many aspects of parliamentary business hasn’t been worked out, e.g. how to manage voting and the legislative bills stages. However, a commitment has been made that any MP in the Chamber will be treated the same as one appearing virtually and would only be called to speak if scheduled to. And if a Member is called but cannot be heard or seen due to tech failure they’ll be given the chance to speak again later in the proceedings.

Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said:

By initiating a hybrid solution, with steps towards an entirely virtual Parliament, we are enabling Members to stay close to their communities, while continuing their important work scrutinising the Government. I do not want Members and House staff putting themselves at risk. By working virtually, this is our contribution to the guidance of stay home, protect the NHS and save lives.”

Dods discuss challenges and how the virtual parliament could work here.

Tuesday saw a trial of the secure voting procedure in the Commons. It was unsuccessful with some entertainingly choice language and a lot of commentary online about MP’s living room backdrops. Work on a more secure solution is taking place and Parliament hopes to have a workable voting system live by ‘early next month’.

Staff changes

DfE Board: Theresa May’s close advisor and campaign leader Nick Timothy has been appointed to the DfE Board as a non-executive director. Research Professional (RP) note Nick is

a fierce critic of the higher education sector…In a statement issued on 16 April, a DfE spokeswoman said that Timothy would bring “a range of experience that will support our work as we continue to develop our world-leading education system”. Since then, he has been a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, a position he has used to criticise the higher education sector. In August 2017, he wrote in his column that England’s tuition fee system is an “unsustainable and ultimately pointless Ponzi scheme”. RP also point out that Nick is a former director of the New Schools Network—the free schools charity from which Toby Young, the controversial Spectator columnist, resigned in 2018 after criticism of his appointment to the board of the Office from Students, from which he also ultimately resigned.

BEIS select committee chair: Rachel Reeves, who was elected Chair of the prestigious Business Energy and Industrial Strategy select committee, has resigned the Chair role (as required) upon her appointment to the Labour Shadow Cabinet. Several Labour MPs are vying to take over the Chairmanship. Politics Home are running a series profiling each candidate and Research Professional have a short piece. Business presented today states voting will take place electronically to elect the Chair (when is still to be confirmed).

Brexit & Immigration

The EU and UK have agreed three new rounds of Brexit negotiations to take place via video link during the weeks commencing 20 April, 11 May and 1 June.

There is a new poll examining whether the public are supportive of a Brexit deadline extension (47% support, 23% opposed).

There is more information on the UK points based immigration system was released as the Home Office published an introductory employer guide for Post-Brexit immigration.

The Home Office has also further updated the Tier 4 guidance in light of C-19 stating that no one will have a negative outcome through the immigration system due to a circumstance that was beyond their control. It also confirmed that enforcement actions will not be taken against sponsors who are responsible for students absent from studies due to coronavirus and that absences don’t need to be reported when due to coronavirus (e.g. self-isolating or travel). The guidance goes into more detail on distance learning; attendance monitoring during the coronavirus pandemic; English language requirements and pre-sessional courses; ATAS studies; right to work check and child students. It covers extending visas – students whose leave would have expired between 24 January and 31 May, will be able to apply for further leave within the UK. Extended leave will also be provided if students haven’t been able to complete a course/meet all requirements due to other requirements. Other points:

Students who would normally be subject topolice registrations who are extending leave, and are unable to leave home, will not need to do so.
There is information regarding working hours and volunteeringfor NHS trusts in particular. Hours will not be restricted to 20 hours per week during term time. Where all study has been suspended, students will be considered on “vacation” and will be able to work full time.
Right to rent checkshave been adapted so that landlords can see documents over videocalls during this period.

Challenges for the sector

The House of Commons Library have published Coronavirus implications for the FE and HE sectors in England. Library briefings are a good basic introduction to the subject matter presented so if you missed the debate in previous policy updates this library briefing will catch you up on the concerns facing the HE sector.

Exams, offers and clearing

The Financial Times has a longer read on the international admissions crisis.

Education Minister, Gavin Williamson, confirmed A level results will be released on Thursday 13 August, and GCSE results on Thursday 20 August meaning the release dates will mirror all other years. What this means for the HE sector and clearing is still to be clarified. Earlier rumours suggested Government were considering a beefed up clearing with more students encouraged to enter the process than in previous years.

On this Wonkhe wrote: Last week brought news from the Department for Education (DfE) that grades for cancelled A level exams in England will now be published on their originally-planned day of 20 August. Those who have seen drafts of the government bailout package told us that it also included proposals for a “bolstered” Clearing period to encourage students to wait until August to make their final decisions. There’s also no consensus yet about the proposal for number controls next year, with some voices both in government and the sector concerned that it would still enable high-tariff universities to expand at the expense of others.

The ban on unconditional offer making has been extended for a further two weeks until 4 May. The OfS and Government remain vigilant and determined to crack down on providers who find ways to flout the ban. The Universities Minister wrote to Vice-Chancellors last Saturday stating that any new conditional offers to students that asked for lower grades than expected “must be in the best interests of the student and not an unconditional offer by the back door”. The UCAS decision making deadline has also been pushed back and applicants are not required to select their preferred institutions until 18 June.

Disadvantaged tech access: Gavin Williamson announced an online learning support package making laptops and tablets available to disadvantaged children across England to enable remote education for pupils staying at home during the coronavirus outbreak. The provision will be available for children in the most vital stages of their education, those who receive support from a social worker and care leavers. 4G routers will also be available for disadvantaged secondary school pupils and care leavers to access the internet – where those families do not already have mobile or broadband internet in the household.

Some Parliamentary questions in this area:

Q – Helen Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment his Department has made of the (a) accuracy of predicted grades for (i) GCSEs and (ii) A-Levels and (b) potential effect of unconscious bias on those predicted grades in terms of (A) gender and (B) race. [34386]

A – Nick Gibb: This is a matter for Ofqual, the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation.

Q – Helen Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions his Department is having with universities and higher education providers to ensure that students who are unable to sit their exams for A-Levels and other qualifications as a result of school closures are able to access higher education in the next academic year. [33629]

A – Michelle Donelan:

The calculated grades awarded this year will be formal grades, with the same status as grades awarded in any other year. The higher education sector has recognised this and is working with us to ensure that this year’s cohort of A-Level students are at no disadvantage when it comes to progression to university because of these unprecedented circumstances.
Department officials are working closely with Ofqual, UCAS, Universities UK, the Office for Students and others to ensure that the admissions system functions as effectively and efficiently as possible during this unprecedented time.
The latest guidance for schools and other educational settings can be found here.

Financial sustainability

In last week’s policy update we described how UUK were lobbying the Secretary of State for Education to recognise the dangers and approve a range of stabilisation measures for the HE sector. Gavin Williamson appeared receptive to the requests but no announcements were forthcoming during the opportunities on Friday or Sunday among rumours that the Treasury squashed support spending. Wonkhe have this to say on the matter:

If the last few days have told us anything, it’s that the government bailout of higher education, when it does land, will be patchy, controversial in parts, arrive in fits and starts, and will likely never be able to deal with all of the gigantic consequences of the pandemic. But to say the conditions for good policy making are imperfect would be an understatement.
There’s a version of history where at last night’s government coronavirus press conference education secretary Gavin Williamson announced the first major steps of a wholesale bailout of higher education after urging from Universities UK. It would have been a remarkably quick turnaround for the Whitehall machine, and so it proved to be, falling foul of final approval from the Treasury in a joint ministerial meeting on Thursday. In the meantime, low-key announcements were made confirming that universities would have access to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, and the Covid Corporate Financing Facility.
The bailout was also due to be coming out against a backdrop of further data showing just how rocky things are likely to be over the next year. …Andy Westwood argues that the bailout will build bridges to the sort of sector the government hopes to see, potentially including linking research and development more closely to economic and industrial strategy, and a long-term vision for teaching and student numbers across post-compulsory education. In other words, anyone expecting a bailout to preserve the status quo is likely to be disappointed.

Research Professional’s reports are interesting due to their sources on the inside. They write:

Whitehall insiders have suggested to Playbook that the extent of the challenge for universities is well understood by the government, but at this moment the feeling is that there is no need to rush out a solution that does not hit the target and merely creates perverse results. For example, UUK’s request that quality-related research funding be doubled from £2 billion to £4bn a year would see much of that cash land at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—two of the institutions most able to ride out this storm.
Playbook has been told by sources close to the discussions that there are three variables at play: first, the short-term loss of income for universities; second, the medium-term loss of demand for higher education; and third, the government’s long-term promises on R&D spending. It is not that the government is disinclined to help out universities—as science minister Amanda Solloway wrote early on in the crisis, it is a government priority that the research base be protected so that the UK has something to bounce back with when the country exits lockdown. Rather, any rescue package will come with expectations, i.e. strings attached. As it was put to Playbook, “something better is possible”.
With the government firefighting on an hourly basis to get personal protective equipment into hospitals, prop up a shrivelling economy and ramp up testing to a level that would enable any kind of exit from lockdown, universities may be about to learn a harsh lesson concerning their place in the national pecking order. This week, UUK will need to play its cards with care and no little skill.

The last minute news from RP on Wednesday (from a source they are unable to name, presumably at UUK) is that the Government have not told them to rethink their support measures request. Although it was indicated that such a deal will need to encompass a solution on “admissions restraint”, research spending and targeted support for vulnerable institutions.

And on Monday the Government issued guidance about the C-19 support measures universities can access. They also confirmed the Student Loans Company plans to make Term 3 tuition fee payments as scheduled; and we understand maintenance payments will be paid too.

Wonkhe have a blog on the scale of the financial risk for HE providers and whether the doubling of QR funding will be a drop in the ocean or help.

The opposition view

Shadow Minister for Universities, Emma Hardy, has written to the government calling on them to underwrite higher education funding to protect and prevent institutions from going bankrupt as a result of the coronavirus crisis. The letter argues that an over-reliance on international tuition fees and an unequal regional distribution of research grants mean higher education providers are vulnerable to closure or functioning at a reduced capacity, with a damaging effect for jobs and social mobility. Excerpts from the letter:

Labour is calling on the government to guarantee that no university will be allowed to go bankrupt. The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the failures and weaknesses within the government’s higher education policy. Our universities are not just businesses and should not be treated as such. Our higher education institutes provide value to our country every day, supplying final year medical students to fight on the frontline of our NHS, creating PPE, and providing accommodation for key workers.

The letter goes on to say:

My greatest concern is that a failure to provide timely and comprehensive support to our universities in the face of this crisis will create “cold spots” in the country for access to higher education to those who benefit from it the most. We know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and part-time and mature students, make up the large proportion of commuter students and they will suffer disproportionately if regional HE institutions close.
….It is essential therefore, that no institutions are allowed to fall. I welcome your comments that you are looking closely at the Universities UK proposals for comprehensive sectoral support and I would ask again for you to provide a clear message that the security and certainty our Universities are desperately looking for will be available.
….I welcome your comments that UK Universities are “open and accessible” and I would ask if you could speak to your colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have a joined up approach in promoting our UK universities and addressing some of the concerns held by some countries on the validity of ‘online degrees’, if only as a short-term measure. It would also be useful to have increased clarity from the Home Office about student visas too.
I would urge you to look again at convening representatives from institutions, examinations bodies, practitioner unions and students organisations to agree on the timing and character of teaching in the new academic year and ensure that this is communicated clearly to students.
I am also concerned that teacher assessment, an unequal home schooling experience and ‘digital poverty’ will result in a weaker performance of BAME groups and pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and that this in turn could impact student admissions. I am keen to know what actions you are taking to ensure that the already disadvantaged are not further disadvantaged

Another perspective

Research Professional (RP) interviewed Daniel Zeichner, Labour MP for Cambridge and Chair of the Universities all party parliamentary group. The interview shows the human side of policies and politicians; the honesty around Labour’s tuition fee approach is refreshing too. Excerpts from comments in the RP interview:

“Universities are very different [from each other], and some of them are very, very vulnerable. Some rely very heavily on international student income and they must already be in a very difficult situation…the response from researchers and the whole academic community has been uplifting, with the wider public looking to expertise and knowledge for a route out of our difficulties.
Whether epidemiologists or clinicians, it has also shown the value of appreciating that there is no simple answer—evidence is patchy and has to be interpreted, questioned and contested. This is all part of the daily experience of the university and research community but is not always more widely understood.
As in so many parts of society, the crisis has highlighted longer-term problems that may now need to be addressed directly. Research funding was overly dependent on cross-subsidy from the lucrative international student market, while the unresolved long-term issues around student funding in general, and the market-based approach in particular, will have to be faced.”
Zeichner’s fear, he says, is that “some will use the crisis to try to reduce rather than widen access and participation—but that argument will be for when politics resumes as usual”.

When Daniel was pressed on whether Labour’s approach to no tuition fees was right he responded: “It seems that virtually every party has occupied every position on tuition fees at one point or another, which ought to allow us all off the hook slightly, because we’ve all been in all the various places,”

RP write:

He’s not far wrong—as this HEPI blogpost shows, in the past 16 years, the Labour Party has backed the tripling of undergraduate fees, supported a big cut in fees and is now backing the abolition of fees. The Conservative Party has shifted from opposing fees to tripling them while in power.
“Having said all that, you can’t start to pluck figures out of the air,” Zeichner says—adding that he was “never entirely convinced” that Labour’s 2015 pledge to cut tuition fees in England to £6,000 “was particularly evidence-based”.
“I think it was kind of splitting the difference. Once you start down that route, there comes a logic to say if you’re going to reduce fees a bit and replace them with extra public money, you might as well go the whole hog [and abolish fees altogether].”
Most important, he says, is not implementing a system that “goes back to universities being under-resourced”. “Given we are at the start of a four-and-a-half-year parliament, it may well be time to draw a line and, certainly for the Labour Party in opposition, to have another think about it…I would be perfectly happy to open it up again,” he adds.
“There does seem to be a growing sense that somehow too many people are going to university and it is not worth doing it. I really think that needs to be countered, because I still think the university experience in terms of social mobility is so incredibly powerful. In a rich country, we really ought not to be saying we can’t afford to do it anymore.”

Knowledge Exchange

Research England has confirmed that the KEF submission deadline has been delayed due to the disruption caused by the pandemic. Submissions are now expected to be made by Friday 16 October 2020. Research England blog on Wonkhe: Now is the time for knowledge exchange.

OfS and Research England have announced the 20 recipients of the £10 million knowledge exchange projects. The projects aim to identify the benefits to students who involve themselves in knowledge exchange activities and partnerships with businesses, engagement with communities, third sector organisations and professional training. Furthermore, to address issues of equality, diversity and inclusion within the KE activities. OfS say

students play a significant role in this [KE] activity by, for example, establishing start-ups and spin-off companies, and providing skills and expertise for businesses, public services and community groups through consultancy, internships and work placements.

The successful projects aim to explore a range of knowledge exchange activities, including free-to-access courses run in partnership with the NHS for mental health service users, start-ups in the creative industries, and pro bono, social impact-driven consultancy and venture capital services. Flexibility over the projects and timescales has been conferred to adjust for the impact of C-19.

Research

REF delays: UKRI have announced a short consultation on new deadlines for the REF. The consultation runs until 5^th May and at BU we will work with RDS on preparing a response. There are two key deadlines in play – the end of the impact assessment period (which may end up being 31^st December instead of 31^st July) and the submission deadline (which could be 31^st March next year).

Research funding

Meanwhile Chancellor Rishi Sunak continues to emphasise the Government’s focus on the levelling up agenda, and particularly how it might boost research and R&D spending levels.

“We remain very committed to the agenda that we set out before, which was about levelling up and spreading opportunity around this country,” he said. That agenda, including improvements in productivity and investing in infrastructure around the country “will only become more important as we exit from this crisis”.

The Research Professional article continues:

Graeme Reid, chair of science and research policy at University College London, said it should not be surprising if boosting R&D is high up in any post-Covid-19 budget. “After the banking crisis hit in 2008, the government protected research and innovation—while cutting many other areas of public spending—because it recognised that the UK had become a knowledge economy,” he said. “Now the levelling-up agenda depends on a combination of infrastructure investments that include the UK’s knowledge infrastructure.”
Diana Beech, a former adviser to three universities and science ministers, said: “It is noteworthy that we now have a government that is intent on being led by the science. Experts are not just back in fashion but at the front and centre of informing the direction of government policy. “For this public trust in experts to last, the science we need to be investing in now is a science which we know will deliver the tangible outcomes our society needs—in this case, vaccinations to fight the coronavirus and economic and social measures to minimise risk to people, supply chains, businesses and jobs.”

PhD students: UKRI have announced that UKRI funded PhD students who cannot continue their research due to C-19 will be allocated additional support funding to extend their study period by up to 6 months. UKRI have issued FAQs here.

R&D Tax Credits: HMRC has published statistics on Research and Development Tax Credits from Corporate Tax detailing the cost of tax credits and the type of companies claiming them.

Regional Inconsistencies in the Student Experience

HEPI published One for all or all four one? Does the UK have a single higher education sector?

The report draws on the Student Academic Experience Survey data from 2015 to 2019 comparing the experiences of students from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on seven areas: value, finance, wellbeing, accommodation, pedagogy, workload and regrets. Devolution has resulted in different policies, priorities and funding regimes. As expected, there are both similarities and differences. HEPI conclude:

it is also fair to conclude that more continues to unite than to divide higher education in the different parts of the UK. In other words, the concept of a single UK higher education sector has sustained despite increasing devolution and increasingly divergent policies in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. This is in line with the concept of higher education as an endeavour that crosses political boundaries.

Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI and the author of the report, said:

‘Students in England seem to work less hard than those elsewhere in the UK. Students in Scotland have more positive perceptions about the value of their course and are more likely to believe higher education should be free. Meanwhile, students in Wales tend to think more positively about their academics and students in Northern Ireland are more content, with higher levels of wellbeing. Many of our results are surprising. Policymakers in England have often tried to portray high tuition fees as offering more student choice and a better student experience. Policymakers in other parts of the UK have tended to regard lower student debts as a way to improve student wellbeing. Both these claims are pooh-poohed by the results from students themselves. Nonetheless, it is easy to exaggerate the scale of any differences. The most important finding overall is that any differences in the student experience in different parts of the UK are fairly modest. Despite increasing devolution and increasingly divergent policies, there is still more that unites higher education institutions across the UK than divides them. The current Covid-19 crisis is bringing this home, as higher education institutions across the UK are all facing the same new challenges.’

Social Mobility

The Sutton Trust published a report: Social mobility and covid-19 – Implications of the Covid-19 crisis for educational inequality examining the future challenges to the C-19 generation.

In their weekly newsletter NEON stated outreach projects are suffering as a result of the pandemic [with] The majority of organisations… trying to make the move to replace face to face activities with online resources and sessions.

HEPI have a guest blog: Navigating the aspiration trap: white working-class students and widening access to higher education. PhD Student Alex Blower, with a background in outreach, criticises the aspiration deficit model and argues for more nuance in tackling the white working class access gap.

Wonkhe report:

The UPP Foundation has invested £100,000 in five university-led projects to tackle pressing issues in access to and progression from higher education. Project commencement will be delayed during the lockdown, but projects were approved prior to the current emergency. Wonkhe have a blog on one of the 5 funded projects. Richard Brabner, Director of the UPP Foundation, said: “These projects to support and develop our communities are more important than ever in light of the developing Covid-19 crisis. We will be working closely with the grant recipients to support them during these exceptionally challenging times, and to help implement their projects once it becomes safe to do so.” Research Professional has a little more coverage

Youth unemployment: Impetus and the Youth Futures Foundation have published a report on youth unemployment and the profile of those young people struggling to access the labour market. It shows that those most likely to be out of work and education are some of the most vulnerable young people, and that the headline numbers overlook some pressing issues such as underemployment. The report also predicts that – even without the covid-19 pandemic – the numbers of young people affected were likely to rise, given economic, demographic and social changes. Excerpts:

Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and particular ethnic minorities are disproportionately likely to be NEET or underemployed than their peers. The most common reasons given for not being able to look for work are caring responsibilities or health problems.
Having been eligible for Free School Meals in Year 11 increases a young person’s chances of being NEET later on by 50%.

Recommendations:

Effective engagement: Using magnets, including cultural magnets such as music, sports or arts; and financial magnets for example cash vouchers, to ensure that provision looks different to compulsory education and encourages take up
Delivery of personalised support packages: Including options for employability skills, job search skills, work experience

Graduate Employment

The likelihood of a squeezed job market and economic recession as a result of the worldwide pandemic has been regularly reported. Many parallels have been drawn to the 2008 graduation cohort who struggled to access graduate level employment, and often for a greater duration than other cohorts. Research Professional discuss a similar concern for the coronavirus cohorts. Here are the key points in relation to the call to provide tuition fee relief for the graduating cohort:

An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that this year’s graduates are likely to face a squeezed job market as the coronavirus pandemic causes “a huge economic downturn”, leading graduate employers to shut their doors. But this does not mean that the government should cut the debt owed on graduation.
According to the IFS analysis, published on 18 April, those who graduate during recessions are more likely to end up in non-graduate work than those leaving university in better years, and they are more likely to earn less or be out of work in the first few years after graduation.
Due to the expected scale of this year’s downturn, the IFS said those graduating in 2020 might have “an especially hard time” and it could take up to 10 years for their earnings to recover. Although graduate earnings fell by around 20 per cent after the financial crash between 2008 and 2013, the IFS said those graduating this year would find it even harder to secure “well-paid employment” and that a hit to their earnings could last “for a considerable period of time”.
However, the financial think tank warned that that waiving or reducing some tuition fee debt for theses graduates would not be an “appropriate response” as repayment levels are linked to salaries, and a fee reduction would therefore benefit top earners the most. (Source: Research Professional.)

The Guardian has an article describing how large graduate employers are ceasing graduate recruitment programmes and internship opportunities.

NUS Student Safety Net call

The NUS are calling for a student hardship fund and the option for students to retake or be reimbursed for the academic year. A recent student survey conducted by the NUS found that 81% of students are worried about their future job prospects and 95% are concerned about the impact of Covid-19 on the economy.

33% of students are at critical risk of being unable to access their education;
74% are worried about the risk to their final qualifications;
Up to 85% of working students may need additional financial support as incomes drop;
71% worried about the impact the pandemic will have on their employability

NUS Recommendations:

A UK Government £60 million national hardship fund, accessible to all students who are currently in further and higher education. The Scottish government has led the way on this, NUS Scotland is calling for this support to be available to all students, including international students.
An economic package for those who complete their qualifications during the current pandemic, providing access to a grant which can be used for training, reskilling or development.
The option for every student, in every part of education, to redo this year at no further cost, with full maintenance support, while ensuring those returning to education next year receive high-quality education, training and support
Reimbursement of one year’s course, college or tuition fees for students who have paid upfront, or a write-off of one year’s debt for those who have paid through loans.

Speaking at NUS’ Student Safety Net campaign launch, Zamzam Ibrahim, NUS National President, said:

We urgently need a student safety net for all students across the UK. Coronavirus has hit thousands of students in the pocket and severely affected the quality of their learning. The current crisis has shown that students occupy the worst of all possible worlds – with the majority paying extortionate fees for their education and are treated as consumers but are left out in the cold when the product cannot be delivered as described. On top of this, thousands of trainee ‘key workers,’ such as healthcare students, are currently racking up debt whilst having their education disrupted or volunteering to fight coronavirus on the frontline. Student maintenance support is inadequate, and the government has failed to address the various cost of living crises for students in everything from housing to transport to course costs.
Face-to-face teaching and assessments have had to be hurriedly moved online, and placement and other practical activity has had to be cancelled. Students have lacked access to key resources, such as libraries and spaces, disabled students have been left unsupported, and students and staff have been struggling with other demands on their finances, welfare and wider lives as lockdown restrictions are enforced. The impact of this disruption will not be felt equally, with those on placements and disabled students feeling the impact particularly severely. Students are being forgotten during the Covid-19 pandemic. We are the future workforce that will have to help to rebuild our economy over the coming years. Students must not be forgotten. A Student Safety Net will demonstrate that this government cares about the students of today and recognises the role of all students in our future.

Media coverage: TES, BBC, Guardian

And a couple of relevant parliamentary questions:

Q – Catherine West: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether he has had discussions with the university sector on the potential for rent refunds for students leaving campuses following the suspension of teaching as a result of the covid-19 outbreak. [33720]

AND, similarly

Q – Rosie Duffield: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will provide financial support to universities to establish hardship funds for students residing in (a) private rented and (b) university accommodation. [35031]

A – Michelle Donelan:

The Department for Education has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available. (Same ‘answer’ for both questions.)

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

New consultations and inquiries this week:

Ofquallaunched a consultation on the proposed exceptional arrangements for GCSE, AS and A level exams.
The DCMS select committee have opened an inquiry into the Impact of COVID-19 on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Sectors.

Other news

Nursing student debt: Over Easter 80+ Labour MPs petitioned Matt Hancock requesting that student nurse debts be cancelled. Media Coverage: Mail, Nursing Times, and ITV News. The Guardian has a more recent piece including student comment.

Home productivity: And in non-policy news Ipsos Mori have a poll highlighting how Britons are occupying themselves at home during lockdown.

Surveillance: In a new online survey by Ipsos MORI, a majority of the public say they would support the use of mobile phone roaming data for surveillance by the Government in a range of ways to help limit the effect of coronavirus.

65% of responders support tracking those diagnosed with Coronavirus and those they’ve been in close contact with (16% opposed).
58% support surveillance for the Government to track whether the public overall are following social distancing and lockdown rulings – as to penalise those who are not (29% opposed).
51% support tracking for the Government to determine how many British citizens are currently abroad to help bring them home (22% opposed).

Coronavirus cost: The Centre for Policy Studies has published The Costs of Coronavirus estimating that government borrowing could hit £301 billion this year as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak. Page 2 has a neat table of how this adds up. The estimated total is nearly double the cost of public expenditure on health (£153bn in 2018-19). The cost estimations do factor in any bailout figures for HE institutions.

OfS business plan delayed: The OfS is revising their 2020-21 business plan to adjust for the impact of C-19. They intend to continue activity that was already planned whilst prioritising work relating to the current crisis. The business plan was due to be published during April 2020 however OfS have confirmed they will release the revised plan once they have a better sense of the scale of the disruption caused by the outbreak, and the timeline for the pandemic to pass.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

April 8, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 8th April 2020

Business Engagement, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, NHS jforster

Well, what a week! Lockdown hasn’t reduced the volume of content, analysis and comment out there (although there is a bit of a theme). Welcome to your fully stuffed policy update which contains more goodies than the average panic buyer’s larder (we know, that is such an outdated concept already). Exams, grades and admissions remain a key focus for the sector, Parliament plan to embrace virtual working, there are some fab opportunities for researchers and we’ve a new Labour leader and Shadow Cabinet.

Good news

One good thing to come out of all this is that the role that universities can play in contributing to wider societal issues is being highlighted – not that it will make much difference to perceptions long term, but it’s nice to share good news. Take a look at the UUK website for more information on their #wearetogether campaign. There’s more on the BU website about our own efforts, and the BU news team are looking for more stories so let them know what you are up to.

Parliamentary Business

Virtual Parliament – There is a push for Parliament to operate virtually in a formal capacity during the Coronavirus lockdown. This is challenging because, as we mentioned in the policy update two weeks ago, Parliament has terrible facilities for this. However, Labour’s shadow minister for innovation, Chi Onwurah, sums it up: “People up and down the country have made huge behavioural changes in a matter of days and we must show we are capable of it too”.

Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle and Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg have both given their backing to the virtual Parliament proposals from 21 April (the end of recess). The plan is for certain types of important business to be conducted virtually. Lindsay Hoyle writes:

Parliament’s role of scrutinising government, authorising spending and making laws must be fulfilled and in these unprecedented times that means considering every technological solution available. We are exploring options with the parliamentary authorities in readiness for parliament’s return… Once the house returns, if we are still in the grip of the crisis where the physical presence of members, or too many members, in the palace is not appropriate, I am keen that they should be able to participate in key parliamentary proceedings virtually, for example oral questions, urgent questions, statements.

Some select Committees are already operating virtually (you can read the key points from the Education Committee’s session later in this policy update).

In addition, the Speaker is urging the Government to set up a forum of Ministers and senior Government representatives during recess for MPs to ask questions at set times on different days ‘about how things work and how they can be improved’. Hoyle writes: MPs are being swamped right now with questions and case work from distressed constituents who need answers…Responses cannot wait for the House to sit again.

Acting leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey is calling for a specialist select committee focusing on Covid-19. He stated:

If it wasn’t a dangerous infectious virus but a major emergency, parliament would have been recalled. We wouldn’t have gone on recess. …We think scrutiny is good for government policy. We’ve shown opposition parties are prepared to behave responsibly. I think we can find a way to get things cracking and get an online virtual parliament to serve the nation.

The Guardian report on the virtual parliament here.

PM powers – ICYMI Prime Minister Boris is in hospital and has designated Dominic Raab (Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State) to deputise “where necessary”. The UK’s unwritten constitution does not provide a clear outline of what the situation now allows, but as Cabinet takes collective decisions it is understood that Raab will be the first amongst equals. It is unlikely Raab will be afforded the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister, such as the ability to conduct reshuffles or take significant security decisions. However, there isn’t a clear outline of Raab’s new responsibilities nor the limits he has been given by the Government. The decision on whether or not to extend or end the lockdown is due to be taken next week, but it is likely this will be deferred or made by Cabinet collectively if the Prime Minister is incapacitated. In extreme circumstances, it would be expected that the Queen would ask Raab to form a government on a permanent or interim basis.

On Raab Dr Catherine Haddon, from the Institute for Government, said the situation remains uncertain and that some powers could be distributed to a number of Cabinet ministers – “the power would derive from the prime minister saying who he wants ministries to respond to“.

Labour Leader & Shadow Cabinet – Keir Starmer was elected the leader of the Labour Party in the first round, of voting. He won 56.2% of first preference vote (more actual votes than Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, although a smaller overall percentage of the total). He also won the majority of votes across all three groups – MPs, affiliates and party members. Rebecca Long-Bailey took 27.6% of the vote share and Lisa Nandy 16.2%. On Keir Research Professional say: His grass-roots mandate is significant—and is coupled with a shift away from Corbyn loyalists on the party’s national executive committee.

The new leader pledged to work constructively with the Government whilst holding them to account:

Under my leadership we will engage constructively with the government, not opposition for opposition’s sake. Not scoring party political points or making impossible demands. But with the courage to support where that’s the right thing to do…We will shine a torch on critical issues and where we see mistakes or faltering government or things not happening as quickly as they should we’ll challenge that and call that out.

Here is the full Shadow Cabinet Line up:

Leader of the Opposition: Keir Starmer
Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party: Angela Rayner, elected in the third round of voting with 52.6% of the vote.
Shadow Chancellor: Anneliese Dodds
Shadow Education: Rebecca Long-Bailey
Shadow Home Secretary: Nick Thomas-Symonds
Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: Jonathan Ashworth (incumbent)
Shadow Foreign Secretary: Lisa Nandy
Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Rachel Reeves
Chief Whip: Nick Brown
Shadow Justice: David Lammy
Shadow Defence: John Healey
Shadow Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy: Ed Miliband
Shadow International Trade: Emily Thornberry
Shadow Work and Pensions: Jonathan Reynolds
Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: Jo Stevens
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Bridget Philipson
Shadow DEFRA (Environment, Food & Rural Affairs): Luke Pollard
Shadow Communities and Local Government: Steve Reed
Shadow Housing: Thangam Debbonaire
Shadow Transport: Jim McMahon
Shadow International Development: Preet Kaur Gill
Shadow Women and Equalities: Marsha de Cordova
Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary: Andy McDonald
Shadow Minister for Mental Health: Rosena Allin-Khan
Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement: Cat Smith
Shadow Attorney General: Lord Falconer
Shadow Leader of the House: Valerie Vaz
Shadow Northern Ireland (interim): Louise Haigh
Shadow Scotland: Ian Murray
Shadow Wales: Nia Griffith Shadow
Leader of the Lords: Baroness Angela Smith (incumbent)
Lords’ Opposition Chief Whip: Lord McAvoy

Shadow Secretary of State for Education – Rebecca Long Bailey has the Shadow Secretary of State for Education brief replacing Angela Rayner. Rebecca has held Shadow Ministerial posts for almost all of her parliamentary tenure. This gives us little evidence from which to judge her opinions and intents for Education. Dods have pulled together snippets from her parliamentary career when she has spoken out on Education matters.

Universities: That brings me to local industrial policy. Labour has been clear on the need for a national industrial strategy, but we are also clear about the need to be regionally powerful and distinctive, with the resources to match, and to build on the already world-class universities and businesses in our regions and nations (2018)

Further Education: Businesses also need a highly skilled workforce, but the Government have cut real-terms school funding, scrapped the education maintenance allowance and imposed huge cuts to further education funding over the past seven years (2017)

Schools: We have rampant regional inequality, hunger in schools and public services pushed to breaking point by a policy that even the Chancellor now admits was a political choice all along—the choice of austerity (2020)

Technical and Adult Education: Key policies include establishing a technical education system, investing £406 million in maths, digital and technical education, and creating a national retraining scheme with an investment of £64 million. Again, the intent is good, but let us remember that the Government cut £1.15 billion from the adult skills budget from 2010 to 2015. Similarly, on first analysis the £406 million appears to be the sum of the amounts the Government have already spent on maths, computing and digital skills (2017 budget debate)

T levels: Some of the Government’s commitments are welcome, including the national retraining scheme and the T-levels that she has just mentioned, but sadly they are meaningless in the context of the cuts that we have faced over recent years (2018)

Research Professional have this to say on Rebecca’s expected approach to the universities brief:

…for the foreseeable future Long-Bailey will double down on the Corbynite legacy of the National Education Service. Starmer committed during the election campaign to retaining the party’s pledge on the abolition of university tuition fees.
With Angela Rayner—former shadow education secretary—as chair of the Labour Party and now having a considerable say in policy formation, the National Education Service is probably safe for now. The problem with it as a policy is that it manages to be simultaneously expensive and vague, without cutting through to the public.
The appointment of Long-Bailey as shadow education spokesperson is perhaps indicative of how Starmer views the brief. It is not a priority for now and is a safe holding pen for the thwarted aspirations of those still loyal to the Corbyn project.
Long-Bailey will find an appreciative audience among many within the University and College Union, which Corbyn’s Labour Party leaned on heavily to outsource thinking about universities. However, others in the union will regret that the choice of shadow education secretary will make it harder, not easier, to move on from past impasses.
Playbook would be very surprised if Long-Bailey made it to the next election still in the education role. It is standard practice for a party leader to appoint their recent rivals to sit around their first cabinet table, only to rotate them out in the fullness of time.

HE Connections – Labour does have substantial academic and HE connections within its elected representatives. The shadow chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, was a lecturer in public policy at King’s College London and Aston University before becoming an MP. Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, was a history and politics lecturer at Oxford. Rupa Huq was a lecturer at Kingston University. Shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy, was the Universities Minister under Gordon Brown’s Government. Robert Zeichner, who doesn’t have a ministerial brief in the reshuffle, is the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Universities. Lastly, Paul Blomfield worked with then Universities Minister Jo Johnson to amend the post-work visa system for international students.

Exams, Grades & Admissions

GCSE & A Level – The Government released their grading system for GCSE and A level exams at the end of last week. Alistair Jarvis, UUK Chief Executive, commented:

No aspiring student should be disadvantaged because of the current Covid-19 outbreak and this is welcome progress towards ensuring students and universities alike can take confidence in the way A-levels are awarded this year. It is clear that a robust process will be in place that takes account of a wide range of information about a student and their performance throughout the course of their current study, and that standardised judgements and an agreed methodology will ensure consistency and fairness. We are committed to supporting Ofqual as they continue to develop their precise methodology.
To provide additional reassurance to students, it is important to note that universities will also have the power to be flexible in taking an applicants’ context into account as part of the admissions process.

On students dissatisfied with their grades who will opt to take the autumn exam Independent Schools Council Chairman, Barnaby Lenon, said: We hope that universities will show flexibility to ensure that students who take this option are able to begin their course with a delayed start time.

Clare Marchant, UCAS’ Chief Executive, said:

It’s essential for their future education and careers that students receive a set of fair and justifiable examination results. The processes outlined by Ofqual today will do exactly that. The best available evidence in the extraordinary circumstances we are all in will be used to calculate regulated grades that will stay with students for years to come. For those applying to higher education, we expect them to be treated fairly and consistently, and universities and colleges to consider these grades in the same way as any qualifications from previous years.

On Tuesday Wonkhe reported that A poll by the Student Room found that nearly two-thirds of GCSE and A level students in the 700-person sample answered “no” to the question “Do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?”. Tes has the story.

Wonkhe discuss HE uncertainties for admissions colleagues from the proposed grading:

we don’t know when the 2020 A level results will be available, which is a big deal for universities and those applying to them. This year’s grades will be predicted by teachers and normalised by a nationally applied formula – meaning that taken together, results will look very similar to those from previous years. While this feels fair, there are risks that high-achieving students in historically low-achieving schools may be disadvantaged.
A level grades are predicted every year, of course, as a part of the UCAS application process. We are familiar with the weaknesses of those predictions and, in many ways, compensate with these in offer-making and admissions behaviour. With offer-making still furloughed for the time being, it remains to be seen if these same mitigations will work against newer, normalised, predications as the end point – or how many students will want to take the opportunity to sit an exam later in the year.
Universities will understandably want to think through how to proceed with admissions in the way that supports good decision making, and is as fair as possible.

The blog We can make admissions work without A levels explores:

a model that dataHE has developed to support admissions on the basis of predicted grades. Though predicted grades are less accurate than exam results, this matters less this year, because there won’t be any exam results. Importantly, since predicted grades were assigned before exams were cancelled, they have roughly the same amount of bias baked in as in any normal year. That makes it possible to use them – carefully, and in an evidenced way – to build a model of exam-awarded grades on which to base admissions decisions.

Wonkhe’s data expert David Kernohan has a blog setting the current situation in context with the wider practice of predicting grades.

And there is another on Changing student recruitment in light of Covid-19.

HE Exams – Wonkhe report that QAA will publish new guidance this week:

on academic standards and student achievement alongside a section on practice and lab-based assessment during the Covid-19 crisis. These materials offer examples from providers around the sector alongside principles-based planning – there are detailed proposals for digital assessment alongside suggestions for student support.
The general guidance covers modifications to academic regulations (emergency academic regulations), gathering details of local circumstances from students and applying mitigations accordingly, arrangements for progression with reduced academic credit (apparently OfS guidance is on the way here), and assessment boards.

As many universities have already worked out, or made good progress in working out what they are going to do in this area, this is a bit late, really.

There is also a blog by Douglas Blackstock, Chief Executive of QAA, on Wonkhe describing how QAA is helping universities and PSRBs (Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies) accredit students as meeting the requirements to practice within their field.

Surveys – It was inevitable that potential HE students would be surveyed to death and asked about their concerns and whether they intend to continue with their plans to commence HE. The UCAS poll (sample size – 500 students) states the 86% intend to continue on to HE despite the pandemic disruption. 60% have selected their first choice place. 27% are waiting before they confirm their firm choice of institution. UCAS also report that over half (51%) of respondents feel supported at the moment, but want more help. While 37% said felt fully supported now, this is higher amongst white applicants (40%) and lower amongst BAME applicants (29%).

Research Professional (RP) cover the survey and mention the uncertainty surrounding when the next academic year will commence. Humorously, RP remind us that After months cooped up at home with their parents, it’s understandable—and their hopes [to attend HE] might be the only thing keeping us all going.

TES also cover the UCAS poll results.

HEPI have a wider poll, we’ve covered this separately below due to the volume of detail. However, they find that a third of applicants feel less confident they will get into their chosen university since the pandemic.

The Times reports on a QS survey in Universities face crushing blow as overseas students stay away. QS surveyed 11,000 prospective international students (only 4,600 intended to study in UK). 55% stated their plans to commence study in the UK in September 2020 had changed. 32% were still deciding and 14% were determined to go ahead despite disruption and potentially online learning. The Times article states: Our higher education sector will be crucial to the post-crisis recovery, so it is vital that the UK remains a welcoming place for people from across the world, including from China.

International Admissions – HESA released HE sector finance data on Friday and Wonkhe have produced a series of tableau tables showing where institutions sit against the variables. There is an interesting table highlighting the providers with the highest international student incomes (those who may be hit hardest if the predicted downturn in international students for September 2020 intake is realised). Predictably UCL and other London institutions congregate at the top. However, the table can be filtered down to other regions and exclude PG or UG or full/part time provision. You may also be interested in the key financial indicators table, again filterable by different measures of financial health and stability.

The Times and the Telegraph also cover the data release.

Unconditional Offers – Moratorium Extended

Universities Minister Michelle Donelan has extended the moratorium preventing universities from making unconditional offers until 20 April.

Research Professional (RP) say: The Department for Education seems to have rejected the argument that making unconditional offers to prospective students following the cancellation of A levels would be in the interest of stressed and concerned applicants.

RP report in the same piece that Donelan states: I know many students will be anxious at this unprecedented time and worried about what it means for their future..My top priorities are to both reassure students and protect our world-leading higher education sector. That is why I am calling for an extension to the pause on changes to university offers, and I urge universities to adhere to this so we ensure long-term stability across the admissions system.

The OfS are supporting the Minister by exploring the use of regulatory powers to take enforcement action against universities and colleges not acting in the best interests of students or undermining the stability and integrity of the higher education sector—including – considering options for enforcement during the moratorium period. And: Universities and colleges must also ensure that their admissions processes work effectively to identify applicants with the potential to succeed, particularly where those applicants have experienced barriers and disruption on their route to higher education.

RP conclude: The Department for Education has been rattling its sabre over admissions and the regulator has threatened fines. But autonomous university admissions are guaranteed by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. When push comes to shove, the government might find that there is not much more it can do beyond expressing censure.

Fighting talk certainly, but a later RP blog with content from HE Legal expert Smita Jamdar and Nick Hillman (HEPI) considers the grey areas. The blog is well worth the quick read.

The Times has a related article: Fines for universities using low offers to ‘poach’ students from rivals. In the article they report the OfS as stating it would be looking closely at the financial stability of universities over the next few weeks: “Clearly coronavirus will have a significant impact on universities. One of our main areas of focus in the coming months will be to support the financial sustainability of the higher education sector in England.”

RP were quick to point out The Office for Students has always insisted that it will not bail out universities that are failing. The next few years could test that to the limit. There is also a RP piece on the reduced regulatory load the OfS is requiring of HE institutions during the current crisis: OfS freezes normal regulatory requirements during pandemic and here are the details of the suspended requirements from the OfS website.

OfS

The OfS has been busy. First, they supported the Minister in the extension of the moratorium (above) and pledged to crack down on any wizard wheezes that universities had found around the request. They’ve also reduced the standard regulatory requirements so universities can focus on the most pressing operational issues caused by C-19.

Next they issued guidance for universities on quality and standards of learning and academic assessment during the pandemic. And accompanied it by an introductory descriptive blog: Maintain good courses and credible qualifications for students during pandemic, says regulator urging flexibility, reasonable adjustments, teaching and support on a relative par to ‘normal’, clear communications to students to keep them informed and setting out what the OfS considers examples of effective practice from across the higher education sector.

HEPI Student Survey

HEPI polled 1,000 full-time UG students and 500 HE applicants to explore how the Covid-19 pandemic is affecting them.

Current Students on Assessment

70% of students feel the messaging from their HEI on Coronavirus has been either ‘clear’ or ‘very clear’
36% think the current crisis should lead to their assessments for the rest of the year being cancelled
42% expect universities to continue assessments online but 17% would prefer for the assessments to be postponed until after the crisis.
A greater proportion of first year students (44%) thought assessments should be cancelled, compared to second year students (32%) or students in their third year (31%).
Just under half of students (49%) are satisfied with the online learning that has replaced their face-to-face teaching; 23% of students are dissatisfied.
The majority (55%) of students are living away from their normal term-time residence as a result of the Coronavirus crisis. However, another 45% of respondents said they are still living in their term-time residence.

Applicants

29% of applicants are concerned about whether they’ll get a place at their chosen university (the overall picture is interesting – see later chart).
46% expect their predicted grades to reflect their final grade, whereas 27% think their predicted grades are worse than their final grades would have been.
79% of applicants stated the pandemic has not had any impact on which university will be their first choice. Only 7% plan to change their first-choice university and another 14% are undecided.
53% of applicants feel the messaging they have received on Coronavirus from their prospective universities has been clear.

Rachel Hewitt, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Higher Education Policy Institute, said:

These results show universities are supporting students and applicants well through these challenging times. Despite having to scale up online provision very quickly, few students are dissatisfied with the offering from their institution. Both applicants and students feel they have had clear information around the pandemic. On admissions, it is clear applicants need greater certainty about what will happen to their university places. It is essential this group, who have already lost out on the end of their school experience, are not disadvantaged from getting into the university of their choice. The data shows this is a concern for a significant minority of applicants. Despite all the uncertainty, much remains the same. Two-thirds of students still want the opportunity to complete their assessments from afar. The majority of applicants still intend to go to the same university as before the crisis. What’s more, many students are still living in their term-time residence, meaning they may be reliant on the support of their university and accommodation providers.

Dods say:

Whilst the poll suggests that the pandemic has had a limited impact on students consideration of their first choice institution, there is concern that the combination of cancelled exams, the absence of university open days and the potential that the UK could still be moving in and out of phased social distancing measures, could have an impact on the number of students choosing to defer their entry to higher education by twelve months. For universities, the financial impact of a decline in international students, coupled with the cancellation of potentially lucrative conferencing opportunities over the summer, could be further exacerbated by a fall in domestic uptake. Given the lack of control over how students are distributed across institutions and subjects, a decline could result in some providers significantly under recruiting. As such, calls have emerged for the Government to mitigate against volatility in the market by exercising control over student numbers. This could be achieved via statutory instrument under the emergency Coronavirus Bill.

Education Committee – Disadvantage

The Education Committee has published a summary of their 25 March private meeting (with the DfE as part of the inquiry investigating the impact of COVID-19 on education and children’s services). The meeting tackled the impact of school closures on the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their wealthier peers.

DfE expects schools to do all they can to ensure lessons continue online or via other means, and that learning should continue. Schools to remain open for the most vulnerable but acknowledged that the effect of school closures on vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils was a concern.
DfE expect the system to act flexibly to support vulnerable children. Local Authorities should work with schools and the sector to ensure children with an education, health and care (EHC) plan or social worker are supported and there is appropriate oversight of children remaining at home.
Children’s services, already under significant financial pressures, will be given additional resources – an additional non-ringfenced £1.6 billion has been allocated to support councils on areas including social care. The Department said that Clause 5 of the Coronavirus Bill would allow the emergency registration of social workers, to tackle the strain on social care.
On concerns where the key worker status is being interpreted differently by schools, parents and employers – DfE stated that if a school refuses to take a child of a key worker as defined by the Department, the parent should raise this with their local authority in the first instance. Initial feedback from schools is that the number of key workers sending children to school is lower than expected.
On whether the DfE will undertake longer-term work on the public health implications of exam cancellations on young people (for example, the possibility of increased rates of drug and alcohol abuse). They answer was no, that the DfE expect young people not at school to continue their education at home and would not commit to undertaking work on public health implications.
Support for further education (FE) colleges and their students – The number of eligible students taking advantage of provision is very low, and there was already substantial online learning in place for 16-18-year-olds. The DfE said it was working with exam boards on advice and guidance on qualifications. They said this was complicated because of the number of types of qualifications there are for this phase.
Support for independent training providers – the DfE stated that as ITPs operate as businesses, they can access the support for businesses that the Treasury has announced. The Department explained that they will not pay for training activity that is not taking place, and encouraged providers to consider greater use of online and remote learning to allow their business activities to continue.

Access & Participation

Graeme Atherton, Director of NEON, writes for Research Professional, No closed doors, summarising the threats facing disadvantaged access to HE as a result of the current Covid-19 crisis. Graeme points to the cancellation of the Aim Higher outreach programme after the 2008 financial crash and issues a plea for the recent progress reducing the access gap and the new, stretching, access and participation targets set by universities with the OfS not to be lost.

Jonathan Simons, Director of Education at Public First, blogs for Wonkhe: We must not abandon widening participation this year following a similar line to Graeme and urging the section to retreat on equality work.

The Telegraph has an article suggesting that undergraduates should be drafted into a national service to boost social mobility by acting as English and Maths tutors for underprivileged children at local schools.

The OfS has a provider guide to coronavirus with a Q&A section. Commenting on the Q&A content Wonkhe suggest that providers are expected to deliver their full access and participation plans. In assessment the regulator will take into account the efforts and suitable modifications each university has made.

There is a HEPI blog tackling concerns over How to square widening participation with student number caps: Student number caps are normally a bad idea. But we don’t live in normal times. If needs must, a one-off cap might be a necessary measure to whack a particularly problematic mole. But we need to make sure that, in implementing it, we don’t hit disadvantaged applicants too.

The Sutton Trust has a report on this too looking at the implications for social mobility and setting out priority areas:

Widening access to private and online tuition, both during and after the school closures, in order to minimise the impact on the attainment gap.
Ensuring access to technology and online resources for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds while schools are closed.
Fair access to higher education, and making sure this year’s changes to A levels and the admissions process do not impact negatively on the prospects of young people from less welloff backgrounds
Protecting apprenticeships, making sure that current apprentices are protected financially, and trying to ensure that the apprenticeship system is ready to bounce back when restrictions are lifted.

Allied Health Profession students – paid jobs during COVID-19 outbreak.

Health Education England (HEE) is asking universities to contact their eligible Allied Health Professional (AHP) students to discuss their options for using their education programme to help with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I.e. if they would like to opt-in to undertake a paid NHS role.

HEE state the options vary depending on the student’s stage of study and that HEE has worked collaboratively with the HCPC, professional bodies, Royal Colleges, Council of Deans of Health, Government departments of the four nations, NHS Employers and staff side representatives to consider how best to support AHP students to continue their studies and where appropriate use their skills and expertise to support the health and care system during this time of emergency in the safest possible way.

Emergency legislation was also passed by the UK Government earlier in March, giving the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) powers to automatically register former Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) who had de-registered in the last three years and final year AHP students on UK approved programmes who have successfully completed their final clinical placements.

Beverley Harden, Associate Director for Education & Quality at Health Education England, said;

We are continuing to develop proposals to provide safe and beneficial opportunities for our AHP students that allows them to keep developing their skills while supporting the NHS at this difficult time. I would like all students to read Suzanne’s and my letter to them, and for those eligible to consider voluntary opting-in to help in the COVID-19 response alongside their registered AHP colleagues.
AHP students, during the course of their education and training all spend a large percentage of their time working in clinical environments, learning alongside qualified staff to develop into the outstanding professionals we need.
You will be given the option to opt-in to a voluntary revised programme structure whereby students can spend, for example, a maximum of 60% of their time in a support worker role, which would be remunerated, and a minimum of 40% of their time in academic study. The exact nature of the role to be undertaken and the level of supervision will be agreed between you, your university and the organisation in which you will be working in. These roles may be able to be used to support achievement of required practice hours; your university will determine if this is the case.

Research

REF – Kim Hackett, REF Director at Research England writes for Wonkhe on the uncertainty surrounding the REF submission deadlines. The blog reiterates when the clock does start again that institutions will have at least 8 months notice to submit, that they are keen to discussion options with Universities as soon as possible when the disruption associated with the C-19 timescales are better understood.

Unless we’re looking at a very considerable delay, the funding bodies do not intend to alter significantly the period being assessed in REF 2021. So the issue around the existing deadlines is really one around determining what the best approach will be to ensuring the exercise can take account of affected areas of submissions.

On consulting with the sector:

We’ve paused the REF because universities have other priorities right now. So we can’t fill that with lengthy consultation documents and expectations of similarly lengthy responses. We’ll also need to approach the issues in a phased way, balancing the urgency of the question with how well it can be answered in the current context. That means we’ll be looking to get input on the deadline for impact and environment first.
The overarching timetable for developing the revised framework is not fixed – and it has to be this way, so that we can stay responsive while so much is still unknown. But our aim will be to ensure the exercise remains a level playing field, is fair in recognising the extent of impact this period has had, and is also able to capture the tremendous contribution UK research is making to this fight.

On the REF2021 site there is a blog by Anna Grey, York University – Stopping the REF clock – highlighting the changes within an institution and particularly how professional services are reducing the burden on academic colleagues and recognising fears relating to fixed term contracts roles.

Statistics – The Office for National Statistics published estimates of research and development performed and funded by business enterprise, higher education, government, research councils, and private non-profit organisations, for 2018. This is set within the Industrial Strategy target to increase Research & Development investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. Key figures:

Research and development (R&D) expenditure rose by £2.3 billion to £37.1 billion in 2018; this is an increase of 6.6%, which was larger than the 4.8% growth in 2017 and the largest annual rise since 2013.
Total R&D expenditure in the UK in 2018 represented 1.71% of GDP; this is up from 1.67% in 2017, but it remains below the EU (EU-28) provisional estimate of 2.12%.
Funding of UK R&D from overseas increased by 1.4% to £5.1 billion in 2018 compared with 2017, but this was 8.4% lower than the peak in 2014 of £5.5 billion.
The UK spent £558 per head of population on R&D in 2018; this is up from £527 in 2017.

Contribution of Each Sector:

In 2018, the business enterprise sector spent £25.0 billion on performing R&D, accounting for 68% of total UK expenditure. The sector grew by 5.8% from £23.7 billion in 2017, which was larger than the growth between 2016 and 2017 of 4.8%.
The product groups with the largest R&D expenditure in 2018 were: pharmaceuticals (£4.5 billion), motor vehicles and parts (£3.8 billion), computer programming and information service activities (excluding software development) (£1.9 billion), aerospace (£1.7 billion)
The higher education sector had the second highest R&D expenditure of £8.7 billion in 2018. This accounted for 24% of total UK R&D expenditure in 2018. However, this was up one percentage point from 23% in 2017.
Government (including UKRI) R&D increased by 11.5% to £2.5 billion. This accounted for 7% of total expenditure on R&D carried out in the UK in 2018.
UKRI R&D expenditure (excluding Research England) grew by 11.1% from £866 million reported by the seven research councils in 2017 to £962 million in 2018. This jump is in part a result of the new reporting structure established in 2018, which is inclusive of Innovate UK.
The Private-Not-For-Profit sector, (including, for example,several cancer charities that carry out extensive research, from cancer prevention to drug development and clinical trials), spent £0.8 billion, up 9.2% from 2017. This contributed 2% to total UK-performed R&D expenditure

Academics – POST

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology launched a Covid-19 Outbreak Expert Database as the lockdown began. It provides parliamentarians and civil servants with information on academic colleagues’ research specialisms to help them find the experts throughout the country whose wide-ranging work can be applied beneficially to the national context during these changed times. It is a fantastic opportunity for colleagues to obtain greater reach with their research and connect into networks that in the past relied on a ‘who you already know’ system. The database is live and accepting new entries. Please share this information with any academic colleagues you have contact with and encourage them to sign up – the categories are much wider than the Covid-19 context because the pandemic is touching on every aspect of life.

Survey Opportunity – POST also offer the opportunity for colleagues fill in a 15 minute survey sharing expert insights around the short, medium and long-term concerns and issues you perceive relating to COVID-19 and its impacts. The insights derived from the survey will be shared within Parliament and will be used to help inform the work of the POST. POST expect to publish anonymised responses and/or a public synthesis of these insights with a list of acknowledgements to experts who have contributed (no responses will be directly attributed to individuals). POST intend to analyse the first set of responses Tuesday 14 April. They may do a further round of analysis after this initial deadline if the responses warrant it. Colleagues need to be signed up to the Expert Database before they complete the survey.

Learn more – As colleagues will be aware policy impact can be an influential factor within REF gradings. POST support Parliament’s evidence base decision making agenda and aim to maximise engagement with academic research. MPs, Peers and parliamentary staff all use research in their work carrying out the functions of Parliament; scrutinising Government, debating important issues, passing legislation and representing the people. There is a video describing how Parliament uses expert research. And resources and general advice and information on how you can work with Parliament as a researcher here.

Best of all is that POST will be running free 90-minute webinars – Parliament for COVID-19 outbreak experts. The webinars will cover a brief overview of what Parliament is and does, and how it uses research. It will explore the different ways you might engage with Parliament through your research over the coming weeks and months – both in the context of COVID-19 and its impacts, and regarding other areas of research. And share tips around communicating with Parliamentarians and those who work to support them. Don’t be put off by the Covid-19 mention – the majority of the content is usually offered through a paid for traditional training session. This is an opportunity for colleagues to access the training for free and without travelling! Please do share and encourage research colleagues to sign up. We’ll let you know as soon as registration is open.

NUS

Wonkhe tell us about the new NUS executive team that was elected last Wednesday:

The National Union of Students (NUS) has published the results of its full-time officer elections, the first election held since last year’s reform. Only three full-time roles were available – national president, and vice presidents for further and higher education – and each officer will hold their role for two years, starting this July.

Larissa Kennedy, a former officer at Warwick SU and member of NUS’ National Executive Council, has won the election for NUS national president, promising to “build a movement that stretches across the whole of the UK, across students’ and trade unions across the world”. Kennedy is profiled in the Times.

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, undergraduate education officer at Bristol SU and Wonkhe contributor, has been elected vice president for higher education, advancing the view that “students should be at the centre of their education, not simply viewed as metrics in a market”.

The role of vice president for further education has gone to Salsabeel Elmegri, vice president of Bradford College SU, who says she will “ensure that tackling climate change, fighting for better mental health provisions and tackling harassment all top the agenda”. Elmegri has a profile in TES.

Student Concerns

Wonkhe report that MPs and Peers from every party in Parliament have called for action from the Government to address concerns of students on exams, accommodation costs and financial difficulties caused through the loss of earnings from casual employment. 110 MPs have signed a letter to Universities Minister Michelle Donelan calling for a flexible approach to assessment, refunds of rents on unoccupied accommodation, and a temporary suspension of the rule preventing students claiming universal credit. They argue that students should have the option to resit the year without further fees and with additional financial support. i News covers the letter to Donelan, and the Mail also reports the story.

And…yes you guessed it…yet another Wonkhe blog – Students need strong leadership and practical solutions from Government sets out practical advice to the Government on changes which would reduce the student struggle. The blog has some refreshing ideas.

The Guardian has an article where 5 students from A level to PhD make sense of the sudden change in their education.

Student Rent – In the Scottish parliament a proposed amendment to the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill that would have allowed students to bring their tenancies to an immediate end without having to fulfil notice requirements was defeated.

Disability

The Government has a news story announcing that the Cabinet Office’s Disability Unit is working with government colleagues, disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, charities and businesses to achieve practical changes that will remove barriers and increase participation. This work is tied to the National Strategy for Disabled People and is planned work rather than a response to C-19.

The Strategy aims to put fairness at the heart of government work, to level up opportunity so everyone can fully participate in the life of this country. The strategy will build on evidence and data, and critically on insights from the lived experience of disabled people. It will include existing commitments, such as to increase special educational needs and disability funding and support pupils, students and adults to get careers advice, internships and transition into work, whilst identifying further opportunities to improve things.

The press release sets out the following objectives for the National Strategy for Disabled People:

develop a positive and clear vision on disability which is owned right across government
make practical changes to policies which strengthen disabled people’s ability to participate fully in society
ensure lived experience underpins policies by identifying what matters most to disabled people
strengthen the ways in which we listen to disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, using these insights to drive real change
improve the quality of evidence and data and use it to support policies and how we deliver them

The strategy development has been delayed by the Coronavirus and the press release states we want to ensure we have enough time to get this right and undertake a full and appropriate programme of stakeholder engagement.

Parliamentary Questions

Q – Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department is taking to support universities during the covid-19 outbreak. [32182]

A – Michelle Donelan:

The higher education (HE) sector is facing challenges during these unprecedented times. The government’s priority is the safety and wellbeing of students and staff. On Friday 20 March, I wrote to HE providers to thank them for the huge amount of work they have done to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and to outline the steps that the department is taking to support them. On Thursday 26 March, I wrote a second letter to HE providers, giving further government advice on key issues.
We are ensuring that information-flows between the department and providers are as strong as possible. We are actively supporting the Universities UK-led Sector Coordination Group and providing guidance on GOV.UK relating to all educational settings. Working with the Office for Students (OfS), as the regulator in England, we will supplement this general guidance with more HE-specific information and have suspended a number of regulatory reporting requirements for the duration of the crisis, so providers can focus on doing their best for students.
We will do all we can to support our HE system. The department is working closely with the Home Office, the Student Loans Company, UCAS and Ofqual, as well as equivalent bodies in the devolved administrations, on measures designed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the HE sector. We are also working closely with the OfS to ensure that we understand the potential financial implications of COVID-19 on the sector and to keep abreast of developments.
The latest guidance for schools and other educational settings can be found here.

Q – Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what his policy is on universities charging accommodation fees for students while they are closed as a result of the covid-19 outbreak. [33432]

A – Michelle Donelan: We expect universities to communicate clearly with residential students on rents for this period and administer accommodation provision in a fair manner. I have written to vice-chancellors and set out this expectation to them.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

There are a number of inquiries which focus on the coronavirus context:

Home Office preparedness for Covid-19 (Coronavirus) – Commons Home Affairs Committee|Deadline for evidence submission 21/4/2020
The COVID-19 pandemic and international trade – Commons International Trade Committee|Deadline for evidence submission 24/4/2020
The impact of coronavirus on businesses and workers – Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee|Deadline for evidence submission 30/4/2020
Unequal impact: Coronavirus (Covid-19) and the impact on people with protected characteristics – Commons Women & Equalities Committee|Deadline for evidence submission 30/4/2020
The impact of COVID-19 on education and children’s services – Commons Education Committee|Deadline for evidence submission 31/5/2020
The Government’s response to COVID-19: human rights implications – Joint Human Rights Committee|Deadline for submission 22/7/2020
UK Science, Research and Technology Capability and Influence in Global Disease Outbreaks – Commons Science and Technology Committee|Deadline for submission 31/7/2020
COVID-19 and food supply – Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee|Deadline for submission 01/05/2020
What can we learn from the COVID-19 crisis about social connection with isolated groups? – APPG on Social Integration Inquiry | Deadline: 14 April 2020

These inquiries will be placed on the tracker if colleagues indicate they intend to submit a response.

Next Week

The Policy team are taking a few days off over the Easter break. We’ll return with the standard policy update on Wednesday 22 April. In the meantime if there is big news we’ll issue a short email to keep you abreast of developments.

Other news

Online Graduation: The Daily Mail describes how four students used robots to cross the stage and ‘attend’ their graduation ceremony in Tokyo.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

April 3, 2020

Coming soon – POST’s Parliamentary Academic Fellowship Scheme – Open Call

Amanda Edwards

Advance notice that the Parliamentary Academic Fellowship Scheme Open Call will be launching in June 2020, when expressions of interest will be sought.

Securing a prestigious fellowship with POST provides researchers with unique access to Parliament as well as direct potential for impact. It’s open to all employed academics with a PhD, and applicants propose their own project for Parliament to conduct. Click here for the complete timeline for applications, full details and testimonials from previous fellows.

If you’re interested, you will need to inform your Faculty Dean/Deputy Dean, to discuss potential sources of funding, and also let the policy team and your faculty impact officer know, so applications can be tracked, and support and guidance provided.

Look out for a post next week on this blog, with details of specific points to consider if you would like to take up this opportunity.

April 1, 2020

BU policy update for the w/e 1st April 2020

HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement jforster

HE news in the media has been dominated by talk of student number controls while the sector wrestles with decisions over student exams.

Parliamentary Business

Appointments

Alex Chisholm has been announced as the new Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and Chief Operating Officer for the Civil Service. Alex is currently serving as Permanent Secretary at the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, and was previously Chief Executive of the Competition & Markets Authority. He has also held senior executive positions in the media, technology and e-commerce industries, with Pearson plc, Financial Times Group, eCountries Inc and Ecceleration Ltd.

Minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, said:

In the medium term, much of Alex’s work will necessarily be coronavirus response related. But Alex will be responsible for supporting ministers to develop and then drive forward a reform programme for the Civil Service, building on the Government’s existing efficiency programme. He will also supervise all the Cabinet Office’s various work programmes including on preparing for the end of the transition period, strengthening the union, and defending our democracy.

Jeremy Pocklington has been appointed as the new Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Health Education England has announced that current interim Chief Nurse Mark Radford has been permanently appointed.

Student Number Controls

The major news since the last policy update is speculation over the potential return of student number controls to limit recruitment. It is suggested that capping numbers (limiting the number of students a university can take for a particular programme) would help stabilise the sector by preventing some universities from taking a higher number of UK students to fill places that would have been filled by international students, who may not come because of the virus.

Alongside the domestic young population dip hitting the lowest point this year (increasing competition between providers) Coronavirus also threatens the international student recruitment. With Government intimating that lockdown or lighter restrictions last between 3 and 6 months the concern is that the much-needed funds from international students won’t be forthcoming if the students cannot enter the country or undertake face to face tuition. EU student numbers would fall too if lockdown continues to prohibit travelling.

Since the removal of student number controls in 2015 there have been regular stories about financial stability as the higher tariff or ‘prestigious’ universities recruited increased numbers of students – leaving the mid or lower tariff providers with less demand for their places, especially as the UK approached the bottom of its demographic dip in the number of 18 year olds.

The flip side is that capping student numbers means some students are unable to get a place on a programme or at their preferred provider. The government wants all students to aspire to the “higher tariff” institutions and to have a choice of providers. Of most concern in this scenario is the risk that disadvantaged students are the least likely to achieve the place at the provider they wished for due to a combination of lack of careers support, guidance, lower predicted grades, parental support and intervention and access to relevant (unpaid) work experience or social networks. And the government has said, for some time, that it does not want to cap the number of students attending university, with the social mobility benefits that this has. So the government doesn’t like student number controls.

The coronavirus pandemic has destabilised business, education, the whole economy, and this may be one way for Ministers to prevent some HE providers becoming big winners from the disruption whilst the losers collapse. The lower tariff providers are most at risk and these are the institutions that often sit at the heart of communities that have no one local or regional HE institutions, and that take higher numbers of disadvantaged students. If these institutions collapse it is a big fail for social mobility, affecting the lives of these students and future generations.

So far the Government has moved to prevent new unconditional offers being made or converting conditional offers already made to unconditional while they are finalising the exam grade awarding strategy. The Government has not spoken out on the return of student number control (yet). Although the media and HE blogging organisations seem to be doing the job for them! Here are some of the sources:

The Guardian has been at the centre of the debate from the outset:

Strict limits on the number of students that each university in England can recruit are set to be imposed by the government in an effort to avoid a free-for-all on admissions, with institutions plunged into financial turmoil as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the Guardian has learned.
A government source said each university would face limits on the number of UK and EU undergraduates it could admit for the academic year starting in September, in a move backed by higher education leaders.

As the Guardian article mentions UUK’s response to the proposal has also been at the forefront. The Guardian article states the board of UUK approved the return of student number caps and an edited article quotes Alistair Jarvis (Chief Exec UUK) as saying

“The UUK board discussed a range of measures needed to promote financial stability of the sector in these tough times. Foremost was the need for government financial support for universities. Student number controls were discussed and it was agreed that further consideration of the pros and cons were needed, with further input from members.” (Alistair tweeted to state the Board had not approved student numbers after the original Guardian article was published, hence ‘student number controls were discussed’ and RP cover the backtrack here).

The offers for students – Research Professional (RP) analyse whether degree outcomes vary based on unconditional offers (including conditional unconditional offers).

The Mail Online is convinced that student number controls are back and write as if the Government has already announced this – Government will place strict limit on student numbers in bid to avoid admissions free-for-all at universities hit by coronavirus

RP also ask in Aftershock if number controls are reintroduced then…: The Guardian’s article is well sourced but lacks detail. Are students who have had their A levels cancelled now going to be told that they cannot go to the university of their choice? That could have a significant impact on recruitment across the board come September.

The Guardian followed up their original article with Concern for A-level students over chaos on university admissions which covers exactly what RP raise above – that students holding offers may no longer have a place to attend. It also includes comment from David Willetts:

David Willetts removed student number controls from 2015 when he was minister for universities and science. Writing for the Higher Education Policy Institute in a blog due to be published on Tuesday, he said: “University is a safe haven for young people in these tough times. We can expect many more 18-year-olds to try to get to university now as the alternatives are so poor at the moment. If the government does reintroduce number controls (which I would regret), it must not do so in a way that reduces opportunities for young people to go to university.”

The Guardian also publish an opinion piece – Covid-19 is our best chance to change universities for good.

HEPI have much to say on student number controls. Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, worked for David Willets ex-Universities Minister and recalls that the abolishing of student number controls was announced on his last day in the job. Elsewhere on HEPI there is a blog Eight interventions for mitigating the impact of Covid-19 on higher education; number 1 is the re-imposition of student number controls to ensure that institutions have a viable first year student population. They suggest that – Realistically, given the damage to school students’ education and examination preparation, this will not be a one-year exercise. There are a number of ways this could happen, either by setting institution by institution limits on admissions (as was the case until 2011) or by limiting variance to +/-5 per cent for any institution against a three year average of admissions (from 2017 to 2019 inclusively). In the longer term, there should be a fundamental review of the operation of the market. The blog is worth a full read covering other topical elements such as impact on current student retention and progression rates, rent support, contextual admissions, ditching the NSS (national student survey for 2020), increasing quality-related research funding to stabilise the research base and establishing a digital learning leadership fund.

Nick Hillman (HEPI) is also quoted in the Guardian article:

…there are people who have long wanted to restrict access to higher education who might see this as the chance to do it. Yet when there are fewer jobs to go around, education becomes more important, not less. And: Reintroducing number caps would protect those universities that have grown the most in recent years by locking down the number of home students that they educate and stopping others from growing at their expense. Older, more prestigious universities would be the biggest losers, as they had hoped to be able to replace lost international students with more home students.

Other HEPI blogs:

David Willetts (ex-Universities Minister): We must stop young people from losing out from the Covid-19 crisis.
Nick Hillman on Re-assessing this week’s row on unconditional offers – and why it may all be a red herring
New restrictions on university places could create ‘unlucky generations’ which dawns on learning from Australia’s freezing of HE place funding after the unrestricted demand from students became unaffordable.

Other sources:

Wonkhe analyse the potential different policy scenarios in: The argument has been heavy on principle and light on policy. How might such controls be implemented, and what would be the likely impact?
BBC write University admissions could face emergency controls.
The Times angles into the financial difficulties which may force the reintroduction of the student number controls
ITV have a general pieceStudent cap ‘may be needed’ to help universities affected by Covid-19.
And a TES article by David Hughes (Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges) explains why now is NOT the time to be talking about reintroducing student number controls.

There may be more news on this soon.

Exams

The NUS has called for all non-essential (year 1 and 2) exams to be cancelled to reduce anxiety for these students and allow HEIs to focus on facilitating the best possible assessment experience for the final year students. Coverage in the Guardian states that NUS say: disabled, international and poorer students would be significantly disadvantaged if universities go through with plans to hold online exams and assessments next term. [Because accessibility has been lost or left behind in the swift move to online teaching and assessment.]… final-year students should be given a choice of how to complete their degrees, such as receiving an estimated grade based on prior attainment, doing an open book online exam, or taking their finals at the university at a later date.

Claire Sosienski-Smith, the NUS vice-president (Higher Education): “In the current climate, student welfare must come first…It is vital that there are no compulsory exams this year.”

NUS also call for PG students to have a 6-month extension on their submission deadlines.

Similar to student number controls there is a wealth of media attention and material on exams this week. There are nationwide reports of petitions and students campaigning on a range of factors, including ‘no detriment’ policies. No detriment means the average grade the student has already earned from previous assessments is taken as a given and any further assessments can only build to increase the overall grade awarded (not decrease). However, the devil is in the detail and the application. For example, how can students demonstrate they have met professional registration or statutory regulatory requirements? And in some approaches students have to pass this year’s assessment – if they do better their grade goes up, if worse their grade remains at previous average, if they don’t pass the assessment then their average grade may be in question. No doubt at some point a bright spark will point out that a no detriment policy when going into a final exam is much the same motivation as entering A levels with an unconditional university offer. Brace yourself for headlines not only about grade inflation but about final exam underachievement.

BU readers should know that BU has also announced a “no detriment” policy with the details being worked out on a programme by programme basis.

The Tab summarises a range of approaches and highlights which details universities are following that approach. It covers final and earlier year exams, graded assessments versus pass and fail marking, and dissertation extensions.

Other media:

The Telegraph: Cambridge finalists will be given a “safety net” in exams as the university insists it is not “dumbing down” degrees.
The Times: Imperial College London Imperial College London, university at centre of virus strategy, attacked over exams. Times Letters to the Editor cover pausing or delaying the academic year by five months. And an opinion piece Universities must learn to put students first urges for a focus back on gold-standard teaching.
Wonkhe: Can universities safely implement ‘no detriment’ policies?
Wonkhe also have a related piece. Student Protection Plans are supposed to alleviate the risks to continuation of study faced by students.Jim Dickinson thinks through what needs to change now those have intensified.

Horizon Scanning

To catch up on wider regular policy issues – you can read our BU policy horizon scan.

Research & KEF

On Tuesday Wonkhe reported that the Knowledge Exchange Concordat has been postponed.

Ex-Universities Minister Chris Skidmore has a Research Professional article arguing that the coronavirus pandemic highlights how R&D investment should be taken more seriously.
Research Professional (RP) reports that UK Research and Innovation has launched a web portal for streamlined grant applicationsduring the coronavirus pandemic.
RP also note concerns that changes to the European Union’s budget after the Covid-19 pandemic will seecuts to research funding.
And RP talk academic freedom and the proposed index that recognises Germany has the greatest scientific research freedom.

A research related parliamentary question:

Q – Dr Lisa Cameron: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to Budget 2020, what proportion of the £22 billion investment in R&D he plans to allocate to (a) performing and (b) funding R&D. [33613]

A – Jesse Norman: The Government is committed to supporting the UK’s leadership in science and innovation, and set out an ambition to increase economy-wide investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. At the 2020 Budget, the Government announced that it would increase public investment in R&D to £22bn by 2024-25, the largest ever increase in support for R&D. This will support innovators and researchers across the UK to develop their brilliant ideas, cutting edge technologies and ground breaking research. The majority of this uplift will be allocated at the Spending Review, including support for various R&D programmes. The Government will set out further details in due course

Mental Health

The Department of Health and Social Care released new public guidance regarding mental health support during the coronavirus outbreak covering areas from medication, to managing wellbeing, medication and coping mechanisms. There is easy read guidance for those that need this. The Government have also announced £5 million for leading mental health charities, administered by Mind. And NHS Mental Health Providers are establishing 24/7 helplines.

Paul Farmer, Mind Chief Executive, stated:

We are facing one of the toughest ever times for our mental wellbeing as a nation. It is absolutely vital that people pull together and do all they can to look after themselves and their loved ones, when we are all facing a huge amount of change and uncertainty…Charities like Mind have a role to play in helping people cope not only with the initial emergency but coming to terms with how this will affect us well into the future. Whether we have an existing mental health problem or not, we are all going to need extra help to deal with the consequences of this unprecedented set of circumstances.

Claire Murdoch, NHS mental health director, said:

The NHS is stepping up to offer people help when and how they need it, including by phone, facetime, skype or digitally enabled therapy packages and we also have accelerated plans for crisis response service 24/7…We are determined to respond to people’s needs during this challenging time and working with our partners across the health sector and in the community, NHS mental health services will be there through what is undoubtedly one of the greatest healthcare challenges the NHS has ever faced.

The Times has an article on student mental health focusing on anxiety caused by uncertainties such as exams: Panic and anxiety after education is plunged into limbo.

Brexit & immigration

Withdrawal Agreement

The Government has published a press release outlining that the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met virtually on Monday 30 March to discuss the application and interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement. There is a factsheet about the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee here.

EU Settlement Scheme

The EU settlement scheme continues. However, the Home Office has clarified that while applications continue to be processed, during this challenging time they will take longer than usual. And the resolution centre will only respond to email inquiries, not telephone; all the ID document scanner locations have been suspended as is the postal route to submit identity evidence. The Home Office reminds: there are still 15 months before the deadline of 30 June 2021 for applications to the EU Settlement Scheme, and there is plenty of support available online to support those looking to apply. This includes translated communications materials and alternative formats being made available.

Visas

The Government has announced visa extensions until 31^st May for all foreign nationals in the UK. Individuals who are in the UK and whose visa expired after 24^thJanuary are being urged to contact the Home Office to be issued with the May extension. The Government have confirmed they will continue to kept the timescales under review in case further extension is needed.

A dedicated Covid-19 immigration team has been set up within the Home Office to make the process as “straightforward as possible” for visa holders. To help those who want to apply for visas to stay in the UK long-term, the Home Office is also temporarily expanding the in-country switching provisions. In light of the current advice on self-isolation and social distancing, the Home Office is also waiving a number of requirements on visa sponsors, such as allowing non-EU nationals here under work or study routes to undertake their work or study from home.

Priti Patel, Home Secretary, stated: The UK continues to put the health and wellbeing of people first and nobody will be punished for circumstances outside of their control. By extending people’s visas, we are giving people peace of mind and also ensuring that those in vital services can continue their work.

NHS Visas – 1 year extension & Student Nurses

The Home Office have announced that doctors, nurses and paramedics will automatically have their visas extended for one year, free of charge. The extension also covers family members. This measure will also help bolster the number of NHS staff able to work during the coronavirus situation.

Restrictions limiting the number of hours that student nurses and doctors can work in the NHS have also been lifted.

Priti Patel said:

Doctors, nurses and paramedics from all over the world are playing a leading role in the NHS’s efforts to tackle coronavirus and save lives. We owe them a great deal of gratitude for all that they do. I don’t want them distracted by the visa process. That is why I have automatically extended their visas – free of charge – for a further year.

NUS

NUS ran its hustings and voting for the election of the presidential and executive officers online for the first time ever. Hillary Gyebi-Ababio has been elected NUS UK’s Vice-President Higher Education for a two-year term receiving 85% of the vote. Hillary is currently the Undergraduate Education Officer at University of Bristol Students’ Union. She states she believes that education should be free, accessible and open to all, with students from all backgrounds and identities being able to engage with and shape the education they deserve. She wants students to be at the centre of their education, not viewed as metrics in a market. She will be fighting for an education system that puts students first. Hillary commented:

“It is an honour to be elected as the new Vice President Higher Education of our new and reformed NUS. The fact that students all over the country have trusted me with this role is a sign of how much there is a need for a NUS that puts students at the heart of all it does. I am committed to ensuring that every student, regardless of background, circumstance or identity is heard, seen and cared for. This is going to be an exciting time for the student movement, and the beginning of a new and revitalised NUS.”

Student Experience

Lawyer Smita Jamdar blogs on the consequences of the changes to teaching, assessment and student services as a result of Covid-19 and what universities should be considering to ensure they stay on the right side of the Consumer Rights Act.

Accessibility & Mitigation

Wonkhe write: Is online teaching accessible to all? The sector has (mostly) shifted teaching online – but this has been the very opposite of the kind of planned migration that would be considered best practice by digital delivery experts. In the rush to ensure that students could continue their studies it is very likely that the needs of some students – specific learning needs, disabilities, and external factors – have been forgotten. The next phase of the great leap online will be unpicking where mitigations and alternatives need to be put in place to ensure every student can continue their education during the Covid-19 lockdown.

Wonkhe have one blog on the ethics sitting behind it all: The sudden shift to online provision has failed to consider the needs of all students, and may have been built on tools of uncertain provenance.

And a further blog from Martin McLean from the National Deaf Children’s Society on the mitigations required for deaf students to succeed in online teaching and assessment.

Parliamentary Questions

Student Enrolment/Employment

Q – Dr Luke Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with universities on ensuring that students remain enrolled at their institution in the event (a) that they lose their part-time employment and (b) of another change in their financial situation as a result of the covid-19 outbreak. [33725]

A – Michelle Donelan: The government is working closely with the sector on a wide range of issues, and student wellbeing is at the heart of those discussions. It will be for universities to deal with individual students’ situations. Universities know how best to provide support and maintain hardship funds, which can be deployed where necessary, which is especially important for students who are estranged from their families, disabled or have health vulnerabilities.

Students will continue to receive scheduled payments of loans towards their living costs for the remainder of the current, 2019/20, academic year. If they are employed or self-employed, they may also be able to benefit from the wider measures of support announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If agreed with their employer, their employer might be able to keep them on the payroll if they’re unable to operate or have no work for them to do because of coronavirus (COVID-19). This is known as being ‘on furlough’. They could get paid 80% of their wages, up to a monthly cap of £2,500.

Loans

Q – Preet Kaur Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with the chief executive of the student loans company on the potential merits of refunding loans for the third term of this academic year. [33730]

A – Michelle Donelan: The Student Loans Company (SLC) will continue to make scheduled tuition and maintenance payments to both students and providers. Both tuition and maintenance payments will continue irrespective of whether learning has moved online. This has been communicated via the SLC website. We are continuing to monitor the position.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

New consultations and inquiries this week:

The Commons Education select committee is running an inquiry into the impact of COVID-19 on education and children’s services – how the outbreak of COVID-19 is affecting all aspects of the education sector and children’s social care system and will scrutinise how the Department for Education is dealing with the situation. It will examine both short term impacts, such as the effects of school closures and exam cancellations, as well as longer-term implications particularly for the most vulnerable children. Closes: 30 September 2020
The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee has launched an inquiry to hear about the different and disproportionate impact that the Coronavirus – and measures to tackle it – is having on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Closes: 30 April 2020

Other news

Data Futures: HESA have published the latest data futures guidance. Wonkhe write on the release: The release of version 1.0.0 of the HESA Data Futures manual offers a welcome indication that, Data Futures, the long-planned overhaul of student data collection will be going ahead. The new materials suggest three data collection points (one per “reference point”) each year, confirming the move away from continuous collection. Also from HESA, a detailed methodology statement (in two parts) on Graduate Outcomes.
Student rent: The BBC has an article on the Bristol students staging rent strikes. They are campaigning about the lack of flexibility or forgiveness from landlords. In particular students who have lost their part time jobs or are unable to work because they are self-isolating are detailed. And Wonkhe report that Shadow Secretaries of State John Healey and Angela Rayner have written to government ministers to raise concerns about student accommodation fees for the summer term – requesting action for students living in halls and for those in the private rented accommodation sector.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

March 9, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 6th March 2020

innovation, international jforster

Pre-budget week has been as we’d typically expect with organisations releasing a hoard of reports, evidence and lobbying papers aiming to influence Government funding decisions. We’ve summarised the main reports and added links for the reports which say similar things. Graduate outcomes and apprenticeships& technical education were the loudest shouters, and this week also saw University Mental Health day and the beginning of British Science Week.

Select Committees

All but one of the select committees has now confirmed their MP membership. You can see the members and brief details on the role and future outlook of the committees most relevant to BU in our committee special edition here.

Immigration

The Immigration Bill has now been published. Dods report that the Office for Budget Responsibility is preparing to downgrade the UK’s economic growth prospects in next week’s budget because of the country’s proposed post-Brexit “points” based immigration model. The OBR will forecast that a smaller population will lead to lower economic growth and detriment public finances, restricting the new Chancellor’s abilities to spend more money on key public services such as the NHS as well as the Government’s wider programme to “level up” the economy.

The economic impact of the new immigration system has led to tensions between the Treasury and Number 10 Downing Street. The Treasury favours a looser migration regime, without a cliff edge at the end of 2020, when the Brexit transition period ends.

Importantly, a reduction in migration rates have little to no effect on living standards because while economic growth might slow overall, gross domestic product per person was remain unchanged. The Migration Advisory Committee estimated a rise in GDP per person but added that this was very uncertain.

Science

Gavin Williamson and Business SoS Alok Sharma announced £179 million funding package for science, maths and engineering on Friday (which is the first day of British Science Week):

£179 million for PhDs (up to 2,200 students) within the 40+ UK universities in Doctoral Training Partnership institutions. Students will commence 2020 and 2021 academic years within the subject areas of physical sciences, maths and engineering to develop the skills for ground-breaking research and high-tech industries like cyber security and chemical manufacturing. Part of the investment will go into pilots looking at how best to attract and support those from non-academic backgrounds to undertake this type of training.
Encourage more young people, particularly girls, to study STEM subjects at school and university, and pursue a STEM-related career.
£8.9 million to continue funding science education programmes including Science Learning Partnerships and Stimulating Physics Networks, which aim to improve science teaching and increase the take up of science at GCSE level and A level and ultimately encourage young people to pursue a STEM-related career.

And on Thursday the PM hosted the Council for Science and Technology at Downing Street. The Council is comprised of senior science civil servant officials, the VC of Manchester University and attended by the Science Minister (Amanda Solloway). It advises the PM on science and technology policy matters. The official account of the meeting states the PM set out his priorities for science, research and innovation; championed science as a key part of his levelling up agenda, and emphasised the role of scientists in tackling the policy challenges of the coming decades. He challenged the Council to define their “moon-shots” for UK science, their ideas for where the UK should aim high, for example across healthcare, transport, energy and robotics. He restated the government’s pledge to invest in science and significantly boost R&D funding.

Ex-Universities Minister Chris Skidmore has two articles in TES: UK Universities must embrace the future and Skidmore rejects ‘university-bashing’ and urges funding stability. The first looks at the Universities Minister role and Chris reflects on what he achieved and his approach to the role:

I arrived with a mission. Put simply, I felt that I had to try to steer the relationship between government and the sector into a better place. No more university-bashing for the sake of a few cheap headlines. What would be the point?
Of course, that still means challenging the sector to do even better, but with a change in approach and a change of tone, I knew that I was more likely to enact real change, to encourage reform and to work productively on actual solutions, rather than simply sending out press releases calling for them.
… So much good work is already taking place – one of my rules for every speech I made was to highlight best practice
I wish my successors, both in universities and science, the very best. They have an opportunity to fashion and lead an exciting agenda that is at the centre of the prime minister’s vision. Of course I would have loved to have been part of this, but I hope I have played my small part in helping to steer the sector through a difficult year and helping it recognise the huge opportunities that can lie ahead – if the initiative is seized, and university leaders are prepared to tell a positive, forward-facing narrative, rather than being always on the defensive.
Universities are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution. We need to hear more of that message, and I, for one, will continue to do everything I can to make sure that it is voiced – and heard.

Graduate Premium

The Institute for Fiscal Studies and DfE have published The impact of undergraduate degrees on lifetime earnings. It paints a mixed picture confirming and quantifying the graduate premium across the lifespan for today’s workforce. It also digs down into the variables highlighting the effects that current age/life stage, gender, programme choice, and institutional status have on pay levels. There has been lots of media interest alongside the Government’s keen focus on the value for money agenda. Plus some acknowledgement of the other personal benefits from studying at HE level, particularly in light of the headline grabber of male creative arts graduates who experience a negative financial return.

“while about 80% of students are likely to gain financially from attending university, we estimate that one in five students – or about 70,000 every year – would actually have been better off financially had they not gone to university.
… Other personal and social benefits may be as or more important. We also only consider the effect of each student’s choices on their ownearnings holding constant the choices of others”
Median earnings of male graduates grow strongly throughout their 30s, and this earnings growth far outstrips that of non-graduates. For male graduates who were 30 in 2016, we predict earnings to rise by £15k from age 30 to age 40, compared with a rise of just £5k in the median earnings of non-graduate men. The gap in median earnings between graduate and non-graduate men continues to grow strongly until individuals’ mid-40s.
Median earnings growth for female graduates in their 30s is moderate, but still higher than that of non-graduates. We predict median real earnings of female graduates who were 30 in 2016 to rise by around £5k from age 30 to age 40, compared with no growth for non-graduate women. Among degree subjects, law and medicine stand out in that their female graduates do see large growth in median earnings between ages 35 and 40.
Accordingly, the causal effect of undergraduate degrees on earnings grows after age 30 for both men and women, but much more strongly for men. Average pre-tax returns for men at a given age increase from around 5% on average at age 30 to more than 30% on average at age 40, after which they increase more slowly to reach around 35% from age 50. For women, average pre-tax returns increase from around 25% at age 30 to more than 40% at age 40, but then fall again to between 30% and 35% at ages 50 and 60.
The average lifetime earnings gain from undergraduate degrees is substantial for both men and women, but much smaller than the difference between the gross earnings of graduates and non-graduates. The discounted difference in lifetime earnings between graduates and non-graduates is £430k for men and £260k for women. Once we account for differences in characteristics between those who do and do not attend HE, we obtain a discounted lifetime increase in gross earnings of £240k for men and £ 140k for women as a result of attending HE.
The average gain in net lifetime earnings is even smaller due to the progressivity of the tax system. Once taxes and student loans have been taken into account, the earnings premium declines to around £130k for men and £100k for women (£350k and £230k with no discounting). In percentage terms, this represents a gain in average net lifetime earnings of around 20% for both men and women.
The subject studied at university is hugely important. Net discounted lifetime returns for women are close to zero on average for creative arts and languages graduates, but more than £250k for law, economics or medicine. Men studying creative arts have negative financial returns, while men studying medicine or economics have average returns of more than half a million pounds.
However, studying a subject with high average returns is no guarantee of high returns. While average returns to law and economics are high, many students will see much lower benefits from studying those subjects, and a few will see much higher returns. In contrast, subjects such as education and nursing do not have very high returns on average, but women who study these subjects almost universally achieve positive returns.
Overall, we expect 85% of women and around three-quarters of men to achieve positive net lifetime returns. This means that around one in five undergraduates would have been better off financially had they not gone to university. At the other end of the spectrum, the 10% of graduates with the highest returns will on average gain more than half a million pounds in discounted present value terms.
Financing undergraduate degrees is expensive for the taxpayer, but on average increased tax revenues more than make up for it. Overall, we estimate that the expected gain to the exchequer of an individual enrolling in an undergraduate course is around £110k per student for men and £30k per student for women.
However, these gains are driven mainly by the highest-earning graduates. We expect the exchequer to gain more than half a million pounds on average from the 10% of graduates with the highest exchequer returns, but to make a loss on the degrees of around 40% of men and half of women. This means that nearly half of all students receive a net government subsidy for their degrees, even after tax and National Insurance payments have been taken into account. The selectivity of the institution has an influence too:

Michelle Donelan (Universities Minister) writes for the Telegraph – Universities minister announces crackdown on ‘low quality’ courses. The below excerpts are interesting because they seem to suggest the Minister gets the point that earnings aren’t everything, and that low quality means poor teaching [measured somehow] AND relatively low returns for graduates (compared to other courses at other universities in the same subject that have higher earnings). Hopefully it also means ‘adjusted for background and prior attainment’!

We know that medicine and law, for example, will generally lead to higher earnings than languages but that does not mean to say that one degree is better than another. Its value extends far beyond what anyone is likely to earn during their lifetime and is merely one of the things to add to the mix when planning this stage of your life.
There will always be some courses which do not lead to increased earnings for graduates. Value is relative and for many people their degree will lead to an immensely rewarding career even though the financial returns may be lower and society as a whole is the better for it.
What concerns me most are those courses that deliver neither the high-quality teaching students deserve, nor the value for money that they and the taxpayer rightly expect. In some subjects there is a very high variability in returns depending on where that subject is studied, which students need to be aware of.
This is one of the reasons why we created a new regulator, the Office for Students, to make sure standards throughout the sector can stand comparison with the best in the world. I fully back the regulator to step in and use its powers where providers are falling short, and am determined to crack down on low-quality courses. They do nothing for the reputation of universities and they will do even less for students who sign up for them.
And for those universities who are providing a world-class education, I expect them to continue offering a world-class experience. The time spent at university will help shape an individual, adding layers to their character through independence, knowledge, experiences and friendships – and no amount of data crunching can put a figure on that.

HEPI – Careers Service view on Graduate Outcomes driving institutional change

The Higher Education Policy Institute has also published a graduate outcome related report although this one contemplates change from a different angle. Getting on: graduate employment and its influence on UK HE is a more discursive paper addressing whether recent years’ policy changes (TEF and the new Graduate Outcomes survey accompanied by the tracking of graduate salary data through LEO) has changed the nature of HE institutions. It examines the sector by drawing on the views of Heads of Careers Services via the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services survey. Key points:

76% of careers services have seen a change in student engagement with careers in the last three years (24% no change).
93% of careers services see the increased policy focus on graduate outcomes as positive (2% negative; 5% neither positive nor negative).
The new Graduate Outcomes survey and the OfS Access and Participation plans are having the greatest impact on how careers services operate, rather than graduate salary data.

69% say Graduate Outcomes has the most impact
19% say Access and Participation plans has the most impact.
2% say the LEO (Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data) has the greatest impact.

45% of careers services have seen an increase in funding to cover additional demand on their services; 55% haven’t.
The report also covers qualitative analysis of the views of careers services, including how they, their university and students classify a successful outcome from university.

Rachel Hewitt (report author), HEPI, said: ‘Policy changes in recent years have led to employability being a mainstream activity across all universities, rather than the specialism of a few. While some may rail against the ’employability agenda’, it is clear that universities are now better serving the interests of their students by supporting them through their transition into the workplace.’

Responding to the HEPI report NUS (Claire Sosienski Smith, NUS Vice President for HE) said:

“The focus on employability and graduate outcomes is not having a positive effect on students. We see this through the increased levels of stress and anxiety that they experience. Since the tripling of tuition fees, the burden of debt hangs heavily over students entering higher education and this explains why there is a greater focus among some on their future careers. As careers services have received more funding it is a natural step that they will see more use from students.
But this change in focus shifts attention from many of the most important benefits of studying and the transformative nature of education. Graduate outcomes is a reductive measure for whether someone has had a perceived ‘successful’ education and the report highlights the disparities between the measures institutions and students care most about.
It would be more insightful to look at the impact the focus on employability has had on students and their wellbeing.”

Part time study

Ahead of the budget UUK have written to ministers to urge them to reconsider the cut off points for part time learners to access student finance. The current restrictions are that students must study at least 25% of a full time equivalent per year and must commit to an approved qualification up front. Changes to these requirements would allow fractional learners to engage with HE level study in smaller bite sized chunks. UUK argue this would encourage more learners to engage or reskill, including those with commitments such as caring responsibilities or disabilities. Previous UUK publication Lost Learners (2018) highlights the three main reasons potential students chose not to enrol are:

44% unable to afford tuition fees
42% cannot afford the cost of living whilst studying
26% course is not flexible enough to fit alongside their other life commitments

The Augar Review also highlights that having to study at 25% intensity and follow a specified qualification has been a major factor in the decline of part-time adult study. The Learning and Work Institute state that adult learning participation is as a 23 year low point with participation fallen to a record low the last three years in a row.

UUK call on the Government to run a pilot scheme targeting funding at communities with skills shortages. Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of UUK, said:

We know this government is committed to investment in regional economies and to helping people of all ages and backgrounds to reskill and retrain. Universities have an important role to play in that, but the current system counts against many would-be learners by restricting access to the financial support they need to develop their skills. There should be more than one accepted path to progress in higher education, to recognise that aspiring students of all ages have different circumstances and different needs.
It is time for universities and government to work together on bold new ideas to resolve the long-term skills challenges of our changing economy. Breaking down barriers to studying shorter courses would not only help students to build-up qualifications over time but boost productivity across diverse regions, target local skills needs and support economic and social regeneration.

Technical Education

Degree Apprenticeships

Education Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, has written to the Institute of Apprenticeships and Technical Education to ask them to review their approval for a level 7 apprenticeship which includes an MBA or other masters level qualification in management. The DfE state:

In his letter, the Secretary of State reiterated his determination to ensure levy funds are used to support the people that can benefit most from an apprenticeship, such as those starting out in their careers or those from disadvantaged backgrounds, rather than paying for staff who already have a degree and are highly qualified to receive an MBA.

You’ll recall when Theresa May’s Government set out to reinvent technical education there was a big push for degree apprenticeships. Universities were urged to embrace and offer the qualifications in areas which served local or national industrial and economic priorities. Meanwhile the Government’s introduction of the apprenticeship levy was unsuccessful and instead of improving quality and opportunity it resulted in declining levels of new starts, amid reports of some apprenticeship providers gaming the system. Overall the profile of apprenticeship provision changed as the higher and degree level apprenticeships took off. The Government became concerned that the cost of the higher level provision was significant alongside the reduction in availability or lower numbers of level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts. Gavin’s letter represents the Government trying to regain control over the apprenticeship system. They still want degree level provision within the genuine apprenticeship form and we may see either Government or the Institute tightening control over the programme areas in the future. Requiring the qualification to be an essential regulatory or professional requirement also provides the Government with wriggle room. Here is an excerpt from Gavin’s letter:

I am absolutely determined to make sure levy funds are being used to support the people that can benefit most from an apprenticeship, such as those starting out in their careers or helping more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get ahead, and that we ensure good value for money in the apprenticeships offer…In that context, [I] am unconvinced that having an apprenticeship standard that includes an MBA paid for by the levy is in the spirit of our reformed apprenticeships or provides value for money. I question whether an MBA is an essential regulatory or professional requirement to work in this field…I am of the view that we absolutely need to safeguard the integrity of the apprenticeship brand and value for money of the levy.

Investing in Higher Technical Education

Millionplus published Levelling up: investing in higher technical education at universities in England this week . Amongst the content it covers the same argument as UUK above – that the lack of financial support for part time students and the introduction of higher tuition fees have resulted in a reduction of Level 4 and 5 study. Dods go into detail on why level 4 and 5 technical education has declined:

In 2008 support for Equivalent and Lower Qualifications were withdrawn, barring students who had previously experienced higher education funding from studying programmes to support retraining or for re-entering the workforce
The long-term impact of the 2008 financial crash on the training budgets of public and private sector employers also contributed to the sharp decline in higher technical education.
The level of provision has been declining since 2008, with a sharp drop taking place after the 2012 university fee changes in England introduced by the then coalition government.
The government has, through the Sainsbury Review and the introduction of the 15 [T level, technical] routes, recognised that this area of education needs a new focus and targeted attention. However, those reforms are not going to be enough.

In Scotland, there is a much greater level of integration between bachelor and sub-bachelor levels of study than in England. In Scotland 14% of the whole of the HE system is made up of students studying HNCs and HNDs, in England it is 0.4%. However, a decline of 45% in the number of students engaged in “other sub-degree” mirrors English trends– provision has been shrinking in Scotland as well.

There is discussion on how students are categorised in England, i.e. undertaking a level 6 programme despite years 1 and 2 being level 4 and 5 study. They argue this misleads thinking when examining level 4 and 5 study in technical areas that only standalone level 4/5 provision is appropriate (rather than the same as provision on the level 6 journey). I.e. there is no “missing middle” of sub-degree qualifications in the English HE system. The report suggests that the Augar review understood this. Moreover:

This data should suggest to policymakers that the fundamental challenge is not a trade-off between progressing younger people either to level 4/5 or to level 6, but how we can best enable 16-25 year olds, and those later in life, to successfully complete level 3 study which can provide them with a gateway of opportunity for progression into higher education or directly into employment.

There are a host of report recommendations which we’ll avoid covering in detail. In short:

Level 4 and 5 (L4/5) should receive full maintenance grant support (to increase the take up of work-focused higher education).
All L4/5 providers to register with OfS to guarantee high quality provision and access to student finance.
Universities are as much a key players in the provision of higher technical education as colleges.
Sort the L4/5 data out to better understand nature and scope of technical education across college and university providers.
All level qualifications should enable progression at any life stage and financially support level 3 students to remove barriers to study.

The DfE consulted on higher technical education reform (July-Sept 2019). Like the Augar Review the Government’s response is notably late. Most likely technical changes will sit alongside however, the Government decide to implement elements of Augar, T levels will undoubtedly be of influence, and some thinkers suggest TEF changes could also be wrapped up within this surprise parcel.

Education Policy Institute (EPI)

The EPI has published a report questioning what England can learn from other nations in designing technical education funding systems. The report finds that T levels are a significant step in the direction of high performing countries, however, there is a way to before English upper secondary technical provision resembles the model and success of other nations. EPI suggest tackling the necessary issues would require substantial levels of additional government investment.

UK has historically funded upper secondary technical education at lower rates than academic education (23% less per student in 2016, lower than the OECD average) – this is not the case in most other countries.
In other countries subsidies are provided to employers to compensate for the time that an apprentice is training outside the job or to compensate for disadvantaged intakes that drive costs up. In England, subsidies are concentrated on small and medium companies.
More generous financial support is available in other countries. In England support funding to students has fallen by 71% per student in real terms between 2010/11 and 2018/19.
While over a half of students in England follow the technical pathway in upper secondary, only 16% do so through apprenticeship training. In EU its 27%.
English technical upper secondary education is a shorter duration (2 years, even 1 for some apprenticeships). In high performing countries it takes 3-4 years.
15% of English students are in the highest-cost groups of subjects (including engineering, manufacturing, and construction); in OECD countries its 34%.
The curriculum in England is relatively narrow. In the other countries many technical students continue to study their local language, a foreign language, maths and other general subjects to equip them with a sound knowledge base.

The introduction of T levels and other proposed reforms will bring England closer to technical provision in high performing countries:

Funding will be rebalanced towards more technical subjects and funding levels will increase compared to the status quo with a corresponding increase in teaching hours.
Students starting from lower levels will receive an additional funded year to prepare them for the T level study programme.
Industry placements will improve students’ readiness for entry to the labour market..
The requirement to pass English and maths at GCSE level will result in more young people studying these subjects.

However, important gaps will remain:

Most students will study T levels over just two years.
Only those not achieving the level expected at 16 will continue to study English and maths and the curriculum will remain narrower than in other countries.
Industry placements will remain less substantial than elsewhere.
These improvements largely only apply to those taking T levels, and it is still unclear how dominant these qualifications will become.

Recommendations:

Funding for technical pathways: The government should provide the 16-19 phase with a more enduring financial settlement to sustain quality provision in the long term.
Increase the number of starts for younger apprentices: The government should consider the options to increase apprenticeship uptake among young people, including further redistribution of levy funding towards younger apprentices, or other incentives for employers to hire younger learners.
Government should review the adequacy of student support, particularly whether recent changes have left disadvantaged students worse off.
Review curriculum breadth and programme length: The government should commission an independent review to consider whether the breadth of upper secondary study, for all students, is properly providing the basic and technical skills that young people need for the labour market and for progression to further study. Where this leads to increased provision, this must be matched by appropriate funding rates.

Working life longevity

The Social Market Foundation has published Work, education, skills and the 100-year life exploring the policy changes needed to ‘ensure the workforce is ready for extreme longevity.’ It touches on the need to retrain for an extended working period during an individual’s lifetime.

As life expectancy continues to rise, the number of years spent working is likely to increase.
The 50-year career will become the norm.
The career chosen at 18 or 21 is not likely to be the career of the individual when they retire. Changes to the labour market, technology and the wider environment could mean that at various points in a person’s working life they need to change careers and retrain. [So would the restrictions on studying another equivalent level qualification place graduates at a disadvantage? Currently the rules bar access to fees and finance funding (in all but priority areas), this would prevent retraining at an equivalent high level in a different subject for existing graduates.]
EPI estimate people should plan for five careers in their lifetime. Yet 40% of 34-54 year olds are unwilling to change careers.
Longer working lives will affect employers too. Employers are concerned about increased pension contributions, time out of the workforce due illness. Needing to reskill and train staff was split but overall employers were less worried about this factor.

EPI lobby for the following to address working life longevity:

Individual Learning Accounts (they suggest Singapore as an example)
Modular learning and an inquiry into the fall of mature and part-time students.
Reallocate the money earmarked for the National Skills Fund for retraining those aged over 40 particularly in industries where there is a risk of automation or industrial decline.
Reduce Employer National Insurance contributions for certain workers over 50.
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and GPs should proactively enable people to work for longer through advice, support, and social prescribing of workplace health support.
Create a Minister for Lifelong Learning and Training who has responsibility over longer lives, work and skills, positioned between DfE, BEIS and DWP.

Access and Participation

Social Mobility effect of school admissions: The Sutton Trust released their fairer school admissions report at the end of February. In it they raise social mobility questions by highlighting that there is a wealth divide between low and middle income families accessing state comprehensive schools. They state that the best performing comprehensives only take half the number of disadvantaged pupils as an average state school would. And that it costs £45,700 more to buy a house in the catchment area serving a top comprehensive. The Sutton Trust wants to see a fairer system where access to schools is not as closely linked to income stating it would have benefits in terms of overall attainment, teacher recruitment and retention and social cohesion. They are calling for more balanced intakes overall, with every high-performing school committed to admitting more poorer pupils. They state comprehensives should pledge to prioritise applicants eligible for the pupil premium, to create more socially balanced intakes. Schools who are responsible for their own admissions should introduce ballots, with an inner catchment area based on proximity and the remainder of places allocated by ballot. On grammar schools they would like to give priority to applicants eligible for the pupil premium who meet the entrance criteria. They should provide a minimum ten hours test preparation for all pupils to provide a level playing field for the 11-plus and improve their outreach work to families from disadvantaged backgrounds. More details in the second Sutton Trust report: School Places: A Fair Choice?

Lords Debate – Working Classes Educational Opportunities

Baroness Morris lead a debate within Lords to take note of the educational opportunities available to children and young people from working class backgrounds. It critiqued Government initiatives including catch up clubs and the abolition of Sure Start. The Baroness said that the working class and middle class were generally pursuing different post-16 routes, with disadvantaged children entering a sector that had experienced a 20% reduction in funding.

Lord Woolley commented on disparities in outcomes between students, stating white working-class students outside big cities experienced a bottom-up lack of investment in good jobs, or in schools, contributing to communities having low expectations. Conversely, education, for the BAME community was often seen as a route out of disadvantage. However, BAME working-class students face the race penalty disadvantage that their white counterparts do not. (This comes from UCL data highlighting that BAME young people were 58% more likely to be unemployed and 47% more likely to have a zero-hours contract.)

Lord Knight of Weymouth asserted that that could be no change in working class communities without regeneration through education:

“that system must be designed for a long life of continuous reskilling—one that prepares people for a working life of 60 years, multiple careers, being great at interacting with machines as well as humans, but also out-competing machines at being human. It must be one that accepts that analytics will replace qualifications and that universities will have to innovate to deliver lifelong learning rather than a debt-loaded rite of passage, as at present”.

Baroness Wilcox: Those on free school meals and receiving the pupil premium are 27% less likely to achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C (grades 9 to 6).

Lord Livermore said that getting a degree from a leading university was one of the surest paths to social mobility. She was concerned that working class students receive a lack of advice, guidance and support in navigating the university application process. She lamented that this lack of support seemed to be permeating the HE sector, with disadvantaged students disproportionately more likely to not return as second year students. Concluding, she endorsed the Sutton Trust’s proposed policies of; contextual admissions, post-qualification applications, greater evaluation of university outreach activities, increased numbers of degree and higher-level apprenticeships, and the restoration of maintenance grants for students to reduce the debt burden on the least well off.

Lord Storey (Lib Dem Education spokesperson) spoke of post- 16 education stating that there should be clear signposting about the best vocational opportunities and apprenticeship schemes available: “This would help to increase parity of esteem with academic routes”.

Lord Bassam (Opposition spokesperson for FE &HE) highlighted the Sutton Trust tuition fee research which suggests that student debt may be having an impact on the aspirations of children before they even take their GCSEs and asserts that the removal of maintenance grants in favour of loans was deterring working-class young people. He also criticised the impact of predicted grades and conditional offers on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, insisting that, “poor predictions can blight young people’s life chances, often becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Moreover, young people with huge potential but low predictions stand little chance of proper consideration from the top universities”.

He also raised concerns over UCAS personal statements and references as a method in assessing an individual’s aptitude and ability, and intimated that was following the OfS university admissions review closely. On admissions diversity he said: “At present, half of all children in receipt of free school meals are educated in just a fifth of all schools, and more than half of universities in England have a white working-class student intake of less than 5%, despite the fact that 75% of universities, including the Russell Group institutions, claim to use “contextual information” to admit students from disadvantaged backgrounds”.

Baroness Berridge spoke for the Government and praised the role of the OfS in ensuring that universities produced ambitious access and participation plans. On contextual admissions she said that the Government “will look in appropriate circumstances at the background of students”, whilst stating that post-qualification applications could cut disadvantaged young people.

Admissions Review: Research Professional has a thoughtful article delving into contextual admissions which is well worth the quick read.

HE stats

HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) published income and expenditure data for HE institutions.

Income

Tuition fees and education contracts: £18,875bn in 2017/18, up from 15,541bn in 2014/15
Funding body grants: £5,112bn in 2017/18, down from £5,345bn in 2014/15
Research Grants and Contracts: £6,225bn, up from £5,968bn in 2014/15
Other income: £7,203bn in 2017/18 up from £5,902bn in 2014/15

Expenditure

Staff costs: £20,071bn in 2017/18, up from £18,210bn in 2014/15
Other operating expenses: £13.8bn in 2017/18, up from £11,770bn in 2014/15
Depreciation: £2,467bn in 2017/18, up from £1,986bn in 2014/15

Mental Health

Thursday was University Mental Health Day. Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, – in conjunction with the DfE and the Department of Health and Social Care – announced a funding competition: £1million for innovative student mental health projects.

Students identified as being at high risk of poor mental health will benefit from a £1m funding boost. Research has identified such groups as including black/ethnic minority students, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with disabilities, and those identifying as LGBTQ+.
Successful projects will also target groups of students who might face barriers in accessing support, like carers, part-time and international students and those on placements as part of their course.
The projects will also be judged on how they use innovative and technological approaches to addressing mental health issues, in line with the new NHS drive for improvement in digital support.

OfS will hold the money and approve proposals.

Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, said:

“All students deserve the opportunity to thrive at university and college, but for too many mental ill-health remains a significant barrier. We know that there are many factors which can impact the wellbeing of students and situations where students may be or feel more vulnerable. Through this funding we want to support innovative and strategic solutions that can help ensure that all students, regardless of their background or how they study, get the support they need.
By working together with partners including the NHS and charities, universities and colleges have the power to address the complex issues associated with student mental ill-health. We will be sharing the effective practice that comes from this funding and driving improved mental health support for all students.”

Universities Minister Michelle Donelan said: “Going to university can be a really challenging time, especially if you face added pressures or if you are balancing studies alongside other commitments like carers and mature students. It is vital no student is put at risk by not getting the help they need. Universities must step up to this challenge, and this funding will help them and the sector by looking at ways support can be better targeted and improved.”

Despite the fresh announcement the funds are the same as those announced in June 2019, the change is that the bidding is now open. Research Professional cover the announcement here.

The NUS spoke out on University Mental Health Day. Eva Crossan Jory, NUS Vice President Welfare commented:

“Through my two years as Vice President Welfare I have seen the incredible work students and student’s unions have done to lobby for better mental health care on our campuses, but it shouldn’t be this way: we shouldn’t have to campaign for colleges and universities to do this work.
Universities need to acknowledge the structural barriers they create that lead to poor mental health. Our poor mental health cannot be separated from the intense pressure and competition that is deemed as a necessary aspect of our educational experience. From the spiralling costs of accommodation to the need for a better system of student funding, the student mental health crisis won’t be stopped until the problems are tackled at the root.
There is also intense pressure put on staff, from precarious contracts to over work, we cannot demand better mental health support for students without also fighting for better mental health care for staff in our universities.
Although we have seen significant movement in the sector on student mental health we must ensure that signing up to charters is not where this work stops. We need real investment made into both university services but also the NHS which is being criminally underfunded. We must also ensure the services we campaign for and win are culturally competent. That they acknowledge the structural inequalities that exist. We need a support system that understands students are not one homogeneous group.
We’re urging our members and students to have those hard conversations with senior leaders and challenge them, to start talking honestly and openly about the whole of student mental health. Only that way can we reach the goals of a truly mentally healthy whole university.”

Research

There were a series of research focussed oral questions in Parliament this week. Here’s the edited version:

Julian Sturdy: What steps he is taking to increase investment in research and development.

Alok Sharma (SoS BEIS):The Government are already increasing public spending on research and development by £7 billion over five years, the biggest increase in public funding for R&D on record. Every pound of public expenditure on R&D leverages a further £1.40 of additional private investment, generating even greater returns for the UK.

Julian Sturdy: Given that nearly 50% of the core science budget currently goes to just three cities in southern England, can the Secretary of State assure me that the increase in R&D funding will do more to favour the regions outside the south, so that in future both my city…and other regional hubs across Yorkshire…will receive their fair share for the purposes of research and innovation?

Alok Sharma: I absolutely agree that that is part of our levelling-up agenda. We want to support centres of excellence across the country… we will set out our ambitious play strategy for R&D in the second half of this year.

Bim Afolami: [Mentions agritech start ups and incubators – asks Minister to endorse Rothamsted Research and visit].

Alok Sharma:[Agrees to] meet him to discuss how the Government can support his proposals.

Mrs Drummond: .. what further action is being taken on the proposal for a UK advanced research projects agency, following the departmental meeting last year?

Alok Sharma: The UK is ranked fifth in the global innovation index, and our strengths in R&D mean that we are well placed to develop a new funding body to specialise in high-risk, high-reward projects. … I am absolutely determined that the UK should be a global science superpower, and my Department is making good progress on a UK advanced research projects agency. We are engaging with a wide range of researchers and innovators, and we will set out further plans in due course.

Chi Onwurah (Lab) (Newcastle upon Tyne Central):…European research programme.. For every £1 we put into the European Union programme, we got £1.30 back, and such funding is essential if we are to retain our place as a global science superpower, so will the Secretary of State boost UK science by confirming that we will be going for full associate membership?

Alok Sharma: Of course I want the UK to be a science superpower, and we have set out our views on expanding the R&D budget. On Europe, our EU negotiating objectives are very clear: the UK will consider participation in Horizon Europe and Euratom, but this will be part of the wider negotiations.

Geraint Davies (Lab/Co-op) (Swansea West): [Unclean air and electric cars, subsidies]

Alok Sharma: ..We currently have 460,000 green jobs in this country, and we want to push that to 2 million. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the specific point that he has raised.

Jim Shannon (DUP) (Strangford):Across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, universities have played a critical role in research and development. [Requests specific help for two local institutions.]

Alok Sharma: Of course, UKRI provides funding for a whole range of universities. Again, if the hon. Gentleman has specific ideas for projects, perhaps he would come forward with them.

Mr Richard Bacon (Con) (South Norfolk): It is possible to build a house that costs nothing to heat, but that is not happening at scale at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend consider it part of his Department’s responsibilities to support research into making this more widespread, which would be hugely beneficial for the planet?

Alok Sharma: I know that my hon. Friend is an authority on the house building sector..he raises an important point. We know that 15% of emissions are from housing, and we are looking to see how we can bring that down as part of the net zero target.

And a written question on levelling up:

Q – Neil O’Brien (Harborough): What steps he is taking with UK Research and Innovation to increase funding allocated to projects in regions of lower productivity.

A – Amanda Solloway (Derby North): We will publish an ambitious place strategy for R&D in the next few months. This will build on existing and emerging research and innovation capabilities across the country, enabling areas to ‘level up’ and reach their economic potential. This is an important part of our ambition to increase R&D investment across the economy.

Research Professional have an article how Greg Clark (Chair) is keen to incorporate social sciences, arts and humanities within the remit of the Commons Science and Technology select committee. RP also have a piece covering Germany’s statistics announcing they have hit 3% R&D spending target. And an article on the importance of metrics and measuring impact within research.

HE focussed Parliamentary Questions

PG Fees

Q – Dr Rupa Huq: what assessment he has made of the potential merits of abolishing application fees for postgraduate students; and if he will make a statement.

A – Michelle Donelan: Higher education providers in England are autonomous bodies and therefore have discretion over the application fees they charge for postgraduate courses.

Strikes

A question asking what guidance the Department has issued on tuition fee refunds as a result of cancelled lectures during industrial action.

Apprenticeships

Q – Sir David Evennett: What steps his Department is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university.

The full answer is here. Excerpts below:

A – Gillian Keegan:… We are continuing to promote all apprenticeships as a genuine, high-quality alternative to traditional academic only study for people of all ages and from all backgrounds. We launched the third phase of our apprenticeships marketing campaign, Fire it Up, in January, which promotes how apprenticeships can provide opportunities for ambitious young people.

… In January 2018 we introduced a legal requirement for schools to give training providers the opportunity to talk to pupils about technical qualifications and apprenticeships, so that young people hear about the alternatives to academic routes. We also offer a free service to schools through the Apprenticeship Support and Knowledge (ASK) project to ensure that teachers have the knowledge and support they need to enable them to promote apprenticeships, including higher and degree apprenticeships, to their students.

…We have also worked with the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to support employers to raise awareness of their apprenticeship opportunities to prospective employees through an online higher and degree apprenticeship vacancy listing.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

January 27, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 24th January 2020

jforster

There are five reports touching on social mobility this week, lots of education statistics released, and we’ve almost Brexited. After all the focus on Parliamentary process over the last two and a half years, the ping pong was over before it really started. There is scope for more before the end of the year, although given the government majority are seemingly united on Brexit, we are going to have to look elsewhere for Parliamentary excitement. Perhaps HS2, Heathrow’s third runway and some of the other big projects up for debate in 2020 will have us all watching Parliament TV again. Or maybe not.

Research policy developments

There have been a lot of announcements over the weekend and the Minister gave a big speech on Friday, so for BU staff we have summarised the latest developments for you here.

Global Talent Visa:

“A new Global Talent Visa, increased investment in mathematical sciences and commitments to strengthen and simplify the research and innovation funding system have been announced by the Prime Minister.
A new fast-track visa scheme to attract the world’s top scientists, researchers and mathematicians will open on 20 February. The bespoke Global Talent route will have no cap on the number of people able to come to the UK, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to supporting top talent.
It replaces the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) route and UK Research and Innovation will endorse applicants from the scientific and research community.”

Maths funding:

“Also announced by the Prime Minister was a significant boost to the UK’s world-leading mathematical sciences community, increasing support for this key discipline and expanding the pool of trained mathematicians.
Up to £300 million of additional funding will more than double the current funding for the mathematical sciences delivered by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)”.

Research Professional say:

It is also “subject to business case”, so it might never see the light of day. Nonetheless, the £60m commitment in principle is to be welcomed, and will provide £19m of additional funding for PhD studentships (double the existing funding, ministers say). There is also £34m of additional funding for “career pathways and new research projects”, and £7m a year extra to be shared between Bristol’s Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research, the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge and the International Centre for Mathematical Sciences in Edinburgh.

Reduction of research bureaucracy

“In line with the commitment to reduce administration for researchers and innovators, UKRI has also announced that applicants to UKRI will no longer be required to provide a ‘Pathways to Impact’ plan or complete an ‘Impact Summary’ within grant applications from 1 March 2020.
The impact agenda remains incredibly important and UKRI exists to fund the researchers who generate the knowledge that society needs, and the innovators who can turn this knowledge into public benefit.
Pathways to Impact has been in place for over a decade and we recognise the research and innovation landscape has changed since its implementation and impact is now a core consideration throughout the grant application process.
The move supports UKRI’s ambition to create a stronger research and innovation environment that is focussed on supporting talented people and realising the full potential of their work.”

Research Integrity paper: See the paper here:

Research Professional say:

Universities should be doing more to ensure the integrity of their research and to retain the trust of society at large, says a paper from League of European Research Universities.
The Leru paper published on 24 January is co-authored by Antoine Hol, a law professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and Inge Lerouge, an ethics and integrity coordinator at KU Leuven in Belgium, with an input from its thematic group on the issue.
“Universities should be at the forefront of developing and implementing new approaches to research integrity that will maintain and strengthen the confidence of the public, governments, research funders and end users,” say Hol and Lerouge in the paper.
Among their recommendations are that universities should devise and share research integrity guidelines, appoint specialist personnel on the issue, and make integrity education mandatory for students.

Chris Skidmore speech on research and innovation (24^th Jan)

Parliamentary News

Education Appointments – Scott Mann (Conservative, Wadebridge) has been appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to Education Minister Gavin Williamson. Previously he was a PPS within the Dept for Work and Pensions. Chris Green (Conservative, Manchester Withington) retails his pre-election role as the DfE PPS. Innes Taylor has been appointed as Gavin Williamson’s SPAD (special advisor).
Labour Leadership Contest – Jess Phillips dropped out of the Labour leadership contest this week. Lisa Nandy has been endorsed by the GMB union and already had the support of the National Union of Mineworkers. Scroll halfway through this article to read the BBC’s analysis of all the candidates chances (spoiler – Sir Kier Starmer is still in the lead).
Brexit – The Lords amended the Withdrawal Bill this week starting the ping pong process. The Government threw out the amendments and the Lords acquiesced, so passing the Bill. So 4 years on from the referendum, after 2 general elections, 3 Prime Ministers, 3 extensions, and 4 exit days…The European Union Withdrawal Act 2019 has now had Royal Assent and is on the statute book. Boris has (almost) delivered (phase 1 of) his Brexit and the UK will leave the EU on 31^st January 2020 (next Friday).

Longitudinal education outcomes (LEO)

The Department for Education has published experimental statistics showing employment and earnings outcomes of HE graduates by provider and current region of residence based on the LEO (longitudinal education outcomes) data.

Graduates earn a median annual salary of £19,900 one year after graduating, £23,300 after three years, £26,000 after five, and £30,500 after ten years.
Graduates in all regions of the country earn on average around 20% more than their peers in the same region who did not go to university.
After adjusting for region, there is still variation in the median earnings outcomes between HE institutions, with 25% of institutions having average adjusted graduate earnings of £23,200 or below and 25% of institutions having adjusted graduate earnings of £28,500 or above.
At the individual institution level, controlling for regional destination can make a significant difference for some institutions; 16.9% of institutions see a change of 10% or more in their median earnings.
When looking at HE institutions whose graduates now live in London, half had median earnings of £29,400, five years after graduation – the highest across all current regions.

Universities Minister Chris Skidmore said:

It’s great to see that all over the country, it pays to have a degree from our world-leading universities, and they are bringing benefits to all of the regions. This data is a milestone for the thousands of future students, helping them to work out whether university is for them, and where to study and work. I hope this will particularly help students from disadvantaged backgrounds to see the benefits, who are often more likely to stay in their home region. Of course earnings potential is just one factor for students, but we believe they should have all the facts to make their decision. It is important for young people to know that they will not only get a rich education at university, but that their degree will be good value for money.

Wonkhe have an analysis by David Kernohan:

The region a graduate lives in has an impact on provider level medians. DfE use a weighted median in their top level data (which I haven’t plotted here for reasons that will become clear), and gleefully reports significant differences between median salary by provider even after a graduate region-based weighting is applied.
Of course, a gold standard LEO would absolutely need take into account subject of study and provider alongside current region (or indeed, local authority) of residence – alongside the sex of a graduate, their GCSE performance, and a suitable measure of inequality. However, such a nuanced examination would provide numbers too small to publish without identifying individuals.
There is hopefully a point in the middle, where LEO gives us enough information to be usable while remaining publishable. This release is not at that point, but I feel like we are gradually iterating around it.
The publication itself is clear on the limitations:
It should be noted that the data presented here does not control for many other factors that can influence graduate outcomes e.g. prior attainment, subject studied and other characteristics. It should also be noted that a higher education will have a range of personal and societal benefits that extend beyond earnings, which by its nature are not captured in the statistics presented here.”
So how useful is the weighted median? If we’re not controlling by subject or by sex, not very.

David has, of course, done a chart and you can play with where students studied (by region) and where they are currently based. How useful is it – well, as with all these things, it depends what you are looking for. What will be interesting will be to see what it means for the new TEF, where they included LEO as additional data in the last pilot and have long said that they would like to reflect regional differences in the metrics, but have previously only supported that with some high level maps and an opportunity to make your case for regional differences in your provider submission. So we’ll see.

Staff in HE

DfE and HESA released the Higher Education Staff Statistics 2018/19. Key points:

There were 439,955 staff (excluding atypical staff) employed in the HE sector, showing an increase of 2% from 429,560 on 1 December 2017.
HE staff employed on academic contracts made up 49% of the population. This percentage has remained the same since 2013/14.
There were 296,185 staff employed on full-time contracts. This is an increase of 2% from 289,730 in 2017/18.
The number of staff on part-time contracts increased by 3% from 139,830 in 2017/18 to 143,765 in 2018/19.

Again, Wonkhe were quick off the mark with analysis from David Kernohan looking at data about senior BME staff in HE following headlines that there are no Black senior academics” – it seems it’s a rounding issue:

“..in the 2014/15 academic year there were between 0 and 2 Black senior academics in UK HE – a state of affairs that continued until 2016/17. At that point there were between 3 and 5 Black senior academics in the UK… which continued until 2018/19 when the number once again dropped below 3.
As Chris Skidmore put it: “It is unacceptable that the number of black academic staff in senior positions has fallen, as this does not represent our British society. Universities need to make more progress and I urge all vice-chancellors to address the barriers that are holding back black and ethnic minority staff from senior positions.”
He actually worded that fairly well – others in and around the sector went for the shocking (if less accurate) “no Black senior academics” framing….
So where does this leave Chris Skidmore (and the many journalists that have gone along with the ministerial line)? He’s right to be concerned about the poor representation of Black academics at the top of our academic providers, and he’s right that the situation needs to be improved.”

The Times Higher Education chose a different angle:

Teaching-only contracts up again as REF approaches. Almost a third of staff in UK higher education are now classed as teaching-only
The Hesa data were released as Research England published figures showing that 22,500 more academics – measured by full-time equivalent – are set to be entered into the 2021 REF because of new rules that require all staff with “significant responsibility for research” to be submitted.
In practice, anyone with a teaching-only contract will not have to be entered, a key reason why it has been suggested that institutions are moving staff perceived to be underperforming in research to teaching-only contracts.
Last year, an analysis by Times Higher Education based on 2017-18 figures found that about a fifth of universities had substantially increased their share of academics on teaching-only contracts, while 12 institutions had a quarter of full-time staff on teaching-only terms.
Elsewhere, the latest Hesa staff statistics showed that the rise in the share of professors who are female increased by a percentage point again in 2018-19 to reach 27 per cent, while for “other senior academics” the female share rose to 38 per cent from 36 per cent. Overall numbers of black academics grew by 11 per cent, but they still represent just 2 per cent of all academic staff.
…The number of part-time contracts was up a percentage point more than full-time contracts, while the share of full-time academic staff on fixed-term contracts also rose slightly, to 25.3 per cent from 24.9 per cent.
The number of staff classed as “atypical” – which includes those employed for one-off tasks, for a short amount of time or in roles “that involve a high degree of flexibility” – also increased, by 2 per cent, after having fallen in previous years.
But specific figures on the number of zero-hours contracts, which include only “typical” staff, showed a drop, from about 11,400 in 2017-18 to 7,000 in 2018-19.
With Brexit now imminent, the data also showed that the share of academics from other European Union countries remained stable in 2018-19 at 17.5 per cent of total numbers.

At the same time, Wonkhe report: The REF 2021 team at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) reports that nearly 75,000 academic staff are expected to be submitted to REF 2021, a 43 per cent increase, according to the results of a preliminary survey. All subject areas are projected to increase, especially the social sciences. This is due to the implementation of the recommendation of the Stern review that all research-active staff should be submitted to the exercise. A reduction in the number of outputs to 2.5 appears to have ensured that the overall number of outputs to be assessed remains roughly the same as the 2014 REF.

And Research Professional focussed on gender:

In terms of numbers in higher education, women dominate. Last week, figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency showed that the number of female students was continuing to grow and that women accounted for the majority (57 per cent) of the student population.
Yesterday, HESA released figures showing that women also make up the majority (54 per cent) of all higher education staff.

…What is the problem?

First, it’s money. While women, as a majority of students, are contributing a large part of what institutions get in fees, the salaries those fees help to fund seem to be going, in large part, to men.
The median gender pay gap was 13.7 per cent on average in UK universities in 2018, with men working in higher education earning £7,220 more on average each year than women.
One reason is that while the overall number of staff working in higher education may be mainly female, the number working in (more highly paid) academic roles is mainly male. The HESA stats show that 27 per cent of professors are women—just one percentage point higher than last year—and women comprise just 38 per cent of staff employed on other senior academic contracts. These numbers have been improving, but at a glacial pace.
More women are also employed part-time, including 55 per cent of employees in part-time academic roles.
Recent studies have also shown gender gaps for researchers in success rates for grant applications and in amounts awarded.

The other problem is that it is not just about numbers of women or the size of their salaries. Speaking at yesterday’s conference, Ruth Sealy, associate professor in management and director of impact at the University of Exeter, said it was also important to consider the nature of the roles women were taking on.

She cited the problem of the “glass cliff”—the idea that women tend to be offered leadership positions at a time of crisis, when it often turns out to be a poisoned chalice. (Think Theresa May after David Cameron’s resignation as prime minister following the Brexit referendum.)
…Another speaker at the conference, Norma Jarboe, external adviser to the Centre for Diversity Policy Research and Practice at Oxford Brookes University, has been studying diversity among university boards and their chairs, vice-chancellors, leadership teams and heads of academic departments. She has found that 55 per cent of higher education institution boards are gender balanced, compared with 19 per cent in 2013. More than 27 per cent of university governing body chairs are now women—more than twice as many as in 2013, although still low—and in 2018, women made up 29 per cent of vice-chancellors and 37 per cent of all executive team members.
But she said that pairs of female vice-chancellors and board chairs were still rare, and her greatest concern was the low number of female heads of academic departments—31 per cent—and the fact that this had not moved in the past two years.
Jarboe said a major problem was the low number of female professors, as a professorial role is often a prerequisite for gaining positions of senior responsibility. “We aren’t going to shift in a big way the numbers in executive teams unless we do something about professorial roles and paths to head into that,” she argued.

Meanwhile, the culture in some university departments remains one in which female staff and students find it difficult to thrive. Launching a consultation on harassment and sexual misconduct earlier this month, Dandridge said the OfS felt that while many institutions were improving their policies in this area, more needed to be done.

Writing for HE, Antonia Sudkaemper, a researcher at OCR Cambridge Assessment, suggested that men were crucial to creating a more inclusive departmental culture for women.
What makes all this important—beyond simply being fair—is that higher education has a particularly transformative effect on women.
Yesterday’s release of post-university earnings data, which focused on how median earnings vary for graduates from different institutions by the region in which they end up working, did not include a breakdown by gender. But previous releases of Longitudinal Education Outcomes have shown that the graduate premium is significantly higher for women than for men—a 28 per cent boost to salaries, compared with just 8 per cent for men, when moderated for social class.”

A levels and progression to HE

DfE released A Level and Other 16 to 18 Results.

Attainment is lower for disadvantaged students compared to non-disadvantaged students across all level 3 qualification types

The average grade for A levels was C for disadvantaged students (increased from C- in 2018), and C+ for all other students (the same as in 2018).
The average grade for Tech Levels and Applied General qualifications was Merit+ for all students, regardless of their disadvantage status. This is an increase from Merit to Merit+ for Tech Level disadvantaged students compared to 2018.

English and maths progress increased for students who did not achieve at least GCSE grade 4 or equivalent at the end of key stage 4.

In 2019, average progress was 0.13 and 0.08 for English and maths respectively. Average progress has steadily increased each year since the measure was introduced in 2016

Level 3 Value Added for A-level disadvantaged students continues to decrease

Over the last three years, the Level 3 value added scores for A-level disadvantaged students have decreased, from -0.06 to -0.12, at a rate of -0.03 per year. This contrasts with a stable score of 0.00 for non-disadvantaged students.

Read more on gender, ethnicity and disadvantage (including free school meals) breakdowns and the most popular subjects here.

DfE statistics on the destinations of Key stage 4 and 16 to 18 (Key stage 5) students:

Overall, 94% of pupils were in sustained education, employment or apprenticeships in the year after key stage 4, unchanged from 2016/17.
- With 86% of this total in sustained education, up 4% since 2010/11 and unchanged from 2016/17

Apprenticeships and employment destinations rose slightly
Overall, 88% of students who took mainly level 3 qualifications went to a sustained education, apprenticeship or employment destination. Students taking qualifications at level 2 and below were less likely to have a sustained destination overall. However, they were more likely to enter apprenticeships and employment.

You can read about progression to HE here.

Figure 4 shows the progression into HE/training by type of school or college. Selective schools have the highest progression rate at 88%. Non-selective schools situated in highly-selective areas have a much lower progression rate (56%) which remains low after influencing factors are controlled for. You can read more on this interesting phenomenon on page 8.
Figure 5 highlights the huge disparity between the regions in progressing to HE. London 16-18 year olds are 17% more likely to progress to HE/training than students in the south west (even when controlling for prior attainment and qualification type). The report questions if this is due to the lack of local easy to access HE institutions within the south west.

Health Maintenance Grants

A Government news story released the detail on the health professions that will benefit from the non-repayable £5,000 (per year) maintenance grant reintroduction (announced in December). The bursary will be in addition to existing support so students will still receive the same loan entitlement. Students on the following programmes will benefit from the grant:

paramedicine
midwifery
nursing (adult, child, mental health, learning disability, joint nursing/social work)
occupational therapy
physiotherapy
operating department practitioner (level 5 courses)
dietetics
dental hygiene or dental therapy (level 5 courses)
orthoptics
orthotics and prosthetics
podiatry or chiropody
radiography (diagnostic and therapeutic)
speech and language therapy

There are three more additional payments worth £1,000 each (per year) for students meeting special criteria:

£1,000 towards childcare costs
£1,000 if studying in a region that is struggling to recruit
£1,000 if they’re a new student studying a shortage specialism important to delivering the NHS Long Term Plan (mental health nursing, learning disability nursing, radiography (diagnostic and therapeutic), prosthetics and orthotics, orthoptics and podiatry).

So a learning disability nurse with children (who qualify) and who is studying in a problem recruitment area would receive £8,000 per year in addition to eligibility for student loans.

This is part of the Government’s drive to increase numbers of nurses by 50,000 by 2025. The press release says the Government expects the £5,000 maintenance grants to benefit 100,000 students each year.

Unpaid Internships

Lord Holmes of Richmond was successful in the Lords Private Members Bill ballot (again!) that was held in December. He continues his campaign to tackle unpaid internships lasting longer than four weeks and has reintroduced legislation to ban unpaid internships over four weeks (with the intent that they will become paid at a reasonable rate). Lords legislation, and private members bills, often fail to progress through Parliament and become law. However, we’ll be keeping a close eye on this Bill. The date for the second reading has yet to be announced.

Social and Geographic Mobility

The Sutton Trust, in partnership with the LSE Inequalities Institute published a report on social mobility, geographic mobility, and elite occupations. This comes from a summary provided by Dods. The report presents a systemic study of whether elites in the UK are pulling away, economically and socially. Elites here are defined in two senses;

firstly ‘economic elites’ , a group of the most economically, culturally and socially advantaged in society, and
‘occupational elites’ , a much larger group comprising of those who work in professional and managerial jobs, the most privileged group of occupations.

The report finds that becoming socially mobile – moving into a higher professional or managerial job from a working-class background – doesn’t necessarily mean moving away from where you grew up. The report also comments on the elites’ consolidation of London, finding that, for the younger generation (aged 30-36), moving to London and working in an elite occupation is largely the preserve of those from a privileged background in the first place.

Elites are likely to justify their position through beliefs in meritocracy. However, these meritocratic views are also largely endorsed by the wider population and thus the elite exaggerate rather than repudiate wider common sense perspectives on social mobility.
Although the impact of private schooling on access to elite universities and firms remains important, their power has slightly waned over the very long run.
Occupational elites, those employed in higher managerial and professional occupations, have not become more geographically segregated over the period 1981-2011. In fact, outside London, such segregation has declined.
Over two-thirds of the most socially mobile people born in 1965-1971 and 1975-1981 have never made a long-distance move (69% and 68% respectively). Instead they’ve built careers near to where they grew up in sectors like law, medicine and academia, aided by the growth in professional jobs across the country in the latter part of the century.
For the younger generation, moving to and living in London at age 30-36 and working in an elite occupation is overwhelmingly associated with being from a privileged background in the first place, and this holds even more true than for older generations
Those from privileged backgrounds that are most able to migrate to, and remain in London, and can therefore take advantage of the most sought-after career opportunities in Britain’s elite occupations. Therefore, there is an association between geographic mobility and the reproduction of social class advantage, rather than social mobility.
Conversely, ‘ordinary’ Londoners who move into elite occupations actually tend to move away from London in order to accomplish their ascent.

Recommendations:

Unpaid internships are a significant barrier to those from less well-off backgrounds outside big cities and exclude those who cannot afford to work for free. To ensure access to opportunities are fair, internships over 4 weeks should always be paid at least the minimum wage. [See our coverage of the Bill here.]
There needs to be a significant increase in the number of degree and higher-level apprenticeships available across the country, and a focus on ensuring young people from low and moderate income backgrounds can access them.
Admissions to the best schools and universities should be more equitable, with increased use of contextual admissions by more selective universities, and opening up the best comprehensive, grammar and independent schools to young people of all backgrounds.

Social Mobility Barometer

The Social Mobility Commission’s annual social mobility barometer which assesses public attitudes to social mobility in the UK. The report underlines stark regional differences in people’s perceptions of their life prospects:

31% of people living in the north-east (and 48% in north-west) think there are good opportunities to make progress in their own region, whereas
74% believe this in the south-east, and
78% in London.

Dame Martina Milburn, Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, said:

This year’s Social Mobility Barometer gives a clear message to the new Government. It shows that more than half of people feel that government does not give enough support to those who are struggling or to the least well off. It should be doing much more both at national and local level.
This year the Barometer reveals a worrying divide between opportunities in education and what follows – work, income and job security. Overall 63% of people felt they were better off than their parents in terms of the education they had received, but only 45% felt they had a better standard of living. Less than a third felt they had better job security.
This suggests that the focus on improving educational opportunities may have started to pay off but much more attention is needed on training, jobs, and pay levels. The majority of people continue to feel there are fewer opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds compared to better-off peers. Almost half of people (44%) say that where you end up in society is largely determined by your background, while twice as many people feel it is becoming harder rather than easier to move up in society. This poll is a ‘call to action’ for this new Government to do more to help social mobility. Politicians must listen to it. This is a great moment to start reversing inequities of generations.

Delving into the detail behind the headlines is the finding that apprenticeships were considered to offer better career progression than HE study. However, there is a stark age difference with the younger generation plumping for HE to pursue a successful career (see page 12 for the full breakdown).

77% felt that poorer people have less opportunity to attend a top university with 65% believing poor people’s chances were reduced to attend any university. 49% believed it would also be harder for poorer people to obtain an internship. Interestingly 57% believed poor people had equal opportunity to obtain an apprenticeship.
Those surveyed who were aged under 50 believed they received a better education than their parents but scored lower on all other factors with the 18-24 and 25-49 age groups particularly negative in their opinion.
Those born in the 1980s and 1990s were rated highest for the best educational opportunities (despite the fact the tuition fee loan system was in place for this cohort).

Dods report that the Social Mobility Commission poll coincides with the publication of the commission’s research report into further education and recommends that the government set up an independent What Works Centre for Further Education and Adult Learning (proposed budget £20 million over the next 5 years) to act as a knowledge and research hub; translating the best available evidence and testing a variety of approaches to ensure resources for poorer students, who make up the bulk of students in further education, are targeted more effectively.

The NUS responded to both social mobility reports and the FE report but were not in favour of a What Works centre – NUS Vice President (Further Education) Juliana Mohamad-Noor said:

We welcome the publication’s focus on how to improve education attainment among disadvantaged students and the report can provide a useful evidence base for this. However students have told us that what they need to best help them succeed is more direct investment into further education (FE) rather than investing in a £20 million What Works Centre. FE is in a funding crisis due to cuts since 2010, with students bearing the brunt of these cuts. The government must raise the rate to at least £4,760 per student as a priority if they are to improve attainment.

I believe there are a number of initiatives which could make life better for disadvantaged students. They include:

Travel passes: City of Liverpool College had travel passes for students with a household income of less than £25,000 who lived more than two miles away and had good attendance.
Bursary Grants: City of Liverpool College also had a small pot of funding for students who met a similar criteria. I benefitted from this when I was a business student at the College and was granted £200 to buy a laptop so that I could do my coursework outside of the classroom and not be dependent on limited library resources in College or at home.
Free School Meals. At City of Liverpool only 2 or 3 centres were funded to be able to provide free food at lunchtime. This lack of support meant many students had to spend time travelling to another college where their ID cards would allow them access to the meal allowance, or use their own limited resources to buy food elsewhere.
Nurseries, such as the one provided at City of Liverpool College for students with young children. This allows both access to education for the students as well as reliable and safe childcare for their young ones.
Direct investment in response to real student needs in their day-to-day lives is what’s needed to close the education attainment gap among disadvantaged students

Interventions to widen access to HE – impact evaluation

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) has published a report on the impact of interventions for widening access to HE. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are still less likely than their more privileged counterparts to progress to HE. The report finds that, despite considerable investment and many years of widening participation policy, progress has been modest and there appears to be limited evidence on the effectiveness of the interventions carried out. The paper also describes interventions that have proved most effective.

These are the key findings as described by the EPI:

Overall, there is still a lack of available evidence on the impact of outreach interventions on actual enrolment rates. Much of the existing evidence focusses on intermediate outcomes such as increased aspirations and awareness which may not always translate into actual enrolments.
Most of the studies analysed found positive but modest effects. There are still some gaps in the research base, and the evidence often does not demonstrate causality; however, there has been an increased focus on robust evaluations.
Much of the evidence is concentrated on students in their final years of secondary school and post-16 learners (A levels students in particular). Given that differences in attainment can explain much of the participation gap, and that these arise early, there is a lack of evidence on the impact of interventions happening earlier in the student life cycle.
Most widening participation initiatives analysed were black box interventions combining several outreach components. These combined interventions seem to be associated with improvements in higher education outcomes but drawing definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of the single components is challenging.
Providing financial aid to disadvantaged students is a high-cost widening participation intervention that has a small but positive effect on enrolment. The literature suggests that financial support is most successful when it is relatively easy to understand and apply for and efforts are made to raise awareness amongst potential beneficiaries.
Interventions in the area of mentoring, counselling and role models has generally positive association with the outcomes considered. Qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests an increase in students’ confidence to succeed in higher education, higher aspirations and a better understanding of the world of university, especially when the mentors can act as relatable role models for the mentees. Again, much of the literature analyses only changes to intermediate outcomes such as increased aspirations, confidence or awareness, rather than actual enrolments.
Providing information, advice and guidance to underrepresented students during secondary school is a low-cost, light-touch tool to widen participation. The literature is largely based on fully scalable randomised control trials and indicates limited effects on both aspirations and actual enrolment. The more promising interventions are those that are tailored to the students, start early and are integrated into other forms of support, such as career advice and guidance.
Summer schools are high-cost interventions that appear to be positively correlated with an increase in confidence and aspirations, but evidence on their effects on application to and acceptance by higher education institutions shows mixed results.

EPI make the following recommendations: [some very familiar messages here!]

To avoid overestimating the effectiveness of widening participation interventions, it is crucial to provide more causal evidence on the capacity of interventions to translate increased aspirations and awareness into a higher enrolment rate.
There is a need for more robust research on the impact of black box interventions, with a focus on teasing out the separate effect of each component. Robust monitoring and evaluation should be built into these interventions from the start.
There is not enough research focused on vulnerable but overlooked groups, such as mature students, carers and care leavers, some ethnic minority students and vocational students.
More causal evidence on the effectiveness of summer schools should also be carried out. Where randomised control trials are not practical, other quasi-experimental techniques should be applied.
More research on financial aid is recommended to ensure relevance to the English and UK context.
The government and its delivery bodies must facilitate greater tracking of the progression outcomes of participants in widening participation interventions over time and between the school, college and the higher education sectors. This would provide improved evidence based on actual enrolments to higher education rather than on self-reported aspirations and attitudes only, and would allow for the development of more research on interventions happening

NCOP (National Collaborative Outreach Programme)

A report on the future of the NCOP (National Collaborative Outreach Programme): Voices: What next for the National Collaborative Outreach Programme? Last week OfS announced they would need to make savings in the HE recurrent funding budgets. They have confirmed they will not cut NCOP allocations, however, they will clawback and repurpose any underspend. Voices is a responsive briefing written by 17 leaders of the 29 regional NCOP consortia on the future of the programme based on this statement:

“The Office for Students has signalled its intention to financially support the Outreach Hubs to 2025. What recommendations would you, as NCOP Leads, make to OfS decision makers for a national programme to run alongside the Outreach Hubs to ensure that some element of nationally-funded collaborative widening access work continues once NCOP ends in 2021, drawing on your expertise and your own local context?”

The South West leads had this to say in response:

NCOP partnerships are neatly taking care of collaborative outreach targets, and implicit impartiality. This does not exonerate HE providers from their obligations to provide high-quality institutional WP Outreach, with the potential student as the focus of their work, not the potential recruitment of that student to their institution. The success of the Outreach Hubs will depend, in part, on their ability to signpost to a coherent, broad-ranging institutional WP Outreach offer. HE providers should be supported to build this now, in preparation for meaningful continued collaborative working post July 2021.

Here Dods summarise how the NCOP Consortia see the Future:

Collaboration is crucial but fragile: Strong relationships between schools, higher education, and further education are being formed but without continued funding
Commitment to collaboration has to be long term: A recurring theme of the responses was the need for a stable long-term commitment to a funded collaborative infrastructure. This commitment needs to be until 2025 to at least match the APP cycle.
Starting earlier is key: A strong theme running through the responses was the need to engage with learners earlier, as soon as primary level if possible. A strong theme running through the responses was the need to engage with learners earlier, as soon as primary level if possible.
Institutional Outreach will not ‘replace’ NCOP targeted activity: If NCOP targeted funding is removed then large groups of learners will lose their support if they do not fit with the priorities of providers in that area, and the risk is that all learners will have what they can learn about HE restricted. This will include those who need greater, more extensive support to progress to HE.
Direct school involvement matters: Even if funding is to be scaled down there could be a case for transitional support in those areas most badly affected by such a scaling.
Targeting is important, but targeting who?: There were voices which questioned the present area based approach and whether an individual-level approach would have greater merit. It would possibly assist the Office for Students in understanding what range of approaches to defining disadvantage and educational disadvantage could be the most appropriate in widening access work.
Fund national but deliver local: The recent interest in civic universities is welcome but will not represent any kind of replacement for a coherent funded commitment made by the HE sector to engaging with the local areas for whom HE does not seem relevant.

You can read the (relatively short) full document here.

Grammar Schools

Arguments over the abolition, taxing, and expansion of grammar schools were features of GE2019 and they’re still topical in 2020. In January 2019 HEPI published an occasional paper by Iain Mansfield The Impact of Selective Secondary Education on Progression to HE which found that attending a grammar school increased the likelihood of attending a highly-selective university for disadvantaged pupils. However, this week HEPI have published a collection of essays – Social Mobility and HE: Are grammar schools the answer? refuting Iain’s claims that grammar schooling has a positive effect for deprived pupils. In short:

The data used by Iain Mansfield was flawed – the exclusion of (missing) income data from higher income families makes it appear more grammar students come from poorer households that is actually the case.
Any positive benefits for individuals from attending grammar schools are outweighed by negative effects on those who do not pass the 11+. Furthermore, selection depresses overall educational achievement and harms the chances of the poorest children. There are also moral arguments against the social segregation that is the consequence of selective secondary education. At a time of increasing social division and inequality in England, authors argue that a high-quality and comprehensive system which educates all pupils effectively is needed.
Grammar schools thrive as a result of having highly selective universities, and because of their diverse classroom learning experience which matches well with university study.
There are geographical differences in areas which have grammar schools – generally they’re more affluent. This means it is not possible to attribute all differences in progression rates between selective and non-selective areas to grammar schools rather than differences in the pupil population or other factors.
Personal ideologies have not coloured the academic debate on grammar schools as Mansfield suggests.

Contributors, John Furlong & Ingrid Lunt, Emeritus Professors of Education, University of Oxford said:

Increased mobility that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s did not come about as a result of grammar schools but because of structural changes that brought about substantially increased opportunities for social mobility. There literally was ‘more room at the top’ that had to be filled whether or not there were grammar schools at the time…In a society that aspires to greater social equality and equality of opportunity there can be little justification for the continued existence of grammar schools today, let alone their expansion. They are the product of educational thinking from a very different era from our own. They are part of our educational history; that does not mean they should be part of our educational future.

Iain Mansfield blogged for HEPI in response to the latest paper both welcoming it for the contribution it makes to the body of evidence on the topic but also raising concerns on factors not addressed. He re-highlights his original points on unconscious bias and speaks out against the comprehensive university model. He concludes:

Academic selection is a fundamentally complex subject, involving complex trade-offs that impact on different individuals in society in diverse and varied ways. Selection may be applied at different ages, on a general or a specialist basis, and both between and within schools, for example with streaming and setting. It may be applied with differing degrees of flexibility or movement between schools and under a wide variety of different funding frameworks, from the highly inequitable one prevailing in the 1950s to one significantly more progressive, in which greater resources are provided to those most in need. There are no easy answers to any of this – but it is a matter which deserves to be discussed and researched by a diverse group of individuals with different perspectives, not a closed circle of those who have already made up their minds.

Immigration

This week The Times reported PM Boris has confirmed he will axe the £30,000 minimum salary threshold for immigrants arriving after Brexit through the planned Australian-style points system. The Times state:

Under Mr Johnson’s plan migrants’ earnings will be taken into account as part of their application to enter the UK. Other criteria could include English proficiency, educational qualifications, occupation and willingness to work in particular areas of Britain.
While the prime minister is understood to have the support of his cabinet, ditching the £30,000 criteria will still be controversial in the Tory party.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Eurosceptic MP and former Conservative leader, said they should be cautious about ditching the £30,000 threshold. They will need to have very strong checks in place to ensure that they deliver on their pledge to control immigration. Anti-immigration campaign group Migration Watch UK are reported as warning that the number of migrants coming to Britain could rise sharply under a points-based system.

The Migration Advisory Committee will publish a report next week on how the new points-based system would work and the Government is expected to publish an immigration white paper in March 2020. The Government intends for the new immigration system to be introduced immediately at the end of the Brexit transition period in December 2020.

Assistive Technology

Universities, Science, Research and Innovation Minister Chris Skidmore has made an announcement on technology to support pupils with special education needs. From Dods: Chris Skidmore’s EdTech related speech at the BETT show has now been published.

The government’s EdTech testbed programme launched with Durham University, will match schools and colleges with leading EdTech products created to tackle specific educational challenges, like homework marking, or parental engagement.
I’m pleased to announce today that in 2020 we intend to achieve a world-first, and develop a new Assistive Technology testbed aimed at transforming learning for pupils with special educational needs and disability.
At the school level, we’ve put more than £80 million to create the National Centre for Computing Education, to improve the quality of computing teaching across England and to encourage more girls to take the subject.
On the college level, we’ve established the National College of Digital Skills, better known as Ada. We have also started to open the first 12 Institutes of Technology (IoTs), backed by £170m of government funding, to offer higher technical education in key sectors including digital.

The Education Minister speaks

Gavin Williamson spoke to more than 100 education ministers from around the globe at the Education World Forum, setting out his vision for British education. HE commentators were disappointed about the (lack of) priority given to HE in the speech. There’s a transcript of the speech here.

…For the first time, the latest PISA results show 15-year-olds in England achieving scores above the OECD national averages in reading, maths and science.
…Last year we set up a £2.5 million programme to help encourage international exchanges, with a particular focus on children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thanks to that programme, children from 138 schools have or are planning to travel to countries as far-ranging such as Austria and Zambia. Today, I’m thrilled to announce a one-year extension to this International School Exchange programme, and its expansion to include primary school children in Years 5 and 6.
We truly do hold the tools to make a global difference and a global change. So many people turn to us to provide them with a chance to succeed in life. To free themselves sometimes from the poverty they’ve known, or the lack of ambition that others have experienced. We have that ability to level up, to give people, young people, the chance for them to succeed, for our nations to succeed, and for every generation to be able to contribute more to their nations but also to the globe. That is what we can, and that is what we will do.

On HE:

We recognise for our higher education institutions to remain the best in the world, that is done through international collaboration, working with others, making sure that research and study is always an international endeavour.
Of course, a traditional academic education isn’t the be all and end all, and we’re all rapidly finding this out. It’s 2020, and we all live in a modern global economy—one that is set to be transformed by AI, automation and other technologies, and which will require a new and constantly changing skillset for our workforce. And those might not be the kind of skills that we can necessarily always develop within universities or traditional academia.
As a result, every country across the world is now putting a much bigger focus on further and technical education, so that we can build a workforce that’s fighting fit for the future and able to deal with the new challenges and opportunities that the globe faces.

Other news

Strong growth: The Open Innovation team have published Cautionary Tales from History an economics focused blog examining Britain’s exponential economic success during the 16^th and 17^th Centuries. The blog considers the influence of policy and questions whether the growth enabling elements could be harnessed today to address left behind regions in the UK. The blog concludes that in the past strong Government with an efficient system of taxation and public finance alongside strong markets which were not manipulated by special interest groups (guilds, landlords, the church, etc) and a strong civil society were the social conditions behind the success of the industrial revolution.
Care Leavers: The Care Leaver Progression Partnership have promoted the latest Stand Alone report What Happens Next? which explores care leavers transitioning out of HE. And Care Day will be held on 21 February.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

January 20, 2020

HE policy update for the w/e 17th January 2020

HEIF, Industry collaboration, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer jforster

Another busy week in HE policy– with consultations and a very short timeline for the KEF. Everyone has hit the ground running in 2020!

The third leg of the HE stool arrives: KEF has landed

The outcome of the KEF consultation in 2019 has come out. UKRI have published the “Decisions for the first iteration”. They have given a very short timeline for the publication of the first set of data and narratives from institutions – they will all be published this summer. Narratives have to be submitted by May. Data will be published for everyone, whether they submit narratives or not.

They have also indicated that it is likely that from 2020/21 institutions will have to submit narratives for the KEF to be eligible for Research England funding.

This first iteration of the KEF will take place in the current academic year 2019/20. All Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) eligible to receive Research England Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) funding in this current academic year are in scope for this exercise.
The KEF is taking a metrics-led approach, although it also includes a narrative component. As previously advised, all proposed KEF metrics use existing data sources that are already collected via existing statutory returns or other means. …. This reflects the minimal burden of this exercise as there is no need for any institution to gather or submit new metrics for this iteration of the KEF.
The narrative component of the KEF will consist of three brief narrative statements … we intend to publish in summer 2020 the KEF metrics of all institutions in receipt of HEIF in this 2019/20 academic year. Therefore, institutions in receipt of HEIF in this academic year 2019/20 are strongly encouraged to submit narrative information to contextualise their results….
This report will be followed by publication of the narrative templates and final cluster membership in February 2020. If institutions in scope for this exercise wish to have their narrative templates published alongside their results, the completed templates should be returned on Friday 15 May 2020.
…Research England will provide further contextual information about the external environment in which the HEI operates that should be considered when interpreting results. This contextual information will be in the form a standard set of indicators at the LEP-region level.
Results will be presented through an online visualisation platform displaying perspectives and underlying metrics, as well as narrative statements and contextual information

The metrics will be reported against “clusters”. They have changed their original cluster proposals somewhat, removing the Social Science and Business specialist cluster – final cluster membership will be published in February with the templates. These clusters have been designed to allow meaningful comparison. When BU responded to the consultation we suggested that it is unhelpful to introduce a third methodology for comparison – the TEF uses institutional benchmarks, something that has challenges itself, and the REF is of course organised by subject. We remain concerned that this will be confusing and not very meaningful for businesses and other organisations (the declared target for this information) who may not find the cluster comparison useful if they only have limited experience with a small number of universities.

You will recall that the metrics are grouped into seven “perspectives” – only two will require narratives. The consultation looked at additional metrics but has discounted any that are not already “gathered through existing statutory returns, or available from other UKRI or external sources”. This is because they want to make it a “low burden” exercise.

Public and Community Engagement narrative – a statement:

identifying the public and community groups served by the institution and how their needs have been identified;
description of the targeted activities that are undertaken to meet these needs;
evidence that needs have been met and tangible outcomes achieved.

Local Growth and Regeneration narrative – a statement:

identifying the geographical area(s) that the institution considers to be its local area;
explanation of how needs of the local area(s) that relate to economic growth and regeneration are identified;
description of the targeted activities undertaken by the institution to meet those needs and any outcomes achieved.

The third narrative will be an institutional context narrative – “setting out the geographic, economic and social context within which the higher education institution is operating…. The information contained within this statement will not be used to normalise any of the metrics or perspectives across clusters.”

David Kernohan has written for Wonkhe about it:

“The Knowledge Exchange Framework is not (like REF and TEF are) an “excellence framework”. It doesn’t make any judgement on the quality of business and community interaction, just on the proportional volume and likely output of a number of activities described in the HE-BCI survey data. Neither is it of use to professional or armchair rankers – it doesn’t offer named awards or simple stepped gradations that demonstrate one thing is unfailingly better than another.
It may eventually be used to support the allocation of the £200m Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), which is currently allocated using similar data. But for the first year (2020-21) it is for entertainment and edification purposes only.”

David summarises the pages of normalisation methodology in the document nicely: “Metrics are a three-year average, mostly …as ratios, which are converted at perspective level into deciles. This reduces a great deal of data and analysis into what amounts to a set of marks out of 10, which are compared to an average mark from comparable institutions (the infamous clusters)”.

And the visualisation approach: “Research England has a grand plan to use spider graphs to show institutional scores alongside cluster averages, with an option to drill down into more detailed data on each metric. I’m not as struck by this as they are – the exercise is designed to support comparisons and spider diagrams are an unwieldy way to do this. I also feel like the individual metrics are still fairly abstract, you have to go quite a long way back down the methodology to get something that the mind can easily take hold of.”

Erasmus after Brexit

After the social media storm last week when Parliament didn’t approve the Erasmus amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (it doesn’t mean we can’t be in it, it just means that government won’t be bound by the new Bill to make sure we are in it), there have been a few questions this week.

Douglas Chapman (SNP) said that the end of Erasmus scheme was an “utter disaster, culturally and socially” and asked the PM to comment on the end of the participation of the scheme. Boris’ response implied that the UK would continue to participate in the scheme.

And there were several questions on Erasmus (see this one and this one) – all with similar response – that the Government is including it within the Brexit negotiations and is working towards remaining within the scheme. The House of Commons Library have released this briefing paper on Erasmus to inform MPs ahead of Monday’s scheduled Education debate.

New HESA data

HESA have published higher education statistics for 2018/19. Interestingly, the OfS focussed on grade inflation in their response –and nothing else.

Sex of students

Of all HE students 57% were female in 2018/19 (see Figure 4), this has been the same since 2016/17.
A larger proportion of part-time students were female than full-time students.
For other undergraduate students, 64% were female, compared with 49% of postgraduate (research) students.

Age of students

The overall number of first year students aged 30 and over has increased in 2018/19 after a decreasing trend in previous years.
The number of first year students aged 21-24 has increased from 2015/16 to 2018/19.
The number of first year full-time students aged 30 and over has increased every year since 2014/15.
Numbers of full-time students aged 20 and under have increased year on year since 2012/13.

Student disability status

The overall number of students with a known disability is increasing year on year. The main reason for this increase is students identified as having a mental health condition.
Of students with a known disability in 2018/19 the category of specific learning difficulty is the largest group accounting for 36% of the total.

Ethnicity of students

The percentage of UK domiciled students that are White has decreased over the last five years. However, the percentage that are Asian, Mixed and from Other ethnic backgrounds has increased.
HE providers in England show the largest decrease and the lowest proportion of UK domiciled students that are White compared to HE providers in all other countries of the UK.

Within the European Union:

Italy has seen a notable rise to become the top European Union country sending students to the UK, overtaking three other countries in the last five years.
Germany is the top European Union country to send students to Wales and Scotland, and Ireland is top in sending students to Northern Ireland.

Outside the European Union:

China sent more students to the UK than any other overseas country. In 2018/19, 35% of all non-EU students were from China. The number of students from China was also 34% higher in 2018/19 than in 2014/15, increasing from 89,540 to 120,385 in the five year span.
Student numbers from India increased from 18,325 in 2014/15 to 26,685 in 2018/19.
The other countries in the chart are more in line with European Union student numbers.
Nigeria has seen a 41% decline in student numbers coming to the UK over the five year period, dropping behind the United States, Hong Kong and Malaysia.
For more recent trends in international student visa applications and granted visas, refer toTable 1 of Immigration statistics published by the Home Office in November 2019. Please note that although on a similar theme, these statistics are not directly comparable. Home Office statistics cover further education as well as higher education, and immigration data provides an indication of the number of people who have an intention to enter the UK for study reasons, not whether, or when, an individual actually arrived in the UK, or what they did on arrival to the UK.

Of those gaining a classified first degree:

The percentage of students achieving a first class honours remains stable at 28% for both 2017/18 and 2018/19. This follows an increase year on year since 2009/10 where 14% of students achieved this classification.
A larger proportion of female students gained a first or upper second class honours than male students.
Full-time students had a larger proportion of first or upper second class honours than part-time students.

Subjects

In 2018/19:

More qualifications were awarded in business & administrative studies than any other subject area.
Amongst part-time students, more qualifications were awarded in subjects allied to medicine than any other subject area.

Over the five year period 2014/15 – 2018/19:

There has been an overall increase in the number of qualifications gained in biological sciences and social studies.
There has been a decline in the number of qualifications gained in languages and education.

Mental Health

Student Minds has launched The Wellbeing Thesis, a website designed to support postgraduate research students to maintain their mental wellbeing.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield has presented a Bill in the House of Lords which would amend the Education Act 2002 and the Academies Act 2010 for schools to promote the mental health and wellbeing of their pupils. The Bill will proceed to a second reading at a future date.

And some Parliamentary questions:

Q – Conor McGinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department is taking to (a) reduce the level of social stigma in relation to mental health and (b) promote awareness of mental health issues among young people.

A – Nick Gibb:

The Department is making teaching about mental health part of compulsory health education in all state-funded schools in England from September 2020. The statutory guidance sets out that pupils will be taught about the importance of good physical and mental health including the steps pupils can take to protect and support their own health and mental wellbeing. The content will also cover understanding emotions; identifying where someone is experiencing signs of poor mental health; simple self-care; and how and when to seek support.
The Department is also working with the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families to pilot setting up peer support approaches in schools and colleges that allow young people to play an active part of creating a mentally healthy and supportive environment. The findings from the programme’s external evaluation will be shared nationally, to help more schools to develop or improve their own mental health peer support programmes.
To support school staff, the Department has set up Expert Advisory Group on teacher and leader wellbeing which has a remit to advise the Department on what it can do to help schools and colleges promote good wellbeing, including tackling stigma around mental health.

Labour leadership

Monday was the closing date for Labour leadership candidates to secure the 22 nominations from MPs to run for party leader. Chris Lewis and Barry Gardiner did not secure the required amount. The following candidates will progress to the next round (number of nominations received noted in brackets):

Keir Starmer (89)
Rebecca Long Bailey (33)
Lisa Nandy (31)
Jess Phillips (23)
Emily Thornberry (23)

Candidates for deputy leader:

Angela Rayner (88)
Ian Murray (34)
Dawn Butler (29)
Rosena Allin-Khan (23)
Richard Burgon (22)

We explained the leadership contest process in detail in last week’s policy update. However, here is a quick recap: the next phase requires the candidates to seek nominations from Constituency Labour Parties and the Unions by 15^th Jan – to carry on they need support of 5% of the constituency parties (the BBC said 30) OR 3 affiliate organisations, including 2 trade unions. The members’ ballot opens on 21^st Feb and runs to 2^nd April. Votes are redistributed if there is no clear winner. Results announced on 4^th April

An interesting background briefing on the Labour leadership candidates prepared by Dods is available here. It is worth a read to get to know the candidates better.

Fees and funding

The House of Commons Library has a new briefing paper on the Augar Review (Post 18 Education and Funding Review). The paper considers the recommendations of the Augar Review and the (page 26) initial responses to it from major HE bodies. The Government is rumoured to have made the decision on how they will respond (which parts they will adopt) of the Augar Review and intend to release their response at a suitable point (soon-ish!). Most likely the briefing paper has been produced because Education Questions will take place in Parliament next Monday.

And some Parliamentary questions:

Q -Baroness Bennett Of Manor Castle: following the announcement that nursing bursaries are to be reintroduced, what plans [the Government] have to support nurses, midwifes and other healthcare professionals with any debt incurred before the reintroduction to support their study and training.

A -Baroness Blackwood Of North Oxford:

We have committed to 50,000 more nurses in the National Health Service by 2025 and our new financial support package is crucial to delivering this.
Eligible pre-registration students on nursing, midwifery and many allied health students’ courses at English universities from September 2020 will benefit from additional support of at least £5,000 of non-repayable funding, with up to £3,000 additional funding for some students, who choose to study in regions or specialisms struggling to recruit, or to help with childcare costs, which they will not have to pay back.
The Government has no plans to introduce a scheme that will backdate the offer for students who completed courses in earlier years.

Q – Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department has taken to introduce Sharia compliant student loans.

A – Chris Skidmore (Kingswood): The government remains committed to introducing an Alternative Student Finance product for tuition fee and maintenance loans. Details on implementation will follow the conclusion of the review of post-18 education and funding.

Select Committees

Parliamentary business has been laid to commence the election of the select committee chairs now the new Parliament has formed. We anticipate the chairs will be announced early in February. Below is a diagram stating which party will chair each select committee.

There are several committees where the previous chairman has vacated their position through losing their seat, or where the chairmanship has switched from Labour to Tory to reflect Parliament’s new arithmetic (the number of chairs for each party is proportionate to the size of the party in Parliament). These include the Treasury, health, transport and work and pensions committees.

There is a potential change on the horizon. In the past when a parliamentary session ends the chairmanship and membership of a select committee ceases – as it did when the 2019 general election was called. However, a parliamentary motion introduced this week seeks to remove the limit on the maximum length of time an individual can chair a committee. This would allow parliamentarians to become long-serving chairs. There is also a clause which stipulates that the Brexit committee will continue for another year, even though the department it shadows — DExEU — is being wound up at the end of January.

Education Debate

There was a major Education and Local Government debate within the House of Commons this week led by Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education. On schools the debate covered content on: the minimum school funding (per pupil), rolling out free schools (Midlands, North and South West), extra funding to Councils to support children in care, capital funding for childcare provision within schools (for school aged children), an arts activities premium for secondary schools from 2021, school building safety – following advice in the independent Hackitt review,

Gavin Williamson also said:

The Government’s £3bn national skills fund would build on ongoing work to develop a national retraining scheme in underpinning economic prosperity.
Capital investment of £1.8bn into the further education estate.
The Government plans to create more mayors across England to devolve power away from Westminster via a devolution white paper.

Angela Rayner challenged the Government on the lack of response to the Augar review, particularly in relation to decision on the regulation of home education. She said: “While we are on the subject of Bills that are missing in action…The Augar review went from being a flagship to a ghost ship”.

SNP Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Carol Monaghan, asked the Minister whether a fee change would be forthcoming, further to the Augar review recommendations. She also raised concerns over the implications of Brexit on HE staff, research funding, infrastructure and collaboration: “A recent report from the Royal Society has shown that the UK’s share of EU funding has fallen by €500 million since 2015. There has also been a drop of 40% in UK applications to Horizon 2020. We are still in it just now, but we have had that drop because people do not have any certainty. The UK is now seen as a less attractive place to come and do research, with 35% fewer scientists coming to the UK through key schemes. That is of concern, as is Erasmus and what Brexit will mean for that programme”.

David Davis (Conservative) criticised the university tuition fees and loans scheme for delivering poor-quality education, high levels of expectations and low levels of outcome. He called for concerted action to tackle low productivity, including translational research, but also, “investment, education, infrastructure, magnet cities and garden villages”.

Previous chair of the Education Select Committee Robert Halfon welcomes the Queen’s Speech and said that he believes that “skills, social justice, standards and support for the profession should be the four interlocking foundations of this Government’s education programme.” He called on the Government to turbocharge adult learning, citing that adult learning is at its lowest since 1996 and that this county needs a world-class apprenticeships programme.

Halfon also raised concerns about disadvantaged pupils who are often 19 months behind by the time they reach their GCSEs, he called on the Government to have a “bold, assertive agenda that has compassion and aspiration right at its core.” Halfon told the chamber that the Government should offer top-quality childcare, to help plug the gap of disadvantaged children who are already left behind when they start primary school.

Shadow Minister for Northern Ireland Karin Smyth told the house that the Government has got it wrong in its implementation of apprenticeships, particularly by making the process more complicated for small and medium sized enterprises.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East) raised a number of concerns surrounding the funding of schools and local authorities. She told the house that “in the midst of a mental health crisis in young adults, we must do more to address the increasing lack of support in further education colleges.”

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak) welcomed the Secretary of State’s admission of the problems faced by pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. He also hoped that the new student visa would make it easier for people to come here to study, but noted that PhD students did not find it particularly easy to stay after they completed their doctorates.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-op, Nottingham North) spoke about the educational trouble faced by working class boys, saying that it was caused by a cocktail of poor discipline, irregular attendance and below par curriculums. He called on the Government to have better curriculums based on international best practice; specific, targeted resource to augment the pupil premium; a focus on catching up for boys who fall behind at key stage 1; and the deployment of the best teachers in the most challenged schools, incentivised to work in the hard environments.

Bambos Charalambous (Labour) said there wasn’t enough school funding to reverse cuts on areas like school maintenance and a lack of further education.

You can read the debate in full here.

Skills gap

The Local Government Association (LGA) published a report (compiled by the Learning and Work Institute) considering 2030 projected skills gaps in England. It considers eight areas and quantifies potential loss of economic output due to the skills gaps. They conclude that 6 million people in England risk being without a job or in work they are over-qualified for by 2030. This is a similar message to the Government’s line on upskilling the workforce to plug business needs due to insufficient skills within the workforce. However, the LGA imagine a more localised solution to the skills gaps. Key points:

1 million low-skilled people chasing 2 million low-skilled jobs – a surplus of 3.1 million low-skilled workers
7 million people with intermediate skills chasing 9.5 million jobs – a surplus of 3.1 million people
4 million high-skilled jobs with only 14.8 million high-skilled workers – a deficit of 2.5 million

This note looks at the extent and nature of the potential skills gap that could be faced in the future through to 2030 – at both the level of England as a whole and in eight selected local areas:

Nottingham City
Staffordshire
Gloucestershire
Greater Lincolnshire
Essex, Southend and Thurrock
Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark
North of Tyne
Southampton and Portsmouth

The LGA are critical of the current centrally-governed skills and employment system whereby £10.5 billion a year is spent by eight government departments and agencies across 20 different national schemes. Unsurprisingly the LGA is calling for the Government to use the Budget to devolve all back-to-work, skills, apprenticeship, careers advice, and business support schemes and funding to the local areas in which they are used. They envisage groups of councils across England with the power and funding to deliver a one-stop ‘Work Local’ service for skills, apprenticeship, employment, careers advice and business support provision. Bringing together local skills planning, overseeing job support including Jobcentre Plus and the Work and Health Programme and coordinate careers advice and guidance for young people and adults.

Cllr Kevin Bentley, Chairman of the LGA’s People and Places Board, said:

Millions of people face a future where they have skills mismatched for jobs at a huge cost to people’s lives and the local and national economy. Councils are ideally placed to lead efforts to help the Government bring growth and jobs to all parts of the country and ensure everyone is fully equipped with the skills they need to compete for future jobs.

Stephen Evans, Chief Executive of Learning and Work Institute, said:

Improving skills is central to making the 2020s a decade of growth. Other countries have continued to invest in skills, while progress in England has stalled over the last decade, the result of large cuts in England’s adult education budget which has left us lagging behind other countries and the number of adults improving their skills at a record low. We now need a decade of investment, in order to boost life chances,

Widening participation

A thought provoking HEPI blog considers the last 20 years of research published on addressing widening participation (WP) aims. It covers all the expected current topics from the BME attainment gap to the non-participation in HE by costal and/or rural areas. It highlights international approaches such as that from Australia and Canada explaining how studies addressed the same enduring gaps as the UK has now. Overall there are no magic solutions but the blog is reinvigorating in the way it brings all the WP themes together for fresh reconsideration. You can read the full blog here.

At Prime Minister’s Questions this week previous Head of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon said that despite improvement in educational standards and funding, white working-class boys underperform at every stage of education system. He questioned whether, in the context of large infrastructure projects expected, and the high value apprenticeships associated, whether the apprenticeship levy could be reformed to enable such young people to climb the skills ladder of opportunity. Boris responded that the House should follow Halfon’s advice and reform the apprenticeship levy, and intimated that the Education Secretary would update the House on this in due course.

And some Parliamentary questions:

Q – Lord Bourne Of Aberystwyth: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in improving education outcomes for Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities.

A – Lord Agnew Of Oulton:

The latest published data, including breakdowns for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) pupils, relates to 2019 at key stage 2 and 2018 at key stage 4. At both stages, the data showed a small improvement in headline attainment measures for this group compared to the previous year. At key stage 2, the percentage of GRT pupils attaining the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics rose from 19% in 2018 to 20% in 2019. At key stage 4, the percentage achieving grades 9-4 in English and mathematics rose from 11.8% in 2017 to 13.1% in 2018.
The government is taking significant steps forward to support attainment and progression for all pupils, including GRT pupils. Our education reforms, including those aimed at improving teaching; encouraging good attendance and behaviour; and strengthening the curriculum and examination system, are designed to improve opportunity and standards for all pupils. These reforms are underpinned by school accountability measures, which are intended to encourage schools to focus more closely on the attainment of all their pupils.
Through the pupil premium; we are addressing low economic circumstances. This is a key factor that predicts future educational outcomes, and affects a high proportion of GRT children. Since 2011, we have provided over £15 billion of this additional funding, with a further £2.4 billion being distributed in this financial year.

Life Sciences

Medical Science is one of BU’s strategic investment areas (SIA). Colleagues with an interest in this SIA area will be interested in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy update which highlights progress in delivering the strategy since 2017. It covers:

NHS collaboration
Business environment
Reinforcing the UK science offer, including clinical research, data and genomics
Skills
Advanced therapies, including developing advanced therapies and advanced therapies manufacturing

The report notes very substantial progress in making the UK a more attractive place for life sciences companies to succeed and grow. These developments are the result of a strong collaboration between all aspects of this diverse industry – pharma, biotech, medtech, digital and diagnostics – the wider research community in the UK, the NHS and government. And states A substantial majority of the objectives in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy have been met and more are being delivered now. Page 5 details the key achievements and page 10 onwards details the health and clinical research and development. Page 20 covers growing the skills base and workforce to deliver the life sciences industrial strategy. However, the content is limited and mainly covers AI and existing initiatives. It does not that the 2030 Skills Strategy will be published this year so we can expect more detail in the new future facing document. Page 21 briefly touches on commercialisation of university research. You can read the sections that interest you most here.

Other news

Unconditional offers: Nottingham Trent have followed their public discussion on grade inflation last year by collaborating with The Times and publishing detail of their defence on conditional unconditional offers. Wonkhe had an article by Mike Ratcliffe, their Academic Registrar.

Care Students: The Scottish Funding Council has published its National Ambition for Care-Experienced Students, which outlines its commitment to equal outcomes for those students by 2030.

Languages: The Financial Times responds to the HEPI language report, arguing that foreign language study should be made compulsory.

Social Commuting: The Guardian have a short, to the point, piece advising commuter students how to balance a social life with their commuting arrangements.

R&D – extending definition to cover the Creative Industries: Last week there was an interesting mini-debate following this question by Baroness Bull: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to adopting a broader definition of research and development that includes, and incentivises, research and development investment in the creative industries. You can read the debate responses and follow on questions here.

Universities and Crime – a Parliamentary question

Q – Lord Taylor Of Warwick: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with UK Universities about reports that universities are not reporting crime statistics.

A – Baroness Berridge:

Criminal acts and misconduct are unacceptable in our world-leading universities, which should be safe and inclusive environments. Universities are autonomous institutions, and it is for each provider to determine what information should be collected and reported. Institutions have no statutory requirement to report crime statistics but have a responsibility to ensure students feel safe and able to report incidents, and to provide robust policies and procedures to address all forms of misconduct.
Current recorded crime statistics cover incidents reported to police. Where an institution (or the victim themselves) report the matter to the police it will be recorded and therefore captured in crime statistics. The government is aware that third party organisations collate data relating to incidents reported as taking place in Higher Education Providers (HEPs) and officials monitor this information.
The government expects providers to keep records of incidents disclosed to them and act swiftly to investigate and address them, with police involvement where necessary. Effective data collection processes enable HEPs to review and analyse reported incidents and complaints to inform continuous improvement. HEPs should continue to break down barriers to reporting, to ensure students and staff feel safe and able to report incidents.
The government continues to work closely with Universities UK (UUK) on implementing its Changing the Culture framework. The most recent progress report, published in October 2019, showed that 72% of responding institutions had developed or improved recording of data on incidents with a more centralised approach. UUK are also supporting HEPs in handling misconduct and criminal offences, including working with the Police Association of Higher Education Liaison Officers to explore how to best support information sharing between police forces and universities, and government officials meet regularly with UUK representatives.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

January 13, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 10th January 2020

Student Engagement jforster

Welcome to all our new readers! Parliament is back in the swing, the Labour leadership contest kicks off and the OfS has been VERY busy.

Parliamentary News

Daniel Zeichner, Labour MP for Cambridge, has been elected the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group for universities.

The Budget has been scheduled for Wednesday 11 March 2020.

Parliamentary Questions

Now that Parliament is regaining its stride relevant parliamentary questions will become more frequent (albeit on the usual topics).

Working Class | Educational Standards

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday Rt Hon Sir David Evennett raised concern about the lack of educational achievement amongst working class boys. He asked whether the Government would prioritise ensuring that “all school children are given the opportunities to maximise their talents.” PM Boris stated the Government were investing “record sums” in early education and would shortly be setting up a National Skills Fund. Local MP Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) welcomed the additional funding for education, but noted that equally important were disciplines and standards, and asked whether there will be a continuous focus on most disadvantaged, especially on literacy and numeracy. Boris agreed more needed to be done and that was why they were investing more.

Free Speech

Q – Dr Matthew Offord: Secretary of State for Education, what steps he will take to promote (a) diversity of thought and (b) freedom of expression on university campuses.

A – Chris Skidmore: This government will ensure that our universities are places where free speech can thrive, and will strengthen academic freedoms. The freedom to express views openly, challenge ideas and engage in robust debate is crucial to the student experience and to democracy. Individuals should never be in a position where they can be stopped from, or are made to feel inhibited in, expressing an opinion perfectly lawfully. Similarly, universities should be places where students are exposed to a range of views, including those which may be controversial, and are encouraged to debate and challenge them.
Free speech is protected in universities by law and is embedded in the Office for Students’ Regulatory Framework. Under the Education (No 2) Act 1986, universities have a specific duty to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law for staff, students and visiting speakers. The government worked with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, who published new guidance in February 2019 on freedom of speech in higher education to support higher education providers and students’ unions in delivering their duties.
The government will be looking closely at how well higher education providers are meeting these obligations and will consider whether further action is needed, working with a range of partners.

Admissions/Productivity

Q – Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what analysis, if any, they have conducted into whether there is any relationship between increases in the number of university students in the UK and levels of productivity over the last 20 years; and what were the results of any such analysis.

A – Lord Duncan Of Springbank: The Office of National Statistics estimates that around a fifth of the rise in productivity between 1994 and 2019 can be attributed to improvements in the quality of the workforce. This is largely as a result of an increase in the share of overall hours worked by people with higher education qualifications. That is to say: more graduates in the labour market has led to an increase in productivity. This is consistent with other studies.
Productivity is the main driver of long-run economic growth, and a key determinant of standards of living; in the long-run, the UK’s ability to improve living standards is almost entirely dependent on its ability to raise productivity. The Government’s Industrial Strategy sets out a long-term plan to boost productivity by backing businesses to create good jobs and increase the earning power of people throughout the UK with investment in skills, industries and infrastructure. The Government recently published the Business Productivity Review in response to the Industrial Strategy’s core priority of addressing the UK’s productivity issue.
The Government is investing £406 million in STEM and technical education and an additional £400 million in further education; the Government is also considering the recommendations of the Post 18 education funding review panel chaired by Sir Phillip Augar. This looked at how the post 18 education system can help deliver the skills the economy needs and improve UK productivity.

Q – Lord Taylor Of Warwick: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with UK universities about combating the student wealth divide in those applying to university.

A – Baroness Berridge: This government believes that a university education should be available to everyone who has the potential to benefit from it, and that higher education providers must continue to take steps to level the playing field for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and other under-represented groups. All providers wishing to charge tuition fees above the basic fee level must have an access and participation plan agreed by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students. Through these plans, providers set out the targets and their planned activity to support improved access and successful participation for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and under-represented groups.
The current student finance system removes financial barriers for those hoping to study and is backed by the taxpayer. The government provides maintenance loans and supplementary grants to help with the costs of living, targeting the most support at those from the lowest income families. Living costs support increased by 10.3% for eligible students on the lowest incomes in 2016/17 compared to the previous system. Further inflationary increases in living costs support have been made in each academic year since with a further increase of 2.9% announced for the 2020/21 academic year taking the support available for the lowest income students to record levels. Student loan repayments are linked to income, not to interest rates or the amount borrowed. The repayment system is designed to be progressive and borrowers on lower incomes are not obliged to repay their loans, with outstanding debt written off after 30 years

OfS updates

The OfS have confirmed they will develop a new framework for the TEF during 2020. The new framework will take account of the forthcoming recommendations in Dame Shirley Pearce’s independent review of the TEF (not yet released), the government’s response to it, and the findings of the latest subject-level TEF pilot. There will be a consultation following the publication of the new framework (expected in April) and there will not be a TEF round in 2020.

OfS have also confirmed they will publish their Insight Briefs on student information, regulation and mature students within the next six months. In addition there will be a January report covering the Access and Participation Plan commitments, a consultation on student protection plans, and the subject level TEF findings will be published.

February will see the OfS student engagement strategy, more reports on Access and Participation – particularly surrounding financial support, and an admissions call for evidence.

A highlight in March will be the OfS report into grade inflation, a student contract consultation in April, the future (recurrent) funding review, the OfS Business Plan, and a report into unconditional offers. In June OfS will report on the Access and Participation Plan monitoring outcomes and publish their OfS annual report and accounts.

Buckle up it’s not just Boris who is making changes!

Harassment and Sexual Misconduct

The OfS has been particularly active this week including publishing new expectations on how universities and colleges should deal with harassment and sexual misconduct relating to students. The published expectations form part of a consultation which is open for response until 27 March. The expectations have been shaped considering input from NUS and UUK. They cover the definition, policy and process standards, and the support expected across the cycle – before, during and after disclosure and formal investigation. They also state the OfS powers to intervene when a provider fails to handle a complaint or investigation adequately.

Wonkhe have a blog and a range of media have covered the release – ITV, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, and TES. Later in the week The Guardian published a series of letters by academics responding to the report and the OfS ran a blog by Ann Olivarius (American lawyer focusing on sexual assault) which discussed the Equality Act 2010.

Erasmus

The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement was read in Parliament this week and one of the amendments selected for debate sought to enshrine within law a compulsion for the Government to make staying part of the Erasmus scheme a priority within the Brexit negotiations. The amendment was not successful however as Wonkhe state “Chris Skidmore clarified on Twitter that this does not necessarily end or prevent the UK participating in the Erasmus+ scheme after Brexit, instead stating that the UK’s participation in the scheme will be part of future negotiations with the EU.” And that…he noted later that participation in the scheme is protected under the Withdrawal Agreement until 2021. In essence Erasmus participation will still be negotiated but not as a priority measure. Wonkhe have compiled the media coverage: BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the Metro, Channel 4, the New European, and TES. The Guardian and i News also publish pieces by Erasmus alumni about how the scheme affected their lives.

Funding Cuts

The Government have informed the OfS that there will be a reduction in the HE teaching funding allocation of 0.5%, which the OfS administer, and they set out the Government’s priorities for provision and providers that the OfS should continue to fund, namely:

High cost subjects (clinical years for medicine, dentistry and veterinary)
World leading small and specialist institutions
The student premium (supporting WP students identified through the POLAR metric)

“all of which have an important role to play in maintaining the high quality of teaching and in supporting successful participation for underrepresented students”

RE: value for money protect those areas of the grant where the evidence base for need is strongest, and where there is clear alignment with priority activities, working closely with the DfE to identify these areas.
Consider how to fund London premium costs in the fairest and most efficient way (especially high-cost subjects within inner London).

OfS released a statement explaining how they will handle the reduction and explained that there are some areas this year where additional funds are needed:

increases in intakes to pre-registration medical degrees and the continuing effects of the transfer of funding responsibility for pre-registration courses in nursing, midwifery and allied health professions. This means the underlying cut in recurrent funding is greater – at around £70 million (5 per cent) in cash terms, although this should be viewed alongside an increase in capital funding of £50 million.
The OfS has already allocated the large majority of our funding for academic year 2019-20 and wishes to avoid as far as possible having to reduce grants already announced. Instead, we believe we can secure the savings required in academic year 2019-20 from as yet unallocated funds and by deferring some activities into academic year 2020-21.

OfS are launching a consultation next week to gather opinion on their proposed approach to implement the required savings. They have also confirmed there will be a full review of the funding method from 2021-22 financial year in April 2020. Remember the Budget will take place on 11^th March. The timing of the full review is unlikely to be coincidental.

The SoS also mentioned the full review in his letter and asked the OfS to prioritise:

Streamlining the grant allocations to be more efficiently targeted and to represent an overall strategic approach to supporting priorities such as the Industrial Strategy, access and participation and specialist institutions;
Consideration of how to make sure the Student Premium is best targeted to support access, participation and successful outcomes for disadvantaged students, using the most up-to-date and relevant metrics;
Developing a new framework for evaluation and assurance of the Teaching Grant, working closely with the DfE over the coming months to agree this.

Wonkhe have a blog on the funding reduction – David Kernohan predicts that cuts are likely to come from the £51 million national facilities and regulatory initiatives pot (such as the Learning Gain pilot, phase 3 of the Catalyst Fund, and pilot metrics work). The one David doesn’t mention that will presumably escape the hatchet is NCOP.

Research

The House of Commons Library has published figures on the rise in research and development spending. In 2017 total R&D expenditure was £34.8bn (1.7% of GDP) from £17.6bn in 1981. This is a real terms increase of 94% but in 1981 the £17.6bn represented 2% of GDP. The library publication projects what is needed to reach the Government’s R&D target of 2.4%.

Key facts:

251,000 people in UK are employed in R&D related roles.
The UK R&D expenditure of 1.7% of GDP is below the OECD average of 2.4%.
R&D expenditure in Germany is the equivalent of 3.0% of GDP, in the US it is 2.8% and in France it is 2.2%.

Worklessness – An Educational Story

The Resolution Foundation have published an interesting briefing on adults who have never held a stable paying job (holiday and casual work is discounted). While population employment levels are currently at a record high it still remains that 8.2% of the adult population have never had paid employment. 60% of this figure are young students, and as the statistic counts from age 16 to 64, a percentage of the never worked is skewed by those understandably within full time study. Yet this doesn’t explain all – there has been a rise in those aged 25+ that have never worked and are not currently studying.

The report pulls out several ‘key shifts’ that are interesting for the student population.

The death of the Saturday teenage job – the employment rate of 16-17 year olds has almost halved over the past two decades – from 48.1% 1997-99 to 25.4% in 2017-19. Increased participation in education only explains a small part of this decline – two-thirds of the fall is driven by a declining employment rate among 16-17 year olds studying full time at school or college. The types of work done by this age group have changed too. 52% of 16-17 year olds now work within catering, waiting tables or as retail assistants. In the past this age group did a wider range of work and the jobs that have declined most sharply are as retail cashiers, shelf stackers, factory packing work and as postal workers. Previous research by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills into the ‘death of the Saturday job’ confirmed that focusing on their studies was the main driver of the decline in earning while learning. Other reasons were that fewer young people wanted a job than in the past and some cited a lack of suitable jobs that fitted around study commitments. This ran alongside the strong opposition from schools and colleges who frowned on their students doing paid work – and raised that employers were similarly opposed to employing young people who are trying to juggle work and studying. The report highlights this as a concern stating the decline is despite evidence of clear benefits for teenagers who work while studying. Those who combine work with full-time education are 4-6% less likely to be not in employment, education or training – and earn 12-15% more – five years down the line than those just in education.

Less work whilst studying (FE & HE) – there has been a sharp fall in the employment rate of 18-24 year olds in FE and HE. A 25% fall in the employment rate of 18-19 year olds working while studying for degrees from the early 2000’s peak, a 15% per cent fall among 20-21 year old university students, and a 33% fall among 18-19 year olds studying for non-degree qualifications. Later the report acknowledges that most groups of students are less likely to be in employment post-financial crisis. The report continues with familiar themes: “again, this is despite evidence that working while studying at university improves long-term educational and labour market outcomes. (However, above a certain number of hours – perhaps 15-20 – work becomes an impediment to good grades, and students working only for financial reasons are less likely to get the best degrees. What explains this decline in working while in further or higher education? It’s possible that the growth in tuition fee and maintenance loans has improved university student incomes such that they don’t feel the need to work. Alternatively, tuition fees may have increased the salience of the individual costs of higher education and driven an increased focus on getting the best educational outcomes, at the expense of paid employment. Another potential factor – which would also relate to the decline in work among 16-17 year olds discussed above – may be the introduction of minimum wages reducing employers’ appetite or ability to make jobs available to those with the least experience. While there is little evidence that the UK minimum wage has harmed employment overall, there is some limited evidence that minimum wages reduce the employment prospects of the youngest and least experienced workers. Beyond these suggestions, it is possible that the social and cultural expectations among students, parents, employers and educational institutions are mitigating against earning while learning, as they have at sixth-form age.”
Getting a first paid job after completing full-time education takes longer than it used to. In the late 1990s, 56% of young education leavers who had never previously worked got a paid job within the first year after leaving. Today that figure has fallen to 44%.Again the report suggests more negative employer attitudes (as described above) alongside less work at sixth-form age, declining geographic mobility and an increase in living within the parental home as a young adult have an influence.The report goes on to discuss how delaying employment to focus on studies can be dangerous for future employment prospects
Motherhood and ill-health in early adulthood effectively ‘lock in’ a lack of paid work experience for those who have not had any up to that point. The proportion of 25-39 year old mothers who have never worked has increased from 3.3% in the late 1990s to 6.5% today.
The proportion of 25-39 year old men with health problems who have never worked has increased from 4.8% to 7.6%. This triggers alarm bells because there have been big increases in health issues (particularly mental health) among young adults.

The report recommends that

Policy makers should pay more attention to the factors that have driven a rising likelihood of working-age adults in Britain never having had a paid job. Rather than cutting benefits, they should consider the extent to which earning while studying is encouraged (given evidence that, if not excessive, doing so improves long-term educational and labour market outcomes); the systems that support education-to-work transitions; and the factors driving the growth in ill-health among younger working-age adults.
Rather than cutting benefits, we need to explore and perhaps challenge the economic, social and cultural drivers mitigating against earning while learning at school, college and university, while boosting evidence on the types of work that are complementary to studying rather than detrimental. Our evidence underscores the particular challenge that the new T level qualifications are seeking to address for those taking the non-university route, and the importance of getting the work experience component of these right. In particular, this means ensuring that sufficient numbers of employers are willing and able to deliver work experience. And this analysis suggests that a much sharper focus on the advice and support systems that help people move from full-time education to the first stage of their career is required. Finally, our findings underscore the need for continued policy action to address the labour market disadvantages that women face when they have children, and to better understand how the growing group of relatively young adults with health problems and disabilities can be supported to actively participate in the labour market.
Lazy interpretations related to workshy Brits are clear very far wide of the mark. Instead, a full investigation of the rise in the proportion of working-age adults who have never had a paid job tells us much about the challenges of parenthood and disability, but above all about the complex choices many young people are facing in trying to get the most out of a perhaps increasingly high-pressured education.
…In conclusion, the story of a rising likelihood of working-age adults never having had a paid job is a lifecycle story that is strongly related to what happens during the education years.

Labour Shadow Cabinet

After the Government’s very minor reshuffle which kept most of the major ministers in their pre-election posts (see previous policy update) we are not anticipating any further changes until after Brexit. Other parties are reshuffling and Labour has announced several of the Shadow Cabinet roles. Most notable is that Emma Hardy has been appointed Shadow Minister for HE and FE (previous Shadow HE Minister Gordon Marsden lost his seat). TES cover her background and experience nicely including her membership of the Commons Education Select Committee, her support for scrapping tuition fees and restoring the EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance), alongside her 10-year teaching career and time at the NEU teaching union. She supports the Augar proposals to increase the funding levels of FE colleges. TES report Emma stated:

“This is going to be an interesting Parliament, and this Parliament even more so than the last, we are going to need to really strongly hold the government to account and expose what they’re doing and the impact they’re having.”

In other roles:

Former Shadow Minister for Early Years, Tracy Brabin has been appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Luke Pollard has been appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Rachel Maskell has been appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights.
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi has been appointed PPS to Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition.

Leadership Contest

The Labour leadership contest has kicked off and the winner is to be announced on 4 April 2020. Six contenders have already announced their intention to stand – Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips, Sir Keir Starmer; Emily Thornberry; and Rebecca Long Bailey. The candidate nomination process remains open until 13 January so more MPs could still make a leadership bid. However, candidates have to be backed by a minimum of 10% of the Labour MPs/MEPs. Following this hurdle the candidates have to receive support for their leadership bid from either 5% of the constituency labour parties or three affiliate organisations such as a trade union or socialist society associated with the party. As 2 in 3 affiliate organisations are trade unions this gives them significant influence over the selection process. Following this round the final ballot opens on 21 Feb (until 2 April). The voter ranks the candidates in order of preference and any candidate securing 50% of the votes wins. If no candidate secures 50% the lowest scoring candidate is eliminated and the second choice on the ballot paper is allocated the vote instead. The elimination of the lowest scoring candidate continues until a candidate receives over 50% of the vote. A special Labour conference will take place on Saturday 4 April to announce the new Labour leader.

YouGov have already begun polling on the outcome of the contest, their results:

36% of the membership said their top preference was Keir Starmer
23% Rebecca Long Bailey
12% Jess Philips
Emily Thornberry, Lisa Nandy, Yvette Cooper, and Clive Lewis all poll in single figures.

Note – 12% of party members did not respond to the survey. And the affiliate organisation round will affect which candidates progress to the actual ballot. YouGov also found that Kier Starmer benefited from the preferential voting system (see the chart here).

Private Members’ Bills

We’ve been here before…excitement at the fresh legislation that individual MP’s have the opportunity to introduce to Parliament…then the election was called and all Private Members’ Bill (PMBs) action was over before it began. A new ballot has taken place and we’ve a new crop of 20 providential MPs who have the opportunity to introduce their legislation. The top seven are the most likely to succeed as they have the most parliamentary time. The new PMBs will be first read (presented) on Wed 5 Feb, and then further considered during the first seven sitting Fridays within the House of Commons. When the PMBs are debated on the sitting Fridays a minimum of 40 MPs must vote for the Bill to progress. Often the Government or the Opposition vote PMBs down. However, during the 2017-19 parliamentary session 9 PMBs became law.

(We explained the private members’ bill process and purpose in these policy updates: 11 Oct 2018 and 25 Oct 2018 (page 5).)

Mike Amesbury (Labour) interests: leaseholder reform, effective public transport.
Darren Jones (Labour) interests: NHS anti-privatisation, job creation for local economy, tech, climate change, clean growth and human trafficking. Darren is a lawyer, has already rebelled and voted against the party whip, and is the first ever Darren in Parliament!
Anna McMorrin (Labour) interests: climate change, sustainable development, dementia, mental health.
Laura Trott (Conservative) – new MP – political interests not known but previously worked for David Cameron focussing on education and family policy.
Chris Loder (Conservative) – new MP – replaced Oliver Letwin as West Dorset MP. Has a background in the rail industry and publically took time away from his election campaign to volunteer as a platform manager to keep trains running during the South West train strikes. He has welcomed suggestions from the West Dorset constituents for his PMB. His political interests are rural economy, transport, and the environment – all as expected given his constituency demographics.
Paula Barker (Labour) – new MP – interests: green spaces, council housing. Paula is a long term trade unionist and has family ties to the NHS and her regional clinical commissioning group.
Philip Dunne (Conservative) has a personal interest in diabetes and stated political interests in agriculture, small business, economics and financial services.
Dame Cheryl Gillian (Conservative) previously introduced the Autism Act as a previous PMB (2008). Recently she has been outspoken against High Speed 2 and environmental concerns.

Of the rest – at place number 10 Dr Ben Spencer (psychiatrist) has a particular interest in young mental health; number 11 Bim Afolami is focussed on education (pro-grammar schools and the meritocratic system); and number 15 Mary Foy has a background as a carer to her daughter and it is speculated her PMB may focus on the caring role.

Decline in language study

HEPI have published A Languages Crisis? discussing the drop in learning an additional language and how far the UK lags behind the rest of the world for languages. The key points are:

Only 32% of British 16-to-30-year olds feel confident reading and writing in another language (in Europe it is 89%).
A decreasing proportion of international research is published in English – the UK’s position as an academic and scientific world leader is at risk.
Traditional language uptake at HE level has declined. Between 2010/11 and 2016/17, student numbers for French declined by 45%, German declined by 43% and Italian 63%. Languages provision, particularly for heritage languages, is vulnerable to departmental closures and downsizing.
Additional language learning, such as facilitating students on all courses taking language modules to count towards course credits and / or as an extracurricular activity, is a key area that UK higher education should protect and expand.
The author believes part of the problem begins at school following the 2004 reforms repealing the compulsory requirement to study an additional language.

The report recommends:

GCSE and A-Level courses should be more varied and appealing, featuring coursework as well as examination assessment.
Learning an ancient or modern foreign language should be made compulsory up to Key Stage 4 (KS4), with accreditation (either a GCSE / National, or alternative vocational or community language qualification) encouraged but optional.
Policymakers should introduce measures to increase teaching staff numbers, such as conditional financial incentives, and including all language teachers on the Shortage Occupations List.
Where tuition fees exist, they should be supplemented with additional government funding to safeguard provision of minority languages, and facilitate free additional language learning for any students and staff members.

The Times, the Guardian, ITV, and the Mail cover the report.

Megan Bowler, the author of the report, is a third-year Classics undergraduate at the University of Oxford. She said: “The cultural and political implications of Brexit mean it is more urgent than ever that we re-evaluate our attitudes towards languages. Learning a language develops an analytical and empathetic mindset, and is valuable for individuals of all ages, interests and abilities. It was a big mistake to scrap compulsory foreign languages at GCSE. Rather than continuing to present languages as not suitable for everyone, we need to include a broader range of pupils learning through a variety of qualifications geared to different needs. Given the shortage of language skills in the workforce, we should safeguard higher education language courses, particularly those involving less widely-taught languages, and prioritise extra-curricular language learning opportunities for students from all disciplines”.

Responding to the report, Professor Neil Kenny, Languages Lead at the British Academy, said: Last year…we called on Government to adopt and implement a UK-wide languages strategy to revive modern language learning (coordinating with existing strategies in Scotland and Wales). With Brexit just around the corner, we need linguists more than ever. Languages are vital for effective trade, diplomacy and soft power, for social cohesion, social mobility, and educational attainment, all of which will be essential to the UK’s future success”.

T Levels

The successful election majority enables the Government to push ahead with the introduction of T Levels. They have announced that another 8 new T Levels will be introduced and taught from 2022 (10 currently planned to be introduced in 2020 and 2021 across 100 FE providers). A Government press release invites ‘high performing’ providers to apply to teach the third wave of the new 8 programmes. These include Legal, Accounting, and Manufacturing, Processing and Control. To recap – T levels are technical qualifications presented as an alternative to A levels which combine classroom taught theory, practical learning and a 45 day industry placement. They are aimed to establish a parity of esteem for the vocational route against the academic A level route and to meet Britain’s industry and employment needs and skills gaps.

Other news

Emotional Fitness: Wonkhe write about a new app being trialled at several universities which draws on positive psychological principles by focusing on mentally healthy processing (called emotional fitness) from the outset rather than reacting to poor mental health after it occurs. The Fika app divides emotional fitness into seven areas:

motivation, purpose, stress, confidence, connection, positivity and focus, all of which are linked, in theory, to overall life satisfaction, wellbeing and success. The aim is to improve students’ personal agency, and avoid “self-efficacy spirals” in which, for example, a period of low motivation leads to non-submission of work, which creates stress and panic, which leads to avoidance of issues, which then multiply until they are beyond the student’s powers to bring back under control.

The creator believes starting with HE is the mechanism to bring about real change within wider society

HE partners have a big part to play in how wider culture is shaped. Influencing this generation of students means shaping future culture, new businesses, expectations of society and being in society. And that, if successful, the principles can be weaved throughout university life: Longer term, the plan is to integrate more closely with university curricula through developing exercises for personal tutoring, peer mentoring or group work. Focused work on particular issues and student groups – including BAME, international and commuter students, and student employability, is also on the cards. The article concludes by stating the app isn’t a substitute for specialist mental health services.

Medical Science research: Wonkhe cover a report by the Academy of Medical Sciences which highlights the growing number of research active NHS staff who struggle to fit research in among other responsibilities. A widening gap between universities and the NHS is suggested as a possible cause. The report offers six recommendations:

the integration of research teams between academia and the NHS
providing dedicated research time for research active NHS staff
incorporating flexibility into postgraduate pathways
ensuring undergraduate studies equip healthcare graduate staff with skills to engage with research
streamlining research through joint research and development offices
creating a healthcare system that truly values research

Links to download the full documents are on the left hand side of this page.

European study tour: Wonkhe and five student union representatives visited a number of universities across Europe (Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia). There are four blogs covering the learning tour.

Mental Health: The House of Commons Library published a briefing on English mental health policy.

Admissions: Wonkhe report on the new HEPI blog on the debate about academic selection, asking why many experts wish to abolish grammar schools while strengthening selection at the university level.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

November 4, 2019

HE Policy Update for the w/e 1st November 2019

NHS, Student Engagement jforster

Temperatures are rising as election fever grips the politicians, there are reports on educational spending and OfS have more to say on unconditional offers.

Parliament

General Election

It has been confirmed the general election will be held on 12 December. Parliament will dissolve on 6 November, with purdah commencing and full scale campaigning officially from 7^th November. The election for a new speaker will take place on Monday, as planned.

Election signs and banners are already appearing, requests to donate to the party’s campaign are being emailed, the commentators are in full tweet mode, and MPs are campaigning .

Jeremy Corbyn made a major speech on Thursday which covered many areas we can expect to appear in the Labour election manifesto including ending rough sleeping, cancelling tuition fees and tackling “tax dodgers, dodgy landlords, bad bosses and big polluters”. Particularly trailed was his commitment to using the first day in office to buy all the properties necessary to house rough sleepers. Labour also stated that they would be happy to govern the country as a minority Government and had no intention of forming a pact or coalition with other parties. Should parliament return Labour as a minority Government they intend to stick to their manifesto and believe parliament would fall into line behind their policies.

Boris Johnson continues to highlight his health, education, and crime themes whilst stating that if the electorate deliver him a majority then he “can deliver on the priorities for the British people.” He stated the UK could leave the EU on 31^st January 2020 as his Withdrawal Agreement was “oven-ready” and ready to go in the “microwave.”

Earlier this week Boris welcomed half of the ostracised MPs who rebelled over Brexit back into the party stating they had completed an internal party process for readmission. Alistair Burt, Caroline Nokes, Greg Clark, Sir Nicholas Soames, Ed Vaizey, Margot James, Richard Benyon, Stephen Hammond, Steve Brine and Richard Harrington have all had the party whip returned meaning they can stand as the Conservative candidate in their constituency again. Interestingly the Liberal Democrats will not field a candidate to run against Dominic Grieve in his constituency of Beaconsfield to avoid diluting the vote and help him be re-elected as an independent (as he is one of those who has not had the Conservative whip restored). Amber Rudd was also not given back the whip and has now said she is standing down.

And (more rumours) the Brexit Party are reported as saying they will not contest key seats to ensure the Conservative candidate is elected. It seems the parties are being unusually open about the political manoeuvring required to maximise seat gains this year.

At each election there is always churn as some parliamentarians retire from politics or switch to different constituencies. Here is a list of the 46 MPs standing down (so far). The list feels quite significant for this election not necessarily because of the volume of churn but because of the prominence of ex-Ministers and long-standing parliamentarians who will not run for re-election. While some members had long planned to step down, some are doing so because of disagreements with their party or because of personal reasons linked to abuse and security.

Election purdah is a confusing concept. A simple view is that civil servant decisions are handcuffed and all MPs stop Government and constituency business to campaign for election. But it is more nuanced than that in practice. Here is a comprehensive guide to Purdah from the parliamentary perspective in case you want to understand more. Meanwhile colleagues engaging with parliamentarians from 6 November onwards should contact the policy team.

Select Committees

Parliamentary business effectively ceases during the run up to a general election. This means those MPs and Lords who were successful in the Private Members Bill ballots will not be able to introduce their legislation. It can also mean bad news for the Select Committees who were conducting ongoing investigations. Technically all open inquiries cease and after a general election select committees must re-elect their members. However, the new members can choose to continue the previous inquiries and still publish reports based on evidence already gathered. The change in personnel does lead to changes in priorities and allows an avenue for the new Government to kill off any troublesome inquiries.

Other business this week

The Commons Speaker of 10 years, John Bercow, stepped down from his role. He cites personal reasons for his retirement from politics, however, during the last few months he has been dogged with accusations of siding with the opposition and angered Boris when the Benn (Brexit extension) amendment passed.

Sajid Javid also announced that the Brexit budget planned for 6 November would not go ahead – the decision was taken before parliament agreed the general election because it was linked to Brexit. . Labour intend to continue their previous manifesto pledge to abolish tuition fees and cancel student debt so tuition fees will continue to be a hot topic in this election – we wait to see what will be in the Tory manifesto.

We expect little in the way of announcements before Christmas when the new Government meets. Parliamentary recess generally commences on the Friday of the week prior to Christmas. If this timescale is adhered to then the new Government will only have one week before recess, barely enough time to quibble over premium parliamentary office space and what will happen before the new 31^st January Brexit deadline, Brexit let alone introducing new Bills.

So what now for HE and academics aiming to influence policy through their research?

Traditionally purdah is a time for lobbying. The big organisations, NGOs and charities publish policy recommendations, case studies and stark statistics trying to influence the parties to adopt a sympathetic stance to their cause through the party manifesto or individual speeches. We can expect to hear much from UUK and social mobility organisations over the next month. However, the main focus of the parliamentary candidate is to be (re)elected and for the party to form a majority Government. A lone researcher can often get lost or be ignored during this period. Often the time is best spent identifying key contacts and preparing information to target parliamentarians once the election outcome is known. Talk to Sarah or Jane in the policy team if you are aiming for policy influence and impact through your research. We can advise on approach, content and timing so you are primed once the parliamentary dust settles.

Voting Behaviour

Wonkhe report a surge in voter registration:

Almost a third of the 316,264 voter registration applications submitted this week have been from voters aged under 25, according to figures from the government’s Voter registration service. Almost 45,000 applications were submitted on Tuesday after the announcement of a snap general election on 12 December, which increased to 59,000 on Wednesday. The totals marked the highest and second highest number of applications submitted on any day of 2019.
However the Electoral Reform Society said that with up to 9.4m people missing from the electoral roll, there is “a long way to go” before the registration gap is closed – and has reissued calls for a “registration revolution” to narrow the gap.

HEPI always have something to say on the student vote phenomenon and this week they put out two blogs on the topic. The first has some interesting points:

The power of the student vote – Cambridge was a safe Conservative seat for much of the twentieth century. Students got the right to vote in their place of study in the mid-1970s (a few years after the minimum voting age fell from 21 to 18) and the Conservative vote share in Cambridge then fell in every general electionfrom 1979 to 2005.
Term dates are important – the HEPI blog provides examples from Canterbury and the University of Kent comparing results from 2015 (Conservative, election held before term started) and 2017 (Labour, election held just before the end of term).
The change from household to individual voter registration led to big drops in the number of students registered to vote. HEPI explain when the new individual registration system came in, meaning halls of residence couldn’t just put all their resident students on the electoral roll in one go, it was said that 9% of voters fell off the registerin University ward in Lancaster. Many students find voter registration a hassle and not always as straightforward as it should be.
Constituencies with the most students tend to be Labour, seats with the fewest number of students have much more mixed representation. HEPI state: there is a huge difference between the results in seats with very high proportions of students and seats with very low proportions of students. Of the 20 seats with the highest proportion of students, 19 were won by Labour in 2017…Of the 20 seats with the smallest proportion of students, there are MPs from seven different parties. However, HEPI go on to explain that sometimes student votes just stack up to bigger majorities – Universities tend to be in big towns and cities and it is probably true to say that urban areas have a higher tendency to vote Labour… whereas rural ones have a higher tendency to vote Conservative. So Paul Blomfield may be sitting on a stonking Labour majority of 27,748 in Sheffield Central, with 70.9% of the vote. thanks in part to students. But my guess is that, if you remove the students, it would still be red.

PM Boris has been criticised for his earlier plan to hold an election in early September (before students arrived/or while they were still settling in and had not registered at their new student address) and similar criticisms have been made of the 12 December date which falls at or after the end of term. It is particularly important in marginal constituencies. It is a gamble which could result in more Conservative wins and it is difficult to see what the downside is for the Conservatives (unless it motivates more students to register and turn out!). There is a Wonkhe blog on the topic too – Will the student vote swing a December election?

Other points made in the HEPI blog:

The arguments over the introduction of £9,000 fees [losing votes for the Lib Dems] were too long ago to make much difference to many students. For a new student today who is aged 18, debates about £9,000 tuition fees may be old hat. Well, maybe.
Corbyn remains relatively popular among students but Corbynmania has dissipated… more than one poll this year (see hereand here, for example) suggest students’ support for Jeremy Corbyn is not what it was.

And in summary on the influence of the student vote HEPI say:

For the student vote to make a difference, lots of things have to happen. As hinted at above, to make a difference to the outcome in any single constituency, students must register to vote, turn out to vote, be in a marginal constituency, vote as a block rather than cancel each other out and not just support the party that would have won anyway. Although there are hundreds of thousands of student voters, their voice can easily get swamped when voters as a whole decide to give one party or another a clear mandate. Indeed, it is hard to find a single general electionwhen the student vote determined who got the keys to Number 10. Even if the contested claim that student support for Jeremy Corbyn made a big difference at the 2017 election is true, Labour still lost (as Kay Burley famously reminded Richard Burgon MP the other day).

HEPI’s second blog More thoughts on the student vote (and pricking some of the nonsense) has some more interesting points. HEPI dismiss claims that students are too busy to vote and highlight that the sympathies of the student vote varies over time not due to volatility but because every 3-4 years undergraduates graduate are replaced by a different set of individuals. To illustrate this point HEPI say:

Consider this: only one-third of students on three-year degrees were doing their courses back when Theresa May called her 2017 election and pretty much none were students when the referendum happened over three years ago, let alone when Cameron’s last election took place in 2015.
Given the political cycle is designed to be five years long and the average undergraduate degree course lasts for only three years, in normal political times it is even possible to go through higher education without the chance to vote in a general election
So changes in the student vote have less to do with individual students changing their minds and more to do with students themselves changing. They are, quite simply, different people.

HEPI also highlight that student voters care about matters far wider than ‘student issues’. And on Augar’s proposals for tuition fees HEPI say: new evidence suggests recent specific proposals to tweak fees, such as those in the long-awaited Augar report (which proposed fees in England of £7,500 with a 40-year repayment period), are no more popular among students than the current system of £9,250 fees with a 30-year repayment period.

Finally, on student issues the blog states the Conservatives…enter this election with some important parts of their higher education policy currently opaque. This means it could be hard for someone who is determined to vote on so-called student issues to know whether to back them or not. [By this HEPI mean the TEF review, which remains unpublished, no response to Augar recommendations or the final conclusions of the Post-18 Education and Funding review].

The New Statesman also has an article on the (lack of effect) of the student vote. They argue the university left/liberal effect is due to the viewpoints of the university staff who’s employment concentrates these political leanings in the residential areas surrounding the university. And that the students who won’t be in residence on 12 December election date really only means a Russell Group effect.

Unconditional Offers

OfS have published a report following further work to extend their Jan 2019 data analysis into unconditional offers to examine how it affects continuation rates between years 1 and 2 of the HE study and the impact of conditional unconditional offers.

In 2019 1 in 3 students received an unconditional offer (in 2012 it was 1 in 100).
An unconditional offer is associated with lower performance in A level/level 3 exams (source).
An additional 5 in every 100 students holding an unconditional offer underperforms compared to those holding conditional offers (see 21-22 on page 11). This 5% difference has remained stable during the recent increases in unconditional offer making.
Students who accept unconditional offers are less likely to continue into year 2 of their HE study – the analysis was statistically significant and took a range of factors such as entry grades and student characteristics into account. OfS estimate a 10% rise in the non-continuation rate, which equates to reducing the continuation rate by 0.65%. [OfS modelled the data to reach this 10% rise prediction. This was necessary because other factors influenced whether a student continued their studies such as the institution and the subject of study alongside student characteristics. See page 15 for the modelling methodology notes and Table 4 which sets out the model estimation rates.]

Conditional offer holding entrants continuation rate = 94.5%
Unconditional offer holding entrants continuation rate = 92.9%

There is a potential interaction here. OfS state:

Continuation rates are known to vary by level and type of entry qualification13. In particular, students who enter higher education with BTEC qualifications tend to have lower continuation rates than those who enter with A-level qualifications. The level of attainment is also important. If unconditional offers lead to lower attainment at A-level or BTEC this could potentially lower continuation rates.

And a potential confounding variable – we know BTEC students are more likely to drop out and less likely to achieve a top grade in degree outcome – they are also more likely to receive an unconditional offer (15% of BTEC students Vs 8% of A level students). However, the unconditional continuation phenomenon doesn’t seem to apply to BTEC students. OfS note:

..continuation rates are slightly lower for unconditional offer entrants at each predicted A level attainment level, but generally much higher for entrants holding A-levels than those holding BTEC qualifications. Among BTEC entrants the continuation rates are not always lower for those who enter with unconditional offers than with conditional offers.

While OfS modelling found that non-continuation for those with unconditional offers was statistically significantly worse than those with conditional offers the effect is relatively small as the below charts illustrate (and see this). Both show the same data but the continuation rate axis is adjusted on figure 3 to highlight the differences more saliently:

There is an excellent Wonkhe blog by David Kernohan which digests and sets the OfS finding in context. It highlights the standard error rate in the OfS calculation is larger than the effect size (therefore the significant finding is more likely to be erroneous or a less meaningful finding. He also highlights that the larger population (because of more unconditional offers) itself makes it easier to find statistical significance. If you are interested in the unconditional offer debate (but statistical speak leaves you cold) read the first 12 and last 4 paragraphs of the blog which explain the practicalities around OfS’ figures. David concludes with a mild call to action – ignore the headlines and media/Government push and instead focus on the intersectionality behind the non-continuation rates, particularly entry qualifications and BAME, to make the data actionable and design and target interventions which stop students dropping out of their studies. He says:

It’s only two years of data but you could imagine building it year on year to do a fairly decent piece of research that could have a real student benefits.
I suppose the continuation of a moral panic over unconditional offers is useful to some people too. Just not students, or those who support them.

And if you are hardcore enough to read the comments to the blog Cath Brown comes up with an interesting ‘survivorship bias’. It isn’t that much of a stretch to apply her comment to grade inflation and ask whether increased non-continuation rates for subjects with high numbers of top grades might factor in the increase as the chaff is whittled out early on.

An unconditional offer doesn’t make it more likely a student will enrol with an institution (see 4b on page 4 and 16-18 on page 10, and chart below).
[This is an interesting finding and may suggest saturation in the market – applicants are aware of the likelihood of receiving an unconditional offer, it may be less flattering or simply sway their decision less. This (in part) flies in the face of the recent media and Government who suggest that an unconditional offer attracts disadvantaged students away from a higher prestige institutions. However, the Government may still have a valid point. Perhaps the disadvantaged student with less careers guidance, who doesn’t have a guide from a family member who attended HE, who is concerned about exam underperformance and keen to improve their life circumstances might be significantly more influenced by an unconditional offer.]

Due to the time lag in completing a degree and the recent sharp rise in unconditional and conditional unconditional offers OfS have not yet assessed the impact of these unconditional offers on degree outcome/grade.

Education Spending

Turning our attention to this week’s educational matters the National Audit Office have published a report on the DfE’s responsibilities and spending.

Spending – key points

The Department for Education (including the core Department, its executive agencies and its non-departmental bodies) spent £67.1 billion in 2018-19. £56.7 billion was spent via the Education and Skills Funding Agency as resource grants.

Student Loans:

The government’s student loan portfolio is expanding rapidly. The face value of all outstanding student loans held by the Department increased from £101.9 billion on 1 April 2018 to £116.7 billion on 31 March 2019.
The Department records student loans in terms of their ‘fair value’, which is an estimate based on expected future cash receipts in the financial accounts (how much will be repaid) and is therefore a lower figure than the full outstanding loans. The fair value of student loans increased from £60.6 billion in 2017-18 to £67.9 billion in 2018-19. This change stems from the December 2018 Office for National Statistics decision that, in the UK National Accounts, student loans should be accounted for on a basis more closely aligned with the treatment in the Department’s financial statements. As a result, instead of recognising the face value of the loans until they are written off, the National Accounts will in future write off, on issue, the portion of loans not expected to be repaid.

Support for Children:

The number of children placed in residential care by local authorities increased by 9.2% between 2013-14 and 2017-18, the cost increased by 22.5% in real terms. 68% of local authorities reported that they did not have enough residential homes for children aged 14 to 15 years, and 59% for those aged 16 to 17
Local authorities are budgeting to spend £4.2 billion on looked-after children in 2018-19, which is £350 million (9.1%) more than they budgeted to spend in 2017-18
At January 2019, 1.3 million pupils in England (14.9% of all pupils) were recorded as having SEND. 21% of these pupils had legally enforceable entitlements to specific packages of support, set out in education, health and care plans (EHC plans). The remaining 79% did not have EHC plans, but had been identified as needing additional support at school. The report also mentions the recommendations arising from the review into support for children with SEND, announced in September

Skills Development:

The first full academic year after the apprenticeship levy was introduced saw 375,800 apprenticeship starts – 26% lower than in 2015/16, the last full year before the levy. The Department had expected a broad year-on-year increase in starts; it did not project a drop in numbers after introducing the levy.
The average cost of training an apprentice on a standard is around double what the government expected. The Department’s projections show that, even if starts remain at current levels, spending could rise to more than £3 billion a year once all apprenticeships are on standards.

The report ends with a ‘things to look out for’ [forthcoming in the future] and this includes:

Government response to the Timpson recommendations on school exclusion
Government’s response to the recommendations of the Augar Review
Roll out of T-levels from 2020-22

IFS Report on Education Spending

Within the DfE report reference is made to the September IFS education spending report, here are the summarised points from the schools, FE and HE sections:

Schools

Despite the funding increases delivered at the recent spending round, there will be no real terms funding growth in per pupil funding from 2009/10 to 2022/23.

Total per pupil spending has fallen by 8% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20.
Funding cuts have partly been delivered through higher class sizes (particularly in secondary schools)
The Government allocated an extra £4.3bn to school budget for 2022/23 in real terms. This represents a 7.4% growth in spending per pupil reversing the cuts of 8% since 2009/10 – so no real terms growth in spending per pupil, which is historically unprecedented.

Further Education & Skills

Between 2010/11 and 2018/19 spending per pupil feel by 12% in 16-18 colleges and 23% in school sixth forms. Following on from larger cuts, FE spending per 16-18 year old is only 13% greater than 30 years earlier in 1989/90. Per pupil funding is; £4,800 in sixth form colleges, £4,900 in school sixth forms and £5,900 per young person in FE colleges.
The Government have allocated a real terms one year funding increase of £300m in 2020/21, increasing spending per pupil by 4%. However, fully reversing funding cuts since 2010/11 would cost a further £1.1bn over and above existing plans by 2022/23. This increases to £1.4bn to ensure that spending on T-levels is additional to unchanged level of spending per student.
Total spending on adult education has fallen by nearly two thirds since 2003/04 (47% since 09/10) but this is broadly commensurate to falls in learner numbers which are down from 4.4m in 2004/05 to 1.5m in 2017/18.
Spending on adult education has become increasingly focussed on apprenticeships (54% of expenditure).

Higher Education

Universities receive £27,500 per full time undergraduate student to fund the cost of teaching for the three year course of their study. This has fallen by 5% since 2012.
Whilst per student funding is similar today to early 1990s, the near doubling of student numbers has driven a commensurate increase in total resources for teaching undergraduates over that period. The nature of funding has changed significantly from grants to tuition fees.
The cost of the current system is about £17bn per cohort, with £9bn coming from graduates and £8bn coming from Government (about £7.4bn through unrepaid student loans).
The Augar Review proposals of cutting fees to £7500, reintroducing maintenance grants and changing the terms of repayment (1.2 loan value cap, 40 year repayment period), is broadly cost neutral and would give policy makers greater control of spending on different subjects.
Labour policy to abolish tuition fees and bring back maintenance grants would cost the public finances £6bn per full time cohort per year. This is significantly cheaper as a result of the 2017 increase in the repayment threshold on student loans from £21,000 to £25,000. The part time cohort would cost another £1bn, but could increase if the large decline in mature student numbers since 2010 were reversed.

Dods provided this analysis of the HE section of the IFS report:

The domination of funding by tuition fees and the lack of controls on student numbers means policymakers have little control over the spending distribution of spending in subject and institutions. Augar would give policymakers greater control, whilst Labour’s proposals would give even more control. Augar’s proposals would reduce repayments amongst the highest earners and increase repayments mainly among middle earners. Labour’s proposals would benefit the highest earning graduates substantially.

Scottish Educational Bursaries and Grants

The Scottish Government announced that the number and value of bursaries and grants awarded to students in Scotland, including to young people with disabilities or from deprived areas, has increased since last year. It has risen 5.3% to £80.3 million and supported students from the most-deprived areas of the country were three times more likely to receive one than those from the least deprived areas. The number of full-time students who received a Disabled Students’ Allowance increased 5.2%, with an average pay out £1,990. There was also an increase in the number of full time UG students in receipt of the non-repayable Care Experienced Bursary (from 545 in 2017-18 to 840 in 2018-19). Moreover, there was a 67% increase in the amount of support provided

Further and Higher Education Minister Richard Lochhead stated:

“These annual rises once again underline this Government’s strong levels of financial support to domestic and EU students, regardless of their background. It’s very encouraging to see the level of bursaries and grants rising so significantly. We have seen other increases right across the board, with students from the most deprived areas of Scotland also receiving more per head than those from the least deprived. And with 10% of all our students now coming from the EU, there was also a 0.5% rise in the number of those receiving financial support, with the average award £2,100.”

Ministerial Statement

SoS Education, Gavin Williamson, issued a written ministerial statement update on Education. On HE it covered:

Record rates of 18 year olds are going to university. In 2018, one-third of all 18 year olds entered full-time higher education – the highest on record. The proportion of 18 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds entering full-time higher education is up from 13.6% in 2009 to 20.2% in 2018. This is the highest on record.

We have removed the cap on student numbers, allowing more people with the talent and potential the opportunity to be successful at university.
Through the Higher Education and Research Act we introduced a duty to promote equality of opportunity in access and participation in higher education and we expect to see further progress, particularly among the most selective institutions.
All higher education providers must now publish application offer, acceptance, dropout and attainment rates of students by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. This will help hold the sector to account for their record on access and retention of students from lower socio-economic and other backgrounds.
Higher Education providers have committed to spend £860 million in 2019/20 on measures to improve access and student success – up significantly from £404 million in 2009. The Office for Students is monitoring how effectively higher education providers spend this money.

Improving higher technical education by establishing new Institutes of Technology – making it easier to upskill and gain highly skilled employment.

An Institute of Technology is a legally binding collaboration between further education colleges, higher education institutions and employers.
They are being created to specialise in delivering higher technical training at Levels 4 and 5 (above A Level but below degree level), primarily in STEM subjects aligned to local economic priorities.
IoTs will deliver a mix of apprenticeship and classroom-based provision for industries such as digital, advanced manufacturing and engineering – industries where there are skills gaps and growing demand – in order to provide employers with the skilled workforce they need.

We are investing up to £290 million capital funding to build an IoT network across the country. The first 12 IoTs are now starting to go live, following a comprehensive competition, and we have recently announced plans to open up to 8 more to enable there to be an IoT in every region of the country.
More people are benefitting from new high-quality apprenticeships. Our reforms have fundamentally changed what apprenticeships involve and the long-term opportunities they provide.

University Technical Colleges

Meanwhile the National Audit Office (NAO) published an investigation into university technical colleges (UTCs).Which embody the Government’s aim for employers and universities to work together, with educational experts, to open new institutions to deliver technical education in specialist areas that meets the needs of local employers and the economy.

In December 2016, the NAO reported that 22 of 47 UTCs were at risk due to financial concerns, caused in part, by the fact that UTCs had fewer students than predicted. This struggle to attract enough students was confirmed by the NAO again in January 2018.

The financial and recruitment statistics make troubling reading:

58 UTCs have opened but 10 of these subsequently closed. Most became subsumed within academy trusts but one university was gifted one UTC site.
The 48 open UTCs were operating at 45% of capacity on average at January 2019, which has implications for their financial viability.
At July 2019 there were significant concerns about the finances of 13 UTCs.
The ESFA has formally intervened in eight UTCs, of which two subsequently closed.
The Department monitors whether students from UTCs that close move to other schools or colleges, but has not retained evidence of where students have been placed
The Department spent £792 million on the UTC programme from 2010-11 to 2018-19, the vast majority (£680m, 86%) in capital grants. £28m in transitional revenue aimed at improving financial position of UTCS, £8.8m covering UTC deficits, £9m on closing UTCs

The educational performance paints a more encouraging picture:

After GCSEs a higher proportion of UTC students progressed into sustained apprenticeship (9%) and employment (4%) destinations compared to the national average (5% and 3%). However, less progressed to sustained education destinations.
After A levels 21% of UTC students moved to a sustained apprenticeship, higher than the national average of 6%. This includes 16% UTC students who undertook advanced/higher or degree-level apprenticeships (compared to national average of 3%).
20% moved to sustained employment, compared with the national average of 22%; and 38% went on to higher education, below the national average of 50%
At August 2019, Ofsted rated 52% of UTCs as good or outstanding, compared with 76% of all secondary schools. However, the Department considers that not all its metrics are appropriate for UTCs because of UTCs’ technical focus and age range.

Plans for Improvement

The Department is seeking to help UTCs improve their educational and financial performance: An important part of the Department’s approach is to encourage UTCs to join multi-academy trusts, which it considers are well placed to support UTCs to improve. The Department is also open to UTCs applying to align their age range more closely with other secondary schools by taking students who are younger than 14, if there is a need for the additional places in the area. It considers that this will make it easier for UTCs to attract students and thereby improve their financial viability.

HE Registration

The OfS published the key themes and analysis of the registration process and outcomes 2019-20. Across the full range of registration requirements 65% of HE providers received additional monitoring requirements or conditions. Access and participation for disadvantaged groups was a regular concern. Here we take a closer look on what OfS highlight as strengths and concerns in relation to student protection plans:

Areas of Strength:

Some student protection plans were excellent and demonstrated a real engagement with the requirements resulting in plans that had made a comprehensive assessment of risks and were clear on the protection that was available to students.
OfS assessment of financial viability and sustainability revealed a large number of providers in good financial health and the vast majority have no additional monitoring in relation to their financial viability and sustainability – financial strength was not isolated to a particular type of provider.
Sector-level data suggests there is strong performance in student outcomes and this was reflected in the data of a large number of individual providers.

Areas of Concern:

Student protection plans were variable in their quality
Very few providers demonstrated a broader consideration of value for money encompassing the value their students may feel they receive from their tuition fees. Few also appeared to have considered how they could present information about value for money in a way that would be accessible to their students.
Significant weaknesses in providers’ responses to the ‘fit and proper person’ public interest governance principle. Most relied on declarations from governing body members.
There was a lack of convincing evidence about the adequacy and effectiveness of providers’ management and governance arrangements. A large number of providers were unable to evidence regular external input into reviews of their arrangements.
Significant numbers of providers had based their financial viability and sustainability on optimistic forecasts of growth in student numbers without convincing evidence of how this growth would be achieved

Susan Lapworth, Director of Competition and Registration, Office for Students said:

“Our higher education sector is rightly praised as world-leading. The sector should be proud of its achievements and its continuing ability to change lives for the better and society for good. But the analysis shows – starkly – that universities must improve the work they do to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are supported not only to get into higher education, but to get on, too. Too many providers glossed over the possibility of closure in their student protection plans, or relied on ambitious projections for student recruitment when making financial plans. Others have questions to answer about the quality of their provision, or high drop-out rates. These are not – by any means – insurmountable challenges but providers must now look honestly at areas of weakness and seek to make improvements. We will be closely monitoring providers, focusing our attention on those who present the highest risk to ensure that they are able to give students an enriching experience of higher education which leaves them well placed to find successful careers.”

Research Integrity

Norman Lamb MP (current Chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee) has commented on the revised concordat to strengthen research integrity. He stated:

“My Committee welcomes the publication of the updated concordat and are pleased to see that recommendations we made have been included. Tackling the improper use of non-disclosure agreements and establishing independent investigation panels will help to strengthen and improve how universities approach research integrity.
However, the impact of this revised concordat will only be fully realised if all organisations in the sector comply with the requirement to publish annual statements on research integrity. We have yet to see a plan or timetable for achieving this goal, as recommended by the Committee and agreed to by UKRI. We hope that this will be forthcoming shortly.
We will be closely following the development of the new national research integrity committee and look forward to hearing what role it will play in improving research integrity by upholding the commitments of the Concordat and what powers it will have to tackle those unwilling to comply.”

Other news

Prisoner opportunity: Despite HEPI’s publication last week and plea to get prisoners learning earlier during their incarceration Universities Minister, Christ Skidmore, has turned a deaf ear to the cause as the parliamentary question response below states. However, perhaps this might feature in some parties forthcoming election manifestos:

Q – Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent assessment he has made of extending student loan eligibility to people in prison who have more than six years to run on their sentence.
A – Chris Skidmore : Prisoners set to be released within 6 years have been eligible for tuition fee loans with the consent of the prison authorities. There are no plans to change this policy.

Higher degrees: Wonkhe report on the Human Capital Estimates analysis released this week. It highlights that there are now more economically active people in the UK with a masters degree or a PhD (4.5m – 10.7% of the population) than without any formal academic qualifications (3.4m). The lifetime earnings premium for someone who has a higher degree over and above an undergraduate or equivalent degree remains between 9-11%. However, women with higher degrees have around 33% lower lifetime earnings than men with similar qualifications. Last week we told you about the HESA research which found a drop in the graduate earnings premium, the ONS analysis also reports a dip from 45% in 2004 to 34% in 2018.

Student Engagement: The Telegraph and the Daily Mail cover Advance HE’s Engagement survey, focusing on the statistic that only 46 per cent of students attend more than 11 hours of lectures per week. The Independent instead focuses on the high level of engagement among Black students.

Health Professions: This PQ is interesting because Hinds (ex-SoS Education/Hampshire) asks it and because of the regional context: Q – Mr Damian Hinds (East Hampshire): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Answers of 9 September 2019 to Question 286692 and 4 October 2019 to Question 290772 on Health Professions: Hampshire, what estimate he has made of the number of FTE (a) doctors (b) nurses and (c) other staff employed by the NHS in (i) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight STP area, (ii) Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, (iii) Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (iv) Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, (v) Solent NHS Trust, (vi) South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, (vii) Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and (viii) University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust in (A) 2010 and (B) the most recent year for which figures are available.

A – Edward Argar NHS Digital publishes Hospital and Community Health Services workforce statistics for England. These include staff working in hospital trusts and clinical commissioning groups, but not staff working in primary care, local authorities or other providers. The data requested is attached. PQ3720 and 721 table (Excel SpreadSheet, 31.5 KB)

Dental content in public health training: Q – Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to include oral health in pre-registration training for all public health professionals, as recommended by the Royal College of Surgeon’s Faculty of Dental Surgery’s report The state of children’s oral health in England, published in August.

A – Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford

The independent professional health and care regulators set the outcomes required from undergraduate (and in some cases postgraduate) education and training for registration as a healthcare professional. It is for education training providers to determine the content of training in order to meet these required outcomes.
Health Education England has an important role in supporting health and care professionals, including public health professionals, to promote good health, including good oral health and has a number of free to access resources to guide good practice in this area. This includes e-learning, evidence-based toolkits and competency frameworks.

(And another PQ on schools becoming sugar free.)

Medicine: Education 6336: Q – Dr Dan Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans he has to introduce a national exam for all medical students in England upon graduating from medical school.

A – Edward Argar:

The Department has no plans to introduce a national exam for medical students in England upon graduating from medical school.
The General Medical Council (GMC) is the independent regulator of doctors in the United Kingdom, and sets the standards for undergraduate medical education and training.
The GMC has announced that from 2023 it will introduce a Medical Licensing Assessment (MLA) that all UK medical students and non-European Economic Area international applicants must pass before they can join the medical register. The MLA will test the core knowledge, skills and behaviors needed to practise safely in the UK

Dr Registration: Q – Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans he has to bring forward the point of full registration of doctors with the GMC to graduation from medical school. [6337]

A – Edward Argar: The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

Joint Replacements: Waiting Lists (6403): Q – Dr Philippa Whitford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the waiting times were for (a) hip replacement and (b) knee replacement surgery in 2018-19 by NHS Foundation Trust.

A – Edward Argar: The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

Subscribe!

Sorry last week’s policy update didn’t reach your inbox until late on Tuesday. We hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s round up of the remaining news. There may be some disruption to your regular policy update next week as we celebrate Graduation but we’ll be back in full swing on Friday 15 November dissecting the political declarations and shenanigans for latest insight.

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

September 30, 2019

HE Policy Update for the w/e 27th September 2019

Business Engagement, Funding opportunities, HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement jforster

What a week! Parliament is sitting (but not quietly) and there is lots of coverage from the Labour Party conference including the fringe events.

Fresher loneliness

Fresher loneliness: The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and Louise Knowles (Sheffield University) have spoken out on tackling loneliness during the first few weeks when starting university.

For many, the thought of Freshers’ Week conjures up images of non-stop partying, a whirlwind introduction to university life and new places, opportunities and friendships. But for some students it also brings a feeling of anxiety, isolation and the start of a long battle against homesickness.
Fresher’s Week can be a culture shock. Some students relish this and enjoy the excitement, but others are like a rabbit caught in headlights.
Being isolated affects your psychological wellbeing. When they start at university, many students have lost the comfort of home, someone to cook for then, that structure they had, their community of family and friends for support.
It’s especially true for marginalised students – such as international, disabled or mature students. They can feel at a loss. They will wonder ‘is there anyone else like me here?’ or ‘where can I get support?’

Having a sense of community can be key to helping a student overcome homesickness.

Sense of belonging

“They need to build up that sense of community, that sense of belonging.
“Some students can be very reserved. They might not be comfortable in large social groups or going out clubbing all the time with lots of new people. They might find it easier to join smaller, informal groups, and look for activities on a smaller scale to join in.
“We have to push ourselves a little bit to put ourselves out there and build a new community, but not to the depths of despair.”

There are university societies to pretty much cover every interest and hobby, as well as for specific groups of students, and they can often help people form a much-needed community to help them settle in.

Preparation

“Some students haven’t had much preparation for university. If they’ve accepted a place through clearing they may not even known where they were going until a few weeks before. It does help to familiarise yourself with where you’re going and what life’s going to be like before it’s thrust on you in the first week of term.“

Freshers’ Week and the following few weeks can be a bit of a blur. Some people want to jump in and do everything. Others want to familiarise themselves with university life more slowly. “It’s important students remember to take it at a pace that they are comfortable with.”

Wonkhe have a fresher related blog: Are freshers the new realists when it comes to mental health support?

Initiations: UUK have published a briefing, Initiations at UK Universities, to raise awareness of the dangers associated with initiation tasks and excessive drinking among students. The briefing sets out recommendations and actions they suggest universities should take to prevent and respond to dangerous behaviours and aim to drive a change in attitudes towards these events.

The briefing includes a consensus statement on the best way forward from stakeholders across the university and health sectors and examples of emerging good practice. Here are the key recommendations:

Adopt a clear definition of what constitutes an initiation which focuses on prohibited behaviours
Foster cross-working and a whole university approach. This means including work to prevent initiations as part of strategies to tackle harassment and promote good wellbeing and mental health
Evaluate new initiatives and share knowledge and good practice, continuously assessing progress being made
Update or develop policies and practices to explicitly refer to initiation events and the problems that arise from them
Ensure proportionate disciplinary processes and sanctions are in place, noting that a “zero tolerance approach” is unhelpful as it implies initiations do not happen
Provide clear reporting systems and advertise support available to students
Raise awareness of initiations and their risks among students and staff
Organise appropriate staff training, identifying the levels of training needed for different staff. First responders will need the most training, for example.
Work with the local council, licensees and partners to ensure the campus environment promotes responsible behaviours towards drinking
Work with alumni to encourage an increased sense of responsibility for the safety of student groups and societies of which they were a part

Wonkhe have a new blog exploring the complexities for universities to walk the right balance over initiation.

Parliament is back

The supreme court ruled that PM Johnson was unlawful in his advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament. A summary of the court’s decision is here. In essence:

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

The court ruled that Parliament was frustrated and its ability to debate the Brexit change curtailed:

This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech.
This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.
The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

So all bills that were previously passing through parliament are resumed and Parliament is sitting again. A recess for the Conservative Conference was not approved. Next week will be another interesting one.

Fees and funding

Meanwhile, on Monday, Wonkhe reported that the Sunday Times confirmed that ministers have “shelved” implementing the Augar recommendation to cut full-time undergraduate English tuition fees to £7,500. Wonkhe continue:

This does not mean that higher education finance will not make its way into a future Conservative election retail offer to students and young people – maintenance grants, expansion of higher technical and apprenticeship qualifications, and interest rates on student loans could all plausibly feature – and would generate fewer direct comparisons to Labour’s free tuition offer. Though other parts of the Augar recommendations will perhaps make it through the month, the “big difference” that education secretary Gavin Williamson claimed the Augar review is making to his thinking, now looks quite a bit smaller.

And there is a new Wonkhe blog on the topic.:

The Sunday Times reports that ministers felt there was no parliamentary majority for any legislation. However:
Making changes to the fee cap would just require a statutory instrument. From the way HERA has been drafted it is difficult to see what the precise process would be to lower fee caps… but there is no indication that lowering fees would require such a vote.
The blog suggests Jo Johnson killed off the fee reduction “Six weeks would be plenty for him to kill off the idea of ill-considered tweaks to his 2017 legislation. He lost his job over opposition to the post 18 review, so given a second chance he was always going to take the opportunity to render it harmless.”

Voter registration

Electoral Registration: With the prospect of an election before the end of 2019 looming an Electoral Commission report holds particular interest for the student voter registration hurdle. They find that local government registers are only 83% complete (so between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are not correctly registered). The greatest risk factors for non or inaccurate registration are:

Aged 18-24 years
Having lived at current address for less than two years
Renting from a private owner
Being of ‘other ethnic background’ or ‘mixed background’ ethnicity

Several of the risk factors chime with the HE student demographic, which also has the additional hurdles of understanding the electoral registration process given their dual (home/study address) residence status. Alongside the de-prioritisation of registering to vote against the many other items competing for their attention when they start or return to university.

KEF is coming – and more money for knowledge exchange

A couple of significant announcements were made this week by the Universities Minister.

Universities Minister Chris Skidmore has today announced a new strategic direction for university knowledge exchange funding to drive the high performance needed to deliver the government’s commitment to raise research and development investment to 2.4% of GDP.

The measures announced at the Research England Engagement Forum event in London today, Thursday 26 September, include:

Confirmation that Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) will rise to £250 million by 2020/21
Roll-out of the first iteration of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF), with the first results anticipated in 2020
A comprehensive Research England-review of the current HEIF funding method, aiming to put the KEF at the heart of the approach
The launch of a joint call with the Office for Students (OfS), making £10m available for projects that evidence the benefits to students of being involved in knowledge exchange

You can find more detail here: Research England

Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, spoke to celebrate the broad range of topics and internationalism within the Future Leaders Fellowships second wave. He also spoke about early career researchers:

I also want to highlight what I’ve referred to as the ‘Cinderella subject’ of education and research policy: that surrounding early career research. How can we create an environment that ensures early career researchers are not only better paid, but feel valued, that their work is properly recognised and rewarded?

And on the academic juggle:

I also am acutely aware that for all Future Leaders Fellows, the ability to conduct your research unhindered and free from the constraints of what should I say, ‘normal academic life’, is just as important as some of the financial investment that has been made today.
Pressure is experienced by us all, but I know myself as a historian, writing books late into the night, that there are few disciplines such as the process of academic thought and research creativity, that can be so adversely affected by the impositions of the outside world.
So I’m keen to do all I can to help investigate how to reduce these pressures, to understand where we need to refine our processes and minimise unnecessary paperwork, and find out where additional flexibilities need to be created, to clear the path for researchers to be free to conduct the research they need to.
This includes looking again at our various research funding models, ensuring that we are doing everything we can to unlock the creativity and imaginations of everyone working in research, whether they work in universities, research institutes or in industry.
It also means focussing on our efforts on that critical point in a researcher’s early career, when they feel most precarious, and when the strictures of an academic career can seem so burdensome that most choose simply to take a different path in life, away from research altogether.

More detail on the Future Leaders projects can be found here.

Skidmore also spoke on Space and the importance of small business innovation this week.

Lastly, PM Boris visited a school and the BBC captured his talk with the children when he reminisced that he didn’t do enough work at university and frittered too much time at university. He advised them to use their time productively: “Don’t waste your time at university, don’t get drunk…use it well”.

HE Data

The OfS have released a new area based measure of access named TUNDRA (tracking underrepresented students by area). As the name suggests it is a data source derived from the tracking of 16 year old state funded mainstream school pupils in England on an area basis who participate in HE at age 18 or 19. They have also updated the POLAR4 postcode data which measures how likely a young person is to participate in HE based on their postcode. Note: POLAR 4 covers all schooling types as it is an area based measure. However, questions of the validity of any postcode based metric remain due to start discrepancies which mask disadvantage within postcode areas. And Minister Chris Skidmore has been open within his criticism over the shortcomings of this measure. The Government (and OfS) are rumoured to be quietly investing more time in understanding whether the index of multiple deprivation has potential for greater use in the future. Back on the OfS site are also interactive maps selectable by each of the four types of recognised young participation measures (TUNDRA, POLAR 3 & 4, NCOP) and the calculation methodologies for each type of measure are here.

Data guru David Kernohan of Wonkhe gallops through the main features, issues and oddities of TUNDRA in A cold spot on the TUNDRA.

OfS data – Changes in Healthcare Student Numbers

The OfS have published data on healthcare student number changes following the removal of the bursary system (2017 entrants). The data compares 2016-17 to 2017-18 highlighting:

An 11% drop in the number of students starting nursing courses (19,790 down to 17,630). Students aged over 21 dropped by 17%
A 3% increase in students starting midwifery courses
Little overall change in the number of entrants to allied health courses, with some courses growing and others decreasing. E.g. physiotherapy increased by 19% (250 students), while podiatry decreased by 19% (45 students)
Overall, the number of young entrants to healthcare courses increased by 8%, BUT the number of mature students decreased by 30%
Overall, there was a slight increase in entrants from the lowest POLAR4 quintiles (areas of lowest participation).

They said that the full impact of the reforms will not be evident until more years of data are available.

Yvonne Hawkins, Director of Teaching Excellence and Student Experience, said:

The reduction in nursing and healthcare students is a concern for the health workforce of the future. We are working in partnership with universities, Health Education England, NHS England and representative bodies to increase the numbers of healthcare students and there is emerging evidence that this work is starting to have an impact.
The OfS is supporting a number of innovative projects to boost take-up and development of specialist healthcare courses – as well as providing direct additional funding for the delivery of high-cost healthcare subjects. This data will help universities to identify gaps and opportunities to increase recruitment and ensure that the country is provided with the next generation of highly-trained health professionals’

Immigration: The Tier 4 Visa list which catalogues the institutions licensed to sponsor migrant students has been updated. It includes information about the category of students a provider is licensed to sponsor and their sponsorship rating.

Students

UCAS have launched the UCAS Hub which aims to bring together all a student’s research about their next steps into one place including HE and apprenticeships. UCAS describe it as: a personalised, digital space for young people considering their post-18 choices, as well as anyone thinking about returning to education.

It seems it is a week for one-stop shops as UK music have launched their own to help students and parents consider a career in the creative industries. Excerpt:

DiscoverCreative.Careers is designed to help students and their parents, guardians and teachers find out more about the careers in industries including advertising, architecture, fashion, film and television, museums and galleries, performing arts and publishing – and the routes to them.

The creative industries are growing three times faster than the UK economy as a whole and to meet the predicted growth, there is a need for more young people to choose a career in one of the UK’s most dynamic sectors. The new site will signpost users to the full range of jobs available to counter an historic dearth of good careers information for the creative sector.
The initiative is part of the Creative Careers Programme being delivered by ScreenSkills, Creative & Cultural Skills and the Creative Industries Federation supported by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. The lead partners have worked with organisations covering the 12 subsectors of the creative industries to provide expert information on the range of jobs. (More content here.)

HE Participation Stats

The DfE has published statistics on Participation Rates in HE from 2006 to 2018 (and this link gives previous years of data). It shows rise in the Higher Education Initial Participation rate, a stable gap between male and female HE participation and a highest rate of 18 year olds accessing HE. The detail is explained here.

New Insight: See the OfS press release in our WP and Access section on their new Experimental Statistics which group disadvantaged student demographic characteristics to, hopefully, provide answers to tricky questions such as why certain groups of students are more likely to drop out or encounter difficulties whilst studying.

Widening Participation and Access

Experimental Statistics: The OfS highlight new experimental statistics which consider the interaction of demographic characteristics. Imaginatively named ABCS (Associations Between Characteristics of Students) the OfS state the statistics could offer important insights on the combining factors which leader to non-access or poorer outcomes for disadvantaged students. The OfS press release says:

Associations between characteristics of students’ (ABCS) is a new, experimental set of analyses that seeks to better understand how multiple characteristics – like age, sex, ethnicity and area background – interact to affect students’ outcomes in higher education, including whether they get in to university and, if so, whether they continue beyond their first year.

The methodology could also be used in future to look at the results students achieve and whether they progress to graduate employment, and across all levels of higher education.

The kinds of findings that can be explored using the ABCS methodology include:

black Caribbean students aged 21-25 are at higher risk of dropping out than other students, and this risk increases dramatically when looking at those who also report having a mental health condition
although young female students are, on the whole, much more likely to go to university than male students of the same age, those who received free school meals were far less likely to go than those who did not.

Chris Millward, OfS Director for Fair Access and Participation, commented:

Our guidance encourages universities and other higher education providers to address combinations of characteristics when they are setting targets, choosing measures and evaluating their work to close equality gaps.
Our hope is that, in the future, measures such as these will help them better understand these interactions, and therefore target their work more effectively.
This work is experimental, so we are looking to users to provide feedback on all aspects of the methodology and measures. This will be crucial to any future development and use of these analyses.

Power of the Parent: FE Week has an article stating the truism that every WP practitioner knows – the power of the influencing parent on a young person considering their HE prospects. Towards the end of the article are some suggestions on how to bring parents on board.

Differentiated Fees: Colin McCaig (Sheffield Hallam) has a policy paper explaining how differentiated fees (e.g. based on higher fees for higher tariff entry points to a course) would significantly undermine widening access for underrepresented social groups. In particular they find that applicants from low income households would gravitate towards lower cost provision rather than accessing the prestigious, high tariff, high cost institutions.

Tricky Target Decisions: The Times letters to the editor contains Degrees of Privilege (scroll to half way down the page to find it) which explores the complexities (and hints towards a fairness question) in widening access targets.

Private Tuition

The Sutton Trust and Ipsos MORI surveyed schools and found that 24% of secondary teachers have offered paid for private tuition, two-thirds did so after direct approach by parents of pupils. In primary school it is 14%. The survey also found that in 2019 27% of 11-16 year olds have received private tuition at some point during the last four years, up from 18% in the 2005 survey. The duration of the tuition isn’t stated but looking at the data it appears around 10% of the 2019 27% had tuition across multiple years in the last four years.

24% accessed the private tuition for a school entrance exam, and 37% for a specific GCSE subject, 4% because their school doesn’t offer a particular subject they wish to study.

The increase in private tuition is contentious because, unsurprisingly, the young people who receive it come from better off backgrounds (34% from high affluence households, 20% from low affluence households). The Sutton Trust’s press release says:

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), the Sutton Trust’s sister charity, has identified one-to-one and small group tuition as a very cost-effective way to boost attainment. To level the playing field outside the classroom, schools should consider prioritising one-to-one and small group tuition in their Pupil Premium spending. The government should also look at ways of funding access to such tuition sustainably, for example through a voucher scheme.
The Trust would also like to see more private tuition agencies provide a certain proportion of their tuition to disadvantaged pupils for free, as well as an expansion of non-profit tuition programmes that connect tutors with disadvantaged schools. Agencies like Tutorfair, MyTutor and Tutor Trust operate innovative models in this area.

The Sutton Trust’s other recommendations are available here. The survey results are available here.

This was a limited scope survey designed to provide a yearly update to the two key questions of how many mainstream teachers are offering private tuition and how many young people are being tutors. The research does not answer questions behind the increase in private tuition, such as whether the Government’s raising of curriculum standards may have been a factor in compelling parents that can afford additional tuition to do so. However, the data shows that accessing private tuition has increased at a steady rate since 2005.

The next challenge – continuation

The Ministers have made a big WP student success speech this week. SoS Education, Gavin Williamson, and Universities Minister Chris Skidmore both spoke out to compel universities to do more to reduce dropout rates, particularly within the disadvantaged student body. The Government news story highlights how the Government are looking to the Access and Participation Plans that all registered providers are required to have as a vehicle for sector movement to improve the drop out disparity. While more disadvantaged students now access university (although students from advantaged areas are still 2.4 times more likely to access HE) there is a gap with students from lower income backgrounds more likely to drop out of university. In 2016/17 6% of advantaged students dropped out compared to 8.8% of disadvantaged. Of concern is that the drop out gap has become wider from the previous year. The news story says:

Ahead of… the publication of new statistics on access and participation by university regulator the Office for Students, Mr Williamson has underlined his determination to take action and ensure every student choosing to go to university – regardless of background – is supported to get the most out of the experience….[he will]…say that more needs to be done to make progress on access and participation at our world-class institutions. He will urge all universities to follow in the footsteps of institutions like Kings College and improve their offer for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Education Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, said:

It is not good enough that white working class boys are far less likely to go to university and black students are far less likely to complete their courses than others. We cannot let this wasted potential go unchecked any longer.
I want all universities, including the most selective, to do everything they can to help disadvantaged students access a world-class education, but they also need to keep them there and limit the numbers dropping out of courses. My message is clear – up your game and get on with it.

Universities Minister Chris Skidmore said:

Progress is being made to ensure that more disadvantaged young people are going to university than ever before, but it’s not enough to get students through the door – they must then get the right support to complete their courses too.
Dropouts will be a key focus of mine as Universities Minister and I will be watching carefully to see how universities respond to this challenge. I fully support the OfS in taking action if providers fail to do all they can to deliver their commitments.

The Government news story concludes: The Government’s wide-ranging reforms to higher education has led to the publication of access and participation plans…The OfS will closely monitor all these providers to make sure they follow through on their plans.

UUK have responded to the speech – Julia Buckingham, UUK President, said: “there is more work to do” and called on the government to “quicken the progress” by “reintroducing maintenance grants for students most in need”.

Media coverage can be found in iNews and ITV.

Labour Party Conference

32 hour working week: At the Labour Party conference John McDonnell said the next Labour government will reduce the average full time working week to 32 hours within a decade. A shorter working week with no loss of pay. HEPI have a short new blog on what this might mean for university staff and whether it also applies to students who work long hours as part of their course load (medicine, health, architecture and education).

Abolishing Student Fees: Jim Dickinson from Wonkhe highlights the unknowns within Labour’s commitment to abolish student fees:

Blimey. Do you remember when the most interesting that happened at Labour Party Conference was Cherie Blair mouthing “the chancellor’s a liar” on her way out of Tony’s speech?
For higher education, the inclusion of “no fees” in Labour policy has never really been in doubt, and popped up several times in Brighton. The question is the deeper complexity – would existing debt be wiped? Would the unit of resource be protected? Would more students in England be discouraged from doing higher education in universities rather than FE colleges? What kinds of incentives will get the adults back? Will OfS be scrapped or reformed? The party is unforgivably vague or refreshingly open to ideas, depending on your perspective.
Labour’s Lifelong Learning Commission is expected to provide some answers, but has not produced its findings in time for conference. Gordon Marsden is furious that Gavin Williamson has announced subject TEF before the independent review has even been presented to Parliament. But given that every delegate agrees that the system is too “marketised”, the thorniest question was on student numbers. Say out loud that you’d have number caps and you look like an enemy of opportunity. Say you wouldn’t and you rule out the thing that has caused the intensification of competition in the first place. Marsden said neither, of course.

MillionPlus call for maintenance grants to be reinstated: Professor Lynn Dobbs, VC London Metropolitan University was a key speaker at a Labour fringe event. She said under a National Education Service (NES) a Labour government should restore student maintenance grants and guarantee investment, in order to deliver a well-funded tertiary education system for all. She said:

Guaranteeing sustainable investment across tertiary education can foster collaboration rather than competition between universities and colleges.
Shifting money around within education only moves problems from one part of the sector to the other, and from one set of students to other, does not address the critical issue of a real-terms reduction in investment in all of our students – none of us should EVER settle for that.

She urged for part-time and mature students to become a priority: The need to focus on part-time and mature students is much needed … Despite the populist narrative of ‘too many students’, fewer than 50% of 30 years olds in the UK have had the opportunity to experience any form of higher education – this is a low bar that we should be seeking to leap over.

Abolishing Ofsted: There were tweets (and another tweet) and news stories from the Guardian and Politics Home on scrapping Ofsted to be replaced by a teaching standards support system. Angela Rayner: Schools will no longer be reduced to a one-word grade or subjected to a system that hounds teachers from the classroom.

Further Education and the Fair Economy: The Social Market Foundation and the Further Education Trust for Leadership (FETL) ran the Further Education and the Fair Economy fringe event. The panel discussed further education and the opportunities it opened for elderly people, as well as disabled students. Time was also spent discussing the impact it had on social mobility and the future economy.

Chair James Kirkup, director, Social Market Foundation said that further education was pivotal to the future economy and insisted that politicians needed to increase their engagement in FE considerably.
Opinium’s research manager, Priya Minhas provided an overview of public perceptions of vocational qualifications, noting that they were well perceived in terms of practicality. However, she noted that most people saw university degrees as more useful for future careers and linked university education with more than just a skillset – they had an intellectual and social aspect too. Yet, vocational qualifications did have a reputation for helping people get into a job. She discussed the potential for “Nimbyism”, wherein people spoke positively about vocational qualifications but would not want them for their own child. However, the data did not simply support this hypothesis.
Lord Bassam of Brighton expressed disappointment at the gradual erosion of funding for FE, which had served to destabilise the sector and restrict access to FE for many people. He praised the Augar Review and said that it was through the review that the Government had realised that they needed to improve their work in the sector. He concluded by emphasising that if the Government truly believed in improving the quality of manufacturing in the UK, then it needed to increase support for FE.
Caireen Mitchell of Croydon College said that many colleges, including her own, had been forced into mergers due to financial pressures. She welcomed the announcement of £400m for the FE sector but said that far more was required. The implications of the funding shortage could be extensive, with far lower hours for a “full-time” programme compared to other European countries the primary concern for Mitchell. She also noted that health and mental health support was stretched, and extra-curricular activities were being slashed in favour of other priorities. The college could provide qualifications, Mitchell said, but a wider breadth of education was simply not possible. She linked the lack of funding to a lack of social mobility and productivity, with many low-income students unable to afford to continue in education. She said people on low-incomes needed free access to a rounded education, including subjects that were not “core” such as English and Maths.
Gordon Marsden MP (Shadow Minister for HE, FE & Skills) referenced the House of Lords Committee on seaside towns, noting the challenges that people in those areas had in accessing higher education and said that the educational challenges in those areas was “palpable”…The economic and political context was that skills were no longer siloed – the rise of technology meant that skillsets were far more fluid and varied than before. This, Marsden believed, made FE more vital than ever.
A representative from the Deaf Children’s Society noted that FE was often a better route for disabled children and asked what more could be done to assist disabled people get the careers they wanted. Gordon Marsden said that Labour had wanted to make provisions in law to put a special emphasis on disabilities generally in education and apprenticeships. The Government had not been willing to work with them so far, he said.

Immigration – What should be in Labour’s manifesto?: The session focussed on immigration policies as a whole and didn’t specifically cover HE.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbot said that there was a lot of interest in immigration and that (following her own experience working in the Home Office after university) it was essential that the culture of the Home Office changed and the language it was having around migration. She highlighted a poll which suggested that in the last few years the UK had had an increasingly positive view of the benefits of immigration, with a poll this year showing that 22% of people believed immigration provided a net benefit to the UK.
Abbot said that Labour would look to unpick those policies introduced by both Labour and Conservative governments that tied into the hostile environment, principally that immigrants could not have access to resources once in the UK. Labour would not seek to impose salary limits for access to the UK as the £30,000 figure excluded valued professions like nurses. And that Labour would also entitle family members to join people already in the UK.
Abbot criticised the Home Secretary’s commitment to end freedom of movement from day one and explained that it had to be reserved quickly because it was illegal. Abbot said that Labour would take a more liberal approach to immigration which she said had become increasingly popular.
Thom Brooks, professor at Durham University, offered his views on immigration, stating that an EU citizen amnesty should be introduced because the current EU settlement scheme was inadequate. He said he would like the 2014 Immigration Act to be repealed and reviewed with the view that immigration was positive for the UK overall. He also said that the Migration Advisory Committee was too small and should be expanded so there would be more expertise. He called for a Royal Commission to be conducted on immigration, which could form the basis of future immigration policies.
Kate Green, chair of the APPG on Migration, said that Ministers in the Home Office should be giving their civil servants a positive message about immigration and affirmed that immigration should be viewed as being beneficial to the UK. Green said that migration would rise across the world because of conflict and climate change and said that it was a shame the UK was leaving the EU because this was an important institution the UK could use to influence global issues.

Industrial Strategy, Skilled Jobs and Education; Run by the Fabian Society and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry this event focused on assessing on how places, communities and regions can all see good work grow. The panel questioned what methods can be undertaken to ensure not only high employment, but also high skilled jobs. There was consensus that stronger regional strategy for providing skilled jobs is needed but also a strategy which guarantees that jobs remain “good” with the implementation of automation and new technology.

Shadow Minister for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Chi Onwurah MP opened the discussion on the topic of skilled jobs everywhere which she said is driving part of the industrial strategy. [Note – Labour have their own version of the Industrial Strategy.] Key points are:

strong cross sector investment and a strong focus on investing in infrastructure so that people have sufficient access to jobs.
delivering skilled jobs as part of an industrial strategy, this would allow for some divisions to be healed amongst regions, prosperity would be delivered
innovation needs to be a part of the “cultural DNA of our country” and the UK needs to become an “innovation nation”; if this remains a key goal then access to skilled jobs can be broadened to those who are currently excluded
there should be the implementation of a National Education Service that champions adult education and enables people to reskill.
both the industrial strategy and education strategy should be combined and work alongside each other so that individuals can “realise their dreams”.
international talent is vitally important and even those who earn less than £30,000 should have access to work in the UK

Labour’s Anti-Private Schooling Motion: At the Labour Party Conference a motion was passed intending to dismantle the private school system should Labour win the next general election. Previously Labour said they intended to close the tax loopholes available to elite private schools, redistributing this money to ‘improve the lives of all children’. However, the motion, spearheaded by the Momentum faction, said the next Labour manifesto should include a: “commitment to integrate all private schools into the state sector…[and]…withdrawal of charitable status and all other public subsidies and tax privileges, including business rate exemption. Plus: “endowments, investments and properties held by private schools to be redistributed democratically and fairly across the country’s educational institutions”. It also said that universities only admit 7% of students from private schools, to reflect the proportion of all pupils who attend them. More details are in this Politics Home article. Laura Parker, Momentum’s national co-ordinator, said: “This is a huge step forward in dismantling the privilege of a tiny, Eton-educated elite who are running our country into the ground.

The Letters to the Editor of the Times on Labour’s proposed abolition of private schools provide some interesting questions on how beneficial it would be to society to carry this policy through.

From the Labour NASUWT fringe event on valuing teachers:

Dr Patrick Roach, Deputy General Secretary of NASUWT – in some instances, teachers only had a single GCSE in the subject area they were responsible for, which had led, he added, to a culture where “as long as you are one-page ahead in the textbook of the pupils that you are teaching then that is good enough.” He lamented that this is not good enough.
Mike Kane, shadow schools minister, said that the Labour Party would bring an end to “toxic testing” and ensure that teachers had proper qualifications in a bid to bring “hope” back to the profession. He proceeded by highlighting how Conservative cuts to university budgets and training courses had led to an influx of unqualified teachers entering schools. He said “far too many teachers in our system are absolutely unqualified. It isn’t a profession, it is becoming more of a trade which you learn on the job”. Kane continued emphasising that forcing teachers to “teach to the test” coupled with a litany of legislation had resulted in plummeting morale.

The Class Ceiling: Barriers to Social Mobility in the UK today. This event run by Demos and The Investment Association focused on the challenges facing social mobility today. In particular, how aspirations, access to jobs and attitudes can be altered amongst those who have the least opportunity and come from backgrounds that traditionally limits how far people go in life.

Duncan Exley, former director of the Equality Trust, said that during the 20th Century there was more social mobility than in the 21st Century with the odds now greater that individuals will have a lower level job than their parents. He also said that no matter how much individuals are trained and educated, there needs to be an increase in supply of good jobs and homes if social mobility is going to occur. Finally, Exley said that there is a need to support collective wellbeing to encourage social mobility, as this in turn unleashes individual opportunity.
Claire Ainsley, Executive Director Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the perceived social mobility problem is particularly worrying – younger people are less likely to believe that it is hard work and talents that gets them on in life, as most see background and parents as responsible for where they end up. Ainsley argued that this is a problem that needs to be tackled if levels of social mobility are going to improve. She continued that in order to properly address social mobility problems, bright young people from deprived backgrounds aren’t the only ones that need to be given attention, but maybe those who are older too; the lens on social barriers and mobility needs to shift.
Seema Malhotra, MP for Feltham and Heston, framed her remarks on social mobility about “creating conditions for success”. She said that there needs to be an increased readiness to learn amongst people, the opportunity to dream and a desire to achieve. Malhotra commented that not only do attitudes towards young people need to change if social mobility is to improve, but she also said that attitudes within families and communities that traditionally hold people back when there is an attempt to create opportunity need to be altered. She explained that young people are experiencing cumulative impact effects, whereby they are absorbing their parents’ anxieties about housing and this in turn is limiting their own mobility; Malhotra attributed this whole issue to poverty and austerity. Malhotra discussed what she called “the pillars of prosperity” – she said that the education system needs to create conditions for success and that the levers and relationships within communities and society need to assist in creating opportunity. To conclude she spoke on how there is a “fundamental” issue about human flourishing and providing mechanisms that support this; this is something that must start early in life and should be sustained if social mobility is to improve. Whilst this isn’t really a policy goal currently, she argued that it should be a central approach to the creation of policy.
CEO of the Investment Association, Chris Cummings, said industry should be prioritizing ‘potential’ over ‘polish’. Cummings said that financial services specifically has a bad habit of employing the “best” people – those that have good academic qualifications, perform very well at interview and have a high degree of social capital. However, Cummings said that this often leads to a “group thinking” attitude, instead of prioritizing diversity of thought, which in turn can be highly beneficial, and give overall better outcomes and returns. He said that if industry isn’t diverse in the way it thinks then decisions can often become constrained. Cummings described his own organisation as implementing an hour glass model, rather than a pyramid, to provide opportunity to those who can bring a “different dimension” to the world of work.

Labour’s cradle to grave careers service and the quality of careers advice was also discussed.

A guest blog from SUBU

Our guest blog series by Sophie Bradfield of SUBU continues this week

With a new cohort of students joining us this week, Unite’s recent report with HEPI on ‘The New Realists’ can help us gain some insights about prospective students, students enrolling and already enrolled at BU. The aim of the report is to “investigate young people’s transition to university, their expectations and their experiences in the first year, looking at both academic and non-academic aspects.” There are 4 stages to the research: desk research, online communities, friendship triads, and a quantitative survey. (You can download the full methodology here). Respondents are diverse with a range of genders, nationalities, ethnicities, grades achieved, sexualities and abilities, ensuring a reflective view of the student mind set. 5,108 students were surveyed, with a fairly even split between applicants (2,535) and first year students (2,573). The majority of these respondents are in the 16-19 age bracket (86%) with the remaining 14% in 20+ age bracket. The report has 3 key themes which I have unpicked below.

Key Theme 1: University Provides a Bridge to a Stable Future

One of the key findings from the report is the general belief carried by generation Z that University is a way to foster stability in an unstable world where their futures are otherwise uncertain. 69% of respondents agreed “going to University is the only way to make sure I’ll get the life I want”. 68% felt they would face more challenges than their parents in becoming successful in life which may be because 59% felt there is more “chaos and risk in the world than there was 20 years ago”. ‘Independent but not adults’ is a term used in the report to explain how students felt. I’ve heard BU students refer to themselves as feeling ‘adultish’ which links to the findings of this report and shows how widespread it is. University is a place where students can try new things, challenge themselves and develop their future selves. For many students, University is a key development time to ‘become adults’.

Key Theme 2: Students are more Diverse than ever

The report finds that more than ever, students have diverse individual identities dispelling the myth that there is a ‘typical student’. For example over a fifth (22%) of students in the research study identified as being teetotal, demonstrating a shift away from the drinking culture often associated with the student experience. As noted in the report, this means it is essential that students are continuously listened to so their education experience meets their needs.

With the research depicting a rise in students declaring a disability (including mental health); a higher proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic students (BAME); a rise in students from lower participation neighbourhoods; and a higher proportion of students identifying as LGBT+, higher education institutions are fantastically diverse places for students to develop and grow as open-minded and progressive individuals. Nevertheless, the report finds that respondents from minority and under-represented groups are slightly less likely to see themselves as successful which shows there is still some way to go to level the playing-field for all students, through empowerment and liberation.

The report also finds that over 80% of respondents combined either don’t follow trends or don’t pay attention. We can see this in the political world too; 40% of respondents didn’t identify with a particular political party. Labour came top being supported by 19% of respondents, followed by 8% supporting the Green party; 7% the Conservatives and the remaining gaining 1-3%. We’ve seen this move away from tribal politics over the last few decades but these latest results show how pertinent it will be for political parties to attract the student vote in the anticipated General Election.

Key Theme 3: Peers Play a Pivotal Role in a Successful Student Experience

The report asks students about successful aspects of their student experience.

In SUBU we’ve been asking BU students a similar question for the last 7 years in an annual student experience survey: ‘When you graduate from BU, what are the 3 most important things that will determine whether your time at BU has been as good as it could have been for you?’ With an open text response, students have always chosen the same three themes: Degree Grade, Friends Made; and Employability Prospects. This shows similar themes to the Unite report above.

The report finds that the majority of students report feeling lonely occasionally with a further 22% saying they feel lonely often and 4% saying they feel lonely all the time. The BBC loneliness experiment reported in 2018 found a higher proportion of 16-24 year olds were lonely compared with the oldest in society. Wonkhe reported on this issue earlier in the year too making the link between loneliness, student activities and mental wellbeing. The Unite report also shows that students understand that they can increase their wellbeing through socialising, making friends and taking part in activities, demonstrating the importance of balancing the academic experience with the non-academic experience whilst at University. ‘Freshers’ Week’ events are highlighted as specifically making a positive difference to the experience of students who are estranged from their parents or have been in care. Yet, more can be done ‘to help students connect, make friends and integrate when they first come to University’.

The research shows that students feel ‘pressure to solve their own problems independently or with peers’ connected to ‘transitioning to adult life’. This belief is reflected in their approach to mental health too as despite an increase in students identifying as having a mental health condition, many want to manage it themselves rather than seeking support from University services. Only half of students report their condition to their University and trust their peers far more than their University to reach out to for support. The report found that 47% of respondents considered their mental health condition to be part of who they are, forming part of their identity, however 46% also acknowledge there is still a stigma around mental health. This reluctance to seek support due to stigma and trust is something that continues to be a key area for Universities’ to address in the midst of an ongoing national debate about whose responsibility it is to ensure students get support for mental health issues.

Conclusions

The Unite/HEPI report highlights some very interesting insights from the student perspective, some of which are detailed above. Ultimately it all relates to conversations around transitions and support. There has been lots of research and work around improving the transition of students into University, for example Michelle Morgan developed the Student Engagement Transitions Model for Practitioners to demonstrate the importance of transition at all stages of University. This Unite report highlights this too; the whole University experience is a transitionary experience for many students into ‘adulthood’. As director of HEPI Nick Hillman notes, “Today’s students are not, in the main, going to university because they want to be rich; they are going because they want to absorb the lifelong transferable benefits that degrees continue to confer.” Therefore it seems Universities and Students’ Unions should continue to do all they can to shape and nurture a diverse and malleable University community for students to share, experiment and grow into progressive, engaged citizens of the future.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. There aren’t any new inquiries and consultations this week however, email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the open inquiries or consultations.

Other news

Climate Change Funding: At the United Nations General Assembly on Monday PM Boris announced £1 billion aid funding to develop and test new technology targeted at tackling climate change in developing countries. The innovative new Ayrton Fund to give developing countries access to the latest cutting-edge tech to help reduce their emissions and meet global climate change targets.

The UK is home to some of the world’s best innovators in clean energy technology. Through the Ayrton Fund they and other scientists from around the world can work in partnership with developing countries to transform their energy sectors and reduce emissions by:

providing affordable access to electricity for some of the 1 billion people who are still off the grid, including through innovative solar technology for their homes
enhancing large-scale battery technology to replace polluting diesel generators and ensure clean energy can be stored and not lost
designing clean stoves like electric pressure cookers for some of the 2.7 billion people who still rely on firewood – with the smoke damaging their health as well as the environment
working with factories in major polluting industries like iron and steel, petrochemicals and cement to reduce their carbon output
improving the technology behind cooling systems so energy isn’t wasted – residential air conditioning alone is expected to raise global temperatures by 0.5°C in the years ahead; and
designing low-emission and electric vehicles to cut pollution and make transport systems cleaner and greener

Meanwhile Labour seem to have interwoven the environmental crisis through all their policy areas during their Party Conference this week. For example, when speaking of planned NHS reforms they said their: Green New Deal for our NHS – A Labour government will deliver the greenest health service in the world. As we rebuild our hospitals we’ll invest in solar panels and energy efficiency schemes. We’ll move to a fleet of low emission ambulances. And we’ll guarantee patients and staff a right to green space with an ‘NHS Forest’ – 1 million trees planted across our NHS estate – a tree for every member of staff.

Graduate Employment: The Times describe the biggest graduate recruiters in Top 100 Graduate Employers: bright young things flock to prison careers. In 2019 the Civil Service was the biggest graduate recruiter followed by PwC, Aldi, Google and the NHS. You’ll need to follow another link to find out about the variety of work within the prison service, however, this article talks about how young designers are influencing the prison environment. And WONKHE have a quick and interesting new blog: Who is responsible for getting a graduate a graduate level job.

Positivity towards TEF (or not): Steven Jones (Manchester) speaks of how to harness TEF for positive gains during the SRHE conference:

[The Conference] was full of new ideas. Opposition to metrics wasn’t based on change-resistance and ideological stubbornness. Indeed…we urgently need to measure, understand and close differential attainment gaps in many areas, such as ethnicity. But there was consensus that current proxies for ‘excellence’ were incomplete, and creative thoughts about how they could be complemented. What about capturing graduates’ long-term well-being instead of their short-term satisfaction? Or encouraging institutions to develop their own frameworks based on their specific mission and their students’ needs? How about structural incentives for collaboration rather than competition? And a focus on teaching processes, not teaching outcomes?
The argument that the TEF is less about changing pedagogies than manipulating wider discourses shouldn’t bring any comfort to the sector. I tried to show how the dominant logic of teaching excellence primes the sector for more fundamental policy shifts, such as for-profit providers receiving taxpayer subsidy on pedagogical grounds. One delegate spoke to me at the end of the event to offer another example, explaining how employability-minded managers within his institution were squeezing out critical engagement with cultural theory to allow for further skills-based, professional training. The TEF may not change practice directly, but it retains the power to nudge the sector away from its core public roles towards more privatised and instrumental practices.
The challenge for us is to articulate a confident and robust defence of all kinds of university teaching. We need to explain how our pedagogies bring lifelong gains both to our students and to wider society, even if initial encounters can be difficult and unsettling. Policy has taken us a long way down the market’s cul-de-sac, but what’s reassuring is that we’re now moving on from TEF-bashing towards a coherent counter-narrative. This event confirmed that universities have more meaningful things to crow about than their fleeting goldenness against a bunch of false proxies.

Apprenticeships Access: The OU surveyed 700 employers in England and have published their Access to Apprenticeships report. Wonkhe describe the report contents: [the report]

concludes that many employers need more funding, training and information to support apprentices with declared disabilities. 24 per cent of companies surveyed find it challenging to fund training and development for apprentices with disabilities and 34 per cent of employers surveyed report an increase in entry-level applications from people with declared mental health conditions.
The report recommends that the government support employers through providing clearer guidance around hiring apprentices with disabilities, urges the Department for Education to simplify its funding model for providing additional learning support, and advocates the introduction of a training programme for employers recruiting apprentices with disabilities – akin to a Mental Health First Aid course.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk