Category / parliament

HE policy update 28th June 2023

EU, innovation, international, parliament, policy, Research assessment, Research news

Some major areas covered in this policy update. We summarise all the latest parliamentary action on duty of care and consider what’s next for the sector more generally. Lots if research news, including the House of Lords being grumpy about the UK’s plans (and progress) to become a science and technology superpower. Horizon Europe guarantees have been extended (again). There’s the latest on free speech and the CMA requirements relating to course changes. Finally, an in-depth look at the future of international students from two authoritative figures in the sector.

The outlook for the sector

In a speech at an event hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute, the Secretary of State outlined his 3 priorities for the sector, to meet skills needs, advance social justice and deliver high quality qualifications. He talked extensively about apprenticeships and wanting the sector to do more in this are, as these programmes not only help with skills needs but also support disadvantaged students to earn while they learn, enhancing his social justice agenda too. He also made reference to mental health and wellbeing and the importance of student support.

  • The government has yet to provide the outcome to the Department for Education consultation on minimum entry requirements and student number caps – these have been outstanding since last year. In his speech the Secretary of State for Education, Robert Halfon said that he hoped we would get them soon.
  • Here is a Wonkhe blog covering Halfon’s speech.

Shadow Secretary of State for Education Matt Western also spoke at the event. He wouldn’t be drawn on detailed plans ahead of the work that Labour have to do on their manifesto.  Labour have already indicated they want to replace the current system with something “fairer and more progressive,” including reversing the changes being implemented this year which will increase the payment term and lower the threshold for student loan repayments, meaning that some lower paid graduates will pay more (because of interest and the longer term) than higher paid ones who pay it back earlier. It does sound increasingly like a graduate tax arrangement. He noted that the sector needed to be financially sustainable, but there are no promises about increased income under the new government. The Shadow Minister was also supportive of the LLE.

  • The Shadow Minister noted the cost of living issues impacting students, criticised the negative rhetoric about the value of a degree, and talked about social and educational inequality. He was highly critical of the regulatory burden in the sector, with multiple and overlapping regulators. He expressed admiration for what is happening in Wales, where the Welsh government are in the course of setting up a new combined regulator and funding body for tertiary education, which includes FE and HE, apprenticeships and skills training. Note that in Wales there are means-tested grants available for maintenance costs. The Welsh have also not extended the student loan repayment term to 40 years.
  • Research Professional have a piece Muddied red water which argues the fit with the wider UK isn’t clear, particularly because the Welsh arrangements do not address the issue of financial sustainability as the value of the tuition fee falls.
  • Iain Mansfield (ex- SpAd to Michelle Donelan and Director of Research and Head of Education and Science at Policy Exchange) writes for Wonkhe stating that while a return to real interest rates would be more progressive and seem intuitively fair he’s not sure the claims and the numbers stack up. Mansfield has his own political agenda and if you read the full blog you’ll spot he favours this argument pattern: stating ‘this looks nice…but it won’t work because…’
    • On public perception of fee fairness and the tax system Mansfield states: A system where interest rates are no higher than inflation, so that no-one will pay back more, in real terms, than they paid in is intuitively felt to be fair. Tony Blair, arguably the most canny political operator of our time, understood this, and it was a fundamental concept that underpinned the system of student loans in the New Labour era. Introducing swingeing rates of interest in 2013 toxified the system – and it is no coincidence that fees have only been raised once since then… If you want to deliver more progressive taxation, changing income tax rates is far better targeted than introducing arbitrarily high rates of interest into your higher education funding system – not least because you can target the whole population, rather than the minority who are graduates.
    • On the numbers: There’s a second big problem, and it’s that you can’t use a future asset – the additional money you will hypothetically receive from graduates in 30-40 years’ time – to directly pay for a current expense, such as reduced repayments or new maintenance grants… additional cash now requires additional borrowing. I’m going to go out on a limb, therefore, and say that the claim that reducing monthly payments can be done without additional borrowing will end up being incorrect.
    • On grants Mansfield foresees consequences for universities: …it seems that the poorest students may get a maintenance grant… Restoring maintenance grants is a very reasonable thing to want to do – but it has consequences… For universities rightly worried about their finances it means that maintenance grants and lower repayments look likely to be prioritised over any increase in the funding per student…it shows where Labour’s priorities lie: and that is with graduates and low-income students, not with universities.
    • Mansfield also reminds that Labour’s tax cut messaging didn’t work out for Theresa May when she raised the repayment threshold from £21k to £25k – graduates saved £360 per year but it cost the Treasure £2.3 Billion and had no impact on political gain in the polls
  • Following Labour’s announcements that they will not abolish tuition fees NUS Scotland campaigned Scottish Labour who have confirmed they continue to support free tuition in Scotland.

To note: All together now: An independent report into tertiary education in Scotland (the Withers report) – Fit for the Future: developing a post-school learning system to fuel economic transformation – advocates for a single organisation to provide the funding, strategy (and presumably operationalisation) of all tertiary education in Scotland. This in an interesting one to watch how it plays out because while Westminster haven’t been bold enough to suggest this for England’s tertiary education it fits well with the Government’s ideals of a rationalised and coherent post-compulsory sector where the different routes through education have a parity of esteem. Also, FE and HE Minister Halfon is on a crusade to tackle the systemic underfunding of FE provision. Such a change in England would require a major upheaval, however, it’s an interesting one to watch for the medium to long term. That is, if Scotland even decides to adopt it (Scottish HE Minister Graeme Day has made encouraging noises but stopped short of committed support). If you’re interest in the topic Wonkhe have a blog but the detail is here.

Susan Lapworth, Chief Executive of the OfS also spoke at the HEPI event and talked about the two priorities of the OfS: quality and standards and equality of opportunity, alongside the enabling and underpinning matters such as governance and financial sustainability. The OfS recently published its annual report and accounts.

Student Experience

Ahead of the NSS, which it has now been confirmed will be published on 10th August, the annual HEPI/Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey was published in June.

  • 76% of students feel that the cost of living crisis has affected their studies. 50% state that their studies were impacted “a little” and over a quarter (26%) state that their studies were affected “a lot”.
  • There has been a major increase in the number of students in paid employment, from 45% to 55%.
  • The proportion of students whose experience exceeded expectations increased from 17% to 19%.
  • 37% of students said they received good or very good value for money.

The reasons for these perceptions are interesting as are the relative changes – generally, the % for each reason has fallen for each category, both in the positives and negatives, even below the 2020 cohort (generally completing pre-covid).  The industrial action category was new this year after being highlighted in the open text replies previously. Note:

  • A fall in positive responses linked to course organisation (11 ppts) although a drop in negative comments too
  • A fall in positive responses to teaching quality but negative comments have also fallen
  • A fall in positive responses to level of challenge
  • Positive change in relation to quality of feedback
  • A fall in the positive and a rise in the negative from 2020 and 2021 on accessibility of teaching staff

As usual, there is a lot more content including analysis by characteristic, and the report is worth reading in full.

Here’s the Wonkhe blog on the survey.

Horizon Europe Guarantee – extended

Following on from the not-new-news Viscount Camrose set out above the Government has announced the extension of support for UK Horizon Europe applicants until the end of September 2023. The extension continues to guaranteed funding for successful UK Horizon applicants. End May figures note that £1.1 billion of grant offers have been made.

  • The guarantee will be in place to cover all Horizon Europe calls that close on or before 30 September 2023. Eligible, successful applicants to Horizon Europe will receive the full value of their funding at their UK host institution for the lifetime of their grant.
  • Successful awardees do not need to leave the UK to receive this funding, which will provide reassurance for future collaborations, and support UK researchers whether association is confirmed, or otherwise.

Full information on the Government announcement here. Operational detail on the UKRI website.

UK as Science and Technology Superpower

The Lords met to discuss Science and Technology Superpower, following the publication of the Science and Technology committee report. Leading the debate Baroness Brown of Cambridge was disdainful about aspects of the Government’s performance including:

  • the “science superpower by 2030” slogan was vague;
  • that numerous sectoral strategies existed across government, but they did not appear to fit into a clear, prioritised plan, and without international collaboration;
  • concerns over the scale of investment and that the Government should adopt a new, appropriate, target for R&D investment.

The Baroness called for better definition on the Government’s strategy, for a Science Minister to sit in Cabinet and for the UK to rebuild its reputation as an international pattern, starting with association with Horizon Europe.

Other Peers raised:

  • that regulation is important to support the sector and where do specific sectoral strategies, such as the AI strategy, fit into an overall coherent approach across all sectors.
  • questioned how the Government were tracking what other countries did; the importance of researchers from abroad and whether scientific visa applicants were subsidising other functions of the Home Office.
  • the need to develop global science partnerships, also that many, such as the Wellcome Trust, the ABPI, and the Royal Society, had highlighted that the UK needed to articulate more clearly its policies of global co-operation to attract science talent to the UK. Immigration policy popped up several times during the debate.
  • that the report could have gone further in articulating how the UK could harness its advantages of agility, expertise and a focus on global impact to overcome disadvantages of scale, such as the Vaccine Taskforce.
  • That ecology and social innovation were missing from the five critical technologies identified in the science and technology framework.

Lord Rees of Ludlow on HE: there are some worrying trends. The labour involved in grant applications was diminishing chances of success while research was still strongly concentrated in universities the encroachment of audit culture and other pressures are rendering universities less propitious environments for research projects that demand intense and sustained effort. Dedicated, stand-alone labs might become preferable, such as the biomedical science labs which allowed for longer-term research, supplemented by the Wellcome Trust, the cancer charities and a strong pharmaceutical industry. He said we needed this in energy, AI and other crucial technologies.

Viscount Hanworth stated concern over the systematic underestimation of the percentage of GDP that the UK devoted to research and development highlighting that it was still well below the OECD average and far behind that of most research-intensive nations. He added that the UK could not become a scientific superpower if it lacked a basis of scientific and technological industries that were ready to call upon the skills of the research workers.

The Government’s representative, Viscount Camrose, responded that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) would promote a diverse research and innovation system, connecting discovery science to new companies, growth and jobs. Camrose said the science and technology framework challenges every part of government to put the UK at the forefront of global science and technology. Action will focus on creating the right environment to develop critical technologies; investing in R&D, talent and skills; financing innovative science and tech companies; creating international opportunities; providing access to physical and digital infrastructure; and improving regulation and standards.

Camrose tacked the funding calls by remind of the Government’s committed spend:

  • £2.5bn over the next decade for quantum tech
  • £1bn strategy for the UK’s semiconductor sector
  • Government had recommitted to increasing public expenditure on R&D to £20bn per annum by 2024-25, representing a one-third cash increase and the largest ever increase in public R&D spending over a spending review period.

On Horizon, Camrose stated that the Government continued to be in discussions, in good faith, with their European counterparts on the UK’s involvement in Horizon Europe and hope that their negotiations will be successful. Pioneer will become the default if the Government is not able to secure Horizon association on fair and appropriate terms.

Camrose also updated on ARIA’s progress – it has been established and is still in its early stage of development. ARIA is recruiting its first cohort of programme directors, who will help to shape and inform the agency’s first set of research programmes. None the less, funding transformative research with long-term benefits will require patience, as prepared for in the agency’s design.

On the risks of precarity for research careers, Camrose said the Government is looking at how to support through a new deal for PGRs and mentioned UKRI’s sector consultation as a first phase of this long-term programme of work, and the results would be published soon, in 2023.

Quick Research News

REF changes: Nature have a lovely gentle editorial into the changes to REF2028. While the ‘how’ detail isn’t known yet we do know that the weighting will be changed:

  • Output (now named contribution to knowledge and understanding) weighting is reduced from 60% to 50% of the overall score.
  • The environment weighting (now known as people, culture and environment) increases from 15% to 25%.
  • Everyone’s favourite – Impact – (now renamed engagement and impact) will remain at 25% of the overall score

Read the article for more on intentions for change around equality and diversity, quality PhD mentorship, and the expansion of the definition of excellence.

Wonkhe also have blogs on REF2028 and more background delving including the FRAP (Future Research Assessment Programme) is in this blog, and there’s a guest blog by the University of Liverpool – REF 2028: A Quiet Transformation.

Research infrastructure: Wonkhe report that – UKRI has announced £72m of investment into research infrastructure, including funding for wind tunnels and digital infrastructure for biomedicine. An independent report into progress with UKRI’s infrastructure programme has also been published, finding the programme has generally delivered its intended outputs and outcomes. However, the report observes that business case development and approval processes are still “overly complicated, duplicative and lengthy,” while noting that these processes sit outside the Infrastructure Fund’s remit and involve decision makers beyond UKRI.

Moonshots: Wonkhe highlight that UKRI and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) have opened a call for submissions for “moonshots” – “bold, ambitious, and transformative ideas” across the research and innovation landscape. The call for ideas will be followed by discussion events and shortlisting, with chosen proposals set to receive funding through the government’s Horizon Europe alternative Pioneer – or possibly through alternative sources of funding if the UK does associate to Horizon.

Defence innovation: Wales has committed £5 million funding for Defence and Security acceleration across several streams. More detail here.

AI mitigation: Rishi announced the UK will host the first major global summit on AI safety (following polling show public concern over the safety of AI). Also announced were:

  • The Government will increase the number of scholarships the UK Government funds for students undertaking post-graduate study and research at UK and US universities, enhancing our shared expertise in STEM subjects. Under the scholarship uplift announced today, the number of Marshall scholarships will increase by 25%, to 50 places a year. The Marshall scheme was established 70 years ago to give high potential Americans the opportunity to study in the UK for two years.
  • The UK will also fund five new Fulbright scholarships a year – up from the 25 currently funded. The Fulbright programme is predominantly funded by the United States to sponsor international students to study in the US and vice versa. These new scholarships will focus on STEM-related subjects, boosting the UK and US’ shared expertise in the technologies of the future.

Research Security: Wonkhe – Scientists at least 11 British universities have helped the Iranian regime develop technology that can be used in its drone programme and fighter jets, the Jewish Chronicle reported yesterday. Politicians expressed “deep concern” over the findings, with the government saying that Britain would “not accept collaborations which compromise our national security.” The story is picked up in the Telegraph.

Canadian Cooperation: Wonkhe – Science minister George Freeman has announced a range of agreements covering collaboration on science and innovation issues with Canada. These include £20m for a joint programme on biomanufacturing, deeper collaboration on quantum and climate change research, and Canada becoming a partner to the International Science Partnership Fund.

NERC: NERC interim executive chair has been confirmed as Peter Liss (of University of East Anglia).

Research culture: Wonkhe blog – A recent parliamentary committee report called for the REF to incentivise reproducibility – but more fundamentally the issue is about promoting openness and transparency. Grace Gottlieb explains.

Life Science: Jeremy Hunt announced £650 million package to drive growth and innovation in the Life Sciences sector. The government is committed to making the UK the most attractive destination for life sciences companies and has developed a comprehensive package of policies spanning regulation, research and development (R&D), infrastructure, skills and planning which is aimed at driving investment, growth and innovation. Full details here.

Innovation economy: The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) published The Skills Opportunity: Building a more innovative UK (summary here) it covers the challenges for education and skills provision in the UK, with recommendations for building a more research and innovation-intensive economy.

AI research: The Government announced (UKRI funded) research investments to develop trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) research with £13 million going to 13 universities for developing AI technologies to have more sustainable land management, accelerate energy efficient CO2 capture, and improve resilience for natural hazards and extreme events. Also £31 million to create a UK and international research and innovation ecosystem for responsible and trustworthy AI. The consortium led by the University of Southampton will fund multi-disciplinary research and work across academia, business, and the public sector. Plus £2 million for 42 projects’ feasibility studies in businesses as part of the BridgeAI programme. These projects will look at developing a range of tools to facilitate assessment of AI technologies through governance, fairness, accountability, transparency, and privacy, and security. And, finally, £8 million for 2 Turing AI Researcher Fellowships, funding ground-breaking research on some of artificial intelligence’s biggest challenges including its application across drug and food design, and healthcare imaging.

Diversity in STEM: Dods summarise – The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has published the government response to their report on diversity and inclusion in STEM, which it describes as “disappointing” and has urged the Government to adopt a more purposeful strategy. In its response the Government said it is preparing a cross-Government action plan, led by the Department for Education, to “drive wider participation in STEM” and see “a more diverse range of people enter the science and technology workforce by 2030”. The Chair of the Committee, Greg Clark MP, has said that “without any specific commitments or timings this amounts to a plan to have a plan.”

Duty of Care

Dominating parliamentary time on HE matters recently has been the call for universities to hold a specific duty of care for the wellbeing of students. The impetus for change has been driven by a group of parents who tragically lost a child to suicide whilst at university. Their campaign has been mentioned in Prime Minster’s Questions and formally entered parliamentary business through a petition which reached the required threshold for the matter to be debated (see here for the volume of individuals that signed the petition in the constituencies surrounding BU). The Petitions Committee also ran an evidence session on the statutory duty of care (our shorter summary of the evidence session is here).

Ahead of the Westminster Hall Debate the Petitions Committee ran an online survey on the proposal for a statutory duty of care for HE students to gauge public opinion on the matter. The survey revealed:

  • 27% of students who experienced poor mental health said their university was supportive/very supportive of their mental health.
  • 40% said the university was unsupportive/very unsupportive.
  • 86% of current students said they had suffered with poor mental health at university.
  • 77% of parents or guardians of a current student said that their child was suffering or had suffered with poor mental health whilst at university. Of those, 91% had not been contacted by the university about their child’s mental health
  • More statistics here.

Outside of the headline statistics are a number of quotes the Committee has included in the survey report.

  • University staff member: “The university I work at has implemented some measures, but they are not ‘joined up’ and most staff don’t know what they are. There is no clear guidance on who should do what.”
  • University student: “with the ‘trusted contact,’ I have had the opportunity to put someone down which I did when I started at university. However, when I experienced a mental health crisis and told the student wellbeing team I was suicidal, they did not contact my ‘trusted contact’ or ask if they could. They also did not offer me any support other than telling me to go to A&E if I hurt myself. So while it’s good for a university to have the ‘trusted contact’ option it’s also important that they use it
  • Parent: “Although University has various contacts, like student support, counselling, there is no way to actually speak to someone as a parent when you have concerns about a student…In an urgent situation as a parent you need to know there is a way of escalating your concerns.”

At the Westminster Hall Debate Nick Fletcher, member of both the Education Committee and the Petitions Committee, and chair of the Issues Affecting Men and Boys APPG, opened the session by noting between 2017 and 2020 that 202 male students and 117 female students had died by suicide. Here are some of the main contributions made by Members during the debate:

  • Hilary Benn stated that where a student attempted suicide, it was inexplicable that the university would not contact the parents and questioned whether the UUK suicide prevention guidelines should be made compulsory.
  • Nick Fletcher stated that many universities cited GDPR issues regarding contacting parents but that, in his view safeguarding always overrides GDPR. He also questioned why universities were still to sign up to the UUK guidelines or the university mental health charter [Helen Grant MP later stated only 61 universities have signed the Charter, only 5 had achieved Charter status and no universities had reached the higher merit and distinction levels of accreditation].
  • Nick Fletcher also stated that the witnesses they’d heard from in the committee’s evidence session – such as PAPYRUS and the student services organisation, AMOSSHE – had agreed that a duty of care would not be the best approach.
  • Nick Fletcher: questioned why universities were still carrying out bad practice such as telling students they must leave by email, without any thought of the inevitable emotional and mental impact. He asked why institutions weren’t coming together to find common themes in coroners’ reports of the 319 students.
  • Nick Fletcher: urged the Government: a statutory duty of care would ensure that all parties knew where they stood, but until we have one, please use the levers you have to make the universities do better at helping our young people. If they do not, do what the petitioners ask and legislate so that they must.
  • Paul Blomfield, Chair of the Students APPG: noted UCAS estimates that over 70,000 students entered higher education every year with a mental health condition, but around half of them told UCAS in a survey that they had not shared that information prior to entry. Also that universities could not be the only post of call for students who were struggling – students should be able to access NHS services, but were struggling to do so.
  • Paul Blomfield: stated he was not convinced that a duty of care would do the job those advocating it wanted, and could have unintended consequences. However, he said there still needed to be clear expectations on universities to up their game across the sector. He urged the Minister to acknowledge the other factors contributing to the mental health crisis, and asked what he would do, along with DHSC colleagues, to make support available to those working alongside universities.
  • Helen Grant: a statutory duty of care would set the bar to level up… a standard that required all higher education providers to do what might reasonably be expected, while maintaining their autonomy in deciding exactly how that would be achieved.
  • Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Matt Western, had met many families from the LEARN network and stated their diversity and number were a painful reminder that no family was immune from the consequences of the mental health crisis that affected many students on campuses. He stated he appreciated the time and money that many universities gave to providing mental health support for students and staff but said the gap between the expectations of students and parents and the reality of mental health provision in universities was far too great. He acknowledged that demand for services and support was clearly rising, with one in four student respondents to one survey reporting a diagnosed mental health issue. Many of those issues were also starting earlier in students’ lives. He also expressed disappointment that so few universities were signatories to the University Mental Health Charter.
  • Matt Western highlighted that in Wales, the Commission must ensure it’s satisfied with the effectiveness of registered education providers’ arrangements for supporting and promoting the welfare of their students and staff. Western noted Wales was the first country in the UK to introduce such a requirement for FE & HE providers and asked if the Minister would consider something similar in England.

Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, Robert Halfon, responded on behalf of the Government to the debate. He stated:

  • he owed it to the memories of the young people to collectively take strong and effective action that prevented further tragedies.
  • the Government’s approach would rely on funding services, spreading best practice and having clear responsibilities for providers and protection for students.
  • the suicide-safer universities framework provided guidance on suicide prevention for university leaders. There was also now postvention best practice on providing compassionate and timely support after a suspected suicide. The associated charter programme was not a panacea but a process which enabled continuous improvement.
  • if the response is not satisfactory from universities then the Department would ask the Office for Students to look at the merits of a new registration condition on mental health.
  • Professor Edward Peck was appointed as the first ever student support champion in 2022 and is chairing a new higher education mental health implementation taskforce, with its outputs reporting directly to Ministers. By the end of this year, the taskforce would be asked to put in place an interim plan for better early identification of students at risk and for delivering the university student commitment as well as clear targets for improvements by providers. By May 2024, it should follow with a final report outlining the next steps, including how the sector will publicly report on the progress measures over the coming years.

Halfon declined to introduce legislation to create a statutory duty of care: I absolutely get the arguments and hope I have demonstrated that I share the petitioners’ fundamental aims, which are to protect those who study at university and to prevent future tragedies. If creating a duty for higher education providers towards their students was the right way to achieve that, it would absolutely have the Government’s backing. There are reasons why we believe that it may not be the most effective intervention.

Halfon stated there was already a sufficient general duty of care in common law as part of the law of negligence, plus further protections for students within the Equality Act 2010 to protect students with disabilities, including mental health conditions. He expressed concern that if a framework was too overbearing people will recoil even further and avoid any natural intervention that they would ordinarily make.

Halfon:

  • setting aside the legal position, we do not believe that the most effective way to improve student mental health is to introduce new legislative requirements when the sector is making progress on a voluntary basis. Although the sector absolutely could and should do more…providers are still innovating and improving, and there is not yet consensus on which interventions are most effective…It is no excuse for not doing anything or for inaction, but it does mean that the one-size-fits-all approach may not achieve the best results and support for students suffering from mental health difficulties, which is what we all want to see…
  • I expect universities, as organisations with an obligation to do the right thing for their students, to rise to the challenge that we have set for them today…if we do not see the expected improvements I will not hesitate to ask the Office for Students to introduce a new registration condition on mental health. It is vital that the whole sector takes this call to action seriously.
  • I hope that I have been clear that we are not standing by and letting things continue as they are. I am determined that all universities will sign up to the mental health charter

In conclusion, Nick Fletcher said it was disappointing that progress was not being made faster but if there was not an improvement after 2024 when all universities had signed up to the mental health charter then he would be back to ask for the issue to be looked at again.

For more coverage here are some media sources:

So what’s next?

While the Minister has turned down the request for a statutory duty of care the matter is very much of national interest and the parent group’s campaign has brought greater focus and national coordination from the previous reporting of isolated student suicides that occurred across various institutions.

Halfon has remained true to his word and aims for the sector to provide consistent support with improvements where necessary. His expectation is that matters will progress and he is serious about intervening with licence or other conditions if action isn’t sufficient or fast enough. Halfon immediately wrote to universities setting out a range of actions (below). Of course, we have to mention the potential disruptive factor – the impending general election. Halfon has set a timeline to 2024, however the general election must take place by 28 January 2025. Even if the current Government wins Halfon isn’t certain to remain as Universities Minister and the policy focus changes as Minister’s change. That said, this is a matter of interest to all major parties and the media and while the specifics may alter with electoral changes the thrust of the matter will remain (and presumably so will the OfS).

Halfon’s Letter: Halfon tweeted the contents of his letter stating I am not closing the door on future legislation if that is what is required but I am confident the sector will rise to the challenge of the action plan I have set out below. The message is clear do it voluntarily, with some flexibility to apply it within own institutional context or be dictated to by the regulator/legislation.

Also important to mention is that there is a new NSS question on access to mental health support. It’ll be closely watched and if results are low the OfS may act (even though their regulatory remit does not apply to student welfare or support systems).

There is also a Duty of Care Bill introduced by Tim Farron (Lib Dem, Westmorland and Lonsdale). As expected, it’s a PMB (Presentation Bill), it’s nothing but a title – no Bill text, no explanatory notes. A Bill to provide that higher education institutions have a duty of care for their students; and for connected purposes. It was presented for First Reading on Wed 21 June and will (may!) receive Second Reading on Fri 24 November. Of course, there are LOADS of them scheduled for Second Reading, and being a Presentation Bill it’s at the bottom of the pile.

Mental Health debate

There was also a recent debate on mental health treatment and support.
Aaron Bell MP:

  • Aaron highlighted that many universities have a professional counselling and mental health team to support its students.
  • He spoke of HESA data: In 2021-22 19% (416,000) of UK students declared a disability—and within that, 119,500 said they had a mental health condition (5.5% of all UK students). He stressed the growth in number – That number is three and a half times higher than it was in 2014-15 and noted higher rates are found among women, undergraduates, full-time students and those in their second or later years. He stated: there is an issue here that we have to address
  • He believes the pandemic is partly to blame.

Layla Moran also focussed on students withing the debate:

  • It will come as no surprise that the Mental Health Foundation found that 40% of students are not coping well with their anxiety.
  • In Oxfordshire…82% of students at Oxford Brookes University had self-medicated with drugs or alcohol to cope with mental health issues.
  • Where students know that they cannot rely on the NHS, an added burden is put on university staff. Tutors increasingly find themselves acting as therapists or counsellors for their overburdened, ill or anxious students.
  • …the students I have spoken to have made it clear that “University wellbeing services are not and cannot be a substitute for adequate mental health care”
  • On the duty of care Layla stated: It is just common sense. It already exists between employers and employees. All we are asking is for the same duty of care to apply to students.
  • we all know, the problems in young people’s mental health services are not restricted to those at university. So many people tell me the system is broken: parents, teachers, educational psychologists and clinical psychologists all identify the same failings. One parent wrote to me:
    • I am breaking my heart listening to my son saying horrible things about himself, threatening to take his life, and struggling with his mental health in general. Next year we would have been on the waiting list for four years and nothing will probably happen.
  • We know how to fix this; it is about more funding. A senior healthcare professional in Oxfordshire told me that “every pound spent on a child’s mental health saves thousands in the future.”

Regulatory

Wonkhe report that the OfS will publish a review highlighting concerns about some assessment and awarding practices in higher education providers. We’re also waiting for consultations on freedom of speech and the lifelong learning entitlement.

If you fancy some light relief read Research Professional’s irreverent take down of the OfS under the banner of commenting on the OfS annual report.

  • Excerpts: As a bureaucracy, the OfS, now in its fifth year, seems to exist to defend the act of regulation rather than to actually represent the interests of students.. Questions are being asked about the OfS, such as why it cannot complete a single investigation… The regulator’s inquiry into the graduate outcomes of university business schools has been going on—shrouded in secrecy—for a year. An investigation into grade inflation in English higher education began in September 2022 and is yet to report. There is a lot of regulation going on but precious little regulatory outcomes. In March of this year, the OfS announced plans to bill universities found guilty in an investigation for the cost of their investigation. To date, no one has been sent an invoice. The investigations continue.
  • … the OfS has become an inertial and litigious organisation, but one oddly enough prone to legal mishap. The regulator lost its legal fight against the Bloomsbury Institute and as a result embarked on an odyssey of consultation and reform that has resulted in ever-greater monitoring and reporting for universities.

The article reminds that the fees universities pay to OfS be registered HE providers are being increased substantially. Yet the OfS currently has reserves of £6.2 million—more than some universities. Although overall for the OfS reserves are down which is mostly due to the decline in the value of direct grants from central government. Research Professional (RP) question Does that mean regulatory fees are increasing for providers to make up for cuts in funding from the DfE? RP also provide a nice comparison: The OfS does seem to cost an awful lot to run. The staff bill for the regulator last year was £25.9m. If the OfS were a university, it would be roughly the size of the University of Chichester.

Lifelong Learning (HE Fee Limits) Bill

The Lifelong Learning (HE Fee Limits) Bill had an airing in Parliament. It was debated in the House of Lords at Second Reading stage and has progressed to Committee Stage where rigorous scrutiny will commence. The Bill is the legislative support for the Government’s lifelong loan entitlement (LLE) which will introduce a credit-based method to calculate maximum tuition fee limits based on the delivery of modules, short and full courses across a ‘course year’ rather than an ‘academic year.’ It only applies to England and provides a personal post-18 funding pot which students can chose to spend in flexible ways across their lifetime.

The Government intends to set the detail of the fees and credit information through secondary legislation so that each time changes are required it does not need to go through the full legislative process again. The downside of this is it hands greater power to the Government and reduces parliamentary scrutiny and intervention. Concerns over the lack of detail in the current Bill on these important aspects was raised by Baroness Wilcox of Newport, the Shadow Education Spokesperson. She stressed that Labour broadly supported the introduction of the LLE and the credit-based method to determine fees, but called for a definition of credits and what the yearly minimum and maximum  credits would be. She also questioned if different per-credit limits would be set based on the intensity and duration or based on the subject (topic) and level of study, and whether all 2025 students would automatically fall under the LLE or if it would be a gradual transition. She also raised the current part time student premium and wanted this flexibility to be retained, and for distance learning maintenance support to be introduced for access purposes.

Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat) wanted to know the criteria by which modules would be determined to be eligible, spoke up on the uncertainties for disabled students, and suggested that if high-cost modules did not attract pro-rata teaching grants it would disincentivise modularisation in disciplines where there were particular skill shortages.

Lord Stevens of Birmingham highlighted the DfE short course trial hadn’t attracted much interest and suggested that the LLE fee support may not be attractive, Baroness Garden agreed with this stating she felt the debt was unlikely to be attractive to mature learners. Lord Stevens also raised  maintenance support for distance learners.

Lord Willetts (Conservative) called for more detail on how the new third category of OfS registration, which would enable new providers to supplement existing provision from established universities, would work. Highlighting policy inconsistencies he also asked the Minister to reconcile that the policy encouraged learners to dip in and out of courses whereas the OfS’ monitor and criticise universities with high drop-out rates.

Lord Rees of Ludlow (emeritus professor at Cambridge University) argued that post-18 education needed to be much more flexible and open and offer everyone the opportunity to enter or re-enter, maybe part-time or online, at any stage in their lives.

Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative, previous Universities and Science Minister) stated the Bill addressed an important problem with the current funding system for HE (i.e. the impact it had on lifelong and adult learning) which Johnson believes has been in crisis for a decade. He also noted another problem was that the system had not allowed tuition fees to rise with inflation stating this has led to the progressive defunding of universities. And the consequential increased dependence of universities on international student income to cross-subsidise domestic tuition and research was an issue. Johnson declared disappointment that the Bill did not address the problems he noted and that modular degree wouldn’t commence until 2027-28 (almost a decade since the Augar report was commissioned). He also called on the Government to make modular funding available for level 7 provision.

Baroness Barran, Minister for the School System, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the Government would not impose credit transfer arrangements and would facilitate credit transfer through other methods, including through the introduction of the requirement for providers to produce a standardised transcript on the completion of individual modules. She also confirmed the number of learning hours in a credit would remain as now, unless standards in the sector changed.

On rollout the Baroness explained 2025-26 would roll out higher technical qualifications and modules at levels 4 and 5. And that maintenance loans would be available for part-time study below level 6.

You can read the full cut and thrust of the debate here.

Free Speech

King’s College London (KCL) announced that UUK will reconvene a previous advisory group for free speech and academic freedom, with KCL’s President and Principal, Shitij Kapur, Charing the group. KCL state:

  • The primary role of the Advisory Group will be to shape the implementation of the Freedom of Speech Act and provide advice and recommendations to the UUK Board, which will include shaping UUK’s engagement with the OfS in relation to free speech and academic freedom.
  • Alongside responding to the immediate policy environment, the Advisory Group will also play an important role in providing guidance on the approach UUK should be taking to the wider free speech and academic freedom debate, including how the sector should respond over the medium-to-long-term and where UUK can further support members to meet their new duties.

Student news

Course changes

Wonkhe have a blog on the updated CMA (Competition and Market Authority) guidance which strengthens students’ rights when teaching is significantly changed. Wonkhe say: The guidance warns providers over giving a “misleading impression” about whether a course is accredited, who is involved in its delivery, and how many optional modules are available – it advises that students’ express agreement must be obtained for deviations from the pre-contract information which informs their decision-making, including information about teaching. The CMA also cautions that contractual clauses excusing providers from liability due to industrial action may not be regarded as fair, as this is something which “could be within [an institution’s] control.” Here’s the blog: Making major changes to courses just got a lot harder.

There’s some good detail with clear interpretation on the legal requirements in this Pinsent Masons blog: Updated CMA guidance adds to universities’ obligations and enhances students’ consumer rights.

And, most recently, the OfS has published an Insight Brief setting out the scope of consumer protection law and how OfS regulation protects consumer (student) rights.

Loan rates:

Plan 1 (pre-2012) student loans have increased to 5.5%.

Admissions | Personal statements

HEPI published a policy note – How do Admissions Professionals use the UCAS personal statement? Context: UCAS plans to reform the personal statement to short questions covering the six themes of motivation; preparedness for course; preparedness through other experiences; extenuating circumstances; preparedness for study; and learning styles. HEPI surveyed admissions professionals to explore how they use undergraduate person statements and what implications this has for UCAS’ plans. Here are the key stats:

  • While the majority of personal statements are read, the average time spent on each statement is two minutes. 39% are read for one minute or less.
  • Personal statements are mainly used to assess applicants’ interest in a course (88%), or to gather contextual information (65%), assess academic potential (40%) and assess work experience (29%).
  • The majority of admissions professionals feel that decisions are primarily made on the basis of grades
  • The personal statement is considered to be important for vocational or highly selective courses.

HEPI says the results have implications for UCAS’ proposed changes:

  • There is little evidence that ‘preparedness for study’ and ‘preferred learning styles’ are used in admissions – therefore, these themes should be removed from UCAS’s proposals.
  • There should be space within the UCAS form for applicants to discuss extenuating circumstances, as admissions professionals do consider this information.
  • There is little evidence to support the division of ‘preparedness for the course’ and ‘preparedness through other experiences’ into two separate questions – only 6% of personal statements for non-vocational subjects were used to assess applicants’ transferable skills.

Caring – life chances

Parliament has launched its first APPG ‘inquiry’ (investigation) into the impact of caring responsibilities on the life chances of young adult carers. UCL research shows young carers and young adult carers were 38% less likely to get a degree than others their age. Carers aged 23 or over were also less likely to get a job. Those caring for 35 hours or more a week are 46% less likely to enter employment than non-carers. And a Carers Trust survey finds greater demands on their time than previously – 56% of young and young adult carers are spending more time caring than the year before, while 47% are looking after more people than they used to. The inquiry will look into include access to education among other caring issues. It will also focus on how caring affects young people into adulthood such as the impact on further education and employment prospects. A report is expected in November 2023 and may contain recommendations for HE providers on supporting carers.

Free school meals – educational outcomes comparison between providers

HEPI published a paper on educational outcomes across different universities for students formerly eligible for Free School Meals: The disconnect between quality and inequality: An analysis of the gaps in educational outcomes achieved by free school meal-eligible students in English higher education. Quick points:

  • Institutions with a TEF Gold Award recruit significantly fewer Free School Meal pupils as a proportion of their overall intake compared to Bronze and Silver universities.
  • Universities that recruit a smaller number of Free School Meal students have a higher entry tariff and are disproportionally more likely to receive a Gold award under the TEF. Not a single provider with more than 30% of their students having been eligible for Free School Meals was awarded a Gold in the TEF.
  • There are no significant correlations between the proportion of Free School meal pupils and the size of any outcome gaps (Continuation, Completion, Attainment or Progression). Gold providers, despite having far fewer Free School Meal students, do not achieve comparatively better Continuation, Completion, Attainment or Progression for these students compared to Silver and Bronze providers.

Ethnicity Degree Awarding Gap

TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education) published the report Approaches to addressing the ethnicity degree awarding gap – Contextualising the landscape and developing a typology. The project:

  • Reviewed APPs (Access and Participation Plans) to produce a typology of approaches.
  • Interviewed sector stakeholders on institutional infrastructure, attitudes, barriers, and enablers.
  • Established an Expert Reference Group.

The analysis of APPs found 16 different types of approaches to addressing the ethnicity degree awarding gap (EDAG) – see pages 18-19 for the list and explanations of the types and this chart shows how frequently they’re found:

Key findings:

  • Despite the sector being broadly aware of the EDAG, they lack confidence about how to address the gap.
  • While the report shows a real commitment to addressing the gap, HE providers need to do more to consider approaches based on contextual factors – such as institutional student data – to bring about meaningful change.
  • One-of-a-kind individuals were hailed as catalysts for effective progress when addressing the EDAG therefore there is concern that meaningful work may stagnate or cease if these individuals were to move roles.
  • The sector has a good awareness of the need for evidence-informed practice, and the need to evaluate approaches to addressing the EDAG. However, capacity and capability for evaluation vary greatly between HE providers.
  • Working with students is central to addressing the EDAG, therefore there is a need for HE providers to consider how they work with students to ensure their voices are sought and valued.

In response to the findings, TASO recommends HE providers:

  • Develop Theories of Change (ToCs) and associated evaluation plans which make clear links between proposed activities and desired outcomes. This will allow providers to consider the barriers and facilitators to carrying out an approach successfully.
  • Consider the different elements of approaches and how these would work at their organisation so they are better placed to develop interventions that are tailored to their organisational context.
  • Reflect on organisational structures and allocate accountability and responsibility for addressing this gap so providers can best determine what systemic changes can be implemented to support these challenges.
  • Use data to inform action taken to address this gap. By including data analysis as a stage in their ToC, providers can highlight the importance of this and use findings to inform later stages of the approach.
  • Include students in their work to address this gap and develop models for student co-creation, moving away from a model that only consults students on plans to address these inequalities.

TASO are now tendering for providers to receiving evaluation support to develop Theories of Change for interventions aimed at addressing the ethnicity degree awarding gap.

International

The future of international students in the UK

Lord Jo Johnson, former Universities, Science, Research and Innovation Minister (2016-19), gave the keynote address on the Future of International Students at the Westminster Higher Education Forum. Johnson is a supporter of international students and the economic and wider benefits they bring to the UK and our education system. He was instrumental in establishing the graduate work visa during his time in office.

Johnson spoke of the gradual weakening of the political consensus for the graduate work route and the growth of international student numbers. He highlighted three key concerns that the HE sector should resolve to satisfy and reverse the Government’s cooling of support for international students. Johnson urged the HE sector to engage with these concerns rationally and make visible changes where needed.

  1. Address the false narrative that international students are displacing domestic student and/or taking ‘their’ graduate jobs. Emphasise that international and domestic students are symbiotic and reliant on each other. Ensure the cross-subsidy from international fees is seen as a positive as they increase choice and broaden the range of courses available to domestic students making what would otherwise be loss m7aking courses viable.
  2. The Government’s concern that some institutions are seen to be selling immigration into the UK rather than education is genuine and one of the factors behind the changes to the dependants visa policy. Johnson intimidated that these institutions are ruining it for the majority and that the practice needs to be immediately and publicly curtailed to address the Government’s concerns. Johnson stated he supports the cessation within visas for international students to switch to work mid-stream (and felt it never should have been an option). The second element within the immigration concerns that Johnson felt strongly about is that universal systems need to be in place to check and ensure that international students really have the funds needed and declared to gain their visas. Johnson highlighted examples of a London food bank which is providing for 1,000 international students per week and overcrowded housing where up to 15 students are sharing a small flat. Johnson stated that these issues were exacerbated by the pandemic as students were not able to access sufficient work. Johnson called on the sector to address these concerns to achieve a sustainable international student model.
  3. Johnson’s third concern focused on (lack of) diversity within the international student body. The overreliance on certain nations of international students leaves universities vulnerable to geopolitical changes and Johnson argues limits the experience for other students. For example, the reliance on China within post graduate courses and India for masters students (particularly in a specific set of post-92 universities) was a concern for Johnson. Johnson highlighted that the Government has stated it wants diversity in the international student body but the dominance of certain countries is creating difficulties. In addition, to head off Government concerns, Johnson urged universities to raise the quality of students entering the system.

Johnson gently sang the praises of the DfE and their work representing the value of international students to the Home Office stating if not for their efforts the package of measures introducing restrictions for international students and their dependants could have been much worse. Johnson felt the DfE intervention protected the international graduate route architecture. However, he believed the days of government support for rapid international growth are over and cited technicalities in the wording of the Government’s current policy documents to demonstrate this. Johnson felt this position was inescapable because of the abuses creeping in at the edges – and believes that if these been dealt with at the time today’s restrictions could have been avoided. To this end Johnson recommended four reforms which we set out below.

It’s worth a mention at this point of how influential Johnson remains within Parliament. You’d be wrong to assume his influence is diminished because he now sits as a Peer, not an MP, and because his brother, Boris, has resigned his position under a recent cloud. Jo, as a previous long-standing education minister has established authority, is well connected, and he joins a powerful group of other ex-Ministers and education sector experts within the House of Lords that have demonstrated (e.g. during the Freedom of Speech Act’s passage and the recent Lords select committee inquiry into the OfS) that they’re willing to show their teeth and fully engage with their role to bring scrutiny to bear on the Government and operate the checks and balance functions within Parliament.

Back to Johnson’s four recommendations/reforms for the university sector:

  • Regulatory – universities are tightly regulated for domestic students but not international. Johnson believe the B3 conditions should be applied (and regulated) to international students too. Johnson suggested universities take not of the work which highlights the drop-out rates from certain countries – because the Government is taking note of this, and action may follow.
  • Universities should publish their international student recruitment plans as an annual counterpart to their domestic APP (Access and Participation Plan). This would allow the regulator (the OfS) to gain insight into the risks relating to international students and provide projections forecasting the national picture for international students across the HE sector. It felt it would also provide reassurance that the widening of international participation does not limit (or push out) domestic students.
  • Institutions and sector bodies should do more, through collection action, to weed out poor quality and fraudulent applications. Johnson felt universities need to urgently address this across the sector. He believes universities should raise the quality of applications by
    1. charging an application fee for international students (Johnson stated the evidence is that higher fees result in higher enrolment rates and successfully counter the loss of time/money/staff resource tied up in processing applications for those that don’t ultimately enrol/turn up
    2. that international fees should be paid up front
    3. that international students should place their maintenance money into a specific type of account and draw it down across the year. Johnson believes this would address the fraud and lack of diversification in the system. Johnson also spoke of the low risk countries on the register and overcoming the issue of losing visa awarding powers due to number of refusals.
  • Finally, Johnson wants to see greater accountability for recruitment agents, to weed out the unscrupulous factions. Johnson suggests using VI data and requiring universities to publish non-continuation route and visa refusals by recruitment agent to identify, across the sector, the agents with concerning practices and performance. He felt this would allow institutions to gravitate towards agents supporting the UK university reputation. As Johnson spoke on this topic there was an undercurrent of expectation and onus on the university to be required to do this and a hint that it may be an area for future regulation/OfS scrutiny.

Throughout Johnson demonstrated that he was aware that universities may be reluctant because they don’t want to suffer a ‘first to move’ disadvantage. However, in his opinion the sector needs to urgently address his points and recommendations to stave off less favourable international student reforms in the future.

Baroness Diana Warwick who chaired the session stated she supported the international fee subsidisation of the teaching and how it enables a wider range of courses for domestic students without which institutions wouldn’t be able to support.

A second presentation at the conference by Matt Robb, from EY Parthenon, on Financial Sustainability was equally compelling. He highlighted that across the world there is a once-in-a-lifetime expansion in tertiary enrolment and, therefore, a strategic imperative to capture a significant enough proportion of the market share for international students before the expansion matures. Robb felt the UK needed to establish itself as a  leading provider during this growth as the UK would not be able to regain its share once the maturation slow down begins.

highlighted that multiple countries are facing these issues. Alongside this he recognised the significant costs of transitioning to digital materials, which the UK was less prepared for. He highlighted how universities tend to respond when facing cost pressures, e.g. trimming the course portfolio, which is fine for a small financial squeeze but Robb suggested that over sustained time it led to underinvestment leading to weaker offers and poorer performance. He also highlighted how providers adapt e.g. strategic distinctiveness.

Robb made two key points for student planning. First, The medium to long term growth for the sector is in international students because the UK tertiary enrolment isn’t as high (or growing as much) as other countries – so there will be surplus demand in certain countries internationally. Robb reinforced the need to debunk the myth that international students are displacing domestic students to ensure policies remain favourable for international recruitment.

Second, the concentration of international students from particular countries will be really difficult for the sector to address. Robb gave the example of how affordable international education is within China currently (the Chinese economy is growing and limitations on the number of children mean two generations of a family’s income are available to support the one child to study abroad). Robb also address the elephant in the room – that outside of China one of the reasons why international students come to the UK is to secure work after graduation, and part time work to fund themselves while they are studying. He highlighted that those who are financially affluent already have access to their own very high quality domestic education – so few would want to study overseas. Robb stated that universities often limit recruitment to strong economies which further compounds the diversification issue  and isn’t an access friendly policy. Robb felt a solution would be to use more agents to work into further and newer markets. However, he noted that the further flung the agent network the harder it would be to ensure receiving genuine and quality applications – so running counter to Johnson’s maintaining quality objective. Robb also acknowledged that Brexit continues to exacerbate the concentration (lack of diversity) issue.

Quick International News:

Minister Halfon commits via a Parliamentary Question (PQ) to ensure the visa changes relating to international students and their dependants will be watched to ensure the UK remains competitive in the international market for students. Halfon stated: The Department for Education will work closely with the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and across other government departments, to assess the impact of these changes on research, science and arts in the UK.

Plus two more PQs confirm an equality impact assessment was carried out for the reform package, and that the Government cannot confirm the [overall] value of the immigration health surcharge fee,

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: Generative artificial intelligence in education.

Other news

Universities had a letter from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. Newly introduced, this is intended to fulfil “an important manifesto commitment to “ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”.”

Student Loans: Martin Lewis, from Moneysavingexpert.com, has published a new blog:  New student loans to cost many 50% more: 6 need-to-knows about ‘Plan 5’ English student finance running through the changes for English students commencing in September 2023 in his usual what-it-means-in-practice style.

HTQs: The DfE announced the second round of the Higher Technical Education Skills Injection Fund committing £48 million for higher technical qualifications (HTQs) across areas such as digital, engineering and manufacturing, and protective services in the 2024-25 and 2025-26 academic years. An additional 66 qualifications have also been approved as HTQs. Government press release here.

Short course trial: An update from Wonkhe – The Department for Education has updated its list of courses included in the higher education short courses trial, with two new courses added and two no longer running removed.

Policy campus: The DfE, Cabinet Office, Home Office and DWP are all cooperating to establish a Civil Service Policy Campus based in Sheffield. All the details are here, but in short it’ll pilot a regional fast stream, provide policy apprenticeships at level 4, offer policy internships and research projects for regional students, and work with Sheffield universities on policy research.

Creative: The Government published  its creative industries sector vision. It plans to grow the creative industries by £50bn and support a million more jobs by 2030.

Graduate outcomes: HESA released the outcomes data for 2020-2021’s graduates.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

HE policy update w/e 12th May 2023

HE-BCI, HEIF, Impact, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, open access, parliament, policy, Research Integritiy, Student Engagement

There is a renewed focus on funding for the sector amidst talk about elections.  Student visas are back on the agenda and UKRI have been reviewing arrangements to support knowledge exchange.

Elections

Local elections were held in England on 4 May.  Dorset Council did not have an election.  Locally, BCP issued an update:

“The Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council local elections have resulted in no overall control, with the largest number of seats held by the Liberal Democrat party. Liberal Democrats won 28 seats, the next largest party was Conservatives with 12 [down from 34], followed by Labour, Christchurch Independents, the Green Party, Poole People, Poole Engage and five Independent candidates….The new leader of BCP Council will be elected at a meeting on the 23 May, and a new Cabinet formed.” 

With the general election looming before January 2025 the local results were being watched very closely to predict outcomes, but of course as always it is very hard to tell and there is time for lots to change before then.

Impact of requiring voter ID

This was also the first election where photo ID was required and pre-election concerns centred on voters being turned away at the polls, particularly the young, old and marginalised groups. There will likely be discussion of the impact of voter ID (and its potential to bias the election outcome through the groups that will find providing ID easier) over the next week. The impact of the photo ID requirement is being formally reviewed, initial findings are due in June and the report is scheduled for September.

However, early indications come from the Guardian who say: Anecdotal evidence of issues, but no clear picture of impact yet…Peter Stanyon, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, said there had been “no reported incidents of any major concern” as the UK rolled out new voter ID requirements for the first time. And Peter Walker and Jessica Murray report that fears of widespread chaos did not materialise. But by the end of the day, there were anecdotal reports of a number of people, many from marginalised groups, being unable to cast their ballots. The Electoral Reform Society said there were “countless examples”. ITV News reported that polling station tellers in Oxfordshire estimated that 10-25% of would-be voters had been turned away. The Electoral Commission said that the election was “well run” overall but “some people were regrettably unable to vote”.

The Financial Times reported last night (£) that ministers plan to widen the forms of photo identification that will be valid in future if turnout is shown to have fallen – a U-turn in government policy.

The Telegraph has a more positive spin on the success of the photo ID requirement.

Student Voting

Earlier this week HEPI published political polling of current full time UK undergraduates on voting intention.

  • 85% expect to vote at the next general election
  • 89% are registered to vote, and 64% who are registered to vote say they are registered only at their home address (so less influence of the young vote in election towns than has previously been claimed).
  • 78% understood they will needed photo ID to vote (and 61% think this is a good idea)
  • 46% of students would vote Labour if there were a general election ‘soon’, 11% would vote Green and 7% would vote Conservative

On student fees and funding (see also below), the polling shows student opinion:

  • Tuition fees:
    • 28% of students domiciled in England want Labour to commit to abolishing tuition fees in England,
    • 23% want Labour to reduce fees to £6,000,
    • 20% want Labour to back the current system of fees capped at £9,250,
    • 15% want Labour to cut fees to £3,000,
    • 4% want Labour to introduce a graduate tax, and
    • 3% want Labour to let the current fees rise with inflation
  • Living costs:
    • 52% of students think living costs should be covered by targeted grants and top-up loans, while
    • 25% want a mix of grants, loans and parental contributions
  • Maintenance support:
    • 46% of students think maintenance support should be between £10,000 and £12,500 each year
    • 19% think it should amount to under £10,000 and
    • 18% think it should be between £12,501 and £15,000
  • Student opinion priorities: 77% of students say the NHS is a high priority for them, 58% rate education as high priority, 46% reducing poverty, but few students give priority to defence (6%), migration (5%) or international development (2%)

Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, said:

  • Our poll suggests it is wrong to think of students as apathetic or disengaged from party politics. Most students plan to vote and they care about the same issues as other voters, most notably the NHS.
  • The results won’t make happy reading for the Conservative Party, who now have minimal support among undergraduates. While they will make happier reading for Labour, it is clear there is no single student funding model that would be overwhelmingly popular with students. This will make the Opposition’s job harder as they firm up their policies in the run up to the next election.

International Student visa restrictions

The press report the Government are considering visa restrictions to prevent postgraduate students’ dependants from accompanying them. Financial Times:

  • The surge in legal net migration is boosting the size of Britain’s workforce but the issue is politically problematic for the prime minister….
  • Students have been one of the main drivers of the the…surge in migration…with 135,788 visas granted to dependants in 2022, up from 16,047 in 2019.
  • The Department for Education, the Home Office, and the Treasure are finalising a plan that would stop dependents from travelling with master’s students on one-year courses…
  • The Treasury, which normally favours higher migration, has accepted the political need to restrict the number of dependants of overseas students, while Gillian Keegan, education secretary, has also agreed to the plan.
  • But government insiders said Keegan was insisting that master’s students should be able to bring family members to the UK if they stay to work in the country after completing their studies.

UUKi’s response: we recognise that the growth in the number of dependents may have exceeded planning assumptions and that this has created some concerns for government, and indeed challenges in some areas of the UK – for example, around access to suitable family accommodation. We are committed to working with Government to understand these issues and to find solutions that ensure the UK continues to welcome international students and that we are able to grow numbers in a sustainable way that protects both the quality of the student experience and the UK’s global competitiveness.

Wonkhe coverage: Dependants of international PGTs won’t be able to get a visa

Fees & Funding

Closely tied to electoral outcome is the wicked problem of HE fees and funding. Here’s a round up of the latest news on the different elements surrounding fees and funding.

We start with a couple of interesting Wonkhe blogs:

Labour’s HE Fee Policy

In last week’s policy update we reported that Labour were reviewing their policy for HE tuition fees giving a clear indication in an interview on BBC Radio 4 that the previous policy of abolishing fees will not survive because of costs concern. This week the media is widely reporting on Labour’s ‘U turn’ on tuition fees i.e. that fees will not be abolished and paid for by the public purse. From the coverage we’ve seen this hasn’t been formally announced but Keir Starmer continues to caveat his interview responses to nudge in this direction, perhaps a soft announcement then. Here is the latest coverage:

  • Research Professional: Channel 4 News looks at what Labour leader Keir Starmer has said about the party’s tuition fees plan.
  • Wonkhe – The Independent, theBBC, Channel 4, the Mirror, ITV, and the Sun all have pieces examining the Labour Party’s – and others parties’ – stance on tuition fees.
  • Research Professional: In The Guardian, Labour is to begin consulting on new ways to fund university education,
  • Wonkhe – Labour leader Keir Starmer yesterday told the BBC’s Today programme that Labour is “likely to move on” from its commitment to free university tuition. The Times had earlier reportedcomments from a senior party source that Starmer will later this month deliver a speech on the party’s move away from its 2019 manifesto commitment. The BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Mirror and the National all cover the remarks. There’s also a sketch in the Guardian.
  • NEON – Labour leader Keir Starmer announced yesterday that the party is abandoning its commitment to abolish university tuition fees in England. Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme he said “We are likely to move on from that commitment because we do find ourselves in a different financial situation”. He was critical of the current system describing it as “unfair” and arguing that it doesn’t work for either students or universities. He promised that Labour would set out a “fairer solution” in the coming weeks. The move has drawn criticism from both Labour Students and Momentum.
  • Wonkhe blog on the topic: Jim Dickinson runs the numbers.

Wonkhe also reported this morning that Polling company Public First and think tank Progressive Britain have…announced a major national poll and extensive focus group work to test public attitudes to university funding reform. The research will be published prior to party conference season in October, and Public First expects its findings “to play a significant role in the ongoing debate about the future of tuition fees, university funding, and student finance.”

Also from Wonkhe, earlier this week: London Economics has published further modelling on options for the English fees and funding system, building on work conducted in December for the University of the Arts London. The models include an estimate of the impact of Plan 5 reforms – updated due to forthcoming ONS changes in inflation measurements, which significantly reduce the cost to the Exchequer – and two alternative “stepped repayment” models, with repayment rates varying depending on income level.

Landmark divergence in Welsh HE policy

Wales has announced they will retain their current student finance repayment system (despite changes to the English system). This is a break in tradition as historically the Welsh repayment system mirrors England. However, Jeremy Miles, Welsh Minister for Education, is concerned that the new English system would mean Welsh students would repay loans over a longer period of time (England 40 year repayment; Wales 30 years) with higher earners paying less and middle- and lower-income earners paying back more than at present. The Welsh system is more progressive than the English system -Welsh undergraduate students generally repay less as Wales has some non-repayable grants and there is a guaranteed level of maintenance support irrespective of a student’s household income.
The Welsh system will be reviewed annually to ensure sustainability.

Jeremy Miles said: “…the new system in England is not a good deal. The reforms benefit the highest earners and worsen the position for middle and lower earning graduates. Women are also disproportionately affected. We certainly shouldn’t be asking teachers, nurses and social workers to pay more, while the highest earners pay less. I can therefore announce today that we will not move to the system adopted in England but will retain the current system.”

The BBC cover the announcement.

How should universities be funded?

YouGov polling reveals the public do not have a clear consensus on how universities should be funded.

It’s worth looking at the interactive chart on the YouGov site to drill down into the results by different groups (e.g. political affiliation, age, social grade, region, gender).

Parliamentary News

HE (Freedom of Speech) Act

It’s been nearly two years since its first reading and now – three Prime Ministers and six education secretaries later the Government have finally got the legislation over the line and in the form they wanted. The Government played hard ball during the final stage parliamentary ping pong over the contentious tort in the HE (Freedom of Speech) legislation. The Lords weren’t happy, however, their hands were tied by the parliamentary convention that they do not block legislation that the elected Government included within their manifesto.

Wonkhe report on the disgruntlement: Peers agreed to the government’s latest version of the statutory tort, which included language clarifying the availability of redress for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and the possibility of seeking an injunction, without a vote. However, the changes were not universally popular – in particular, Lord Grabiner described the government plans as “blowing away” the previous compromise that saw the tort reserved only for when other avenues had been exhausted, and Lord Willetts raised the spectre of interventions such as this bringing higher education into the public sector.

Cambridge’s Professor Arif Ahmed has been appointed as the OfS Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom. The role will have the power to investigate universities and student unions in England and Wales that ‘wrongly’ restrict debate. The director will also advise the sector regulator on imposing fines for free speech breaches.

Lifelong Learning

The Lifelong Learning (HE Fee Limits) Bill has completed its initial journey through the House of Commons and is awaiting a date for the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. The Second Reading stage is the first opportunity for members of the Lords to debate the key principles and main purpose of the Bill and they will flag up concerns or highlight areas where they believe amendments need to be made. After the Second Reading the Bill will progress to Committee Stage. This is when it is examined in detail, line by line, with discussion and close scrutiny. MPs did not make any amendments to the Bill and it proceeds to the Lords in its original form.

HEPI published Does the Lifelong Loan Entitlement Meet its own Objectives? Spoiler alert: not for part time and distance students – inhibiting it’s transformative effect. Questions still to be answered include:

  • How will the credit-transfer mechanism work?
  • What will be the rules for students building their own degree?
  • How will a wide range of providers be incentivised to provide flexible learning?
  • How will the needs of employers be met?

Regulatory – OfS

The Lords Industry and Regulators inquiry into the work of the Office for Students heated up this week when Susan Lapworth (Chief Executive) and Lord Wharton of Yarm (Chair) were called to give evidence. You can read a summary of the session here.

Wonkhe report:  In a revealing hearing, we learned that the student panel is being reformed, that quarterly online meetings for vice chancellors are one part of the regulator’s strategy to improve communications, that 30 providers are currently subject to enhanced financial monitoring, and that two thirds of the quality assurance reports submitted by the QAA were not deemed usable for regulation when first submitted.

Wonkhe also have a short blog: Lapworth and Wharton face the committee – But don’t expect answers to everything that previous witnesses have brought up

Concerns over Wharton’s impartiality as a member of the Conservative party were raised. When suggested that senior figures often resign their political affiliations when they take up office Wharton replied Some do…I chose not to. It’s not a requirement.

HE Minister, Robert Halfon, is expected to be questioned next in this high profile inquiry before the proceedings wrap up and the Committee publishes its report.

Research

Research England (RE) published their Review of knowledge exchange funding.

The main themes within the review are data and metrics:

  • a key issue to unlock the potential for long-term and more fundamental changes to our methods, including the use of KEF as a basis for allocating HEIF, is the availability of better data, metrics and evidence.
  • our current metrics set does not capture the full achievements, nor help describe the ambitions, of HE KE. Better evidence is also a theme in DSIT’s priorities, particularly related to better evidence on HE performance in commercialisation and business collaboration.
  • Better metrics are then critical to make more significant changes to our methods in the long run. The issue of better metrics is a theme running through the feedback received and also a central issue in our decisions.
  • A major decision of the review then relates to our commitment to a significant work programme to improve metrics and evidence…This is with the intention to have the tools available to make more fundamental changes to our approaches in the longer run.

The bulk of knowledge exchange (KE) related funded (KEF and HEIF) is based on the Higher Education: Business and Community Interactions (HE-BCI) survey. HESA are reviewing the HE-BCI and this report informs that UKRI will piggy back to build upon and widen the review for KE purposes.

…it is essential to add new classes of data, beyond improving the quality of guidance and definitions of existing data fields as is currently being done through the review …we and HESA are agreed that more effort is needed, particularly in the longer-term design of new data collection.

UKRI intend to develop a national capability to be a centre for knowledge exchange and impact evidence, metrics and data.

UKRI will:

  • Over 2 years develop UKRI as a national capability centre for university knowledge exchange, impact evidence and metrics, partnering with HESA.
  • Present a blueprint (for the national capability) in Spring 2023 at a major metrics conference and establish the blueprint by Spring 2025.
  • Our long-term aim following successful culmination of our work on the national capability and centre is to have available the appropriate data to make more fundamental changes to our approaches. Specifically, we aim to bring forward proposals for consultation on the development of KEF for use in funding. As this is necessarily a long-term endeavour, we would not expect to bring forward such proposals before 2025/26 at the very earliest. We note that any subsequent implementation and a phased roll out of an evolved funding method may take several further years.

KEF: Review feedback sees the KEF as having a positive impact on raising the profile of knowledge exchange (KE) and incentivising strategic approaches within HEIs and across the sector, with overall beneficial effects of improving HE KE performance. RE state there is broad agreement that the KEF has been useful within HEPs as a novel tool for benchmarking performance, making useful comparisons, giving greater accountability, and as a prompt to starting discussions on future areas of strategic focus.

However, KEF is not well understood beyond the KE sector and particularly by external users.

KEF will continue in a consistent and stable form in the short term because UKRI see worth in how the KEF provides HEIs with data to understand, benchmark and improve their own performance until at least KEF5 in 2025. RE will drop the KEF aim/purpose to meet the information needs of external (non-HE) partners but will continue to use it for public information purposes. In the long-term RE will bring forward proposals for consultation on development of KEF for use in funding.

HEIF: The review suggested that there is a good degree of confidence in [the] current HEIF approach, including balancing government priorities with HEI funding flexibility (getting the best out of the sector to meet the priorities).

Research England (RE) note points raised:

  • Our definitions and scope of HEIF were generally regarded as appropriate. There were a range of views on whether additional activities should be included, but generally it was felt that RE was not getting it wrong. The drivers from research and teaching were flagged and there were discussions as to whether our approaches fully address both.
  • There were a range of views put forward on how to measure success, including qualitative approaches. Our substantial work programme on metrics and evidence addresses the need to provide the more sophisticated tools needed to achieve all our objectives.

There are no major changes planned (now) – formula funding and accountability will remain.

However, RE will consider how to manage:

  • Problems for HEIs caused by year-on-year fluctuations in HEIF allocations – limiting long-term strategic decisions.
    • RE note they cannot commit funding past a government spending review period but could fix allocations for the full spending review period rather than recalculate each year.
    • There would be winners and losers to this approach and they note reverting to a less dynamic approach could also depress prompt rewards for improvement (including HEPs below the allocation threshold for the entire SR period).
    • The impending general election also pushes any change to the allocation methodology into the medium/long term. However, RE state they will look into this for the future.
  • Within the work on improving metrics Research England will look into activities that still generate impact but are not qualifying income-generating.
  • We recognise a potential opportunity to be more ambitious to identify and reward all forms of KE achievements in the longer run.
  • They will also look at the £250k allocation threshold (tricky as the threshold is a government policy priority handed down to RE), implementation from 2024-25 at earliest.

KE Concordat: The approach to the Concordat is to remain relatively stable.

Feedback showed strong agreement that the KE Concordat processes of self-evaluation and consideration of principles had been a useful exercise for HEPs, raising the profile of KE within their institution and encouraging engagement from across the institution

RE will look into suggestions for process improvement (more on page 11)

Forthcoming actions

  • Summer 2023 – publish KEF3, allocate 2023-24 formula funding, consult on eligibility
  • Later 2023 – publish HEIF threshold work
  • Spring 2024 – Host major metrics conference and launch national capability blueprint
  • Summer 2024 – publish KEF 4, allocate 2024-25 formula funding, publish work on dynamism/predictability of HEIF allocations with implementation in 2025/26 if spending review allows. (Note – potential disruption due to general election.)
  • Spring 2025 – the national capability and centre for university KE and impact evidence and metrics will be operational
  • Summer 2025 – allocate 2025-26 HEIF funding (in whatever form it takes), publish KEF 5.

Useful links:

Research integrity

The Science, Innovation and Tech Committee published a report on Reproducibility and Research Integrity. The background to this report are the increasing concerns that the integrity of some scientific research is questionable because of failures to be able to reproduce the claimed findings of some experiments or analyses of data and therefore confirm that the original researcher’s conclusions were justified.

This report finds and recommends:

  • while there are many reports of problems of non-reproducibility, there has been no comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the scale of the problem in the UK, nor which disciplines are most affected and therefore the extent to which this is indeed a ‘crisis’.
  • While we welcome the establishment of the new Committee on Research Integrity and note that one of its so-called strategic pillars is to “define the evidence base”, we are concerned about the absence of reproducibility as a priority in the new organisation’s strategy. We recommend that a sub-committee focussed solely on questions of reproducibility in research should be established.
  • Evidence to our inquiry raised important concerns about the academic publishing industry in—however unintentionally—giving rise to pressures that can undermine research integrity. To be successful, academics need to establish a strong list of publications in highly-rated learned journals. We heard a widespread view that journals favoured for publication original—rather than repeated—research and work which had striking or new outcomes. This meant that the value of conducting repeated or confirmatory studies was much reduced, and that there were strong incentives to obtain striking research findings. We call upon publishers to commit to publishing without prejudice confirmatory studies and those whose findings turn out not to be novel or striking.
  • the short-term tenure of early career academic contracts and research grants provide insufficient time for researchers to ensure that their work is reproducible by others. We call upon funders, including UK Research and Innovation, to consider whether its grants provide the resources necessary to ensure that work that it funds is reproducible, and we recommend that it requires reproducibility as a condition of grants awarded.
  • Training researchers in research integrity and the need to ensure reproducibility is inconsistent and often absent. We recommend mandating the provision of such training at undergraduate, postgraduate and early career researcher stages.
  • We welcome UKRI’s policy of requiring open access to research that it funds, but we recommend that this should go further in requiring the recipients of research grants to share data and code alongside the publications arising from the funded research.
  • We believe that a wider set of measures of academic success than lists of publications should be encouraged. The Future Research Assessment Programme, being carried out by UKRI, should address this and funders should also consider wider use of the ‘resume for researchers’ format in funding calls.

Further information links:

Research – quick news

  • AI: MPs Warn Against “Sleepwalking” Into AI Danger Without Rapid Regulation– PoliticsHome
  • Business collaboration: The National Centre for Universities and Business published Artificial Intelligence: the present and future of technology to showcase 8 university-business collaborations to address human challenges through AI partnerships
  • Parliamentary Question: Whether the Government is taking steps to help ensure that cities and towns which do not have a research-intensive university (a) benefit economically from innovation and (b) create innovation-driven jobs. Answer: to support places across the UK to fulfil their potential for innovation, the Government has pledged to increase domestic public investment in R&D outside the Greater South East by at least 40% by 2030, and by at least a third over the spending review period. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) invests across the UK with £25.1 billion allocated for 2022-2025. Innovate UK’s Launchpad programme is an innovation cluster development programme with up to £7.5 million funding available for each Launchpad for business-led innovation projects, such as the pilot in Tees Valley. Additionally, UKRI’s Strength in Places Fund provides opportunities for innovation across the UK.
  • Doctoral stipend: UKRI announced the minimum doctoral stipend for UKRI funded students will rise to £18,622 for 2023/24. The minimum fee that universities can draw from UKRI training grants will also increase, to £4,712. Research Professional coverage: Sophie Inge reports that campaigners have welcomed plans to increase the minimum stipend for doctoral studentsfunded by UK Research and Innovation to £18,622. And Wonkhe has a blog: UKRI’s work on the PGR new deal.
  • Postgraduate childcare: Wonkhe report – The N8 Research Partnership of eight universities in the north of England has writtento the government raising concerns over the ineligibility of postgraduate researchers for government-backed childcare subsidies. This follows a similar call from GW4 Alliance at the beginning of April.
  • Health & Wellbeing: Wonkhe report that Wellcome has announced£73m in funding for eight “discovery research platforms” aimed at addressing barriers holding up progress in areas related to health and wellbeing – seven of the platforms will be at universities in England and one at the University of Cape Town.

Students: Parliamentary Questions

  • Timely assessment referral and diagnosis of ADHD
  • Q: Whether the Government will implement the recommendations made in the APPG for Students report on the impact of the cost of living crisis on students. Answer (excerpt): Together with the HE sector, the department is doing all that it can to support students facing hardship. However, decisions on student finance have to be taken alongside other spending priorities to ensure the system remains financially sustainable and the costs of HE are shared fairly between students and taxpayers, not all of whom have benefited from going to university.

Other news

The University of Exeter and UPP Foundation have published a new guide on university-led tutoring, encouraging other universities to take up the practice, including practical lessons around quality and scale.

The petition for HEIs to hold a statutory duty of care for students will be heard in an evidence session (held by the Petitions Committee) on 16 May. There will also be a debate in the House on 5 June.

Parliamentary Question – the cost of training doctors and nurses.

QAA published advice for providers on how to manage the rapidly increasing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in HE settings. HEPI also have a new blog on the topic: How are HE leaders responding to generative AI?

Publishing: Wonkhe blog – As a new sector agreement with Springer Nature is reached, Libby Homer reminds us that we all have a duty to seek value for money in research publishing.

EO: Wonkhe – The Office for Students has published an independent analysis of the responses received to its consultation on regulating equality of opportunity. The analysis, conducted by Pye Tait Consulting, saw respondents generally welcome the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR) but seek more clarity on how it would work. Small and specialist providers also stressed data limitations and the need to avoid resource burden.

Turing: Wonkhe – The House of Lords European Affairs Committee has called for an increase in engagement between the UK and EU. In a wide-ranging report, it recommends that the government consider adding a reciprocal student exchange programme to the Turing scheme, pointing at Wales’ Taith programme as a good model – the committee does, however, praise the Turing scheme’s flexibility and emphasis on widening participation. The report also highlights the administrative barriers faced by EU students wishing to study in UK universities.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

 

HE policy update for the w/e 28th April 2023

EU, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, parliament, policy, research governance, Research news, Student Engagement

Tuition fees – here to stay?

Sir Keir Starmer has announced that Labour are reviewing what to do about tuition fees if they win the general election next year (widely expected in autumn 2024, latest it can be is January 2025) giving a clear indication in an interview on BBC Radio 4 that the previous policy of abolishing fees will not survive because of costs concern.  The narrative was all about replacing it with something fairer – does that mean a graduate tax is the most likely outcome (which is, arguably what we already nearly have).  He also acknowledged that the current system is not working for universities, although a blanket freedom to raise fees, or even an increased cap, might not be what he meant.  They will be doing a review ahead of publishing their manifesto – so more news to follow.

Nurse Review: RDI organisational landscape report

The Government published Sir Paul Nurse’s final report on his Research, development and innovation (RDI) organisational landscape: an independent review. It’s a 163 page behemoth that was commissioned in 2021 to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to make recommendations for improvement of the RDI landscape, with a primary focus on researchers and RDI funded by the public purse. It also comments on how the various RDI organisations interact with and support industry, commerce, and society more generally.

It speaks of a patchwork of funders and sometimes short-term public policy priorities and initiatives. These are part of the significant problems that the Nurse Review identifies and Sir Paul calls for the governance to step away from further piecemeal changes and urges Government to consider the Review as a whole rather than a pick and mix assortment to be selected from. Government has a very important long-term role to play in bringing this about. It will require increased investment, reduced policy volatility, a clear focus on optimising and implementing change, good data collection, and a long-lasting, consistent, systematic approach to policy development and safeguarding of the RDI landscape.

Concerns include

  • underinvestment in R&D (confirmation of R&D spend figures due late 2023).
  • ensuring the pursuit of research is the pursuit of truth. Recommendations aim to strengthen: high research quality; agility and flexibility in approach; permeability between sectors, disciplines and organisations; transparency and navigability for those seeking to engage with R&D; a skilled workforce; inspirational leadership; a good research culture embracing ethical behaviour; strong international collaboration; and financial sustainability.
  • political interest can have the unintended consequence of driving policy volatility and short-term policymaking, and recent years have seen an increasing turnover of new initiatives, schemes and programmes which are not always properly integrated with one another. This undermines development of RDI, particularly within the application part of the research spectrum, which can have a negative effect on private investment.
  • The UK RDI landscape is hard to navigate – defects in permeability and inter-sectoral collaboration may be contributing to the UK’s present weak productivity.
  • the financial sustainability of public research funding – The future success of UK RDI is explicitly contingent upon the Government’s commitment to grow investment in RDI. There is a pressing need for more complete ‘end-to-end’ funding of research activities beyond Independent Review of the Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape 8 direct research costs, including adequate support for administrative services, sophisticated technical cores and facilities, and for ‘well-found’ laboratories
  • university research has been sustained partly through increasing reliance on cross-subsidy from commercial sources – The excellent UK universities should receive increased support for the outstanding research they can deliver, to ensure that they are competitive with universities in other countries
  • Excessive bureaucracy – Checks and balances on organisations using public research funding are important, but the operations of research funders and RPOs are hindered by excessive bureaucracy, with too much emphasis on audit-oriented reviewing and reporting rather than the quality of the research being produced…Much of this bureaucracy has its origin in Government controls and rules, particularly from the Treasury…These ways of working, combined with deficiencies in ‘end-to-end’ research funding have led to long-standing inefficiencies, wasting both money and researchers’ time. The problem of excessive bureaucracy has also been independently verified by the 2021 Review of Research Bureaucracy, led by Professor Adam Tickell, and the 2022 Review of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), led by Sir David Grant.

The report concludes:

The financial sustainability of the public research funding for universities needs to be urgently addressed. ‘End-to-end’ research support has four components: direct research costs; administrative services; technical facilities; and laboratory facilities. The present funding arrangements do not provide adequate support for all these components, and need to be overhauled to ensure that they do so. Proper ‘end-to end’ funding is required in universities to fully support research activities with mechanisms that do not have perverse incentives or outcomes, and that better consider the quality and not just the quantity of research delivered. There needs to be a detailed review of response-mode and competitive grants, full Economic Costing (fEC) and Quality-related Research Funding (QR), and where necessary, these funding mechanisms should be reformed or replaced. The present underpinning of UK university research by other commercial income sources, notably fees paid by international students, is valuable, but care is needed as such sources are not always reliable and sustainable.

Government response

Michelle Donelan wrote to Sir Paul to warmly welcome the report:

  • the importance of this Review cannot be understated. You have eloquently demonstrated the potential that science, innovation and technology have to change our world and improve all of our lives. To maximise these benefits you make a strong case for the vital role of effective leadership and co-ordination. I strongly agree, and this is why the Prime Minister has recently established a new department in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am delighted to have the privilege of leading the department to deliver on the UK’s mission to become the most innovative economy in the world and a Science and Technology Superpower. I am confident that this Review will play a foundational role in shaping and delivering that vision. I look forward to working with you to ensure the UK can be at the forefront of critical and emerging fields of science and technology.
  • My department will swiftly respond with a package of measures that take account of your advice and I hope to publish that shortly. I am confident that the report’s recommendations offer important ways to further support the world-leading research organisations based in the UK, future-proofing the existing system and helping to support important societal goals around net zero and improving the nation’s health.

The Government also confirm here that they will respond to the [Nurse] Review’s recommendations in the coming months.

Recommendations – full list

  1. Government should take account of the true cost of ‘end-to-end’ research activity to generate a sustainable RDI endeavour.Government, working with UKRI and the UK higher education funding bodies, should review and when necessary reform competitive and response-mode grant funding, QR (and Devolved Administration equivalents), and full economic costings (fEC), and replace them with improved mechanisms. Overall objectives should be to optimise research delivery, remove perverse incentives and outcomes, and ensure the longer-term sustainability of the research system.
  2. Universities should develop plans to optimise their operationsin support of research, to empower researchers and reduce their administrative loads, and to improve the quality of support services, core technical facilities, and well-found laboratory buildings and infrastructures. Government, working with UKRI, the UK higher education funding bodies and the wider sector, should consider more transparent mechanisms to provide assurance and accountability on QR funding.
  3. Government departments should clarify the missions of their individual public sector research establishments (PRSEs), allow them greater freedom of action, and ensure their effectiveness.Departments should improve internal awareness of PSREs’ capabilities, and use PSREs to inform RDI strategy and policy making, working within and across departments. Permeability and agility would be further improved by increasing the visibility, interactions and partnerships between PSREs, and between PSREs and the rest of the RDI landscape, including commercial organisations. Funding streams for PSREs need to be protected and reformed to ensure long-term sustainability. Constraints, which appear to have their origins in the Treasury, over funding, pay and other conditions of working should be reduced. The reforms of funding proposed for the universities should also be applied to PSREs. PSREs should be stringently reviewed, and those that have outlived their purpose or are not working effectively should be reformed, reduced or closed, and any savings generated recycled into Government R&D budgets.
  4. Institutes and units need sustained financial support, including un-hypothecated funding, to ensure ‘end-to-end’ research support.The funding arrangements of recently established institutes and units, particularly the ‘hub and spoke’ models, must be reviewed to make sure that they are fit for purpose. The reforms of funding proposed for the universities should also take account of the needs of institutes and units. Institutes and units need a well-defined mission and purpose, and should be given the autonomy and funding necessary to achieve their objectives, which may be time limited. There need to be clear and agreed mechanisms by which institutes and units can be adapted, reduced or closed when necessary.
  5. Institutes and units must have high quality administrative as well as scientific leadership.They generally benefit from being co-located with other research performing organisations (RPOs), but if their overall administration is the responsibility of another co-located or funding organisation, rigorous contractual arrangements must be in place to ensure independence of operation and quality of service.
  6. New research institutes and units should be considered when strategic RDI priorities best supported by focused research missions are identifiedby Government, UKRI and other funders. Possible examples include enhanced activities in climate change and its mitigation, antimicrobial resistance, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence. Themes should be identified through mapping and reviewing, taking account of emerging technologies, scientific areas, and Government priorities. Pre-existing institutes and units could be merged and expanded to create new institutes, and consideration should be given to co-location and co-funding with other RPOs. Establishment of new institutes and units should follow the principles outlined in the Review.
  7. Government and the charitable sector should work togetherto ensure that ‘end-to-end’ funding is provided for research supported by philanthropy.
  8. Support for research undertaken by galleries, libraries, archives, museums, and the heritage and cultural sectors should be increased, and support for long-neglected collections-based research put in place.
  9. Coherence between translational research organisations, including those embedded within other RPOs, and the rest of the landscape should be increased.Government is advised to optimise translational research organisations by increasing their number, widening access and promoting the benefits of translational research capability, including regionally. Government should explore routes by which RPOs across the RDI landscape, including PSREs, can contribute to translational activities.
  10. Government should use its convening power to create a favourable environment for business to invest in RDI, tackling causes identified by this Review as holding back further business investment, and where expedient, providing financial support. Examples of such support are funding which leverages private investment or promotes collaboration between industry and the rest of the RDI landscape.
  11. To understand the benefits of RDI for commercial activities and the economy, a culture change promoting openness, mutual respect, closer interaction, collaboration, and permeability of ideas, technologies and people has to occurin both business and academia. Government has a role in conveying the benefits of RDI investment to businesses, shareholders and academia, embracing practices from countries with high business RDI investment rates. Mechanisms to deliver this should be explored and implemented.
  12. Government should take particular responsibility for driving RDI that provides societal benefit as well as economic growth.Examples are health care delivery, equitable regional economic growth throughout the UK, and the delivery of net zero. Where appropriate, public-private partnerships should be encouraged.
  13. Government and RPOs should partner with local communities to support RDI relevant to their needs, to bring about more equitable regional economic growth based on local expertise and demands and driven by community benefit as well as academic criteria. Universities and other RPOs should support their local community and economy by enhancing their role as an information nexus and by helping local industries link to research capabilities wherever they are in the UK.
  14. There is an urgent problem with the current mechanisms for clinician scientists to effectively develop and undertake their research careers.The Government, taking into account devolved competencies, must rectify this to both improve the ability of the NHS to deliver more effective health care and to help the UK economy.
  15. Government must work with UKRI and the wider RDI community toconsider more stable and properly costed funding structures, aimed at ensuring the quality of the existing landscape and its sustainability.
  16. Government must increase its long-term commitment to invest more in RDI.In addition to reviewing incentives in public funding for university research, Government should review the balance of funding across the landscape, and explore how planned increases in RDI public funding can provide more un-hypothecated core funding for RPOs to allow them to deliver their mission more effectively, to promote collaboration and interaction across RDI sectors, and to empower local RPO leadership and researchers.
  17. Government should ensure that international collaboration is protected and encouraged, and should resolve problems damaging the UK RDI landscape’s international links. This is particularly relevant to our close scientific collaborators in the EU, and it is essential that the UK associates with Horizon Europe. Government should take action, including consultation with devolved administrations, if its broader policy objectives on areas such as immigration, ODA and education are hindering wider objectives for long-term RDI policy. The UK should consider opportunities to hostnew intergovernmental multinationally funded institutes and international research infrastructures.
  18. DSIT should define the overall architecture and governance for cross-Government RDI policy, setting out accountabilities from Cabinet and below. This should include the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), as well as other key RDI spending departments, UKRI and other funders, to ensure roles are complementary, and to improve alignment on policies.
  19. From Cabinet level downwards, all interested parties in Government must take responsibility for the high level and effective safeguarding of the future success of the UK RDI landscape.This oversight should include an authoritative working group set up by DSIT, operating across Government, the RPOs and the funding organisations, which will take long-term responsibility for implementation of the recommendations of this Review.
  20. Government should establish a research vision and strategy including long-term programmatic, infrastructure and technological initiatives, which is especially relevant at the applied end of the research spectrum. This will give RPOs, investors and global companies the confidence to invest, operate and interact with the UK RDI landscape.
  21. Government needs to develop effective mapping of UK RDI, covering the missions, financial investment in different sectors, research capabilities, and locations of RPOs, and also monitor international RDI activities to identify successful features and models. DSIT, working with UKRI and other interests across Government, could carry out this function. An agreed shared picture of the RDI landscape should be produced, together with a commitment to regularly update it.
  22. Government should increase efforts to link the different elements of the UK RDI landscape together with the commercial, industrial and societal components that benefit from research.To spread the benefits of research through communities across the UK, partnerships, collaborations and interactions must be built so that all components are mutually aware, and permeable with respect to ideas, information, technologies and people.
  23. Government must replace frequent, repetitive, and multi-layered reporting and audit by Government departments and UKRI with a culture of confidence and earned trust, as also referenced by the Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy. Reporting and reviewing of RPOs should focus on the quality and appropriateness of the research being carried out. The framework by which ARIA will operate should be applied to other components of the RDI landscape.
  24. Public sector controls which reduce the agility and performance of RPOs need to be reformed.Salaries must be internationally competitive. Where Government-imposed pay limitations are damaging the mission of an RPO, they must be revised, and the decision-making mechanisms made more flexible.
  25. Government should ensure that there is a well-trained RDI workforce available at all levels, and long-term educational planning to ensure a future pipeline of researchers and technicians.Career pathways for those roles that underpin effective research delivery, including technicians and project and programme managers, should be strengthened so the importance of these roles is better recognised. Training and career structures for early career researchers, including PhD students, post-doctoral researchers and starting faculty, need to be reviewed and reformed. Career path diversity and permeability between different RPOs should be encouraged.

Blogs:

Parliamentary News

Ministerial Change: Michelle Donelan has temporarily stepped away from her role as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology for her maternity leave. On leaving Donelan tweeted a series of items to highlight the achievements she and colleagues have accomplished whilst she has been in role. It’s a quick reminder on the latest Government policies within science and tech.

Donelan’s SoS role is being covered by Chloe Smith (former work and pensions secretary). Chloe is the daughter of a teacher (mum) and furniture designer (dad). She is a graduate of York University and has held school governance roles. Chloe worked as a Business Consultant for Deloitte UK. She sees herself as a progressive Conservative and is a member of the Tory Reform Group (more on the Left of the Party), voted to Remain in the EU and has announced she will not seek re-election as a MP at the next general election.

Free Speech – imminent: The Free Speech Bill will return to the Commons following the latest Lords amendments on Tuesday 2 May. At a Westminster event last Wednesday a Parliamentarian indicated that this could be it and the Bill may well soon become an Act. There is still widespread concern about the Bill within the sector, primarily because it is unclear how the different provisions within the Bill, such as academic freedom, will play out in practice. The Westminster event highlighted that even Parliamentary Members, expert sector and legal bodies, and University representatives do not interpret aspects of the Bill in the same way. The Bill adds to a complex legislative background where many other Acts influence the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ should the Free Speech Bill be enacted in its current form. The first few cases brought under the legislation will be crucial in determining how the potential Act will change behaviour in the sector.

As a recap the final stages (ping pong) of the Bill centred on the argument over the inclusion of the statutory tort allowing those who think their free speech rights have been infringed to bring a legal claim for damages against a university or a students’ union. The Lords removed it, the Commons added it back in. Currently a compromise has been reached with the tort as a watered down backstop – included in the Bill as a means of last recourse after complaints processes have been exhausted.

Education Committee: Mohammad Yasin has joined the Education Select Committee. Mohammad is a Labour MP who has demonstrated a keen interest in securing better funding for education, social services and healthcare provision. Chair of the Commons Education Committee Robin Walker has announced his decision to stand down from Parliament at the next General Election. New Chairs of select committees are elected after each general election so this isn’t big news. We simply know there won’t be any continuity between the Chairs and therefore the focus of the business will likely change to a greater degree as a new Chair with new priorities will be selected.

DSIT is being beefed up with three additional ministers:

  • Julia Lopez Minister of State for Data and Digital Infrastructure, she also retains her role in DCMS (media, tourism and creative industries). Her responsibilities include Digital infrastructure/ telecoms; data, including Data Protection and Digital Information Bill; data security; Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO); Ofcom.  However, she is about to go on maternity leave, so her role will be covered by John Whittingdale. Whittingdale was a DCMS Minister during 2021.
  • Viscount Camrose (Jonathan Berry) appointed as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for AI and Intellectual Property and Government Spokesperson in the Lords. This is his first ministerial position. He has sat in the Lords since his by-election win in March 2022.
  • Stuart Andrew MP appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Sport, Gambling and Civil Society; Minister for Equalities covering: sport; gambling and lotteries; civil society and youth; ceremonials, including Coronation; major events, including Eurovision and City of Culture.

Select Committees will reform (from 26 April) to model the new Government departmental structure:

  • The International Trade Committee will be dissolved – its scrutiny function will transfer to the BEIS Committee.
  • The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee will become the Business and Trade Committee, and will scrutinise the work of DBT.
  • The Science and Technology Committee (not currently a departmental select committee) will now be renamed the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, and will now scrutinise the work of DSI (i.e. now be a departmental select committee).
  • The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee will become the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and will scrutinise the work of DCMS. Which makes one wonder why DCMS is retaining its former name. Incidentally if you’re interested in the forthcoming policy priorities check out their newly published ARI.
  • A new Energy Security and Net Zero Committee will be established as the Trade Committee is being abolished the SNP will Chair this new committee.

Financial health of HE sector: Wonkhe report on the House of Lords debate on financial pressures in higher education. Lord Knight of Weymouth opening proceedings with the observation that “it appears that the university business model is teetering.” For the government, Baroness Barran argued that “we know that the finances of HE providers are sound when we look at this at a sector level,” though recognised the uneven impact of cost pressures. She drew attention to OfS’ forthcoming report on the financial health of the sector, due next month. You can read the report on Hansard.

Lifelong Learning (HE Fee Limits) Bill

It’s a busy time for HE in Westminster because the Lifelong Learning Bill will proceed through the final legislative Commons stages shortly. We wrote about this Bill extensively in this policy update in March and this is the one that is intended to fundamentally change how the HE sector delivers or packages their provision.

Upon completion the Bill will move to the House of Lords for their scrutiny. Two key amendments have been tabled for the final Commons stages. One seeks to prevent variable fees being changed based on course or subject. The second proposes that one credit equates to 10 learning hours.

For a catch up on the Bill this Library briefing is useful. The briefing also sets out a timeline for the next steps for implementation:

  • The roll-out of the LLE will include:
    • From 2025, full courses formerly funded by the higher education student finance system and full courses formerly funded through Advanced Learner Loans that can demonstrate learner demand and employer endorsement.
    • From 2025, modules of some “job-specific” technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5, including Higher Technical Qualifications.
    • From 2027, modular student finance will be extended to levels 4 to 6where the Government “can be confident of positive student outcomes”.
  • In autumn 2023, the Government will publish details on the courses eligible for additional entitlement under the LLE, and the principles for calculating the residual entitlement for returning eligible learners.
  • In December 2023, the Government will review qualifications currently funded by Advanced Learner Loans (ALLs) to determine which ones should be included within the scope of the LLE.
  • By “late 2023”, the Government will provide an update on Sharia-compliant student finance.
  • The Office for Students (OfS) will consult “in due course” on the development and introduction of a new third registration category for providers offering LLE-funded course and modules.

Source

The sector reaction to the Bill has been cautiously positive. The Library reports:

  • The planned removal of ELQ restrictions and the expansion of maintenance support for living costs to level 4 and 5 subjects was welcomed by many across the education and employment sectors as an important way to ensure learners could access funding to retrain, develop their careers, and fill skills gaps in the economy.
  • The Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges (AoC), David Hughes, welcomed the LLE as a potential “game changer”. However, he argued modular learning needs to become more mainstream, and the LLE alone would not change the behaviours and priorities of the vast majority of learners focussed on achieving a traditional undergraduate degree above all else.
  • The decision to cap eligibility for the LLE at age 60 has also been described as an “ageist strategy”, while the general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), Jo Grady, has said more funding was neededso learners could stay in their studies and not leave because of financial reasons, and to ensure providers can adapt courses for modular learning.

For more on the full ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ at each stage of parliamentary consideration of the Bill see this separate briefing.

Wonkhe Blog: Including postgraduate study in the LLE could be expensive, but leaving it out carries risk. Mark Bennett weighs up the potential options and outcomes.

Research

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) published making Innovation Matter: How the UK can benefit from spreading and using innovative ideas. It aims to bring together insights and analyse innovation enablers and barriers. Here are the most relevant key points:

  • Innovation diffusion and adoption (IDA) takes place within a fragmented, complex and poorly intra-connected ecosystem. There are many different stakeholders, organisations and structures influencing IDA. Funding, praise, status and incentives are often centred around having and owning an idea as opposed to its successful application at scale.
  • A lack of incentive is compounded by the different skillsets required to support an idea through the early majority stage of innovation. Academic know-how must be combined with entrepreneurial vision, appetite for risk, investment, marketing, sales, logistics and customer service. Taken together otherwise successful innovations fail to make it beyond early adoption because stakeholders are not properly incentivised to go to market and/or do not have the skills to do so.
  • Government and Business have already acted to address this issue with a wide range of institutions, accelerators, funds and initiatives to support innovation. Whatever the merits of existing and planned initiatives it is clear from both international experience and domestic data that more can be done, particularly around identifying priorities and challenges, setting out roadmaps with clear direction, using its buying power as anchor customers, and creating the right funding and regulatory environment to enable innovation to thrive.

Opportunities to better understand and improve IDA include:

  1. Inspire stakeholders and communities to address key innovation challengesin an open and inclusive way, giving them freedom to experiment, with Government taking more of the lead by setting concrete direction.
  2. Invest in skills(both innovation skills and specialist skills such as in STEM, business, research and professional expertise) and drive collaboration at all levels, including leadership and skills development.
  3. Broaden the diversityof participation and perspectives and build trust.
  4. Develop a more joined-up ‘supply chain’ approach, with cross-sector fertilisation of ideas and technologies, and place-based specialisms, creating ‘hubs’.
  5. Increase funding for diffusion and adoption activitiessuch as improving public sector procurement with multi-year grants for innovations that ensure emphasis on IDA.
  6. Target supportfor IDA activities, including better metrics.

Science and Technology Framework (and friends)

Recent weeks have seen the publication of a melting pot of various Government strategies, funding initiatives and policy declarations. We try to bring them all together (relatively) simply under the banner of the new Science and Technology Framework.

Published a couple weeks ago the Government’s Science and Technology Framework for the UK sets out the vision for the UK to be a science superpower by 2030. It seeks to identify critical technologies, invest in R&D, develop talent, build international relationships, and do better in communicating the UK’s R&D strengths. The new measures sitting alongside the framework are backed by £500 million of funding.

The Framework is owned by DSIT but will be a coordinated cross-government approach. Here are the 10 key actions:

  • identifying, pursuing and achieving strategic advantage in the technologies that are most critical to achieving UK objectives
  • showcasing the UK’s science and technology strengths and ambitions at home and abroad to attract talent, investment and boost our global influence
  • boosting private and public investment in research and development for economic growth and better productivity
  • building on the UK’s already enviable talent and skills base
  • financing innovative science and technology start-ups and companies
  • capitalising on the UK government’s buying power to boost innovation and growth through public sector procurement
  • shaping the global science and tech landscape through strategic international engagement, diplomacy and partnerships
  • ensuring researchers have access to the best physical and digital infrastructure for R&D that attracts talent, investment and discoveries
  • leveraging post-Brexit freedoms to create world-leading pro-innovation regulation and influence global technical standards
  • creating a pro-innovation culture throughout the UK’s public sector to improve the way our public services run

Here’s the funding and policy breakdown:

  • £250 million in 3 transformational technologies (AI, quantum technologies and engineering biology) to support industry to tackle the biggest global challenges
  • (e.g. climate change and health care). Also part of the framework are semiconductors and future telecoms. More detail on these priorities can be found within the related International Technology Strategy.
  • The Nurse Independent Review of the Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscapeand implementing the recommendations to make the most of the UK’s research organisations, ensuring they are effective, sustainable and responsive to global challenges.
  • Testing different models of funding science, to support a range of innovative institutional models, such as Focused Research Organisations (known as FROs), working with industry and philanthropic partners to open up new funding for UK research. For example, this could include working with a range of partners to increase investment in the world leading UK Biobank, to support the continued revolution in genetic science
  • £50 million co-investment in science from the private sector to drive the discoveries of the future.
  • £117 million of existing funding to create new PhDs for AI researchers and £8 million to find the next generation of AI leaders around the world to do their research in the UK.
  • £50 million uplift to World Class Labs funding to help research institutes and universities to improve facilities so UK researchers have access to the best labs and equipment they need to keep producing world-class science, opening up entirely new avenues for economic growth and job creation.
  • £10 million uplift to the UK Innovation and Science Seed Fund, totalling £50 million, to boost the UK’s next tech and science start-ups.
  • Set up an Exascale supercomputer facility – the most powerful compute capability which could solve problems as complex as nuclear fusion – as well as a programme to provide dedicated compute capacity for important AI research, as part of the response to the Future of Compute Review.
  • £9 million to support the establishment of a quantum computing research centre by PsiQuantum in Daresbury in the North-West.
  • Also within this overall policy context is the UKRI’s International Science Partnerships Fund which will support close working with international partners to address global challenges, build knowledge and develop the technologies of tomorrow. More info here; the four themes: resilient planet; transformative technologies; healthy people, animals and plants; tomorrow’s talent. Also the Japan-UK research collaboration in neuroscience, neurodegenerative diseases and dementia; clean energy and climate change with Australia, Canada and the US; and partnership with South Korea for digital health, clean energy, advanced manufacturing and materials, future mobility and smart cities.
  • Horizon Europe doesn’t get a mention in the framework – and the Opposition asks why in this parliamentary question.
  • Here is Donelan’s Written Ministerial Statement providing a Science and Technology update. It covers the framework and wider policy matters.
  • Finally, Sir Patrick Vallance’s Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review: life sciences – while currently at interim findings stage the Government committed to supporting all of Patrick’s recommendations in the March 2023 budget, including providing clarity on the Intellectual Property rules. If you need a refresher browse through our write up in this policy update.

Not particularly insightful, but nonetheless entertaining, was the Opposition’s response to the publication of the Science and Technology Framework. Chi Onwurah, Shadow Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, highlighted the turnover of nine science ministers in the last five years and stated the country deserved a science framework “with a longer shelf-life than a lettuce”.

Horizon

Always in the news but no real movement is the latest on Horizon association. The Windsor Framework resuscitated hope in what had become a Horizon dead duck. The rhetoric from the research associated Government departments continues to indicate progress and the assumption that association is still on the table and desired by both sides.

Here’s the short version of all the recent noise:

  • The Government announced another extension (until 30 June 2023) to the financial guarantee to the UK’s Horizon Europe scheme so that eligible and successful bids for calls closing by the deadline will continue to be guaranteed funding. (The particulars are on the UKRI website.) It’s a short extension so speculation (and hope) abounds about what might happen afterwards – June isn’t far off on the horizon.
  • Greg Clark (Chair of Science and Tech Committee, and ex-BEIS long standing Secretary of State) is feeling impatient and spoke out urging the Government to accelerate negotiations leading to Horizon Europe association (after the Committee received a dreary letter from DSIT SoS Michelle Donelan following the clawback of £1.65 billion of research funds to the central Government pot in February).
  • Following the funding clawback Clark challenged Donelan during the Science and Technology Framework announcements. He called on Donelan to confirm when fresh negotiations for Horizon association would begin and how long until the Government throws in the towel and falls back on Plan B. Finally, he questioned what mechanisms were in place to ensure that, in areas such as batteries, that there was a united and coherent approach across Government, so investors know what the policy is and who to get deal with. Donelan responded to confirm the same level of funding would be available to researchers if Horizon association isn’t achieved: …funding remains available to finalise association with EU programmes. In the event that we do not associate, UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much as they would have through Horizon over the spending review period. (Hansard.)
  • Wonkhe tell us that (then) Scottish Minister for HE & FE Jamie Hepburn made some good point in his letterto Michelle Donelan urging for Horizon Europe association to be secured. He expresses concern that the UK government “appears to be working on the assumption that if we succeed in associating to the Horizon Europe programme, participation will be costed from the point of re-entry,” arguing that this has never been guaranteed. A good point!
  • For completeness here are the transitional measures the Government put in place during July 2022 to stop UK research falling into the lack of Horizon abyss.
  • Finally, Horizon featured in the first ever DSIT oral questions. Discouraging, but not unexpected, was confirmation that the government’s position was unchanged, and discussions are ongoing.

Parliamentary Questions:

Quick Research News

  • UKRI has publishedits EDI strategy, setting out four strategic objectives to achieve its aim of fostering a research and innovation system “by everyone, for everyone”. (Wonkhe)
  • (Not) Levelling up: The R&D funding ecosystem just isn’t designed to level up the country. James Coe investigates where R&D funding is spent and what that means for levelling up. (Wonkhe Blog.)
  • Recognition: Wonkhe report that Science Europe, which represents research organisations around Europe including UKRI, has released recommendations on recognition systems in research and case studies of good practice. It has also become a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).
  • India cooperation: Wonkhe report that the UK signed a memorandum of understanding with India at yesterday’s UK-India Science Innovation Council meeting in Parliament. The agreement is intended to “remove red tape” to enable more efficient and effective joint research projects into major issues such as climate change, decarbonisation, pandemic preparedness, and artificial intelligence – among other programmes. Science Minister George Freeman believes this move will create skilled jobs and drive economic growth. India was also named as a partner for the UK’s International Science Partnerships Fund which will see £5 million UK funding – to be matched by India – for research into Farmed Animal Diseases and Health, and £3.3 million UK funding – also to be matched by India – towards a technology and skills partnership programme.
  • AI: The Government has announced the creation of a new Foundation Model Taskforce which will be responsible for accelerating the UK’s capability in a rapidly emerging type of artificial intelligence (AI). The Taskforce will be backed by £100m in funding, and modelled on the success of the COVID-19 Vaccines Taskforce – its main aim will be to develop the safe and reliable use of these AI systems across the economy to ensure the UK is globally competitive in this technology. Foundation models – including large language models such as ChatGPT and Google Bard – are a category of AI trained on huge volumes of data such as text, images, video or audio to gain broad and sophisticated capabilities across many tasks. The Government say that, in areas such as healthcare, this technology has potential to speed up diagnoses, drug discovery and development, and that in education it could transform teachers’ day-to-day work by freeing up more time. The Taskforce, announced as part of the Integrated Review Refresh last month, will bring together government and industry experts and report directly to the Prime Minister and Technology Secretary. The Taskforce’s expert Chair is yet to be appointed (announcement due summer 2023).
  • Horizon Europe related parliamentary questions: UK funding share; the costs of Pioneer (the alternative programme); where the Pioneer funding is coming from; the negotiating position for UK contributions to Horizon Europe. On this last question Minister George Freeman stated: The Government are discussing association to Horizon Europe with the EU and hope our negotiations will be successful. That is our preference. We will not be providing a running commentary on these discussions. Association would need to be on the basis of a good deal for the UK’s researchers, businesses and taxpayers. If we are not able to secure association on fair and appropriate terms, we will implement Pioneer – our bold, ambitious alternative.
  • George Freeman’s (Minister for Science, Research, and Innovation) responsibilities have been confirmed. They include:
    • international science and research
    • domestic science and research ecosystem, including university research and public sector research establishments (PSREs)
    • Horizon Europe
    • R&D People and Culture Strategy
    • Innovation Strategy
    • space sector
    • life sciences
    • quantum
    • engineering biology
    • place and levelling up
    • regulation of innovation​​, including the Regulatory Horizon Council
  • Research Professional has a quick read on the links between universities, place and inward investment (particularly in light of the Budget’s Investment Zones announcements).
  • REF: The Research Excellence Framework (REF) encourages “higher quantity and lower quality” of academic output, according to a study from a group of researchers led by Queen Mary, University of London’s Moqi Groen-Xu. The research found that papers published in the run-up to REF deadlines generally received fewer citations and were more likely to be retracted than those published after REF assessments. The authors call for better support for long-term exploratory research. (Wonkhe.)
  • The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has published a report on diversity in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). In the report Dods tell us that MPs highlight the underrepresentation of people from Black Caribbean backgrounds, and others, across all STEM subjects throughout education and work. A low uptake of physics and computer science in girls at school as well as persistent issues with women’s career progression in STEM also stand out. MPs say it is “sadly notable” that many of the conclusions from a predecessor Committee’s 2014 report on women in science could still apply today. The Committee recommends a series of changes to education policy, following the Prime Minister’s commitment to grow STEM pupil numbers. MPs call on the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to make improving diversity and inclusion in STEM part of its mission, and to set out how it intends to achieve this.
  • Michelle Donelan introduced the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
  • AI & Data Science Scholarships: The OfS confirmed £8.1 million new funding from DSIT and the Office for Artificial Intelligence for universities to deliver AI and data science scholarships to underrepresented groups. The funding runs from April 2023 for one year, with a possible additional one year extension. The programme has run before and the interim report found the scholarships attracted a diverse student profile. However, the in the previous iteration more scholarships were awarded to international students as the scheme progressed and recently UK students received less than half of scholarships. On outcomes most students quickly secured jobs that specialise in or use data and/or AI. DSIT also published an AI regulation white paper. Secretary of State, Michelle Donelan, made a ministerial statement here.

Parliamentary Questions:

Students

Sharia Compliant Finance

Previously DLUHC appointed an Independent Faith Engagement Adviser to review how the Government should engage with faith groups in England. The Adviser, Colin Bloom, recently published the review report. The report includes a recommendation for Sharia compliant finance and places a firm timescale on the Government:

  • Government should accelerate proposals to introduce Sharia-compliant student loanson equalities grounds. Faith-sensitive student finance should be made available from the beginning of academic year 2024-25.

Sharia compliant finance feels like one of the slowest progress policy priorities within HE. The Government first proposed a student finance product consistent with Muslim beliefs regarding interest-bearing loans in 2013. The Higher Education Research Act, passed in 2017, allows the Government to introduce such a product in England, but it has yet to do so. The issue has been raised in Parliament a number of times, with the delay described as “shameful” by Lord Sharkey.

Following the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) Consultation the Government announced Sharia compliant finance would not be ready as part of the LLE launch in 2025 but that the Government remained committed to delivering such a product “as soon as possible after 2025”. A parliamentary Library briefing on the topic informs that findings from the Muslim Census study suggest over 12,000 students per year are affected (deterred from taking out loans which acts as a barrier to entering HE or causes financial hardship).

It remains to be seen whether Bloom’s timescale will be met by the Government – it seems unlikely given the Government have already ruled out including Sharia compliant finance within LLE in 2025.

On other student finance matters Wonkhe have a new blog – As the state reduces its support for students in real terms, Jim Dickinson considers the role of institutional student finance measures in addressing the cost of living crisis.

Spiking

The Labour party intend to make spiking a specific offence if they are elected to government. It would form part of several measures aiming to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG) and broaden the Labour party’s “tough on crime” credentials. Dods report that the Home Affairs Committee previously recommended the creation of a new standalone offence, however the Government’s response to the inquiry’s findings suggested this wasn’t necessary as there were already measures and guidance in place to improve reporting, data collection and police response to incidents. The Committee’s inquiry focused heavily on night-time venues, and heard from many in the university sector about the prevalence and nature of spiking on campuses. UUK also published a practice note for HEIs to support their response to spiking.

Student Accommodation

Wonkhe – Over half of students living in the private rented sector have experienced damp or mould on walls or ceilings, and half say their accommodation is poorly insulated, according to a new report from SOS-UK in partnership with Universities UK. Homes Fit for Study 2023. Universities UK has published a note on how universities can support students facing fuel poverty. ITV news has some experiences from students up on YouTube.

Duty of Care

The petition to Parliament for universities to have a legal duty of care for students (started by the families of student’s who took their own lives) has reached a significant threshold and the matter will be debated on Monday 5 June.  Previously the Government responded to this petition:

  • Higher Education providers do have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution and, in carrying out these services, they are expected to act reasonably to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students. This can be summed up as providers owing a duty of care to not cause harm to their students through the university’s own actions.
  • Over the last decade, higher education providers have devoted considerable resources to their student support services, and a good deal of support is now widely provided to students who struggle with their mental health. However, tragically suicides do still occur in higher education, and investigations into the circumstances of such deaths have sometimes shown the support offered by the university was not all it might have been. We have encouraged universities to learn from such cases and redouble their prevention efforts. 

We’ll bring you the outcome of the debate after it takes place.

Cost of living

The APPG for Students published their Report of the Inquiry into the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on students. They conclude that most students are facing significant financial pressures, with some groups particularly hard hit, risking academic outcomes and participation in the extra-curricular activities that are so valuable for future careers. We are concerned that this is unfair on a generation of students already affected by the pandemic, and risks widening inequality.

… Alongside reports of students cutting back on meals and other essentials, as many other people, we were struck by evidence of the additional hours many students were working to cover their costs and the development of a ‘grab and go’ approach to their qualifications, as they can no longer invest time and energy in participating in all the other aspects of student life that prepare them for employment, having an impact not just on the tertiary education sector, but on a generation of working adults.

The inadequacies of relying on current hardship measures are acknowledged:

…we must not only provide students with the necessary immediate financial assistance – through increased hardship funding and restoring maintenance loan entitlements – but also to address issues in the student funding system which have seen student support incrementally reduced in real terms over several years and reduced resilience as inflation has risen sharply over the last two years. We have noted the increase in university support and believe that there is more that could be done to ensure all students are helped but recognise that current services are designed to help small numbers of students in emergencies, and not hardship experienced by a large proportion of the student body.

The APPG calls on the Government to provide a financial solution:                                                                                                                

… We recognise the demands and pressures across every area of government spending but feel that our recommendations for both an immediate spending commitment to support students who have been placed in significant financial hardship, as well as longer-term changes are needed for both current and prospective students.

The OfS published an insight brief – Studying during rises in the cost of living. They conclude: Universities, colleges and students’ unions have worked innovatively and at speed to help alleviate these pressures, with additional help from government for their hardship funds. These responses have been diverse, and the support available has varied from university to university. The mitigating activities…may not all be sustainable over a long period. It’s worth a scan through to read the box sections covering actions by universities (financial needs, warm spaces, food needs).

  • Part time work dramas: 30% of students are unsuccessful in finding part-time work because of their scheduled classes.
  • 72% report that their timetable stopped them securing more hours at work.
  • 76% found it challenging to attend scheduled teaching on time – due to classes scheduled at inconvenient times of the day, not having enough time to get from one class to another, not being able to find the lecture room or seminar location.
  • Asked why they had a job, 52% of student said it was to fund their basic lifestyle (pay for rent, utilities, food, etc.), 49% blamed the rising cost of living, 33% wanted to fund a comfortable lifestyle (pay for night outs, clothes, holidays, etc) – given the percentages don’t tall presumably students could select multiple categories for the reason to work.
  • 53% of students have a part time job alongside their studies. 32% do not have a job but would like one and 5% full time.
    Source – FE News

Cost of living blogs:

Students: Quick links

Wonkhe content:

Parliamentary Questions

Admissions

Wonkhe report on the House of Commons Education Committee’s latest report – The future of post-16 qualifications which calls on the government to pause the withdrawal of funding for existing level 3 technical qualifications (such as BTECs) until evidence is available that T Levels are more effective at meeting student and employer needs and promoting social mobility. The report notes that universities are often requiring applicants to offer A levels alongside T levels (the latter being nominally equivalent to three A levels), and calls on DfE to work with universities to avoid “unreasonable” entry requirements. The report is covered on BBC News.

Wonkhe: Fewer significantly disadvantaged and economically precarious students are entering higher education in England – and they are less likely to complete their degree and progress to skilled employment or further study than their peers, new data from the Office for Students (OfS) shows. CEED, one of its new and updated key performance measures, shows that 53.6 per cent of the most significantly disadvantaged students progress to further study or skilled jobs, compared with 68.4 per cent of students who are neither “significantly disadvantaged” nor “economically precarious”. 49,600 students categorised as significantly disadvantaged entered in 2021/22, a decrease from 51,100 in the previous year. KPM 8, which measures the proportion of subjects taught and the number of higher education providers (relative to population) in each English region, shows that the North East has the lowest level of subject diversity in the country for full time students, and KPM 7 on Degree attainment by ethnicity shows that students receiving first class degrees in 2021-22 was 15 percentage points lower than the proportion for all students.

Access & Participation

Advance HE has published the Disabled Student Commitment which was developed by the OfS funded independent strategy group the Disabled Students’ Commission. The Commitment draws on three years of consultation with disabled students and sets out a framework of 43 recommendations for HEIs, Government, funders, agencies, regulators and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. It highlights expectations for information sharing and consent and offers guidance on key touchpoints of the HE journey, outlining the commitments that HEIs and others should make to give disabled students confidence their needs and expectations will be met.

Professor Geoff Layer, chair of the Disabled Students’ Commission, said: We have developed this Commitment because disabled students have told us they want communication, consistency, certainty and choice. The Commitment is a call to the sector and sector bodies to make the step-change required to create a more inclusive environment. We need to create a sense of belonging in which students are able to focus on what they went into higher education for, and not spend untold hours fighting their way through the system.

Professor Layer said the Commission was asking providers to work in partnership with their disabled students on a statement of commitment which should be updated annually and published on their website, alongside a logo of the Disabled Student Commitment so that disabled students and applicants have confidence in the system, allowing them to get on with their education.

New data dashboard and risks plan for A&P

OfS published new data on HE access and participation. The completion rates data highlight:

  • 6% of students from the most deprived backgrounds completed their course (92% from the most advantaged group)
  • 5% of students eligible for free school meals completed their course (91% non-free school meals)
  • 7% of black students completed their course (88.5% of white students)

There is lots more to explore in the data dashboard.

OfS also published their new Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR) and expect universities to consider the listed range of equality risks when planning. It includes risks relating to the perception that HE might not be right for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, or concerns about academic and personal support for those at university, students’ mental health, the continuing impact of the pandemic on education opportunities, and pressures on living costs.

OfS has also published the outcome and analysis of responses to their consultation on a new approach to regulating equality of opportunity plus a commentary from OfS Fair Access and Participation Director.

Impact of online teaching on student outcomes

TASO published online teaching and learning – lessons from the pandemic. Executive summary here; rapid evidence review here.

Here are their key findings:

  • Existing evidence is mixed; there are a small number of studies which suggest online teaching and learning can maintain or improve outcomes for some groups, but overall, the move to online learning appears associated with worse student outcomes.
  • Pre-pandemic literature (compared to purely online learning) suggests ‘blended’ learning (e.g., a combination of face-to-face and online learning) is more likely to improve student attainment. Whereas the literature produced during the pandemic demonstrates that the rapid shift to an online format had a negative impact on student outcomes.
  • In the post-pandemic literature, there is some evidence that, prior to applying any type of ‘no detriment’ control in an attempt to account for the impact of the pandemic on students’ performance, learners from low-income backgrounds and academically at-risk students may be most likely to be negatively impacted by the shift online. However, this was not universal in the case studies they reviewed.
  • Course design is an important factor to consider when planning online learning, as its efficacy is highly dependent on a number of design choices. However, this planning was not possible with the emergency switch to remote learning, where the priority was to adapt promptly to unforeseen crisis circumstances.
  • Design features – the existing evidence suggests that courses which encourage active engagement through planned student-student interactions and opportunities for feedback between teaching staff and students increase student attainment.
  • Digital poverty is thought to be the largest barrier to the success of online teaching and learning and will most likely disproportionately impact disadvantaged groups. Students from more privileged backgrounds may have better access to the internet and more sophisticated devices.

Recommendations:

  1. The design of online courses is important: A concerted effort should be made to design online courses rather than simply moving face-to-face materials into the online environment. Effective design features include:
    1. Coordinated student-to-student interaction via discussion boards and chat rooms.
    2. Feedback between teaching staff and students.
    3. Appropriate frequency and timing of online teaching and assessment to avoid student fatigue.
  2. HEIs should make use of their institutional data and differing pedagogical approaches to design and conduct evaluations that allow us to draw strong conclusions about what works in the UK context. Our data analysis provides a foundation and blueprint for future work of this sort.
  3. As students from disadvantaged backgrounds may be more likely to be adversely impacted by the shift to online teaching, learning and assessment, future research should focus on their experiences and outcomes.

A & P Blogs:

Graduate Careers

Wonkhe report on the Institute of Student Employers’ annual report on development programmes for graduates and apprentices. 54% of employers surveyed agreed that graduates were “career ready” at the point of hire (31% unsure). The report covered 162 responses from student employers who collectively hired over 26,000 graduates in 2021–22.

HESA published National Careers Week: Career trends of graduates from the class of 2019/20. 

Careers: Wonkhe blog – The idea that a postdoc is a route to an academic career downplays other career possibilities. Lucy Williams and James Howard have been helping postdocs prosper with tailored advice and support.

International

Wonkhe report that:  there has been a 65% increase in the number of international students at English higher education providers over the past four years, with growth of over 100,000 in the past year alone. The figures come from the delayed Office for Students’ Higher Education Students Early Statistics survey (HESES), which provides an early indication of the number of higher education students studying in 2022-23.

They also show that the home v international split for postgraduates in the English system is now roughly 50:50, and that providers are forecasting that circa 320k students will not complete by the end of the year, up from 300k a year ago.

Blog: New English student numbers figures show how rapidly universities are changing size and shape. David Kernohan and Jim Dickinson consider if the regulation can keep up

Scottish Minister for Higher Education and Further Education, Youth Employment and Training Jamie Hepburn answered questions on international students and accommodation.

Wonkhe: Home Office proposals to limit the number of international student dependant visas are receiving a “major pushback” from the Treasury, i News reports. It says Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is resisting Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s proposals, arguing they would inflict “major damage” on the British economy.

HEPI

The Higher Education Policy Institute has published a range of interesting blogs and briefings recently. You may be interested in:

Degree Apprenticeships

  • The OfS confirmed £16m of recurrent fundingto expand the development and delivery of HE qualifications, of which £8m will support the development of Level 6 degree apprenticeship training programmes and £8m to increase the provision of Level 4 and 5 qualifications.  Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education Robert Halfon said: Degree apprenticeships offer people of all backgrounds an alternative route to achieving their career goals than doing a traditional three-year degree. They enable students to earn while they learn the skills needed to build a successful career. I’m delighted that the OfS is continuing to support and encourage HE providers to expand their degree and degree level apprenticeship offer…This investment will help us continue to build a skills and apprenticeship nation and extend the ladder of opportunity to even more people.
  • Wonkhe report that the Independent has been investigatinghow some universities are still using the apprenticeship levy to part-fund MBAs.
  • The Science Industry Partnership published a manifesto for skills in the science industries. The report outlines four priorities for technical education and workplace learning. It includes making the apprenticeship levy work for employers and increasing equity through diverse career pathways.
  • The UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities published their evidence-led policy priority calls which they believe are essential to equalising opportunities in society. They call for:
    • reform to apprenticeship rules to ringfence a proportion of the levy for young people with lower qualification levels, they also entertain that if other changes were made levy funds could be entirely ringfenced for school leavers. This to reduce the number of apprenticeships going to existing employees instead of other internal training.
    • Expand accountability to all providers of post-16 education to help reduce NEET rates. To make these metrics meaningful and minimise ‘gaming’, providers should be compared against other providers offering similar courses, in areas with similar socio-economic characteristics.
    • Introduce an annual “Social Mobility Scorecard” for universities, showing the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds attending each university, and the earnings associated with each degree. This should be released by the government to confer official status…There is wide variation in earnings across different degrees, and disadvantaged students are less likely to attend those with high labour market returns, even when they have the qualifications to get in. If we judge universities and courses based only on their outcomes, rather than their intake, their contribution to social mobility will be limited.
    • Introduce a post-qualification applications (PQA) system for post-18 education (including further education) so that students would make applications after they sit exams and receive the results. A PQA system could be achieved with minimal disruption to the school year (or college/university start date), by condensing the exam period to four weeks (as was planned during the pandemic), and accelerating marking to 7-8 weeks. Examinations would take place in early May. Students would then return to school, receiving results in mid-July, in time for an in-school ‘applications week’. Universities and colleges would have over a month to process and make offers at the end of August, and students would then have time to accept their favoured choice… allowing students to make these life changing applications based on full information.
  • Finally, UCAS stated they’re collaborating with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) to enable apprenticeships to qualify for UCAS points. They anticipate UCAS points may be attached to apprenticeships by the end of 2023. Dods report: The plans represent another step on UCAS’ bid to give parity between apprenticeships and other post-16 study routes, however it is not yet clear how many points apprenticeships may be eligible for, or whether they will secure as many as other level 3 routes. The Department for Education said that offering the ability to apply for apprenticeships through UCAS from 2024 is part of a wider ambition to develop a “one-stop-shop” for education and training options that it hopes will eventually include apprenticeships, T Levels, skills bootcamps, higher technical qualifications and degree apprenticeships.

Other news

The DfE published a policy paper on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), including large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Google Bard, within the education sector. Snippets:

  • Although generative AI is not new, recent advances and public access to the technology mean that the general public can now use this technology to produce AI-generated content. This poses opportunities and challenges for the education sector.
  • When used appropriately, technology (including generative AI), has the potential to reduce workload across the education sector, and free up time, allowing a focus on delivering excellent teaching.
  • Schools, colleges and universities, as well as awarding organisations need to continue to take reasonable steps where applicable to prevent malpractice, including malpractice involving use of generative AI and other emerging technologies.
  • The education sector must continue to protect its data, resources, staff and students, in particular:
    • Personal and sensitive data must be protected and therefore must not be entered into generative AI tools.
    • Education institutions should review and strengthen their cyber security, particularly as generative AI could increase the sophistication and credibility of attacks.
    • Education institutions must continue to protect their students from harmful content online, including that which might be produced by generative AI.

Strategic Skills planning: The DfE Unit for Future Skills published the UK labour market projections up to 2035 (national, regional and local). You can display the data by LEP or other choices and it provides information to support local skills plans, careers guidance, and provides a projected picture of the type of jobs in the UK labour market (and the skills needed) up to 2035. Data here.

Carbon capture curriculum: The Scottish Affairs Committee has published a report on hydrogen and carbon capture in Scotland. It warns that the UK will fail to meet its net zero targets, and transition away from fossil fuels, unless carbon capture is rolled out at scale. The report calls for the UK and Scottish Governments should jointly set out work they are undertaking to ensure that colleges, training providers and businesses within the hydrogen and CCUS sectors are able to offer appropriate routes into employment and training, and providing this information should be viewed as a priority.

President UUK: UUK announced that Professor Dame Sally Mapstone FRSE, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of University of St Andrews, has been elected as its next President. The role runs for two academic years from 1 August 2023 and is elected through a ballot of UUK’s 140 members. Dame Sally will succeed current President, Professor Steve West CBE, Vice-Chancellor of UWE Bristol. Before her appointment as Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of St Andrews in 2016, Dame Sally lectured and held several leadership roles at the University of Oxford, including Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Personnel and Equality and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education. She has served as a Board Member of UUK since 2016 including currently as Vice-President for Scotland, by virtue of being Convener of Universities Scotland.

Late retirement: The Times reports that graduates could work longer under plans to allow people in manual jobs to claim their state pensions earlier (Wonkhe).

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

Bespoke Engaging with Parliament training in May/June

Impact, parliament, policy, Training

Carys Davis from The Other Place will be delivering two sessions of online training for academics interested in engaging with Parliament.

The Engaging with Parliament for Impact session is on 23rd June 10:00-4:30pm. It is an introductory session for academics whose research is likely to have policy impact, or for those who would like to influence policy. It will cover multiple ‘Common Routes to Influence’, including Government consultations, Select Committees, All Party Parliamentary Groups, think tanks etc. and the best ways to approach them. You will have an opportunity for stakeholder mapping and to plan your approach. There are only 12 places available, so please don’t book unless you can attend the whole day. You can book your place here.

The Creating a Policy Plan session is split into two parts: 10th May 10:00-4:30 and 30th May 1:00-4:30 and is an opportunity to create a bespoke plan for engaging Parliament with your research. By the end of the two sessions you will have written a Policy Brief, or other document, together with a detailed plan for getting your research into Parliament. To book onto this session please email impact@bournemouth.ac.uk. There are only 6 spaces available, so please do not book unless you can attend BOTH sessions on 10th May and 30th May. 

Carys Davis trained as a journalist, holds an MA (Distinction) in Human Rights and is a Member and Accredited Practitioner of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.
She has worked for a UK political party as a Researcher and Policy Adviser, in the Republic of Maldives as political consultant to the leader of the Maldivian Democratic Party, for two charities running their public affairs functions and as the Manager of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Public Affairs Team. Her training is highly detailed, relevant and engaging and is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in having policy impact.

HE policy update for the w/e 24th March 2022

NHS, parliament, policy, Research news

The last couple of weeks have exploded with news –legislation, scrutiny, and government departmental jiggling continues. Several research reports of note have been published alongside a deluge of updates on key research topics. The OfS continues to be examined by the Lords, the Budget was announced, there’s been excitement over apprenticeships and T level changes. It’s all too much for one update so we’re spreading content across the next few issues based on themes. Pass the reading glasses!

We start with a good look at the Lifelong Loan Entitlement which has been heralded as major change for the HE sector. We’ll leave you to decide how much change it really means (some sections of the university administration will feel the future changes more keenly than others).

Lifelong Loan Entitlement

We’ve talked about the Lifelong Loan Entitlement (LLE) at length in our previous policy updates, you may recall there was a consultation on the entitlement some time ago.  This is the government’s flagship HE policy that is intended to refocus the sector on delivering courses that add value to the economy and, (as it says on the tin), lifelong learning, away from what some papers like to call “mickey mouse degrees” for 18 year olds that do not lead to strong employment outcomes for those 18 year olds.  It’s a huge change, potentially, but will it work?

The Government has now published their response to the consultation and they set out the ‘design’ of the new entitlement which we can expect from 2025. The press release excitedly claims: Student finance to be radically transformed from 2025. HE and Skills Minister, Robert Halfon, published a written ministerial statement on the LLE.  And there is an impact assessment and an equality analysis.,

The LLE (HE fee limit) Bill is about to enter Committee Stage in the House of Commons. This is when the real scrutiny and in depth line by line look at the detail takes place. The membership of the Public Bill Committee who will examine the Bill have been announced. It includes local Poole MP Sir Robert Syms, Minister for HE Robert Halfon, Robbie Moore (the PPS to DfE Ministers, Toby Perkins (Shadow Minister for FE and Skills), Matt Western (Shadow Minister for HE). We can expect more news on this next week because the Committee is scheduled to examine the Bill on Tuesday (21st) and Thursday (23rd). Although the primary legislation (the Bill) is still passing through the Houses and not yet an Act the Government already indicated in their response to the consultation outcomes that any future legislative changes necessary to operationalise the LLE will be incorporated through secondary legislation.

So onto the main news…we’ve read the (very lengthy) reports in detail and below we summarise the main points. In places we’ve included quotes to illustrate the Government’s intention. It’s all very simple – until you try to think through the move from the current student finance and admissions systems to the new LLE system. In short, we have questions!

  • The current student loan system will be replaced with the LLE for academic year 2025/26. Students will have a personal account and access to detail such as the value of their credit remaining: “This will be available online, and operate much like a bank account.”
  • The LLE offers the equivalent of four years of post-18 education (currently £37,000 in today’s fees) for individuals to use over their working lives, with additional entitlement for priority subjects and longer courses (such as medicine, and perhaps teaching). “We plan to outline the courses eligible for additional entitlement for autumn 2023.”
  • Age limit: Individuals aged over 60 will not be able to access the LLE/student funding. This is in direct contradiction to the consultation responses received; however, the Government has always been clear that student funding is provided for employability. Of course, it also doesn’t make fiscal sense for the Government to provide public purse loans for individuals who will not repay a significant enough sum within the remainder of their working lives. It’s not an unexpected decision. The Financial Timeshas coverage of the age limit.
  • Fundamental to the Government’s introduction of the LLE is a modular system so students can engage and disengage as suits their personal and professional interests. Full and part time study will be funded. Modules will be based on minimum credit levels (more on this below).
  • When the LLE initially launches new modular funding will only be applied to Higher Technical Qualifications and some other courses currently funded through Advanced Learner Loans. LLE funding will be extended to level 6 technical qualifications from 2027. Most current HE provision will also be incorporated in 2027. The modularisation of some HE courses (when it happens) is not expected to be quite such a change as a credit system is already in place. Minister Halfon has said he expects the initial take up for the LLE would be “a few thousand [people]”.
  • Module fundamentals: Modules (or grouped bundles of modules) will be a minimum of 30 credits, at the same level as where they appear within a full course. Modules must be part of a ‘parent course’ so they build up into a full qualification. Each module will be assessed and come with a standard transcript upon completion – this will help with transfer and the build-up of standalone units into a bigger picture. During the consultation period the sector called for adaptation where courses cannot be delivered through a modular approach (i.e. those courses which are centred on currency and consolidation of knowledge such as medicine) to continue to provide yearly funding would be the most appropriate funding route. We assume this will go ahead alongside the different funding arrangements for training for medicine, architecture, and so on.
  • Autonomy: HE providers will continue to have full autonomy over whether or not to modularise any given course or whether to make it credit bearing…and not all modules of courses should attract funding… In cases where there are courses that are not currently structured around credit bearing modules, but that have high learner and employer demand for modular funding, the provider or awarding body is free to consider restructuring the course into credit bearing modules. For non-credit bearing courses the Government will determine a default number of credits.
  • Quality will be assessed through outcomes metrics which build upon the existing course metrics and outcomes data available where possible. The OfS has previously announced that it will begin engaging with the sector in summer 2023 on developing student outcome measures for modular provision, including considering how to measure completion, employment outcomes and progression to further study. In the Government’s synopsis of the responses they received to the consultation the sector opinion felt that the LLE should make use of existing regulatory and quality infrastructure … Processes used to ensure quality for modular courses should be proportionate and consistent… And …Many respondents noted that the current approach for measuring continuation and progression is not compatible with shorter or modular courses. For example, under the LLE, a learner may not complete a whole course, but stop once the learning objectives they require have been covered or take many years to gain the required number of credits for a degree. It was suggested that learner outcomes could be measured through the use of longitudinal measures of course effectiveness, or greater use of student survey data on graduate outcomes. How will the data be managed to provide a valid comparison between module graduate outcomes when so much of an individual’s income projection will be reliant on what came before in their employment history?
  • Credit transfer: the jury is out (and undecided). The consultation responses from the sector indicated strong support for agreed mechanisms to facilitate credit transfer. e. an agreed system and process for the sector to follow consistently. The Government state: The government will not impose credit transfer arrangements, but instead seek to facilitate credit transfer through other methods including through introducing the requirement for providers to provide a standardised transcript on completion of modules, and through information, advice and guidance and Personal Account functionalities where possible… The government will continue to consider the mechanisms necessary to further facilitate and stimulate credit transfer, informed by responses to this consultation and continuous stakeholder engagement…[the Government] recognises that having clear credit transfer methods in place could be a positive contributor to delivering the beneficial flexibility that the LLE seeks to achieve. We will continue to work closely with the Devolved Administrations to seek to achieve this flexibility, deliver LLE and maintain a coherent student funding policy across the UK. So no one is sure quite how to roll it out nationally…yet. It seems likely that consistent guidelines around credit transfer will be lobbied for by the HE sector. It’s all a bit woolly at the moment which opens the system to game playing and may not be in the student’s best interest.
  • Student movement: Conspicuous by its absence is mention of how all this mobility will work in practice, aside from the credit transfer question. What does this mean for individuals wishing to switch between low and high tariff providers because one has a world-leading expert delivering their desired module. (And what would that mean for grade inflation/moderation?) What does it mean for student support, induction and student belonging if students become more mobile? What about students who wish to study some elements overseas? Student movement did feature briefly in the sector’s commentary on the consultation.
  • The LLE will fund various courses from traditional degrees to Higher Technical Qualifications – so a broader range of courses and choices than are currently funded. In future, if the course is not on the LLE students won’t be able to access funding for the fees or maintenance. The Government will control what is on the LLE. However, it’s not as drastic as this might sound. Currently the Government already agree what constitutes a fundable degree course. And, for now, the Government have committed to continue funding all the HE student financed courses that are currently supported (see Annex C for reassurance on specific course types). However, this might provide a non-legislative route to defund courses that the Government consider do not contribute enough to the country’s economic needs – which is how things went in the Australian model. Putting this aside bringing the funding for academic and technical education through one system may also help achieve the elusive parity of esteem for employers and society the Government has been seeking to eradicate favour for the academic over the technical route?
  • Applications (UCAS): There will be a single application point for all student finance (levels 4-6). This seems a genuinely empowering aspect of the new system. In theory it is easier and it will allow students to consider wider choices and perhaps investigate the benefits of both technical and academic (and likely hybrid) routes at application stage. In recent years surveys of potential students have seen growth in those declaring they’d seriously consider an apprenticeship route. Bringing the two together through one system will allow direct comparisons. However, how much will decisions on routes all come down to the big question of cost? The Government intend for UCAS to fulfil this role. Speaking at an Education Select Committee hearing this week Minister Halfon stated his hope that “one day UCAS will be called the University Colleges and Apprenticeships Service”.
  • Repayments: LLE repayments will be made under Plan 5 terms and conditions. In fact, all new courses started from August 2023 (pre LLE) will be issued on Plan 5 T&Cs. The repayment threshold will be £25,000 for Plan 5 loans in 2026-27. As is current practice graduates earning under the repayment threshold will not make repayments. It will be a 40 year loan term (and all outstanding debt written off at that point). Presumably pension income (after the state pension age) will not count for repayment, however, this level of detail hasn’t been broached yet. And in a finance system where a 40-year loan may be taken out at age 50 to retrain this is an important question to resolve.
  • ELQ restrictions will be removed (i.e. students who have studied previously can pick up courses at an equivalent or lower level than their previous qualifications). Of course, this removal of ELQ restrictions is essential for a government that wishes to facilitate retraining to fit national skills gaps.
  • It’s not just fees – maintenance loans are part of the LLE system too. This includes extending maintenance loans to categories that previously couldn’t access maintenance support, such as some technical and part time/modular courses – announcements for this expected at the next Spending Review. Some qualifying conditions and thresholds for intensity and duration of study will apply for maintenance funding. The Government say: This will set the [technical] system on a par with traditional full-time study and open up new study and training opportunities for people from all backgrounds. [Loans and targeted grants] will also be available for learners with child and adult dependants and for learners with disabilities… loans and grants should continue to be available to support access and participation in learning leading to positive outcomes. Distance learning courses will not receive maintenance loans. Overall the maintenance calculation will be similar to now: the maintenance calculation will continue to take account of weeks of study, course credit value, household income and location of study.
    Interesting is: The government is clear that maintenance support should be reflective of time in study, representing a contribution towards living costs where learners’ ability to earn is reduced and there are greater costs as a result of study, as well as taking into account personal circumstances that impact their needs. Does this mean that courses with substantial placements (such as nursing) which prevent the student from engaging in other work will receive a more generous maintenance loan?
  • The LLE will specify a fee limit (this legislation is currently passing through Parliament as we mentioned earlier). The fee limit will be based on either the credit level of the module or the yearly maximum cost. The Government states: ‘the LLE will enable meaningful fee limits to be set on periods of study shorter than a year. What this means in practice is that modules and short courses, as well as traditional degree courses, will be priced consistently according to the amount of learning they contain. This will create a fair, more flexible system…’ Again this isn’t dissimilar to now – the Government already specify the maximum fee limit. However, during the 2017 negotiations for the Higher Education and Research Act the Government had to limit its ambition. For example, the Lords would not sign off on quality (TEF) related differential fee levels – and the Government’s rhetoric on high quality courses hasn’t eased to date. It’s a possible mechanism to prioritise fee levels according to subject – for example, boosting engineering fees and reducing those of English literature. Although how likely this is will pan out according to the politics of the next few years (and the general election outcome). We also need to keep an eye out for how the fee limits will be applied to international students.
  • There will be some flexibility for special circumstances – but we don’t know what. The consultation response says this: The LLE will also include a mechanism, akin to the existing Compelling Personal Reasons (CPR) mechanism in HESF, designed to help ensure that learners affected by circumstances beyond their control can complete their studies. We will be providing further information and guidance on this before launch in AY25/26.
  • There will be a third OfS registration category for providers not currently on the register but which currently offer Advanced Learning Loan provision. The OfS will consult on this.
  • The LLE will not be Shariah compliant at launch. The government remains committed to delivering an Alternative Student Finance (ASF) product. However, this will not be delivered at LLE launch in AY25/26… The Government is procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance and will be working with the Student Loans Company (SLC) to better understand timescales for delivery of an ASF product under the LLE. Our aim is that students will be able to access ASF as part of the LLE as soon as possible after 2025. An update on ASF will be provided by late 2023. The Government will further continue to undertake significant engagement ahead of implementation of the LLE to ensure that solutions are evidence-based and directly address the barriers faced by a diverse cohort of students. As part of the ASF delivery project, we will undertake a Shariah certification process in line with Islamic finance industry norms.
  • Out of cash: Related to the ELQ element is what happens when the individual account runs dry. For example, the individual that achieves their three-year degree that later in life wishes to upskill in an alternative advanced area. They would have one year’s worth of credit left but would this be enough? They would need to self-fund any remaining costs above that year. And where does this leave students on sandwich degrees? Sandwich placements fit well with the Government’s agenda for graduates to be work ready and help students develop those essential workplace skills and experiences to attract the highly skilled jobs and the boost to their graduate outcome. However, a sandwich course may become a disincentive as it leaves these individuals with only a part year worth of credit for later in life. Not ideal. Will sandwich years be included in the financial flexibility the Government may offer in certain circumstances?
  • Choice? Similar to above is the question of whether employers can compel an individual to use their LLE entitlement to study a qualification to upskill within their role – is an individual free to refuse and if so should the employer fund the suggested module? Can an individual be disadvantaged for promotion if they refuse to use their LLE?
  • One size doesn’t fit all. Integrated masters (IM) create a headache for the LLE. Here is the simplified nub of the debate from the sector consultation responses: The responses for incorporating IMs into the LLE were mostly positive, suggesting this would create a simple process that could be easily accessed. Respondents also reported that some level 6 modules can be counted towards a level 7 qualification, therefore, not including level 7 modules in the LLE could be confusing for providers. On the other hand, it was felt that if the LLE was to include IMs it could be perceived as unfair for those who have not chosen the IM route. A further downside of having IMs in the LLE was felt to be that learners would not be able to do a placement year or repeat a year, even if they have compelling personal reasons, as they will have used their full entitlement on the IM. PGCEs were another headache. Again the Government do not specifically comment but they may decide to fund this priority area within the additional funding entitlements (similar to the anticipated extra funding for medicine). Access courses are not expected to be funded under the LLE as they are considered to be at level 3 standard.
  • The LLE tops out at level 6: So standalone Masters and postgraduate funding is out of scope.
  • Institutional bursaries: One of the consultation questions asked if the future LLE system should include a facility for provider-based bursaries that are directly allocated to students. The majority of responses agreed bursaries should exist to:
    • Support and encourage learners who have financial barriers.
    • Encourage study in areas where there are identified skill gaps.

Financial parity in bursaries to prevent differentiated bursary offer between institutions was mentioned by a small number of respondents.

  • Also within the consultation synopsis: It was also noted that new courses would be required which would provide an opportunity to review how competencies are assessed. It was felt that the range of assessment methods of the current apprenticeship scheme could be learnt from, and that technology and automation could be used to support assessments in both vocational and academic subjects, removing the reliance on end of year exams.

The elephant in the LLE room is careers guidance. The Government has been tackling this wicked problem for years and Minister Halfon brings a refreshed focus to addressing quality careers guidance. In the Ministerial foreword to the LLE it states: The current student finance system needs to better serve those who need it most. If students are poorly advised at 18, and end up using their single serving of student finance on the wrong course, the result is people hemmed-in by choices made at a young age, struggling to improve their employability at a time when businesses are crying-out for skilled candidates. However, will one extra year (or part year) of funding make all the difference to the economy when graduates wish to substantially retrain? It’s hard to imagine it will be enough to retrain or cross sectors at a highly skilled level.

Employers may also expect employees to meet their own course or retraining costs for specific modules, rather than the company having to fork out to support training. Who is winning with this new system? Does it make the burden on the public purse fairer? Probably, because later life re-trainers who didn’t do advanced courses at a younger age (but whose tax did contribute to funding others) will then get their bite of the cherry. Will it solve the country’s skills gaps? Probably not. Will careers advice be integral to making good decisions? Undoubtedly. Will universal, high-quality and personalised careers advice be available to all in an accessible, impartial and timely manner? Unlikely. What is likely is that the same challenges will remain and this will limit the effectiveness of the Government’s LLE dream in the long term.

We leave you with the Government’s upbeat aspirations for LLE: …our intention [is] to deliver a radical shift in the tertiary education system. We will remove the artificial division between funding for Higher and Further education, by unifying these student finance systems across levels 4, 5 and 6. All higher education courses, whether academic or technical, will be funded in the same way.

Wonkhe say: It’s the biggest shake-up in post-compulsory education since 2012, and one with clear repercussions for the higher education sector in England. The idea that at least some of the dominant demand for traditional honours degrees will be replaced by shorter, stackable provision has implications for course design, quality assurance, and student services. One big gap will be around the lifelong advice and support needed in planning a route through a complex offer towards qualifications and career growth.

Blogs: 

The Budget

This week saw the annual excitement/dread of the annual Budget.

Parliament has published a series of their impartial accessible briefings relating to the Budget:

The Chancellor announced that the UK is no longer expected to enter a technical recession, and that the country was on track to meet the PM’s targets to halve inflation, grow the economy, and reduce debt.

Our summary below will focus on the aspects of the budget of most relevance to HE and research. You can read the full Budget detail here and for a more in-depth look at some of the budget themes there are a series of documents here.

The Budget was themed around the four ‘E’s’ of:

  • Employment: boosting labour supply, including by encouraging the inactive into work
  • Education: providing everyone with the skills and support they need
  • Enterprise: providing the right conditions for businesses to succeed
  • Everywhere: ensuring the benefits of economic growth are felt across the UK.

Employment

  • New disability benefit strategy and voluntary employment scheme for disabled people to help them into work.
  • Support for children in care to help more care leavers into employment.
  • £3m expansion of Supported Internship pilot programme for young people with SEN.
  • Enhancements to the DWP’s mid-life MOT programme – ensuring the over-50s get career advice. And a new ‘returnerships’ apprenticeship for the over-50s.

Specifically, on migration:

  • The government will ensure that the UK labour market has access to skills and talent from abroad where needed, to help businesses tackle immediate labour shortages and ease business visits to the UK.
  • To help ease immediate labour supply pressures, the government has accepted the Migration Advisory Committee’s (MAC) rapid Shortage Occupation List (SOL) assessment for the construction and hospitality sectors and will add five construction occupations to the SOL. More regular reviews of the SOL will take place too so that the legal migration system is quicker and more responsive to the needs of businesses and the economy.
  • The government will simplify business visitor rules. In addition, the government will consider further enhanced provisions linked to negotiations with trade partners, including a wider range of activities.

 Education

  • Nothing specific on HE and not a lot on the school issues you might expect (doesn’t seem to be any new money for schools funding). Childcare for employment productivity was the main focus:
    • Incentives for childminders, optional increases to the child : adult childcare ratios, more funding for nurseries, more support for workers on universal credit, wraparound school care supply to increase (from September 2026); 30 hours of free childcare for workers from age 9 months (September 2025).
  • Education gives people the knowledge and skills they need to get the jobs they want, helping turn the UK into a high skill, high wage economy. The government has already committed to maths to 18 and is rolling out T Levels, Skills Bootcamps and the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, which will have a transformative impact on post-18 education, giving people the opportunity to study, retrain and upskill throughout their working lives.
  • The government believes that people should be able to access the Education and training they need to get the jobs they want. A good education system is the best economic and social policy any country can have, and education should not stop when you start work. UK employers spend just half the European average on vocational training for their employees, and less than 10% of total spend on training goes towards formal high quality training delivered by external institutions. Skills Bootcamps and the Lifelong Loan Entitlement are already in place.
  • Long-term investment in human capital is crucial for growth and productivity and for maintaining the UK’s international competitiveness. Investing in education and skills means people can perform more, and more complex, tasks, boosting their chances of success in the labour market. Increasing skills is vital for boosting productivity: changes in labour quality contributed to around 15% of growth in labour productivity between 2001 and 2007 before the Global Financial Crisis, and the majority of labour productivity growth in the years after.
  • The UK has risen nearly 10 places in the global school league tables for maths and reading since 2015 alone and has a strong foundation of advanced skills and a number of world-class universities. However, the UK lags behind international comparators on technical and basic adult skills. This is why the government is making numeracy a central objective of our education system, right up to 18, and is continuing to invest in high quality technical education, incentivising businesses and individuals to invest in skills in England by delivering T Levels, approving Higher Technical Qualifications and rolling out Skills Bootcamps.
  • The government will introduce the Lifelong Loan Entitlement in England from 2025, which will have a transformative impact on post-18 study, giving people the opportunity to study, retrain and upskill flexibly throughout their working lives. Individuals will be able to access loan funding for full or part-time study, for a variety of courses – from degrees to Higher Technical Qualifications – and including modular study.
  • The government will extend the Alternative Provision Specialist Taskforce pilot using funding from the Shared Outcomes Fund. This will continue multiagency support to vulnerable children in alternative provision schools, to improve engagement with education (including attendance, behaviour and wellbeing) and reduce their vulnerability to serious violence.
  • As the country adapts to working for longer [age], the government is committing to upskilling and retraining workers of all ages. Returnerships are a new offer targeted at the over 50s, which bring together the government’s existing skills programmes, focusing on flexibility and previous experience to reduce training length. Returnerships will promote accelerated apprenticeships, Sector-Based Work Academy Programme placements and Skills Bootcamps to the over 50s. This will support better access to re-training and allow workers of all ages to engage with the opportunities of a second career.

 Enterprise

  • Enhanced R&D tax credit, allowing eligible SMEs to claim back £27 for every £100 spent. To help encourage innovation in the economy, Spring Budget announces further support for R&D intensive Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs), via an enhanced rate of tax relief for loss making companies; and for the UK’s world leading creative industries, through increased audio-visual tax reliefs.
  • Spring Budget launches the refocused Investment Zones programme to catalyse 12 growth clusters across the UK – 12 new Investment Zones (8 in England, 4 across Scotland, England and Wales) – where combined authorities will be able to access an £80bn pot of support for the creation of new innovation clusters with local partners, such as universities. This has been widely trailed in the media this week. Wonkhe say: each zone will focus on one area from technology, creative industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the green sector. The Government stopped short of supporting UUK’s pre-Budget calls for a University Enterprise Zone (UEZ) in every university. None of the Investment Zones will be near BU.
  • Two trailblazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities. …will give them greater control over local transport, skills, employment, housing, innovation and net zero priorities, as well as single funding settlements at the next Spending Review.
  • £40m for FE and HE to extend participation in Northern Ireland.
  • The first competition for small modular reactors, as part of launch of new Great British Nuclear.
  • A big show of support for Sir Patrick Vallance’s the Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Reviews. The Government supported all 9 recommendations and will launch a new AI sandbox, work with IP Office to provide clarity on IP rules, the new Government Chief Scientific Adviser to report before the summer on progress (see next bullet), a Quantum Strategy published the day after the budget (and an accompanying consultation) – more below. And funding support of £900m to implement the review of Compute (see below).
  • Based on Sir Patrick’s interim findings on life sciences, the government is providing extra funding for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to help it maximise use of its Brexit freedoms and accelerate patient access to treatments. The government has now asked Sir Patrick to report on how regulators can better support innovation, and the government’s new Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean, will oversee future reviews into creative industries, advanced manufacturing, and the regulator growth duty.
  • In line with two of the key recommendations of the Future of Compute Review, the government will invest, subject to the usual business case processes, in the region of £900 million to build an exascale supercomputer and to establish a new AI Research Resource, with initial investments starting this year. Plus, the government will award a £1 million prize every year for the next 10 years to researchers that drive progress in critical areas of AI.
  • The Quantum Strategy sets out a new and ambitious quantum research and innovation programme. The government will invest a total of £2.5 billion over 10 years, focusing on realising 4 goals: ensuring the UK is home to world-leading quantum science and engineering; supporting businesses through innovation funding opportunities and by providing access to world-leading R&D facilities; driving the use of quantum technologies in the UK; and creating a national and international regulatory framework.
  • The government has allocated £100 million funding for the Innovation Accelerators programme to 26 transformative R&D projects. This will accelerate the growth of 3 high-potential innovation clusters and support Levelling Up. This includes the Manchester Turing Innovation Hub led by the University of Manchester, 2 quantum projects in Glasgow led by the University of Glasgow and M-Squared Lasers Limited, and a project to accelerate new health and medical technologies led by the University of Birmingham.

 Everywhere

  • The Investment Zone and Manchester | West Midlands Trailblazers as mentioned above alongside – the government will also negotiate a new wave of devolution deals with areas across England.
  • New Levelling Up Partnerships (nearest to BU are Torridge and Torbay) – providing over £400 million of investment in 20 areas across England. The government is also providing additional funding for local projects to encourage growth and support communities, including: over £200 million for 16 high quality regeneration projects, £200 million for local authorities to repair potholes and improve roads, over £100 million of support for local charities and community organisations, and over £60 million for public swimming pool providers to help with immediate cost pressures and make facilities more energy efficient

Specifically on Public Services:

  • £100m for local charities and community organisations
  • Additional £10m to help voluntary sector work on suicide prevention
  • Day-to-day departmental spending will grow 1% per year from 2024-25

We’re awaiting the publication of the long term NHS workforce plan – due “shortly”.

Wonkhe blogs on the Budget:

Research

We will be watching what happens now the Windsor Framework. Has been passed through a successful vote in Parliament This new agreement tackles the sticking points in the Northern Ireland Protocol that the EU previously balked at preventing the UK from moving forward on items such as Horizon association. Now, President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen has stated the EU is ready to begin serious discussion of the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe. Good news for the sector – hopefully!

Meanwhile the alternative funding guarantee train rolls on. UKRI confirmed £883 million worth of funding grants have been allocated (against £1 billion worth of applications).

Recently we also heard that £1.6 billion earmarked for Horizon or the alternative scheme would be returned to the Treasury.

We’ll bring you details of the recent big research reports and latest news on Horizon association across the next two weeks. Meanwhile we have the latest on autocracies and the quick research news.

Quick News

  • The DBT (Department for Business and Trade) updated the guidanceon the meaning of research and development (R&D) for tax purposes. This includes treating mathematical advances as science.
  • Jisc published Optimising the UK’s university research infrastructure assets.
  • ARMA published Complex Collaborations – Efficiency, Equity, Quality And Security In International Research. ARMA found that whilst the majority of research organisations have made progress in responding to the Trusted Research and security agenda, there are unique challenges relating to the complexity and cross-cutting nature of the legislation which make this different to other forms of due diligence. The project also identified a need for immediate action that offers practical solutions to stakeholders at every level, in addition to longer term responses and cultural change. More here.
  • The PM appointed Professor Dame Carol Propper and Professor Keith Ridgway to the Council for Science and Technology(CST). The Council advises the Prime Minister on strategic science and technology policy issues that cut across the responsibilities of individual government departments. More info on the appointees and the Council’s current work programme here.
  • Wonkhe: Research England has announcedan initial £60m in funding to identify and spread research commercialisation practices – a first round of bidding on specific challenges set by an advisory group will open later this year. The programme builds on the Connecting Capability Fund, for which an interim report has also been published – it finds a “lack of experienced commercialisation support staff” across universities to be an ongoing challenge.
  • Wonkhe: The government has announcedits National Quantum Strategy, which will see £2.5bn invested in quantum science and engineering over the ten years from 2024. This includes plans to train over 1,000 PhD students in relevant fields over the coming decade, beginning with an investment of £25 million over the next two years, with a target to more than double the number of centres for doctoral training focused on quantum technology. A “quantum apprenticeships programme” as well as summer schools, research exchanges and industry placements are all committed to.
  • UKRI announced 11 programmes for the initial phase of the Government’s new International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF). These include:
    • a Japan-UK research collaboration in neuroscience, neurodegenerative diseases and dementia;
    • a clean energy and climate change programme in conjunction with Australia, Canada and the US
    • a new partnership with South Korea to help UK businesses develop and grow in areas across digital health, clean energy, advanced manufacturing and materials, future mobility and smart cities
  • Wonkhe: The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) releasedan updated version of its procedure for investigating research misconduct, intended to act as a “blueprint” for how investigations are conducted in any organisation involved in research, including universities.
  • DSIT and DHSC have appointed Lord O’Shaughnessy to conduct an independent review into the UK’s commercial clinical trials landscape. It’s expected the outcomes will be published in Spring 2023.
  • Science asks how many of the UK’s problems can science and technology fix in A science superpower in the wings? A thought provoking and quick read.
  • How the Government supports universities to develop local economies and growth areas
  • Wonkhe report that Former PM Tony Blair and former Conservative party leader William Hague have joined forces to argue for the vital importance of science, technology, and innovation to reshape the British state. Wonkhe blog: considering the implications for universities.
  • Wonkhe also have a blog on ARIA (the Advanced Research and Invention Agency) which considers whether a publicly funded independent research body can ever be that independent, and at what cost.
  • Wonkhe: The government should ringfence £170m of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to provide bridging funds when EU structural funding for regional development runs out at the end of March – so arguesa letter to Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt from all 16 University Alliance universities and over 300 UK SMEs. The withdrawal of EU funds means that innovation infrastructure, expertise and partnerships developed since 2014 “are at imminent risk of disappearing,” the letter warns. Swansea University Vice Chancellor Paul Boyle writes about the letter on the Universities UK blog.
  • The UK Committee on Research Integrity (UKCORI) has publishedits 2023-25 strategy and plan of forthcoming activities, including an annual statement on research integrity in the UK and a review of institutions’ research integrity statements.

Parliamentary Questions:

Autocracies

The Foreign Affairs Committee is addressing the international risks inherent in the internationalisation of HE. Primarily through participation in research and engagement with autocracies. Their previous report, A cautious embrace: defending democracy in an age of autocracies, concluded that not enough was being done to protect academic freedom from financial, political and diplomatic pressure. The Committee warned that the battle for university students or trade deals should not outweigh the international standards which have brought freedom and prosperity to the UK and the wider world. The Committee also stated that the Government’s advice to academia on the potential threats from autocracies was ‘non-existent.’ The Committee intends to test if Government guidance to universities is adequate and whether universities are following these guidelines to manage the risks associated with the internationalisation of HE. This includes the potential security risks from joint research projects with organisations based in autocracies such as intellectual property or data theft and espionage. Finally, the potential overdependence on funding from Chinese students is also of concern.

The Committee interviewed UUK Chief Executive Vivienne Stern as part of the inquiry. She stated that the HE sector is getting better at managing risks from international research collaborations with autocratic states – but the legal and regulatory requirements are “byzantine” and institutions are sometimes “overwhelmed” by the duplication and overlap of what is required of them in compliance. Also called for oral evidence was City, University of London President Anthony Finkelstein who stated the Government should provide a clear UK-China policy for universities. You can watch the oral evidence session for more detail.

Wonkhe report that Chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns, spoke out at a Policy Exchange event criticising the UK’s reliance on partnerships with China, saying “it is hard to overstate just how infiltrated we have become”. Alicia was also the architect of the amendment to the HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill which empowers the Government to ban Confucius Institutes over freedom of speech concerns. She stated that the UK must work on technology with “those who share our values” and pointed to Horizon Europe association as the first step in achieving this. Alicia also said the Committee had a “great number of concerns” and that “academia seems to behave as if it is free of geopolitics – it is not.”

Blog: Michael Salmon wonders whether the sector should expect more, or better, regulation.

Submissions from Universities UK and the Russell Group to the  have been shared – UUK recommends a simplified legislative and regulatory approach to international collaboration, noting a lack of “any coherent strategy to UK-China relations” from the government. The Russell Group’s submission cautions against duplication of legal reporting requirements, and suggests that the government “consider declassifying and publicising anonymised examples where there is evidence that autocratic states have interfered in UK academia.” Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch has also given evidence, focusing primarily on the use of Chinese CCTV technology on UK campuses. (Wonkhe.)

DfE’s submission has been published – the submission summarises legislative and regulative work done over the past few years in defence and security as they relate to higher education. We learn that the government’s Research Collaboration Advice Team (RCAT) has engaged with 129 research institutions on 350 queries since its launch in March last year, including on “complex issues which have resulted in targeted mitigations of national security concerns.” Research institute RAND Europe’s submission has also been posted. (Wonkhe.)

Integrated Review Refresh 2023: The government has announced plans to launch a “comprehensive review of legislative and other provisions designed to protect our academic sector” on the UK’s defence and security priorities. The Times also reports that the new National Protective Security Authority, launched alongside the review, recommends that universities “question whether it would be ethical” to sign agreements with organisations linked to the military or police of a hostile state. The review positions science and technology as a “priority element” in international partnerships – a forthcoming International Technology Strategy will set out what this means. Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Co-Chair of CST, said: “Professor Carol Propper and Professor Keith Ridgway both bring extensive expertise to the Council for Science and Technology. Their knowledge of the research and innovation landscape will be invaluable in supporting the Council’s role in providing advice on the government’s high-level priorities for science and technology and exploring the opportunities for achieving national goals through emerging technologies.” (Wonkhe.)

Innovation Insights

DSIT published Insights from the UK-wide survey of the Research and Innovation Workforce 2022. The aim behind the survey was to inform policymakers about the actors in the innovation and R&D workforce covering a broad range of roles from academic researchers, laboratory technicians, software developers, market researcher to CEOs and senior management. Here are the key insights and policy implications that DSIT highlight:

Research, development and innovation policies need to consider the entire research and innovation workforce. Attention should be paid to the entire R&I ecosystem including workers who mainly focus on commercialisation and the wide range of roles that produce innovation outcomes. DSIT say – The occupation level data produced in this survey will be used to tailor policies more precisely.

The R&I workforce is highly educated, skilled and mobile, and there are opportunities to make UK R&I more attractive to work in. R&I workers require a range of soft, technical and specialist skills and the majority hold post-graduate degrees. As their qualifications and skills are highly sought after, they are also highly mobile both in terms of sectoral and geographical (international) movement (Over 52% worked outside the UK in the course of their R&I career). Inward and outward international mobility of talent can be beneficial to the UK. DSIT note that UKRI’s report on Global Talent shows that international mobility can contribute to increased research skills, career progression, quality, and quantity of outputs. Elsewhere in the report we spotted that 57% of respondents to the survey are seriously contemplating working outside the UK within the next five years. So the UK may also have a high level brain drain to tackle. Of those willing to move 49% believed they’d be better paid and 44% because they’d have a better work-life balance.  Unsurprisingly family and the UK culture were the key reasons the non-movers were opting to stay in the UK.

There is potential to improve diversity of the R&I workforce to better reflect the UK population not only to improve work culture, but also increase innovation in teams and help the UK to meet business demand for more R&I workers .The R&I workforce is disproportionally male (71%). Female and certain ethnic minority R&I workers are less likely to agree that their workplace supports diversity and inclusion. There is an opportunity to increase innovation by encouraging a more diverse range of people into the innovation workforce.

Other interesting points:

  • Commercialisation:Private sector workers were more likely to report that their work fed into:
    • intellectual property and licensing (49% of private sector workers compared with 14% in HE);
    • prototypes, new products or processes (48% private; 10% HE);
    • software and technical products (45% private; 17% HE);
    • commercialising research or new technology, without seeking intellectual property (37% private; 10% HE), and
    • new business, start-ups and spin-outs (35% private; 8% HE).
  • Info sharing: 51% of respondents share their knowledge via education, training or mentoring (75% HE; 73% FE; 33% private).
  • Motivation: Respondents chose their R&I career due to their interest in the nature of the work. 73% stated it was crucial to them that the role was interesting and meaningful.
  • Longevity: 64% of respondents had worked in R&I for more than 15 years (average career length 22 years). 69% believed they had a positive working environment which supported them to do their best work.
  • EDI: Overall, 75% felt their workplace culture supports diversity and inclusion (8% disagreed). However, respondents from Asian and ‘other’ ethnic groups were more likely to disagree with the statement compared to white respondents, and women were twice as likely to disagree as men (13% women; 6% men). Private sector respondents (83%) and those with organisational leadership roles (83%) were more likely to agree with the EDI statement.
  • Funding:87% of respondents have applied for UKRI/Research Council or Innovate UK grant funding – 74% were successful.

Quick News

  • The Chancellor’s Investment Research Reviewwas announced in December 2022 as part of the Edinburgh Reforms to drive growth and competitiveness in the financial services sector. It’s now been announced that Rachel Kent will chair the review and the terms of reference have been published. The Investment Research Review will examine the link between levels of research and the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for companies to access capital, both in private and public markets.  The review will gather information and evaluate options to improve the UK market for investment research and provide recommendations. The review is being conducted independent from Government.
  • Also announced are the terms of reference for the independent review of university spin-outs. The independent review will look at the distribution of performance across universities to identify best practice in university spin-outs and licencing deals. Cambridge, Oxford, and Imperial College were the second, third and fourth in the world for number spin-outs deals in between 2013 and 2017. And, overall, there has been a five-fold increase in UK university spin-out investment from £960 million in 2014 to £5 billion in 2021. The review will compare approaches in the UK to those of other world leaders such as the US, and look at how approaches vary across the UK. It will inform policy making to ensure that the UK continues to seed and grow innovative companies of the future and will build on existing evidence from previous studies of UK spin-outs. It will address the tensions academics feel in balancing commercial interest with their academic and research work It is due to report in summer 2023. The Financial Times has coverage of the story.
  • The DBT (Department for Business and Trade) updated the guidanceon the meaning of research and development (R&D) for tax purposes. This includes treating mathematical advances as science.
  • The Welsh Government has publishedits Innovation Strategy. setting out four missions in education, health and wellbeing, the economy, and climate and nature. The strategy includes a commitment that Welsh ministers will “seek to drive up investment from the UK Government and beyond in Welsh research, development and innovation.” It sets a target of five per cent of Innovate UK’s competitions budget invested in Wales by 2030, with similar goals for other funding sources including other UKRI research councils to be announced “in due course”, along with a more detailed action plan. (Source: Wonkhe)

R&D – public polling

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) polled public attitudes to R&D. 52% didn’t know what R&D meant, especially female respondents. Respondents also thought R&D mainly took place in London or the South East. When connecting R&D to their own region they saw the drivers as universities, the NHS and business. 60% of respondents thought R&D wouldn’t benefit people like them with the 35-44 age group particularly disillusioned on this matter. In fact, age had a strong connection with R&D perception with older people being strong supporters of R&D and younger respondents did not value R&D because they believed we’d benefit from the R&D done abroad, that it wouldn’t create jobs in their area or that the UK cannot afford to invest in R&D.  I

in general, arguments that linked R&D to a tangible problem – even if this solution is a long way off – help win people over. People are concerned about the cost of living, the sustainability of the NHS and the impacts of climate change. The report states there is huge scope to strengthen this link between R&D and the key issues facing people to make our advocacy more relevant and compelling.

The polling was by far the most interesting policy report issued recently and while you can read it in full here I’d recommend delving directly into the sections that interest you most by clicking on the red text boxes on their website. The polling and report are a rich source of data for colleagues interested in R&D, do delve in there is much more of interest than we have the space to cover in the policy update. Wonkhe also report on the polling.

Freedom of Speech Bill

The House of Commons Library published a briefing summarising the stages and progress of the HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill so far. We’re in ping pong stage and the Government is deciding how many of the Lords amendments and objections they can take down to bring the Bill closer to their desired final form. Earlier in February the Commons considered the 12 amendments to the Bill made by the Lords. Clause 4 of the Bill is most contentious between the two chambers and the Government tabled a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment which had removed clause 4 from the Bill. Clause 4 introduced a new statutory tort to allow individuals to bring legal proceedings if HE providers and students’ union were not complying with their duties under the Bill. The Government carried their motion and the statutory tort is back in the legislation.

The House of Lords considered the Commons amendments on 21st March and sent it back over the net to the Commons with some more amendments proposed by Lord Willetts.  Hansard has the record of the fairly short but interesting debate.

Wonkhe have a blog here.

International

International Student Housing: International student housing continues to be of media interest. Wonkhe report:

  • The proportion of student houses inhabited by international students has grown from 29 per cent in 2014/15 to almost 40 per cent in 2021/22 – with the bulk of the increase since the introduction of the graduate route. Our own analysis of Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) figures on where students are living shows a supply of rental bedspaces failing to keep up with demand – and a record percentage of home domiciled undergraduates living at home, 48 per cent up from 41 per cent in 2014/15.
  • The figures come as new polling commissioned from Public First by Universities UK shows that the UK public does not see reducing legal migration as a priority compared to other pressing issues, and are not in favour of cutting the number of international students. The vast majority of respondents believed the UK should host the same or more international students, and only 9 per cent of overall respondents thought that students and researchers should be discouraged from coming to the UK.

Media:

Regulatory – OfS under fire

It feels as if the Lords have been barring their teeth over education matters more than usual recently. Perhaps it is even the most significant burst of effective activity since the changes the Lords wrought to the Higher Education and Research Act (HERA) in 2017. Ironically it was then Universities Minister Jo Johnson who had to wrangle with the Lords to pass HERA through Parliament, now he sits amongst the peers in the Lords Chamber creating bumps for the Government to navigate. Currently there is a critical mass of HE experts in the upper Chamber and they’re fulfilling their duties to hold the Government to account and scrutinise legislation and parliamentary proceedings effectively.

The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee have launched an inquiry into The work of the Office for Students. There is lots of interest in the inquiry’s terms of reference and the Committee will primarily scrutinise whether the OfS’ statutory duties are clear and look at its performance since establishment. It will also address the OfS’ regulatory framework, its independence from and relationship with the Government, and whether it has the necessary expertise and resources to carry out its functions. Plus the OfS’ work on the financial sustainability of the HE sector (including risks such as relying on overseas students).

You can read the Hansard summaries of the oral evidence sessions here

  • 7th March OfS previous Chief Executive, Dame Nicola Dandridge, and Chair, Sir Michael Barber – questions included how much the government had driven the OfS agenda in their tenure -and the replies included how much they had pushed back on what they saw as attempted overreach by various ministers. They also discussed value for money (and the fact that it isn’t really defined), and how students were consulted by the OfS,  Contact hours came up.  They talked about graduate outcomes.  There was a really interesting debate on the cost of HE which I have quoted from:
  • Q15 Lord Agnew of Oulton: I am particularly interested in business models of well-run universities, and I wonder whether you have come across good ones. It is probably part of the process of registration originally. I am puzzled. I do not have expertise in tertiary, but in secondary education we can deliver a good education for £6,500 a year, with 25 hours of lectures for a longer academic year, and yet the tertiary education system complains that it is underfunded. Are there any that have cracked the formula, other than just importing huge numbers of foreign students…
  • Dame Nicola Dandridge: It is a great question. There is no single model, as you will well know, Lord Agnew. It is a highly diverse sector and there are all sorts of business models that reflect the particular environment that universities are in. From the OfS’s perspective, it needed to satisfy itself that the registration conditions were met, including in relation to financial viability and sustainability. It would not really be interested in how the universities operated and what their business models were above that threshold. We saw huge diversity and, undoubtedly, some of them are better than others. At the end of the day, if they were above the regulatory threshold, that would be the limit of our concern. To have gone further than that would have represented mission creep that would not have been welcomed. As to the question of why it costs universities £9,250, this is just a different environment from schools. I am not sure that is a fair comparison, but it goes to the value-for-money issue that you identified, which always has to be a concern….
  • Sir Michael Barber: The university experience is partly about the teaching and learning, but it is also about the study space that we were talking about earlier. It is about the quality of the library, the support staff, the mental health support, the whole range of supports that universities provide to students. If you look at the debates that go on about student mental health, living accommodation or the wider student experience as measured by the National Student Survey, these are all things that universities are providing. A lot of the investment is going into that wider experience as well as the teaching and learning.
  • Our emphasis, most of the time, is on improving the quality of the teaching, which we felt over the previous generation had been, relative to research, neglected. The £9,250 is slowly losing value over time because of inflation. At some point, there will come a crunch for us collectively about how long we can hold that total flat, barring some other funding system. I am strongly supportive of the current funding system, but it might change in future. On the whole, universities are providing good value for money. Students are much more demanding than they were in previous generations, quite rightly. They are a very impressive group and they want really good study spaces, good feedback on their assignments, good teaching, contact hours and the wider experience. You can argue whether £9,250 is the right number, but they are getting value for money in general. Going back to previous questions, it is the job of the OfS to think about value for money across the sector, as well as institution by institution.
  • 14th March Lord (Jo) Johnson and Charles Clarke, former Education Secretary. As you can imagine, lots of stuff about the HERA and why the OfS was set up.  They had a big discussion about new entrants etc and about how teaching funds research, international students, the QAA.  Charles Clarke is not a great fan (but he isn’t a great fan of the sector either reading his responses more generally):
  • … The publication of data about universities’ performance, for example on job opportunities for people, diversity of entrants to universities and performance on a whole set of measures, is absolutely worthwhile. It is beneficial to have an independent agency produce data of that kind from which universities themselves and society as a whole can make judgments. It is quite another thing, beyond producing the data, to say, “We think you should do this, that or the other in trying to achieve those things”. The OfS role ought to be limited to analysing and publishing the data, and by all means making commentary where universities are not doing certain things well enough. That is perfectly all right and a necessary function. I agree with Lord Johnson that it was not sufficiently done in the past. But going beyond that to say, “You must do this, that or the other”, is absolutely mistaken. A lot of the big brouhahas have been around those kinds of questions. Finally, who is the “student interest”? The National Student Survey that we set up is widely regarded as a worthwhile development and a good way of informing what happens. Apart from that, it appears that the student interest is what Ministers deem it to be. There is no other device, and no dialogue with student bodies or organisations. The OfS has not had dialogue with its own student organisations to discuss what students look for in this situation. I agree that it is right to look at the students and not at the provider. That is correct and was one of the original purposes of the OfS, but I do not think it has happened.
  • Lord Clement-Jones: Not to put too fine a point on it, you think there is a threat to institutional autonomy.
  • Charles Clarke: I do think that. My answer to that, given in a book that I will not advertise but I have a copy here to my left, if you would like one, is for universities to get more cojones in standing up for themselves. The weakness is that university leaderships have to be much more proactive and engaged than they are. There is a serious weakness in many university leaderships where they say, “What are the Government or the regulator going to say next?”. That has happened in many other areas of our public life and is very dangerous for all kinds of reasons.
  • 21st March – transcript not yet available. Witnesses were Susan Lea, former VC at Hull, David Eastwood, former VC at Birmingham, Dame Nancy Rothwell, president and VC at Manchester and Neal Juster, VC at Lincoln. There is a Wonkhe article here on the evidence on the 21st.
    • The University of Manchester’s Nancy Rothwell estimated that responding to OfS requests for data, consultation responses and the like cost the institution in the region of £1m a year, on top of the almost £200,000 in registration fees (noting in passing that these are rumoured to be about to rise substantially). University of Lincoln’s Neal Juster concurred that staff time might be in the region of four or five times the cost of registration fees.
    • Eastwood was perhaps the most critical voice, suggesting that risk-based regulation (an unquestioned good in the dominant “theology of regulation” apparently…) was a promise made to the sector “which hasn’t been fully delivered,” and even that the creation of a regulator with a predominant focus on students was “conceptually flawed” given the multiple missions of universities. The other guests were less concerned on this point.

Also continuing their questioning the OfS are Labour. Previous Shadow Universities Minister Emma Hardy tabled two parliamentary questions (PQ):

Also on the regulatory front is the PQ: steps to ensure that the statistics on the employment of former students on degree courses are accurate when universities offer courses to new students.

Students

Here’s a snapshot some student related news and blogs:

  • Research Professional and i News report that a third of university students have plunged into double debt in the cost of living crisis.
  • Research Professional and The Evening Standard cover a study that says that a quarter of UK university students who gamble are at risk of harm.
  • Wonkhe blog: A new survey suggests that students’ incomes cannot meet their basic needs for food, warmth, and study time. Lee Elliot Major outlines the consequences for social mobility.
  • Wonkhe: The Office of the Independent Adjudicator has published a casework noteand a series of case studies on academic misconduct complaints. The note covers recent developments the ombuds has seen around the use of online tools, on a lack of support for students under investigation, and proportionate penalties – it observes providers generally following procedures, though also identifies “examples of processes that have not resulted in a fair outcome.” The Guardian reports on what it calls a “rebuke” to universities.
  • UUK published their responseto the APPG Students Cost of Living Crisis (students) inquiry.
  • Wonkhe report: Right of centre think tank Bright Blue has a blogon rethinking student finance in England and Wales.
  • Free tuition: NEON report that New Zealand’s “flirtation” with free study has failed to make a difference to educational inequalities with people from the wealthiest neighbourhoods up to seven times more likely to start degrees compared to their poorer peers. New Zealand abolished fees four years ago but the shift has not seen a change in admission rates which are still very much dependent on socio-economic status. Critics of the fee free scheme have been quick to point this out as an indicator of failure, whilst proponents are arguing that the relatively short time the scheme has been running, and the impact of COVID, have meant that it is too early to measure the scheme’s success. Read more in the original source in Times Higher.
  • Care: Wonkhe blog: How to meet the government’s targets for care experienced students.

Parliamentary Questions:

Admissions

The Minister announced a delay to some T levels – Hairdressing, Barbering and Beauty Therapy; Craft and Design; and Media, Broadcast and Production will all be pushed back from a 2023 to 2024 commencement. Catering has been deferred beyond 2024. Still going ahead are the T Levels in Legal Services (to commence 2023); Agriculture, Land Management and Production; and Animal Care and Management (2024); and Marketing (2025).

The DfE published the T Level action plan 2022 to 2023 it provides key statistics such as numbers of students studying T levels, transition programme numbers, student characteristics, providers, placements and progression.

Parliamentary Question: Clarification of T levels that do not overlap with wave 1 and 2 T levels.

Apprenticeships: UCAS announced it will advertise apprenticeship opportunities alongside undergraduate degrees. This goes some way towards the Government’s ideal of a ‘one stop shop’ for all education and training options to be advertised and applied for in the same place. UCAS: The plans will help put technical and vocational education on an equal footing with traditional academic routes. By opening up the service to apprenticeship opportunities, thousands more young people will benefit from a wider choice of high-quality options. Employers will also benefit from better access to talent on UCAS and the ability to manage their apprentice recruitment process. Clare Marchant, Chief Executive of UCAS said: Presenting students with all their choices in one place will not only transform the apprenticeship offering but create real parity by putting these options side-by-side with undergraduate courses.  

BTECs: The campaign to stop the Government defunding certain BTEC qualifications marches on. Wonkhe tell us: Some 360 college principals, headmasters, and academy trust chief executives have written to the Department for Education to urge Secretary of State Gillan Keegan to abandon or pause plans to scrap many BTEC qualifications for 12 months. The letter, published by the Protect Student Choice campaign group, notes that removing such courses would have a hugely negative impact on many students. FE Week has the story.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

HE Policy update for the w/e 27th February 2023

EU, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement

Parliamentary News

DESNZ, DSIT and DBT

No it’s not an attack of the sneezes, it’s the PM’s reorganisation of the Government departments. Gone is the recognisable department of Business, Energy and the Industrial Strategy. Instead it has morphed into three:

  • Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)
  • Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)
  • Department for Business and Trade (DBT),

And the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has been refocused (more on this below)

DSIT: The reformed ex-BEIS departments clearly reflect the Government’s priorities and direction of travel over successive Prime Ministers. The agenda for an innovation economy and translating research into business gains is clear. Of course, underlying it all is the need to improve the UK’s economic success trajectory.

The key change to HE policy relevance is the DSIT which once again brings a more coherent approach to research and innovation. The positioning means R&I is siloed away from Education, however, ex-HE Minister Michelle Donelan will head up this department as Secretary of State bringing her expertise and adherence to cross-departmental party lines with her.

Formally the DSIT’s responsibilities include:

  • Optimise R&D investment to support areas of UK strength,
  • Increase the amount of private R&D funding for innovation purposes
  • Promote a diverse research and innovation system that connects discovery to new companies, growth and jobs – including by delivering world-class physical and digital infrastructure (such as gigabit broadband ), making the UK the best place to start and grow a technology business and developing and attracting top talent
  • Focus on innovation in public services (NHS, Schools) and develop STEM capability
  • Strengthen international collaboration and ensure our researchers are able to continue to work with leading scientists in Europe and around the world.
  • Deliver key legislative and regulatory reforms to drive competition and promote innovation, including the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill and our pro-innovation approach to regulating AI. Also to push the Online Safety Bill through the legislative process.

ARIA, UKRI, the Met Office, the UK Space Agency; the Intellectual Property office, and Building Digital UK will all sit under the new Department (which will devolve their funding settlements). As will GO Science and the Council for Science and Technology.

DSIT will progress the Online Safety Bill and Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that were previously led by DCMS and under Donelan’s stewardship.

George Freeman (previously science minister) will retain a role in the department and Paul Scully (previously Under-Secretary of State for tech and the digital economy) also joins the brief. This smooth transition of recently experienced ministerial staff and priorities suggests some stability for the new department and that Rishi will expect his team to hit the ground running, particularly with the legislation already passing through the Houses. Emphasising this are the top level civil servants previous Digital and Media Director-General, Susannah Storey, and the previous Director of Media and the Creative Industries, Robert Specterman-Green.

The DSIT’s website is already up and running – you can view it here (and spot the stories they’ve moved across from BEIS).

DCMS: The slimmed down DCMS moves focus to support the UK’s strengths in culture, media and sport but is no longer responsible for digital policy. This includes:

  • updating the UK’s broadcasting and media system,
  • increasing investment in grassroots sports and delivering reforms to football governance—a Football White Paper is expected soon
  • and completing the long-awaited review of the Gambling Act.

Former DLUHC minister Lucy Frazer leads the lean and mean DMCS. Supporting here are Julia Lopez (previous Minister of State for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure), Stuart Andrew (previous Under-Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Civil Society and the Minister for Equalities), and Lord Parkinson (previously a DCMS Under-Secretary of State) looks to be tipped for the Government’s Lords Spokesperson for both DCMS and DSIT.

Dods says: Removing management of digital policy, including the complicated online safety legislation, could give DCMS more bandwidth to concentrate on other areas where it has been slower than expected to deliver. But time will tell if that proves to be an effective division of labour given the importance of digital to broadcasting and media. Questions remain about the outlook for the Media Bill since the Government ditched plans to sell Channel 4.

Contact the policy team if you’d like more information on the Dept for Energy Security and Net Zero or the Department for Business and Trade. Alternatively you can read each Department’s priorities here.

Overall: Overall the reorganisation seeks to provide focussed teams in key policy areas rather than the larger broad departmental remits of recent years. With the election looming Rishi may be hoping these teams fly in and make quick wins that bode well for the Conservatives in the polls. A danger for Rishi is the departments overlap unhelpfully or further constrain policy progress and policy direction due to their new siloed structure. As always there will be competition for the Treasury’s resources and much may come down to budget. The continuation of several key ministers into the new departments may also signal that Rishi believes these personalities will toe the party line and put career enhancement in.

Party plans

Politically the next general election is continually on the mind of all the parliamentary parties. Labour have been upfront about their campaign recently in their attempt to woo Scottish voters away from the SNP since Nicola Sturgeon announced she would step down.

Labour has also shown more willing to be drawn on their potential manifesto content through media appearances and comment. This week they published their new ‘national missions’ for the UK upon which their manifesto priorities will hang. They are:

  1. Economy: To deliver the highest sustained growth in the G7.
  2. Health: Build an NHS fit for the future – through science and innovation, and reforming the social care system.
  3. Crime: Make Britain’s streets safe – reforming police and criminal justice system, tackling VAWG, stopping criminals getting away with it.
  4. Education: Break down barriers to opportunity – reforming childcare and education, raising standards, preparing young people for work and for life.
  5. Climate: Making Britain a clean energy superpower.

And a selection of snippets from the accompanying statements:

  • Everything will not be fixed by simply spending more money.
  • Growth must be powered by good jobs and productivity in every part of the country.
  • Pledged to reform apprenticeships, and a new childcare system.
  • Will embrace technology, innovation and science, will reform the planning system to help businesses.
  • Will use levers like procurement to build up supply chains to protect from security threats.
  • For the coming months, the whole Shadow Cabinet will be looking at how they can bring these missions alive, as well as how to make them “vehicles of hope”.

STEM returner campaign

On the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, the government launched a pilot initiative to bring people back into STEM careers. STEM ReCharge provides support and training to technology and engineering returners (and their employers) in the Midlands and the North of England. The scheme will be run by Women Returners and STEM Returners and target those who have taken lengthy career breaks e.g. for caring responsibilities. The pilot will hit several key policy areas by bringing people back into the workforce, boosting numbers of STEM workers and plugging industry skills gaps, and increasing diversity in this key UK industry.

Research

  • The ARIA framework has been published setting out how ARIA will operate and its relationship with the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).
  • Professor Dame Angela McLean has been appointed as the new Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA). She’s the first woman to hold the role and will take over from Sir Patrick Valance when his term ends on 1 April. Angela was previous the CSA for the Minister of Defence. Here’s an explainer if you’re unfamiliar with the role:
    • The GCSA provides independent scientific advice to the Prime Minister and members of cabinet, advises the government on aspects of policy on science and technology and aims to ensure the quality and use of scientific evidence and advice in government policy making.
    • The GCSA is also Head of the Government Science and Engineering Profession and is part of the executive team of the newly formed Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
    • Chief Scientific Advisers (CSA) and the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisers work three days per week for their Government department, with the remaining two days to continue their substantive role in academia or industry. Angela is a Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University. Her research interests are the use of mathematical models to aid understanding of the evolution and spread of infectious agents. She is also interested in the use of natural science evidence in formulating public policy.
  • The National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) announced the establishment of a Taskforceto tackle barriers to mobility of research staff between universities and businesses. The Taskforce will explore how much researchers move across sectors, demonstrate the benefits of mobility, identify obstacles limiting movement, and make best practice recommendations. The Taskforce is expected to report in the summer.
    Research England Executive Chair Professor Dame Jessica Corner said: Without movement both ways between industry and academia, we risk stifling creativity and innovation in both sectors. We also limit the potential to increase R&D in the UK and the related growth and productivity gains from this, as well as broader societal prosperity.
    If we are to promote economic and social growth, then we need to make the most of the talented individuals we have. Improving mobility of people will improve the flow of knowledge and innovation to where it is most needed. I look forward to hearing how businesses and universities can address their barriers and enablers.

R&D Fraud – legislation underway

  • The Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee published Research and development tax relief and expenditure credit. The Sub-Committee’s inquiries (apart of legislative scrutiny) focused on technical issues of tax administration, clarification, and simplification rather than on rates or incidence of tax. It covered the escalation in the abuse of R&D tax relief which has led to a loss of revenue (£469 million). The Bill proposes legislative changes to combat this abuse. You can read all 56 recommendations from page 64 of the report.
  • Lord Leigh of Hurley, Chair of the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee, said: The Government should use its review of R&D tax relief as an opportunity to look beyond the initial measures within the draft Bill and hold an open-ended consultation on how the scheme can be improved. This will be integral to future proofing the UK’s competitiveness as a hub of R&D activity.

Horizon – delayed; Plan B – delayed

  • Research Professional are frank about the possibility of either Horizon affiliation or Plan B happening anytime soon:
  • Science minister George Freeman…took to social mediato call for the need “to get on and deploy the £4.5bn we would have received from Horizon this Comprehensive Spending Review”. He suggested that the much-vaunted plan B be put in action while the UK continues to push for association to the EU’s R&D programme.
  • Freeman warned that if the money was not used, the business department would have to bid again to the Treasury for the £4.5bn. The minister described plan B as a carefully designed “one-off boost to our global R&D” while the UK prepares for association with Horizon.
  • “Waiting for the EU to unblock us,” Freeman said, would result in “continued uncertainty” and a “damaging narrative of decline”, as well as a “growing brain drain” and “loss of vital time in the increasingly competitive global race for science and technology leadership”. Freeman’s avowed frustration is not quite the boosterism of science superpowers and the innovation nation we have heard so often from ministers.
  • Are we any closer to association or plan B? Even if prime minister Rishi Sunak were to secure a deal with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol, he still has to sell it to Ulster unionists and the European Research Group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs.
  • Freeman’s comments on Sunday do not suggest that there is agreement in government on when to press the button on plan B. It is almost as if Sunak and chancellor Jeremy Hunt would prefer not to spend the money—funny that.

Other news

  • Open data: Wonkhe blog: Daniel Keirs makes the case that the future of research data will be open and available, but it will require sustained commitment and collaboration from the research community.
  • Research hub: The Department for Transport has launched an application process to become a new research hub to help tackle decarbonisation and improve transport resilience. Decarbonisation Minister, Jesse Norman, pledged £10 million in funding for the centre, which will establish a UK centre of excellence for transport innovation. Currently, transport accounts for 27% of the UK’s emissions and the government aim for the Net Zero Transport for a Resilient Future Hub to drive decarbonisation solutions, such as greater use of recycled materials and reducing the carbon footprint of repairs and maintenance. The hub will also develop and implement innovative ideas to ensure future transport is resilient and meets the challenges of climate adaption, such as changes to weather and water levels. It will focus on the UK’s transport sector’s needs over the next 25 years as the government works to meet its 2050 net zero goals, helping to ensure the sector can build UK skills, jobs and innovation. The hub is funded at 80% from Government and 20% from the winning institution.
  • Research impact: If you missed January’s HEPI webinar discussing open access and spreading the impact of research you can watch the recording here.
  • REF impact case study data: The British Academy and the Academy of Social Sciences have launchedresearch into what REF impact study case data can tell us about the contribution of the arts, humanities and social sciences to the wellbeing of society, culture and the economy. The research is intended to provide a robust evidence base on which the higher education sector and policymakers can build to articulate the value of research and its impact on society (Wonkhe).
  • HEPI and UPP Foundation’s recent public opinion polling, Public Attitudes to Higher Education 2022, finds:
    • 77% of respondents agree that universities are important to research and innovation
    • 57% agree universities are important to the UK economy as a whole.
    • Support for public investment is also high – half of people (50%) agree that university research should receive funding from the taxpayer.

Parliamentary Questions

Regulatory

The OfS launched a consultation to tackle harassment and sexual conduct in HE. They propose a new condition of registration which would:

  • introduce mandatory training for students and staff, including bystander training for potential witnesses to raise awareness of and prevent sexual misconduct
  • require a provider to publish a ‘single document setting out how the will make a significant and credible difference in tackling harassment and sexual misconduct, also how to report cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, and explain how students will be supported through the process
  • ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, and any enforcement of existing non-disclosure agreements.

Universities will also be required to comply with the requirements in a way that is consistent with principles for freedom of speech within the law. Press release here.

Instead of a new register the OfS is also considering an outright ban on relationships in some circumstances.

The topic has sparked much debate on social media: the 1752 Group are a campaign group in this area. They suggest that while the steps taken by the OfS will make people, especially survivors of abusive relationships feel better, and may discourage some behaviour that is inappropriate, and prohibiting (if they go for that option) sends a clear message on boundaries, these changes won’t “fix” anything because the worst abusers will carry on anyway and (in the case of a register) prevent reporting.  They also note that some universities already have these policies.  Overall they support a ban despite the problems with it.

Contact us if you wish to respond to the consultation or provide further comment.

Wonkhe blogs:

International

The discussion on international students has barely been out of the news for the last six months. Here’s a roundup of the key issues:

  • International students are the joint responsibility of the DfE and the Home Office – and their priorities don’t always align.
  • It’s hard to think of a more confusing approach to policy than the one relating to international students taken by successive Conservative-led governments of the past 13 years (Research Professional).
  • The period since David Cameron replaced Gordon Brown as prime minister has seen the abolition of the post-study work visa in 2012, and its reintroduction seven years later…EU students, meanwhile, have seen their entitlement to domestic tuition fee rates thrown out following Brexit, while the number of students coming to the UK from India and China has steadily risen
  • The international education strategy set out to educate 600,000 international students a year within a decade, and was achieved within four years…However, the achievement of this target appears only to have caused concern in some Westminster corridors…we are back to square one, with widespread reports of a battle between the Department for Education and the Home Office over the latter’s mooted plan to slash the graduate visa entitlement once again.
  • There is also concern that international students are bringing some family members with them when they come to study. Surely we can accept that some people might have husbands, wives and children that they wish to remain close to while studying for three years?
  • On the flip side PM Rishi Sunak is planning to permit international students to work longer hours than their current visa (limited to 20 hours) entitles – in aim of addressing systemic vacancies which are damaging the economy. The Times notes: The idea risks running up against Suella Braverman’s determination to reduce the number of foreign students. Although the measure would not directly increase the number, the home secretary is likely to be wary of measures that will make such visas more attractive to those wanting to come to Britain to work. The change would be helpful for students struggling with their finances, however, universities discourage excessive paid work as it impacts to students’ engagement with their studies. And The Times highlights: Academic administrators are also wary of British students working more, fearing it will create an “uneven playing field” where the affluent have more time for studies.
  • The PM’s intention dovetails with other rumblings about students working more hours. A Guardian article, written by the Resolution Foundation, suggests: Generally, I lean towards it being good for the youth to do some paid work early (obviously not to an extreme where it will affect their education). They get to meet the real world in all its glamour – in my case a pub’s dishwasher and sink. And it leads to better wages and employability later in life. While they’re talking about all students, not just international, the article also notes that student part time working has declined – the employment rate of 18-to-19-year-olds studying for degrees fell by 25% between 2001 and 2018.

However, cuts are on the Horizon (if the Home Office wins):

  • The Times also reports that Braverman has drawn up proposals to reduce the number [of students] to meet Sunak’s pledge to cut overall immigration after net migration hit a record-high of 504,000 last year. International students made up 476,000 of the 1.1 million migrants who arrived in the year to last June. The proposal has not been sent to the Home Office yet.
  • Also that she has drawn up a plan that would reduce the time foreign students can stay in the UK after finishing their course from two years to six months. This may only be applied if they haven’t found a job within six months though. However, it has also been written that the Braverman intends to ban international students from changing to a work visa until they have finished their course. And that these changes would ensure that only the most highly trained and skilled foreign students were able to stay in the UK. (More here, and iNews cover it here.)
  • (UUK International respond to the visa-cuts speculation calling for a “stable and well managed policy” regarding international student visas.)
  • The Times also states: There are concerns that Britain has been too successful at attracting foreign students. Following statistics published this week showing that the number of foreign students had reached 680,000, Rishi Sunak ordered the Home Office and the Department for Education to submit proposals for how the government could reduce their numbers without harming the sector or the economy. Presumably the concerned haven’t seen the statistics from the last few years which sees the UK as slipping down the table in the number of international students attracted in comparison to other countries.
  • Slightly reassuring is that the DfE sees overseas student fees as a vital way of financing universities, while the business department believes they contribute to Britain’s strength in key industries. (THE opinion piece from Russell Group: The Home Office must stop reheating ruinous ideas on student immigration – Cutting off a £26 billion UK success story at the knees would be self-inflicted economic vandalism, says Tim Bradshaw. However, Wonkhe say the DfE are pushing back against some Home Office policies but not others.

The last word goes to Research Professional: So it seems that we want students to come here and spend their money on tuition fees, accommodation, NHS surcharges and food and drink. We also want them to take jobs in hospitality and other industries that have for some reason (what could it be?) become short-staffed in the past seven years or so. But we don’t want them to stay on after they graduate, even though we have educated them to a high level, and God forbid they should bring their spouse along. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Any government with any sense of context would learn the lessons of its own record over the past decade and a bit. They know what happens if they remove the post-study work visa, for crying out loud, because they already did it and had to do a U-turn a few years later.

International Student Experience

  • The OfS published – Working in partnership to improve international student integration and experience: Evaluation report. Wonkhe summarise: The report notes that full integration of international students depends on a number of factors, including practical challenges around living in a foreign country, differences in academic norms, and language barriers – all of which can contribute to “an overall feeling of disorientation”. Findings were based on 23 “substantial” responses to a call for evidence (out of a total of 63), a survey of 1,425 international students, and a literature review.
  • OfS also published an advice briefing on: Supporting international students.
  • THE piece: Flair for care– An international student’s experience can be very positive with mindful handling every step of the way, says Preeti Aghalayam.

Quick News:

  • International Commission: Chris Skidmore MP and Lord Jo Johnson (both former Universities ministers) continue to lead the way in international students. You can watch the recording of the latest International HE Commission session on the true value of international students here.
  • Also referencing Jo Johnson is this THE article: Not like it used to be. British politics is suffering from a “weakening consensus” on the benefits international students bring to the country, former universities minister Lord Johnson of Marylebone has warned.

Resources

Did you miss the HEPI webinar with Kaplan on international students and the Graduate Route visa? If so you can watch here. You can also read a briefing: Not heard of this – Employers’ perceptions of the UK’s Graduate Route visa

Students

Student Loans

Baroness Barran, Minister for the School System and Student Finance, announced an additional temporary cap to the Post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate student loan interest rates. From 1-31 March 2023 the maximum interest rate will be 6.9% for all post-2012 (Plan 2) and postgraduate (Plan 3) loans. From 1 June 2023 to 31 August 2023, the maximum interest rate will be 7.3%. However, depending on the Prevailing Market Rate the government may announce further caps to apply during this period.

DfE Equity Analysis of maintenance loans

The DfE published their equality impact assessment for HE student finance 2023/24 concluding students are losing out:

  • Our overall assessment is that these proposed changes will overall have a negative impact for students with and without protected characteristics. This is because a 13.7% increase would be required to maintain the value of loans and grants for living and other costs in real terms using the 2020/21 academic year as a baseline, as measured by CPI1, due to the recent spike in inflation. Therefore a 2.8%2 increase in maximum support for 2023/24 will not restore the erosion in purchasing power since 2020/21 and is unlikely to prevent a further erosion in purchasing power by the start of the 2023/24 academic year.
  • … increases in maximum loans and grants for 2021/22 and 2022/23 have not maintained their value in real terms.

Table 1 on page 13 highlights that the two highest inflationary changes are housing (26.6%) and food (16.4%).

  • As a result, many students, including from groups who share protected characteristics and from disadvantaged groups, will not be able to make the same spending decisions as they did previously with regards accommodation, travel, food, entertainment and course related items such as books and equipment, the costs of which will have been rising over time.
  • Specific groups of students are adversely affected by the changes due to them being overrepresented in the loan borrowing population:
  • Females
  • Mature students
  • Low-income groups of students [particularly because in 2022 there were record numbers of students including those from deprived background].
  • Students from minority ethnic backgrounds

(See pages 18-19 for the detail on each of these groups.)

The analysis also noted that debt-adverse students may chose not to participate in HE due to financial considerations.

On the publication of the analysis Dr Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group, commented: The fact that the DfE’s own equality assessment says uplifting maintenance loans by just 2.8% next year will have a negative impact on students underlines how flawed the system is. But what’s worse is that the Department responsible and the regulator which is supposed to be on the side of students just seem to be shrugging their shoulders. Let’s be clear: the Government has a choice, it is actively choosing to ignore its own analysis…and this choice will leave students out of pocket by over £1,500.

Wonkhe have a blog: the government’s own equality analysis of changes to student finance.

Maintenance Grants / Student Costs

HEPI and UPP Foundation reported on their recent public opinion polling, Public Attitudes to Higher Education 2022, regarding maintenance grants:

  • Two-thirds (64%) of public support the reintroduction of maintenance grants for the poorest students
  • 57% agreed the Government should provide additional support to students to help them with the cost of living, however:
  • only 10% of respondents put students among the top three groups they would prioritise for support with the cost of living (top 3 were those on minimum wage, pensions, families with young children)
  • 71% believe the cost-of-living crisis will deter people from going to university over the next two years – but only 26% think that fewer people should be going to university
  • 63% believe that ‘students should expect to work part time to cover their living costs while at university.’
  • 57% of respondents believed freedom of speech is currently under at least some threat (16% no threat)

However:

  • 22% agreed with the statement ‘a university degree is a waste of time’ (rose to 32% among 18-to-24 year olds)
  • 58% agreed ‘a university degree does not prepare students for the real world’.
  • Note: Only 18% of respondents had visited a university in the existing academic year, and over half of those from the lowest social grades (DE) had never visited a university at all.

Disproportionate Impacts

John Blake (OfS Director for Fair Access and Participation) John Blake blogs for Wonkhe on the initial findings of the cost of living crisis on students: Opportunity costs: The differential impact of cost-of-living pressures on students. Excerpts:

  • There is particular concern that those student groupsalready facing the greatest risks to equality of opportunity are experiencing greater levels of hardship.
  • 91 per cent of higher education students were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ concerned about the rising cost of living.
  • More than three-quarters (77 per cent) of survey participants were concerned that the rising cost of living may affect how well they do in their studies.
  • Nearly one in five said they had considered pausing their course and resuming it next year.
  • Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported that they are less likely to consider further study.

OfS intend to publish an Insight brief on the topic before Easter.

Parliament: Student cost of living arose in the recent Education topical questions – the Minister neatly side stepped the issue focussing on the support the Government already provide.

Estranged Students

Student Loan Company (SLC) data notes applications from estranged students have increased. Wonkhe analyse the increase (blog) finding that increases are likely due to:

  • That UCAS added a tickbox for estranged students to the application last year – meaning that the quality of data has improved as applicants are now directed to declare their status.
  • Awareness raising within the sector coupled with highlighting the benefits of declaring their status
  • Flexibility – SLC has changed the processes slightly to be more flexible (evidence burden to prove estrangement; encouraging applications even if they don’t 100% meet the criteria; ability to declare estrangement at any point in the year).

So, the rise in numbers of estranged students, while sad that many students find themselves in this situation, is more indicative of the success of UCAS and StandAlone raising awareness of the help and support available, and initiatives such as the StandAlone Pledge, which features in Estranged Student Solidarity Week on campuses around the nations, in getting the correct information to the right applicants.

However, Wonkhe notes: To end on a slightly depressing note – the figure is not necessarily a cause for celebration as those within the figures have not necessarily actually been awarded full means-tested funding on the basis that they are irreconcilably estranged from their parents. The figures are figures to show who has ticked the estranged box as a part of the application process to SLC.

It would be good to see data showing how many received full financial support because simply having more students at university isn’t really the aim here. It’s understanding their needs and ratifying the support they need, ensuring they fulfil their potential – that’s the aim.

Cost of Living

The ONS (Office for National Statistics) published updated experiment statistics on the behaviours, plans, opinions and well-being of students related to the cost of living, with findings drawn from the Student Cost of Living Insights Study (SCoLIS).  The findings are consistent with the earlier study in November 2022 (except in the one case noted below where matters have worsened).

  • 92% of HE students reported that their cost of living has increased compared with last year
  • 91% were somewhat or very worried about the rising cost of living
  • 49% of students felt they had financial difficulties (33% minor difficulties, 16% major financial difficulties)
  • 68% of respondents received student loan; of those, 58% said it did not cover their living costs, while one in four (25%) said it just covered their living costs.
  • In response to the rising cost of living, 30% of students had taken on new debt (this is a significant increase from the November study). Of those taking on new debt 71% reported they did so because their student loan was not enough to support their living costs.
  • 78% were concerned that the rising cost of living may affect how well they do in their studies; one-third (35%) reported they are now less likely to do further study after their course has completed.
  • The average level of life satisfaction among higher education students (5.8) was significantly lower than the adult population in Great Britain (6.9).
  • Around 46% of students reported their mental health and well-being had worsened since the start of the autumn term 2022; this is similar to students in early November 2022 (45%).

Disabled Students

TASO (the what-works centre, Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE) published  a summary report: What works to reduce equality gaps for disabled students which evaluates the effectiveness of university interventions which aimed to address inequalities. The report covers a wide range of subject material from leadership buy-in and support, to entering HE, to assistive technologies. It’s a useful source of information on a number of matters in addition to the assessment of intervention evidence. For example, it provides the below categorisation of student disability.

Overall the report finds gaps in the evidence in demonstrating what works to improve outcomes for disabled students and page 12 onwards sets out six recommendations to address the evaluation gaps.

Key points:

  • Limited causal evidence of what works to address inequalities for disabled students
  • A lack of consistency in data collection methods making comparisons between HE institutions difficult
  • Disability inclusion requires a comprehensive institutional approach, but there is a lack of evidence on the impact of each part – including leadership, training and support, communication, and staff and student voice.
  • Despite the legal requirements and funding there is little research on the effectiveness of reasonable adjustments.
  • The review found evidence that transition support to help disabled students into HE can be effective for enabling disability inclusion.

Recommendations:

  • More and better evaluation of interventions to address inequalities for disabled students in HE are needed.
  • Effective and consistent data collection is required to understand and address inequalities in HE and therefore must be improved.
  • Better evidence is needed on reasonable adjustments: on how they are delivered and their impact on disability inclusion.
  • Scrutiny is needed of ‘whole institution’ approaches to tackling disability inclusion and whether they are having an impact.
  • Access and Participation Plans (APPs) should be monitored in terms of how far they commit to addressing disability inequalities, and whether and how they will evaluate such commitments.

To take matters forward TASO will partner with two independent evaluators and four HEIs to continue to understand and build the evidence base for what works to support disabled students.

Dr Eliza Kozman, Deputy Director, TASO stated:

  • Despite best intentions to improve disability inclusion in universities and colleges across the country, we’re still very much in the dark about what works. This is particularly concerning given the rapid rise in young people reporting a disability and the persistent equality gaps in degree outcomes and employment rates for disabled students.
  • I encourage all higher education providers to take heed of the recommendations outlined in today’s report. We need to work in partnership with disabled students to better understand their needs, further develop the evidence base on what works and ensure efforts across the sector are not made in vain.

International

The latest International HE Commission evidence session covered the International Student Voice and how institutional policy should change to better support international students in the UK. If you missed it you can watch the 1 hour session here.

The Commission summarise the session:

  • The student panel explored rhetoric versus reality for international students in the UK. There was recognition of the benefits of the independent study style and how this supported personal and academic development.  The opportunity to learn from other people and cultures was also welcomed, but a concern that students felt ‘othered’ by the host community – that more focus on creating a sense of a coherent student community would benefit all students.  The importance of actively fostering positive identities and focussing on the contribution of international students rather than their economic value was repeatedly emphasised.  Any focus on economic returns needed to include the student view of return on investment.
  • In discussion of what universities could do to encourage a sense of “belonging” – it was noted that clearer structures for achieving academic success and for building social connections and cross-cultural communities were essential. It was also recognised that integration doesn’t “just happen” on campus, it needs to be facilitated and curated by universities. It was also noted that work opportunities can also a significant contribution to socialisation. More broadly, the need for greater pastoral support was reiterated, and within that systematic measures to address issues of financial hardship.

The Commission also announced eight new commissioners, including its first two student commissioners:

  • Professor Shitij Kapur – President and Principal, Kings College London
  • Professor Andrea Nolan – Convener of the International Committee of Universities Scotland and Principal & Vice Chancellor, Edinburgh Napier University
  • Lucy Stonehill – CEO, BridgeU
  • Sanam Arora – Founder and Chair, National Indian Students and Alumni Union
  • Wendy Alexander – VP International, University of Dundee, Professor of International Education, Higher Education Trade & Investment Envoy, British Council Trustee
  • Katie Normington – Midlands Enterprise Universities Board Member and VC, De Montfort University
  • Sára Kozáková (Student Commissioner) – Co-Chair of UKCISA’s Student Advisory Group and currently perusing a master’s degree at Newcastle University after completing her UG study at Portsmouth University.
  • Siqi Jia (Student Commissioner) – A recent University of Glasgow graduate, currently working for Deloitte with a strong focus in the employability area

The future for the Commission is unclear because it was established and is chaired by (former universities minister) Chris Skidmore. However, Chris has confirmed he will stand down as an MP at the next election.

Other news

Creative sector: The House of Lords Communication and Digital Committee reported on the challenges facing the UK’s creative sector and spoke out against the DfE’s sweeping rhetoric about low value courses arguing that the Government’s policy is hinder the creative industries. Wonkhe have a blog.

Admissions: Parliamentary Question – Ensuring AI admissions software does not undermine the fairness of the HE application cycle.

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. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

HE Policy update for the w/e 3rd February 2023

Business Engagement, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Transfer, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement

office fNews galore. We cover all the major news and provide short commentary and links on the specialist interest topics.

Party politics: tertiary reform?

The next general election is constantly on the minds of policy makers. Last week Kier Starmer rowed back from Labour’s traditional position of abolishing HE tuition fees. This week attention has turned to what could be learnt from Wales’ review and reform of education which has resulted in a joined up tertiary education system. Andy Westwood writes for Wonkhe suggesting that Wales could be a blueprint for policy and suggesting Labour should prioritise tertiary reform over tuition fees.

Some snippets to whet your interest:

  • While the higher education funding system looks unsustainable in its current form and surely can’t survive the next Parliament without reform, it does not follow that it is sensible to try and fix it in isolation from other parts. 
  • …there is likely to be a series of policy priorities that will affect both colleges and universities as Labour draw up its manifesto, alongside any potential plan to reform tuition fees and higher education funding. But designing centralised policy solutions separately – e.g. by focusing solely on full-time university tuition fees but not on lifelong learning, apprenticeships or day-to-day funding for FE will only bake in the silos and systemic incoherence that cause so many problems for people, places and businesses.
  • The Welsh model, if not perfect, is certainly better than that currently in England…, we have three competing and very different systems – a centralised funding and management body (ESFA) running (and underfunding) FE, as well as schools, a market regulator (OfS) and an entirely separate and different system for apprenticeships (IFATE). Adult learning remains a poor relation and a low priority for each. The three funding systems are also different – direct funding and loans but managed places, uncapped markets with tuition fee loans, employer levies and grants (and limited access across routes to means-tested maintenance)…it is complex and counterproductive. And both in part and overall, it is failing.

Chris Millward (former Director for Fair Access at OfS) agrees with Westwood and is keen to bring technical and academic together in a cohesive tertiary system. He also suggests Government could reduce regulation in the areas that are a priority such as higher and degree apprenticeships, modular (shorter) learning, and advanced technical or research courses. Especially if they’re in geographical areas where the Government wants to drive growth and attract investment by aligning skills and innovation around a university presence. Finally, he suggests increasing fees (only by inflation) where institutions can demonstrate excellence beyond a threshold (I.e. we’re back to TEF related increases – which the House of Lords originally threw out). You can read Millward’s blog for Research Professional in full here.

Lifelong Learning

Earlier this week THE reported the Government were considering uncontroversial legislation surrounding the Lifelong Learning loan entitlements. These loans allow students to borrow up to the equivalent of four years’ worth of student loan funding across their whole life to spend as they will including on shorter or modular courses (more here). The loans are expected to be particularly attractive to mature students who wish to retrain or change careers (assuming they don’t already have a degree). Previous PM Boris Johnson pledged to introduce the LLE by 2025.

The background:

  • In May 2022, the government said in the Queen’s Speech that it would introduce a higher education bill to implement the LLE in England and, “subject to consultation”, a minimum entry requirement (MER) for individuals to be eligible for student loans, as well as student number controls (SNCs).
  • After that consultation [results promised soon], the Department for Education was said to favour capping numbers on courses using outcomes measures including the proportion of graduates going into “managerial or professional employment”, and an MER set at two E grades at A level. However, ministers changed and current HE Minister Halfon is said to be far less supportive of MER plans. Other sector commentators are also opposed: Any move to reopen the door to minimum entry requirements or student recruitment limits would be extremely concerning and against modern universities’ core principles of inclusion, aspiration and the power of education to transform lives (Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive of MillionPlus).
  • Lord Johnson of Marylebone, the Conservative former universities minister, said Ministers must rethink their approach and allow “much greater flexibility in terms of what courses will be eligible for LLE funding…Learners wanting to access specific skills do not necessarily want or need courses that are simply credit-bearing modules of existing qualifications…The DfE needs to ensure that learners have a much broader choice of courses and credentials – credit-bearing and non-credit-bearing – if the LLE is to fulfil its potential. Lord Johnson was also an opponent to student number controls while he was HE Minister.

The rumours were correct! The Government introduced the Lifelong Learning (HE Fee Limits) Bill on Wednesday. The Bill aims to build upon previous legislation and provides the legal framework to underpin credit-based learning, set fee limits and update legislation in relation to the Access and Participation Plans. It:

  • Introduces a new fee limit method which limits the amount a provider can charge for a course or module based on credits. This means the amount a provider can charge a student is proportionate, whether the student takes up a short course, a module or a traditional full course.
  • Enables the Secretary of State to set maximum chargeable credits per course year, so that students are not being charged disproportionately for whatever course they wish to undertake.
  • Introduces the concept of ‘course year’ as opposed to an ‘academic year’, to allow fee limits to apply with greater precision according to when the course actually starts. This aims to support more flexible patterns of study.

The Bill’s financial commitments remain as expected – students may receive a loan entitlement, equivalent to four years of post-18 study (£37,000 in today’s fees) which can be used over their working lives. This will be available for both modules of courses and full courses, whether in college or at university. If will fund provision between level 4 and 6 so first degrees, higher technical qualifications, HNCs and HNDs.

Wonkhe add: It is recognised that not all courses fit a credit-based modular model – nursing is cited as one example of a “non-credit-bearing” course that will be funded at a “default” level equivalent to a standard number of credits. Prices for all credits will vary depending on institutional registration, TEF award, access and participation plan status, and specific fee limit designation as of now – there will also be separate credit values for placements, study abroad, and credit transfer. Of course, Wonkhe also has a new blog on the topic.

Commenting on the Bill’s introduction Dr Arti Saraswat, AoC HE Senior Policy Manager, makes some good points:

  • Implementing this by 2025 will be challenging and will depend on publishing a detailed rule book, putting the correct systems in place and, most importantly, ensuring programmes are ready so that students can enrol on courses on a more modular basis. Ensuring the scheme has been tested through a thorough pilot process will be vital to building trust in the new system.
  • There is still work needed to explain who will be eligible for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, where they will be able to use it and how those institutions will be regulated. Colleges already have a track record of teaching HE on a more part-time, flexible and individualized basis to adult learners but this activity has diminished in recent years creating a genuine challenge in rebuilding capacity, at a time when the UK needs higher skills to boost productivity and grow the economy.
  • There are wider challenges involved in reinvigorating adult higher education. The LLE and credit-based student loans are important technical fixes but are not enough on their own. Access to maintenance support is essential to ensure students can afford to study on a flexible basis.

Research

There is lots of research related news. Here are a series of links and blogs which cover the main announcements.

Innovation vision: Last Friday Chancellor Jeremy Hunt set out his goals for the UK. On research and innovation he included:

  • UK world leader in digital and tech, green and clean energy sector, and creative industries
    • Created more tech unicorns than France and Germany combined
    • Fintech in the UK attracted more funding than anywhere in the world outside of the US
    • UK Covid vaccine has saved more than 6m lives around the globe
    • Largest offshore windfarm in the world
  • Golden thread running through industries in the UK – innovation
    • UK ranks 4thglobally in innovation index, responsible for all the productivity growth
  • Hunt asked innovators to the help the UK achieve something both ambitious and strategic
    • He wants the UK to be the next Silicon Valley and for the world’s tech entrepreneurs and life science innovators to come to the UK
    • UK universities, financial sector, and government will back them
    • Government determined to make the UK a tech superpower
  • Confidence in the future starts with honesty in the present
    • UK weakness: poor productivity, skills gaps, over concentration of wealth in the SE
    • Brexit opportunity – make Brexit a catalyst for bold choices
  • Plan for growth – not a series of announcements, but a framework for policies in the future

And lots more:

  • Research Professional: the growing tensions around spinouts at British universities.
  • Impact data contribution to society: The British Academy and the Academy of Social Sciences have launchedresearch into what REF impact study case data can tell us about the contribution of the arts, humanities and social sciences to the wellbeing of society, culture and the economy. The research is intended to provide a robust evidence base on which the higher education sector and policymakers can build to articulate the value of research and its impact on society. (Wonkhe 26/01).
  • The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committeehas published a report on research and development tax relief and expenditure credit
  • 45 UK researchers were successful in winning grants from the European Research Council recent round. UKRI’s Horizon Europe guarantee covers the funds while association is still up in the air
  • Policy influencing: HEPI published a report on how policymakers currently interact with research and how researchers lobby policymakers.
  • Lost money:Top UK economists have criticised £6 million a year in “perverse” quality-related cuts to their field, part of more than £100 million lost in the social sciences more broadly, despite a sharp improvement in Research Excellence Framework ratings. (THE)
  • Women’s Health Strategy for England – implementation.
  • Research security: article in The Times; Wonkhe blog
  • Intellectual Property: The N8 Research Partnership – an alliance of eight universities in the north of England – has delivereda statement on rights retention, strongly recommending that researchers “do not by default transfer intellectual property rights to publishers and instead use a rights retention statement as standard practice.” (Wonkhe)
  • ARIA: We’ve been writing about ARIA for so long that it feels like old news. However, it’s only right to mention the Government has now formally launched ARIA and it was legally established on 25 January. The link contains basic information about the purpose of ARIA and Wonkhe inform that Five new members have been appointed to the board, including former chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce Kate Bingham and new Chief Financial and Operations Officer Antonia Jenkinson and that ARIA also announcedthat it would begin recruiting programme directors in the week of 6 February.
  • NHS Clinical Research at risk: The Lords Science and Technology Committee wroteto the Steve Barclay (Minister for Health and Social Care) warning that the current state of clinical research, pressures on the NHS, and a declining workforce is putting the future of clinical research in the NHS in jeopardy. The committee also emphasised that without urgent action patients will miss out on innovative treatments and the UK will miss out on economic growth. This webpage gives the best summary of the situation and the Committee’s recommendations which include mention of universities. Postdoctoral career insecurity is also mentioned and the Committee recommend offering longer contracts with the expectation of permanent positions to follow.
  • International collaboration: New Wonkhe blog – Becoming a science superpower relies not only on national research capacity but finding reliable international partners.
  • Research catapults: A new blog on Wonkhe – Catapults in context – Catapults are getting more funding and more political attention. But what do they do and what are they for?
  • Innovation: UKRI announced their cross-research council responsive mode pilot scheme which offers funding for interdisciplinary ideas that transcend, combine or significantly span disciplines. The full fund is worth £32.5 million and UKRI intend to make 26 awards.
  • R&D tax credits for small and medium sized enterprises are still contentious and Shadow BEIS Minister Chi Onwurah voiced concerns during oral questions: AMLo Biosciences is a Newcastle University spin-out whose groundbreaking research will save lives by making cancer diagnosis easier and more accurate. AMLo spends millions on research and reinvests all its research and development tax credits into R&D. The Government’s tax credit changes will halve what AMLo can claim, meaning less research and fewer new jobs. Its investors may ask for it to move abroad, where R&D is cheaper. Many Members have similar examples in their constituencies. Will the Minister explain why the Government issued no guidance, gave no support and had no consultation on the changes to SME R&D tax credits? Does he accept that whether in respect of hospitality heating bills or spin-out science spend, the Government are abandoning small businesses? Kevin Hollinrake (Small Business Minister) responded on behalf of the Government suggesting that the Government are trying to fix the problem: Clearly, we have to balance the interests of the taxpayer with the interests of small business. We have to make sure that the money that is being utilised for R&D is properly spent, and there were concerns about abuse of the small business R&D scheme. It is good that the Treasury is now looking into the matter and looking to move towards a simplified universal scheme, which I would welcome and on which there is a consultation. I absolutely agree that we need to make sure we have the right support for research and development in this country, not least for SMEs.

Parliamentary Questions:

  • ARIA funding flexibility.
  • Monitoring the UK’s innovation clusters
  • Confirmation of the total Government spend on R&I in 2018 as £12,765 million, 2019 as £13,542 and 2020 as £15,266
  • Horizon Europe: If the UK does not associate to Horizon Europe, the Government will be ready with a comprehensive alternative, including a suite of transitional measures and longer-term programmes, funded from the budget set aside for association to European programmes. As stated in my speech at Onward UK on 11 Jan 2023, these programmes will enable the UK to meet its global Science Superpower and Innovation Nation ambitions. Details of the transitional measures have already been published, and the Department will publish more detailed proposals on the longer-term programmes in due course.

Regulatory: OfS under fire

Matt Western has been demonstrating his worth as Shadow HE Minister recently by asking a series of useful parliamentary questions. This includes Matt questioning Minister Halfon on whether the OfS will increase the registration fee for universities (because the fee is set by DfE). Halfon’s response:

  • No final decision has been made on any fee increase. The department is currently considering the level those fees should be set at for the 2023/24 academic year, to ensure that the OfS can perform its important functions effectively, ensuring students receive high quality education and value for money.
  • This includes continuing investigations to address pockets of low quality HE provision and deliver new duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

It’s this last element that’s the kicker because fee increases are expected to be tied to the newer closer regulatory interventions on course quality and free speech.

You’ll recall a couple of weeks ago that the mission groups wrote to a select committee urging them to look how OfS regulate the sector. The Russell Group have spoken out again, on the same issue because the proposed increase in registration fees is of 13-15% whilst student maintenance loans were only uplifted by 2.8%. Dr Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group stated:

  • We’ve been clear with Department for Education that, before any increase in the Office for Students’ fees is considered, the regulator should demonstrate clearly how this extra funding will bring genuine benefit to students and how it plans to show that it is itself operating in the most efficient and effective way… It’s a frankly bizarre move given the perspective of the maintenance loan uplift, and also because it is not clear if the Office for Students has actually asked for this level of increase. Instead, the 13% figure seems to be coming more from political angles and linked primarily to responsibilities the Office for Students may get if and when the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill becomes law.
  • Instead of bumping up its fees…the Office for Students should be cutting them, and substantially…
  • while Parliament wrestles with the closing stages of the Free Speech Bill, maybe it should instead put a little more effort into scrutinising existing legislation and the priorities of the Government, its departments and the regulator with respect to students as they try to stay focused on their studies while their maintenance loans run out.

Dr Tim Bradshaw wrote further on the topic in a HEPI blog and you can also read the Russell Group’s analysis on student losses as maintenance loans fail to keep up with inflation here.

Another corker from Matt Western that the Government slightly sidestepped is whether the OfS Director for Free Speech will commit to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. All HE institutions have been pushed hard in recent years to sign up to the definition. Minister Coutinho stated: … We remain committed to the IHRA definition and our belief that providers should adopt it… The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will require reasonably practicable steps to be taken to secure freedom of speech within the law. The Director will oversee the free speech functions in that context.

The OfS, who haven’t been sitting idly by whilst the Russell Group launched their offensive. On Friday Wonkhe reported that: The Office for Students (OfS) is seen by providers as “seeking conflict”, lacking independence from government, and poor at communicating, according to findings of independent research into its relationship with the sector. As a result it has set out plans to “refresh” its engagement with providers – a blog from chief executive Susan Lapworth sets out actions including better communication channels, careful consideration of consultation lengths, and visits to institutions to “improve mutual understanding”.

The research that Wonkhe mentioned was actually published in July and this entertaining Wonkhe blog picks out the highlights from the research feedback. Seven months passed in which OfS had plenty of time to ruminate on their response/action and on Thursday Susan Lapworth published her own blog setting out what OfS would do. Here’s a comment from ‘Andy’ about Susan’s blog (published on Wonkhe):

  • The blog follows Susan Lapworth’s now traditional approach of apologising for the fact that the sector doesn’t understand the OfS, and promising to try and explain more clearly why everything they do is excellent, while not engaging with any substantive criticisms or issues. Coming across, as always, as someone very much untroubled by doubt.
  • The blog also comes with the function to comment but, as always, even mildly critical comments are not published (which is perhaps why the blogs never have any comments on them).
  • There are, as the article gently implies, no obvious signs that anything is going to get any better.

TEF: Finally the last thing anyone who was involved in the recent TEF exercise will want to read about now is…well…TEF. There is an easy read blog (yes it’s Wonkhe again) which contemplates TEF 4.0 and considers whether to embrace it or firmly place one’s head in the sand. Enjoy!

Students

Student Affordability

  • Reassurance from Paul Blomfield MP who chairs the APPG for Students writing about why students should be a priority in cost of living discussions within Parliament.
  • A useful Commons Library briefing the value of student maintenance support details how student maintenance support levels have changed over time and explores whether it’s enough, parental contributions and eligibility. A key point is that the real terms value of loans reduce by 7% in the current academic year and 4% for 2023/24 with the impact that the reduction is larger than any real cuts seen in student support going back to the early 1960s.
  • Parliamentary question confirming there are no plans to offer a repayment holiday on student loans when a graduate falls on hard times.
  • Scotland have suspended their student rent cap stating it had limited impact on annual rents set on the basis of an academic year.
  • Jersey have confirmed that the previous temporary (2022) increase in student maintenance will become permanent. However, the administration are coming under fire because the funding arrangements for next academic year haven’t yet been released.
  • Wonkhe report that Rising costs are “ruining” the university experience by 54 per cent of students, according to new pollingon the cost of living. Seven in ten have considered dropping out, with 37 per cent of these citing living costs as the main reason. The survey, conducted by Opinium on behalf of higher education software provider TechnologyOne, covered a representative sample of more than 1,000 university students across the UK in December and January.

Additional Hardship Funding: In our recent policy update we covered the announcement of additional student hardship funding for 2022-23. Overall there is £11.1m through full-time student premium, £1.6m through the part-time student premium, and £2.3m through the disabled students’ premium.The OfS has now shared allocations with providers and tasked them to consider how to distribute the additional funds. What is interesting policy wise is that Wonkhe highlight that the money is a redistribution of funds which were originally designed to support preparation for the Lifelong Loan Entitlement and “emergent priorities” funding. So, another Government initiative that under Rishi’s administration the brakes have been applied to (just lightly). This slowdown could mean that the PM is taking a more considered approach to previous policy initiatives rather than steamrollering them out…or if could just mean a general election is looming on the who-knows-how distant horizon.

Student Accommodation: Wonkhe cover resistance to the Government’s plan to abolish fixed term tenancies: A group of universities, student accommodation providers, and landlord bodies have written to the government warning against the abolition of fixed-term tenancies for students renting privately. The letter, co-signed by Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern, argues that the introduction of open-ended tenancies to the student housing market, as proposed by the government, will “undermine the stability and proper functioning of the sector” which is “dependent on property being available at the start of the academic year”. The Telegraph reports on the letter.

Quick news and blogs

Admissions: BTEC still under threat

  • Opposition to the removal of funding for some vocational qualifications continues. The Lords have been vocal in their opposition and a cross-party group urged Education Secretary Gillian Keegan to withdraw plansto cut funding for recently reformed applied general qualifications, such as BTECs.
  • Recent analysis from the Protect Student Choice campaignrevealed more than half of the 134 qualifications currently available (undertaken by 200,000 pupils) and included in the DfE’s performance league tables would be ineligible for funding from 2025.
  • The letter to Minister Keegan included high profile figures such as previous Education Secretaries of State David Blunkett and Ken Baker, former Education (and HE) ministers David Willetts and Jo Johnson, the Deputy Speaker of the Lords Sue Garden, and Labour peer Mike Watson. The letter highlights that previously they had been assured that only a small proportion of the applied generals would be removed, which is why they had supported the Skills Bill. It also states that qualifications to be defunded, which include health and social care, science, IT and business, are popular with students, respected by employers and valued by universities and states that removing them will have a disastrous impact on social mobility, economic growth and our public services. The Peers call on Keegan to remove the qualifications from the scope of the level 3 review and reforms, which are being cut to streamline the current offering and make way for new T Levels.
  • In other House of Lords news a rather eminent group of Peers has come together to launch a select committee on 11-16 year olds’ Education with reference to the skills necessary for the digital and green economy. Former HE Minister Lord Jo Johnson will chair the Committee and you can view the other Members here. The calibre of Peers participating makes this committee one to watch. They include a former education secretary, a Teachers Union general secretary, the Lords deputy Speaker, president of the Independent Schools Association, co-chair of the engineering APPG, and several party education spokespersons.

HESA statistics | Grade inflation (deflation)

It’s always an interesting half hour to peruse the HESA data releases. This time it’s the first look at the overall 2021/22 student statistics. For ease of reading we’ve popped the overall key points here. They cover student numbers and characteristics including disability, ethnicity, deprivation, religion, and age; by subject (spoiler – languages are down again); and qualifications awarded. HESA also published an insight brief – some interesting points:

  • A decrease in EU enrolment coupled with an increase in non-EU international numbers – unsurprisingly there may be a link with the end of home fee eligibility for EU students and the introduction of the Graduate route visa scheme.
  • A decrease – although not to pre-pandemic numbers – in the number of students being awarded first class honours, following a surge in high grades during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 academic years. The government will be pleased although they want it to go back to pre-pandemic as a start and maybe further.
  • An increase in students studying abroad as pandemic-era travel restrictions were lifted.
  • A decrease – although not to pre-pandemic levels – in students living in their parents’ or guardians’ home, following an increase during the height of the pandemic. (Remember this data is before current cost of living concerns.) This is interesting because we wondered if there would be a permanent shift, it seems not but cost of living may mean this changes again.

Wonkhe have a blog on the data release.

On the topic of grade inflation OfS Chief Executive, Susan Lapworth, stated: Today’s figures show a welcome decrease back towards pre-pandemic levels in the proportion of first class degrees awarded to students graduating in the 2021-22 academic year…Left unchecked, grade inflation can erode public trust and it is important that the OfS can and does intervene where it has concerns about the credibility of degrees. Universities and colleges understand that they must ensure that the degrees they award are credible and properly represent students’ achievement. This is the way to maintain the confidence of students, employers and the wider public in higher education qualifications.

Susan also mentioned the UUK and GuildHE initiative which aimed to increase transparency in degree awards: Last year, members of Universities UK and GuildHE committed to address the rising proportion of first class and upper second degrees and pledged to return to pre-pandemic levels of grading. We welcomed that commitment and will continue to monitor trends in classifications to understand factors that may contribute to the sector’s performance.

UUK has a good explainer about the initiative on their website (stick with it through all the drop down clicks): How universities are turning the corner on grade inflation.

If you’re interested in the latest statistics on HE staff from HESA you can read the analysis here.

ChatGPT

ChatGPT was THE topic of conversation over the last few weeks. Here’s a selection of links which vary in their focus and take on the topic.

Inquiries and Consultations

  • Here is the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current calls.
  • Other news
  • Targets and measures: Wonkhe blog –  the unique strengths of higher education are at risk from the excessive standardisation of targets and performance measures.
  • Emerging Tech: Previous universities minister Chris Skidmore has been appointed to support Sir Patrick Vallance’s work to accelerate the development of emerging tech. Chris will work on green industries. Skidmore will be stepping down as an MP at the next election
  • Degree apprenticeships: Wonkhe tell us Universities UK has released a ten point plan on how to grow degree apprenticeship provision, calling on government to review the costs and burden of regulation – the scale and complexity of which currently “creates a potential barrier to entry” – and reopen the register of apprenticeship training providers, so that universities new to delivering degree apprenticeships “can take the first step to be able to deliver them”. Also: Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education Robert Halfon praised universities’ role in promoting degree apprenticeships – including excellent Ofsted inspection reports, which he noted as confirming his belief that universities “are brilliantly placed to deliver these unique programmes”. And we have a Parliamentary Question: Promoting degree apprenticeships to disadvantaged young people.
  • Health workforce: The Welsh government has announced an expansion in training places for the health professional workforce in Wales, with £281.98 million to be invested in 2023-24, an eight per cent increase from the current year. The funding includes £7.14 million for medical training places. (Wonkhe.)
  • Refugee/asylum access to HE: Wonkhe report that a new online portal has launched to promote opportunities for refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK to access university. The Displaced Student Opportunities UK website – created by Refugee Education UK, Student Action for Refugees, and Universities of Sanctuary – is intended to showcase academic scholarships, grants, short courses and mentoring for displaced students.
  • Minimum entry requirements (or limiting student numbers): there is an interesting THE article Second chances. It covers the Netherlands universities who may revert to using lotteries to decide which students are admitted to fixed-capacity programmes. Supporters say we do believe it would promote equity between students. Interesting, but this approach isn’t (currently) being considered for UK HE policy.
  • THE has an article on the MPs who also work in Universities. It’s mainly concerned with the impact of second earnings but does mention how having an MP on staff, even temporarily, could be a lobbying route. This Evening Standard article quantifies the detail a little more on second earnings noting former PMs within the top earners but unfortunately doesn’t dish on how much universities are paying their parliamentarians.
  • Carbon footprint: The Government wants HE (and FE) to publish carbon footprint data by 2025 but there isn’t a reliable data collection system in place. Wonkhe: Enter the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) and a Standardised Carbon Emissions Reporting Framework agreed in consultation with every relevant sector group you can imagine. It’s a voluntary, consensual requirement that will align with an updated and streamlined HESA estates management record and aims to meet providers where they are in terms of collection and reporting. Here’s the blog.
  • New Uni: Blackpool to receive £40 million to build a new carbon neutral university.
  • Turing troubles: Opinion piece in THE on the problems with the Turing Scheme. The authors recommend offering funding more promptly and flexibly.
  • Contract cheating: Wonkhe blog – Daniel Sokol describes a case of blackmail by an essay mill and proposes a new approach to how universities should handle such cases.
  • Student dropout: Wonkhe blog – What sort of support should be offered when students drop out of university? Stephen Eccles shoots and scores.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

 

HE Policy Update w/e 21st December 2022

EU, international, open accecss, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement

There’s something for everyone in this final policy update of 2022. Although things have calmed down a bit as we approach the festive period there is still lots of news. We’ve kept matters as light as possible for you with links to more information for those that wish to read more. Here’s wishing you all a relaxing break, happy Christmas and a good start to the New Year.

Parliamentary News

Parliamentary session to continue: It’s been confirmed that the King’s Speech (and therefore, the State Opening of Parliament in 2023) will be delayed allowing more time for the Government to pass its legislative agenda. This is because when the Parliamentary session is closed any outstanding legislation drops away automatically unless a carry-over motion is passed to enable it to continue. (You’ll recall the Freedom of Speech (HE) Bill was carried over from the previous session because the Government is determined to get it on the statute books). The monarch then re-opens parliament with a speech setting out the Government’s legislative plans for the coming months. The Government indicated they plan to dissolve Parliament in Autumn 2023 meaning the new parliamentary session may begin in November 2023. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said: “The programme is very full and to make sure we have the time we need to get through the packed agenda the Prime Minister wants to deliver, the session will run until autumn 2023.” A cynic might mention it’s also getting awfully close to the next general election. Both Houses will return from recess on the 9 January.

HE priorities: Education Select Committee session: HE Minister Robert Halfon was examined by the Education select committee and HE received a brief mention. Miriam Cates MP queried whether HE funded provided value for money considering the lower funding settlement received by FE institutions. Halfon stated he welcomed the impact and successes of both sectors and suggested that he wanted the sector to focus on social justice and bringing the most disadvantaged the opportunities to get enter higher or further education. This is a personal agenda for Halfon and he has been very open about his interest in social justice, social mobility and accessibility/performance of HE institutions in supporting disadvantage. Cates was unimpressed with Halfon’s response and pressed for a full review of joined up education post-16, not just 16 to 18, stating that the investment in HE did pay off in terms of jobs and prosperity.

Spring budget announced: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt will deliver the Spring Budget on 15 March 2023. This fulfils the obligation to produce two forecasts in a financial year (required by law).

HERA – the Christmas edition

The DfE published their policy paper assessing the Higher Education and Research Act 2017: post-legislative scrutiny. HERA was a major change to HE operations and was pushed through the Commons (against substantial Lords backlash) by Jo Johnson in 2017. It established the OfS and UKRI in their current form.

Although the paper seems to have come out of the blue the DfE are expected to do this for each major piece of legislation within their remit after the first 5 years. As the paper is written for the Education select committee we may well see a new inquiry in this field in the new year.

Even if you’re not interested in the paper per se it has an interesting synopsis of the sector from page 8 onwards. And what is a Christmas edition of anything without a review of the major occurrences over the last (5) years? Here are the ‘high’lights we’ve contended with:

  • Left EU
  • Global pandemic and all that implied: changed social and economic environment and remote/hybrid/blended learning
  • New regulatory and funding system
  • Revolving door for ministers each with their own stamp on specific priorities (printing and accommodation costs, free speech, antisemitism, university advertising, post qualification admissions, the role of universities in school performance
  • All the big things: disadvantage, quality and outcomes, Lifelong Loan Entitlements, degree apprenticeships, T levels, broader structural HE reform. Cue the adverts… phew!

On the paper Wonkhe say: It is meant to properly reflect on the act – what has worked, what hasn’t, and what needs to change, with a view to making sure we have the best law we can. The publication we got made a start – and there are some eyebrow-raising lines in there about the way the underlying assumptions and government policy have shifted, often quite radically. They have a blog for those who enjoy Wonkhe’s analyses: David Kernohan wonders if we really have the system that was asked for.

HEPI have a related blog: Have the Higher Education & Research Act and the Office for Students delivered for new and ‘challenger’ providers?

Regulatory & Free Speech

HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill

The HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill received its third reading in the House of Lords. The Lords made more amendments and have passed it back to the House of Commons. So we are now in the final stage of ‘ping pong’ where the Commons and Lords tussle over the ultimate wording before the Bill passes to the King for Royal Assent.

The Third Reading was a calm affair but the Lords didn’t roll over. Minister for the School System and Student Finance, Baroness Barran, stated she was pleased to have introduced a definition of “freedom of speech” to the Bill and that this was one of the many important clarifications as a result of their discussions in the House (during Report Stage). She also confirmed they had avoided inadvertently giving alumni the same protections as current students and had clarified that the new power given to the OfS to give guidance on supporting freedom of speech was not related to the duty on higher education providers and their constituent colleges to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. She recognised as a breakthrough the banning of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual misconduct, abuse or harassment, or other forms of bullying. However, the proposed right to bring a civil claim in the courts against universities remains a big bone of contention. The Peers voted to remove it during the Report Stage and Baroness Barran said the Government would “reflect on this verdict and the arguments advanced to support it very carefully indeed.”

Lord Wallace spoke about the appointment of the new OfS free speech director. He asked the Government to “take particular care in finding a candidate for that position who will be accepted—possibly even welcomed—by the sector he or she sets out to regulate.” This reminds us of the controversy of partisan appointments that dogged Boris Johnson’s premiership.

Lord Wallace also drew attention to the outstanding question of the degree of overlap between this Bill, the recent National Security and Investment Act and the current National Security Bill, all of which imposed new duties and reporting requirements on universities. This has still not been fully resolved.

Baroness Thornton, Shadow Equalities Spokesperson, said “the jury it still out” on whether the Bill was necessary at all, but she was confident the legislation was being sent back to the Commons in an improved state. She drew attention to other outstanding matters, such as the role of the students’ unions. She also agreed with concerns around the risk of duplicating security regulations, and the risk that the Bill might pose to the business community, the commercial relations and the trading futures of universities.

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Affiliated) said she hoped the Commons would “restore some version of Clause 4 and material remedies for victims of cancel culture on campus”.

OfS Annual Review: The OfS published its annual review. In her commentary of the report, OfS Chief Executive Susan Lapworth, sets out the key OfS priorities for 2023 including how tackling poor quality provision, ensuring students from all backgrounds are able to enter higher education and succeed in their studies, and protecting freedom of speech on campus are the key priorities for the OfS in 2023.

Parliamentary Questions: Regulatory

Matt Western (Shadow Universities Minister) asked some interesting questions regarding OfS funding:

In response to a parliamentary question Robert Halfon (Universities Minister) confirmed that the department’s priorities for higher education are consistent with those set out in guidance to the Office for Students (OfS) earlier this year. This includes a continued focus on delivering the government’s skills mission, driving up quality and ensuring equality of opportunity and real social mobility for students. The Government will only issue the OfS with new guidance for the current financial year if new issues or priorities emerge. 

Matt Western also asked: whether a review of the potential changes required to the admissions system for HE course in advance of the delivery of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (2024/25) has been conducted.  Robert Halfon responded:

  • To support the design and delivery of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement (LLE) from 2025, the department will continue to engage with sector bodies across both further education and higher education, as well as the Student Loans Company and regulatory bodies.
  • On admissions, the department is continuing to work with UCAS and sector bodies to improve transparency, reduce the use of unconditional offers, and reform the personal statement to improve fairness for applicants of all backgrounds.
  • The LLE consultation and other ongoing engagements are an important part of delivering a transformation of student finance. The department is carefully considering the contributions and will publish a response in due course.

Research

Pro-innovation regulation

The Treasury published a policy paper: Pro-Innovation Regulation of Technologies Project: Terms of Reference which announces a review considering how to regulate emerging technologies.

Pro-innovation regulation focuses on ensuring that we can safely and ethically accelerate the development, testing, route to market and uptake of new technology products. It should give confidence to innovators. This is key to making the UK an attractive destination for R&D projects, manufacturing and investment, and ensuring we can realise the economic and social benefits of new technologies as quickly as possible.

The Treasury also announced the appointment of five industry experts to help accelerate the development and deployment of emerging technologies in the following key UK growth sectors:

  • digital technology
  • green industries
  • life sciences
  • advanced manufacturing
  • creative industries.

Experts will collaborate with industry and Sir Patrick Vallance to advise on new rules that use regulatory freedom to promote innovation.  The aim of the review is to establish the UK as the best regulated economy ensuring that industry and investors have the certainty needed to drive innovation, investment and growth through anticipating new developments in emerging technologies. The experts are:

Matt Clifford, Chair of the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), and Priya Lakhani OBE, a member of the AI Council, have been appointed to support work to harness new digital technology such as artificial intelligence.

Sir John Bell, sits on Genomics England’s board of directors, and Camilla Fleetcroft, Eclevar UK’s Vice-President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs, will work on cultivating the life sciences sector and help drive the next generation of discoveries, such as delivering genomics-enabled clinical trials.

Jane Toogood, Chief Executive of Catalyst Technologies at Johnson Matthey, will take forward work on building green industries like hydrogen and battery development in the UK.

Future Research Assessment Programme

UKRI/Research England published three reports on the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP). Taken together the reports speak out against a fully metricised system for the next REF but do suggest ways in which AI might support low risk areas of the exercise. The reports are:

  • Harnessing the metric tide: indicators, infrastructures and priorities for responsible research assessment in the UK
  • Responsible use of technology in research assessment
  • REF outputs analysis: maximising the use of REF data

Quick news:

Horizon Europe extension: The Government announced an extension to the support provided to UK Horizon Europe applicants, originally launched in November 2021. The extension will ensure that eligible, successful UK applicants will continue to be guaranteed funding. The guarantee will be in place to cover all Horizon Europe calls that close on or before 31 March 2023. Eligible, successful applicants to Horizon Europe will receive the full value of their funding at their UK host institution for the lifetime of their grant. Successful awardees do not need to leave the UK to receive this funding, which will provide reassurance for future collaborations, and support UK researchers whether association is confirmed, or otherwise.

Science Minister, George Freeman, has been busy recently:

Wonkhe blog: The International Science Partnerships Fund is out, and James Coe thinks it has implications for UK research post Horizon.

The Lords Science and Technology Committee wrote to the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation George Freeman with the findings of its inquiry into people and skills in UK STEM. And THE has a blog on the topic: Academic careers: Teetering progress: A House of Lords committee has warned that the precarity of academic careers is exacerbating the UK’s growing skills gap in STEM.

HEPI blog: Research Leadership Matters: Agility, Alignment, Ambition

Graduate outcomes and employment

Sir John Holman, Independent Strategic Adviser on Careers Guidance wrote to DfE and DWP Minister regarding England’s careers guidance system.The letter summarises his recommendations for the future of the careers guidance system. It draws upon 18 months’ of consultation and conversations with careers practitioners and sector representatives, employers, schools, colleges, local bodies and a range of other interested parties, as well as a review of available evidence from the DfE, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the wider sector. You can read Holman’s recommendations (9 Strategic Principles) here. It’s worth a read, put it on your January list! HE and Skills Minister Robert Halfon welcomed the recommendations and stated he will consider them carefully – and that the Department will publish more information on future plans for the careers guidance system “in due course”.

Graduate employment: A catch up on the news that graduate employers aren’t focussed on degree outcome grade. The Times broke the story. Quickly followed up by Research Professional: The Times reports that fewer than half of graduate employers asked recruits for a 2:1 this year, according to a report by the Institute of Student Employers. And by Wonkhe: For the first time, less than half of graduate employers require a 2:1, new findings from the Institute for Student Employers suggest. The data from its 2022 student recruitment survey – drawn from 168 responses covering 32,110 hires, with larger organisations somewhat overrepresented – saw only 48% of responding employers having such a stipulation for graduate roles, down from 57% in 2021.

Data: The DfE released a new type of LEO data dashboard (and a report) looking at the earnings of individuals post GCSE over a 15 year period. Socioeconomic, demographic and education factors are within the data providing a granular picture. It isn’t directly comparable with the Graduate Outcomes data the HE sector routinely uses as there are small methodological differences, not least the inclusion of non-graduates. The box on page 23 explains the differences.  However, it provides a comparator for graduate and non-graduates of the same age (rather than mixed ages with all of the same graduation cohort). For the data buffs page 22 onwards explains the graduate/non-graduate comparators re: the value of a degree.

Key points:

  • People have diverse employment pathways in their 15 years. Taking into account the 50 most common pathways only accounts for 31% of individuals.
  • The report aims to show how education and labour market activities and outcomes differ for different groups of individuals despite similar education levels. Particularly, to see how education and labour market outcomes differ for graduates and non-graduates with different individual characteristics.
  • Higher proportions of individuals completing a degree are in employment, having higher average earnings than those without a degree and with lower proportions claiming out of work benefits.
  • Higher levels of education lead to better labour market outcomes for all. This compares like with like so an individual with SEN or who was in receipt of free school meals (FSM) has a better labour market outcome than their SEN/FSM counterpart who left education at a lower level.
  • However, when the comparison is not like with like certain groups have lower labour market outcome than others. Although in these cases those completing a degree have better labour market outcomes than their comparators who do not have a degree. For example, there are higher proportions of graduates that were FSM eligible in employment and lower proportions claiming benefits than non-FSM eligible nongraduates. Of those in employment, the FSM eligible graduates earn around £5,000 more per year than non-FSM eligible nongraduates and their earnings potential seem to have different trajectories.
  • For a few select sub-groups a higher education level does not always lead to better labour market outcomes than their peers with a lower education level. For example, individuals with a SEN statement even with a degree tend not to outperform those without SEN who only studied to a lower educational level.
  • There is considerable difference in the earnings trajectories and outcomes for graduate and non-graduate individuals in employment (see Figure 15 below). There is a £10,000 difference in annual average earnings for graduates and non-graduates in employment 15 years after finishing KS4 (for most graduates this is around 8 to 10 years after graduation). Though the curve for graduates flattens after a sharp increase as more graduates join the labour market, it continues to increase at a faster rate than that for non-graduates

The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysed the data in more depth using measures to control multiple background characteristics. They found prior attainment and subject of study at HE level to be very important in determining [financial] returns to degrees. Similarly, this report finds:

  • Those with poorer attainment at KS4 that go on to complete a degree do not have better labour market outcomes than individuals with better KS4 attainment that do not complete a degree. This is also the case for SEN statemented individuals when compared with those not identified with SEN.  However, every other sub-group that completed a degree benefits from the better labour market outcomes due to the degree premium. Table 14 below illustrates this for SEN individuals. If you are interested in this sectionality do read the key findings, paragraph 159 on page 86 onwards as they cover all the groups with lower outcomes in a more granular way.
  • Black and minority ethnic groups tend to have higher levels of post 16 education, when compared with those from the White British group, yet not necessarily better labour market outcomes
  • The report states it is novel in that it analyses the data by SEN, first language and school type (in relation to employment outcomes and benefit claims).
  • Graduates are more likely to be employed than non-graduates, however, there is an interesting regional effect (see Table 18 below). Bear in mind this is based on the individual’s current region (which is not necessarily their key stage 4 region) – yet the rankings by region for those completing a level 3 are exactly the same in table 19 on page 80 – suggesting it’s a regional thing more than a graduate thing

HEPI

HEPI published many interesting papers and blogs over the autumn semester. Here are the most relevant and recent apart from those featured elsewhere:

 Students are evenly split on whether or not they regard it as the responsibility of their higher education institution to find them a job, with one-quarter (34%) believing it is and only a slightly lower proportion (30%) saying it is not.

 Most students look to their careers service to offer help with finding an internship or placement (63%), writing their curriculum vitae (63%), interview preparation (61%), finding a career (60%) and hosting careers fairs (52%). Providing mentoring and life skills also has substantial support (49%) while far fewer students expect help with finding a holiday job (22%).

 A majority of students (53%) think ‘all university courses should be designed mainly with future employment in mind’ and a further 37% say ‘some university courses should be’. Very few students say only ‘a small proportion’ (4%) or no university course (4%) should have a focus on employment.

 However, over half of students oppose the proposal in England of providing reduced access to student finance to those opting for courses with poor employment prospects; 53% ‘strongly disagree’ and an additional 16% ‘disagree’.

 Nearly one-half of students are either ‘very confident’ (14%) or ‘quite confident’ (32%) that they are likely to find their desired job on graduation but a substantial minority are ‘quite unconfident’ (21%) or ‘very unconfident’ (9%).

 When it comes to the type of employer, many students say they do not mind (34%) what size their future employer is. Among those with a preference, a similar proportion chose larger employers (28%) with 250 or more staff than small-to-medium sized enterprises (31%) with 249 staff or fewer.

 More students prefer employers who consider characteristics such as work experience and extra-curricular activities (41%) than prefer employers who mostly care about degree results (30%).

 When asked what they regard as ‘the best definition of a “graduate-level job”‘, students split three ways: 30% say a graduate-level job is one where an employer requires applicants to have a degree; 29% say it is one that is officially classified as ‘graduate-level’; and 26% say it is a position that pays above the student loan repayment threshold.

 Nearly half of students are either ‘very confident’ (16%) or ‘quite confident’ (31%) that they will secure a graduate-level role, while 17% are ‘quite unconfident’ and 8% are ‘very unconfident’.

 Around half (49%) of students have not used their careers service to date, which is slightly higher than the proportion who have (43%).

 Those who have used a careers service are more satisfied than unsatisfied, with 59% saying they were ‘very happy’ or ‘quite happy’ with the service they received. However, 13% were ‘quite unhappy’ and 7% were ‘very unhappy’.

 Those who have not used their careers service were given an opportunity to explain why. Some said they do not know what their careers service has to offer, some believe the careers service would not support their specific career needs and some feel they are too early in their course to consider career planning.

 Students want a single digital learning platform that is easy to use.

The vast majority (87%) of students would like to see digital learning resources streamlined onto a single platform with one, intuitive user experience, where texts are easily readable and navigable. The platform should be compatible across a range of devices and accessible on- and off-campus.

Students want to be able to access digital resources without waiting lists.

Nearly all (95%) of students say digital copies of their course books should be available to them at the point of need, without waiting lists.

Although many students say that they do not worry about being able to access course books through the library when they need them, 59% of students who are impacted by such worries say the wider availability of digital resources would improve their mental health.

Students want digital recordings of their lectures.

The most in-demand digital learning resource is lecture recordings. Students want to see recordings uploaded onto a single, user-friendly platform and for them to be made available for the duration of their courses.

HE Sector Resource

The Institute for Fiscal Studies published its fifth annual report on education spending in England. Here’s the summary of HE spending provided by Dods Political Intelligence:

  • Up-front spending on teaching resources per higher education student has continued to decline steadily, standing at £9,300 per year for the 2022–23 university entry cohort. That is around £1,700 less per year in real terms than for 2012–13 entrants, largely because the cap on tuition fees is now 18% lower in real terms than it was in 2012–13.
  • The nominal freeze in fees is set to continue for another two years, adding to other financial pressures on universities. The most important pressure in the near term is likely to be the cost of any settlement with staff over pay and pensions.
  • A major package of student loans reforms was announced in February and has substantially reduced the expected long-run cost of higher education, shifting a larger share of the cost onto graduates themselves. Changes to future repayment thresholds mean most students from the 2012 to 2022 university entry cohorts can expect to repay substantially more, with middle-earning graduates hit hardest.
  • From the 2023 entry cohort onwards, a lower repayment threshold, a longer repayment period and a lower interest rate mean most students can expect to repay their loans in full and to repay roughly the same amount as they borrowed in real terms. High earners will no longer pay off more than they borrowed, and only low-earning graduates’ loans will be subsidised by the taxpayer.
  • For current students, higher-than-expected inflation has eroded the real value of maintenance loans. Students in 2022–23 will be entitled to borrow 10% less towards their living costs than they were in 2020–21, a cut equivalent to £90 a month for the poorest students. Without a change in policy, living cost support for future students will be permanently lower, causing hardship for some.

Admissions, Access & Participation

Disabled students: Wonkhe blog – Endless reports have promised progress on access failures for disabled students – but how much difference has been made? Meg Darroch and Jim Dickinson take some regulatory ideas for a spin.

Disadvantage gaps: The Education Policy Institute published a report on the disadvantage gaps in England during 2021. It finds that much of the reduction in the disadvantage gap over the last decade has been reversed during the pandemic. The report mainly focuses on key stage 4 and 16-19 education. If this report was of interest you may also be interested in Ofsted’s annual report,

HEPI blog: Designing outreach with people of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller heritage – a lesson in critical unlearning and Raising institutional aspirations for supporting Gypsy, Traveller, Roma, Showmen and Boater students in higher education

HEPI blog: Why every university needs an advisor for care leavers and estranged students

Admissions:

HE – massification

Research Professional ran a thought-provoking article describing how the massification of HE has resulted in an unequal and divided workforce as graduate culture permeates companies. It describes ways to rebalance HE to provide vocationally oriented degrees – but this isn’t article just trumpeting skills, it believes HE should be universally funded and as natural as completing secondary schooling. It supports levelling up – although not in quite the same style as the Government originally intended through technologically advanced regions. Also: At the same time, there would need to be a corresponding growth in graduate jobs. This would involve spinouts and cooperative ventures with research universities, incentivised through their endowments to build these kind of links. Regional government would need to be involved in planning health, care and education systems, and the supply of graduate jobs in the health and education sectors would need to be underwritten before graduate employment in private and not-for-profit sectors caught up. It’s alternative in its solutions and it is easy to dismiss the article but closer readers may find aspects that resonate.

International

Transnational £: DfE estimates of the value of transnational education (TNE) for 2020 (this includes education programmes that take place outside the UK, through partner institutions or distance learning or international campuses).

  • Total UK revenue estimated to be £25.6 billion in 2020, an increase of 0.8% since 2019 in current prices.
  • HE was the main contributor with £19.5 billion of export revenue – equating to a share of 76.3% of the value of total exports, representing an increase of 6.3 ppts from 2019.
  • In 2020, international (EU and non-EU) Higher Education students at UK universities generated an estimated £18.0 billion in exports through living expenditure and tuition fees (£15.9 billion in 2019), which accounts for around 70.2% of the total value of education exports and TNE activity (62.6% in 2019).

The National Statistician, Sir Ian Diamond, has explained why international students are included in the net migration figures.

  • The United Nations definition of a long-term migrant is: “A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence.” International students will typically live in the UK for more than a year, and so meet the definition of a long-term migrant.
  • However, we recognise this definition is narrow and doesn’t always meet user needs. We have plans to explore alternative definitions, including estimating net migration by reason, such as study. This will help provide more context to headline measures of migration, addressing recent findings from the ONS research that most international students will leave the UK after their studies are concluded.

Wonkhe blog – For Nick Isles, recent ministerial comments about international students have been dangerously underinformed.

Parliamentary Questions:

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. There are not any new consultations or inquiries this week.

Other news

Gaming: Grants for R&D and recruitment of video game graduates (parliamentary question).  

OIA appointment: The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE (OIA) announced the appointment of Helen Megarry as the next Independent Adjudicator. Helen takes up the post in May 2023, and will jointly lead the organisation with Ben Elger, Chief Executive. Megarry is currently the Independent Adjudicator for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and Valuation Office Agency, and independent reviewer of decisions made under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. She was previously Deputy Housing Ombudsman at the Housing Ombudsman Service, and a Board member of the Ombudsman Association. The current Independent Adjudicator, Felicity Mitchell, will continue to jointly lead the organisation until her term of office concludes at the end of April 2023.

PTES: Earlier this month the 2022 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey results were released. Research Professional has a nice write up suggesting that satisfaction levels among PGT students have bounced back after hitting record lows during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Power sharing:  Gordon Brown’s Commission on the UK’s Future (Labour party) published A New Britain: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy – a report on devolution and constitutional reform. Key points:

  • A new “constitutional statute” will be written which codifies social rights for citizens and the devolution of power amongst the 4 nations.
  • Local authorities will be given the opportunity to gain new powers from central government.
  • A “suite” of R&D programs will aim to drive growth across England via local growth.
  • The UK Infrastructure Bank will be given an explicit mission to address regional economic inequality in the provision of infrastructure.
  • Local authorities will be given longer term funding settlements
  • Local people will have greater input to local authorities spending priorities.
  • Powers for devolved nations will be broadened
  • Councils of the Nations and Regions and of England will open opportunities for shared decision making from local government, devolved and national government.
  • New rules and enforcement procedures for standards in public life.
  • The House of Lords will be abolished and replaced with an elected 2ndchamber which will focus on protecting the constitution, devolution and standards in public life.

The report was strongly criticised by Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

Consumer Law: New OfS enforcement deal raises consumer law compliance pressure on universities. Higher education providers in the UK need to step up their efforts to protect students’ rights and comply with consumer laws, an expert has said as the Office for Students (OfS) and National Trading Standards announced a new partnership. The OfS’ partnership with National Trading Standards is a sign that the higher education regulator is moving into “regulatory compliance mode”, according to Rami Labib of Pinsent Masons. Read more.

Fees & Funding: Wonkhe blog – It was a trip down memory lane as graduate tax – and all the reasons to reject it – were rehearsed at a sector event. But the sector needs some bigger thinking on fees and funding soon, argues Jim Dickinson.

Enterprise: The All-Party Parliamentary University Group praised the work of the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education in the blog: How can higher education be at the forefront of enterprise and entrepreneurship?, 

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

 

HE policy update for the w/e 9th December 2022

EU, international, parliament, policy

Education oral questions always makes for a busy time in the HE world. As you’d expect international students and the cost of living featured heavily, along with some interesting responses from Skills and HE Minister Robert Halfon. Ex-Universities Minister Chris Skidmore will stand down at the next election, there’s a new regulatory typology of HE institutions, FE colleges are to be reclassified (watch out HE), and the big news is the HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill is back in Parliament with a bang!

Parliamentary News

Fresh blood incoming

Parliamentarians are indicating whether they intend to stand as MPs at the next general election. Previous Universities Minister Chris Skidmore has publicly announced he will not stand for re-election. Research Professional comments: Skidmore was a relatively popular figure in the universities minister role and always sought to use his position to celebrate the good that universities can do, playing down any rhetoric about limiting access to universities for those who wished to attend. Skidmore says he intends to “devote the next stage of my career to delivering a more sustainable future for energy and our environment”.  It’s a loss for the HE sector as Skidmore was a stabilising voice genuinely valuing the benefits that universities bring to individuals and the country as a whole.

Politics Home has a running list and commentary on the MPs who will not contest their seat at the next election. It includes some notable long-standing figures. Since Rishi has assumed the leadership clamour for a general election has calmed however parliamentary rules mean the next election must be ‘called’ by December 2024 (so held by January 2025 at latest). The Conservatives are still behind in the polls and they will attempt to plan an election for the time that gives them the best chance of winning.

Education Questions

In Education Oral Questions last Monday, John Penrose MP raised whether the grades of undergraduate degrees in similar subjects were of an equal standard across all HE courses/providers (“no employer or student thinks a 2:1 in English or chemistry is worth the same from every university.”). Instead of seizing on the opportunity to lecture on grade inflation or low quality courses or passing off responsibility to the OfS, Minister Halfon gave a measured response: Our important sector-recognised standards are agreed by the UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment to ensure that degrees equip students with the skills and knowledge required for them to succeed. Provider autonomy on what and how they teach is vital, and we must avoid driving standardisation over innovation. The Office for Students regulates to these agreed standards and investigates any concerns.

Halfon also stated: my priority for higher education…it is skills, jobs and social justice, by which I mean ensuring that disadvantaged people can climb the higher education ladder of opportunity.

It’s both nothing new and revealing at the same time.

Education Select Committee: Skills background

Nick Fletcher (Conservative) has been appointed to the Education Select Committee. Previously an electrician, he holds a HNC in electrical engineering. This represents yet another appointee to the Committee with a strong skills background and who did not follow the ‘traditional’ A levels to University route. The Government’s messaging on skills and the importance of technical routes have been clear for some time. They’re not just about achieving parity of esteem but also about drawing students away from the academic pathway into skills focused routes which the Government believes will address business skills gaps and productivity – improving the UK’s economic potential. (Some also believe it’s because student loans and support are so costly to the public purse. However, a longer-term thinker may recognise that skills may travel down the same route in future.)

While he is from the party that formed the current Government (and he will be expected to vote on party lines during divisions) he isn’t a minister and his role on the select committee is to engage and investigate education matters as a parliamentarian. I.e. he can interrogate the Education Minister, challenge Government policy and report alternative recommendations. Select Committees are part of Parliament’s scrutiny and checking function. So is a background that fits so well with current Government policy a coincidence, or are they taking advantage of someone who will clearly understand and support the skills agenda and has less experience of the benefits of HE.

Free Speech – the latest

The HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill returned to the Lords. We provided a rundown of the Bill so far in our last policy update.

Last week the HE commentators pointed out what a rough ride the Bill received at Committee Stage in the Lords and are gleefully trumpeting about the proposed amendments for Report Stage. Wonkhe outline some of the amendments: New amendments laid for the Report stage of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill aim to ensure the publication of guidance for students’ unions, prevent universities having to disclose sensitive commercial information to the OfS, and clarify the OfS free speech director’s duty to report to Parliament.

And:

  • Earl Howe has laid several amendments to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill on behalf of the government, following robust criticism from the Lords at Committee Stage. Should the government get its way, the definition of freedom of speech used in the bill will now be compliant with the definition from the European Convention on Human Rights, alumni will not count as “members” of a university or college for the purposes of the bill, and the statutory tort in Clause 4 will only be exercisable by those who have “sustained loss” and who have had recourse to a complaints scheme – including the ability to complain to the Office for Students (OfS).
  • Though Lords will welcome these changes to the bill, it was notable at committee that many expert observers had fundamental misgivings about Clause 4 – and it is unclear if the government has gone far enough to satisfy them. You can read the latest amendments under “amendment papers” on this page.

Several of these Government sponsored amendments are to ameliorate concerns the Lords raised previously. The concessions are not significant, it’s almost as if they’re doffing a cap towards the Lords in hope the Bill will pass through the Report Stage quickly and without other more fundamental objections being raised which would derail this already delayed legislation. However, there are more meaty amendments tabled – more on these later.

Wonkhe also released a blog before the Bill was considered: Three remaining issues with the Free Speech Bill as we head towards report stage in the Lords. It makes some interesting points about student bodies that aren’t as sizeable and well-resourced as the Bill makers had in mind. And on academic failure – Wonkhe point out how the bill is a route around the academic judgement ruling.

Blogs:

THE- Fighting talk:  House of Lords opposition to the Westminster government’s plans to allow universities and students’ unions to be sued over perceived breaches of free speech shows there is “little support for introducing scope for endless litigation”, peers say.

James Herbert in THE on free speech and the need to challenge students: The University of New England president explains his fearless approach to freedom of speech on campus, including the trans/sport debate. Excerpts: more university leaders should embrace controversy… Herbert considers universities to be “marketplaces of ideas” and says good ideas require conversations between different groups of thinkers. “If students get offended because they’ve been told that they shouldn’t get offended or made to feel uncomfortable – I think they should absolutely be made to feel uncomfortable. That’s what university education is all about…It’s strange for me because we’re at a university. But a few people believe that there’s a correct perspective on whatever the issues may be, and if you don’t adhere to it, you’re wrong and a bigot…”

This week the Report Stage has come and gone and we’ve seen some of those amendments pass. Several amendments refining the definition of free speech were accepted. Two notable amendments were also passed.  We explain the basics of these and have added in Wonkhe’s brief explanation of the implications for the HE sector. For more detail do read this Wonkhe piece, it’s excellent.

  • Universities will no longer be able to use non-disclosure agreements in some circumstances (including sexual misconduct or bullying). There was a campaign about this recently and Michelle Donelan was urging universities to sign up to a very wide ranging pledge.

Wonkhe: Universities in England are to be banned from using non-disclosure agreements to settle complaints on campus. The amendment to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill – passed during Report stage for the Bill with cross-party support – will apply to any complaint relating to sexual abuse, harassment or misconduct, and other forms of bullying or harassment. Lord Collins of Highbury, the shadow deputy leader of the Lords, said his amendment would “stop a nasty practice of non-disclosure agreements inhibiting free speech”.

On the passing of this amendment Wonkhe say: It’s a major, significant and somewhat surprising win for student and staff campaigners.

The other amendment related to the right of those claiming that their academic freedom had been limited to bring a claim for damages against a university or a student union in the civil courts.    The main argument was whether this was necessary, given that the OfS has regulatory oversight of this area.  No-one expected the government to concede on this, but the amendment removing it was passed in the Lords. Previous Universities minister Lord Willets and others led the charge.

Wonkhe summarise: Meanwhile, the Bill no longer has Clause 4, following peers deciding to vote for an amendment tabled by Lord (David) Willetts. The controversial clause – a statutory tort which would have given those injured by a restriction of their freedom of speech an absolute right to bring a case to a civil court – was defeated by 213 votes to 172. Former universities minister Lord Willetts had expressed concern at government claims that the tort would be “a backstop”, arguing that “if one of these controversies flares up, there will be a lawyer’s letter in the first 24 hours”. The Telegraphand the Times cover the story, and you can watch the Report stage debate on Parliament TV.

It is always interesting to understand what the amendments that were not accepted would have covered. Here’s a quick run through.

The amendment to avoid inconsistency between the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was NOT adopted. Th amendment recognising threats to academic freedom such as academics being able to say that they disagree or agree with values that are imposed on them by institutions trying to make their name as doing the right thing was NOT adopted. The Baroness expanded on her threats: institutions signed up to “third-party organisations that set targets, codes and charters which, in effect, impose demands, often on the curriculum, research priorities and academic content of academic life, that are determined not by the demands of the discipline or scholarship but by fashionable external ideological diktat.” This was the “real threat” to freedom. An interesting point but it was NOT adopted. However, Earl Howe, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, said the Bill would already protect the freedom of academics to put forward opinions about the curriculum content adopted by their provider or third party organisations with which the provider was affiliated.

The amendment which allows academic staff to seek redress if they felt the likelihood of their securing promotion or different jobs at a provider had been reduced as a result of them exercising their free speech was not moved (therefore NOT adopted).

Next is the third reading, and potentially the ping pong between both houses over the final matters.

Research

Horizon Europe

It feels as if Horizon Europe has been a dead duck for so long even the smell has disappeared now. The UK Government blame Europe, Europe blames the UK Government. There is no association for the UK (currently) and the Government is rolling out alternative support schemes. The Government continues to maintain the party line that association is preferred but plan B is underway. Last week was no exception with Science and Research Minister George Freeman emphasising continued efforts to associate with Horizon Europe: I was in Paris last week negotiating. We are still actively pushing to be in Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom, but we have made provision, and early in the new year Members will start to see that we will be rolling out additional support for fellowships, innovation and global partnerships. If UK scientists cannot play in the European cup, we will play in the world cup of science.

The Minister also confirmed that the £484 million alternative investments will be distributed by existing trusted and experienced UK delivery partners, such as UKRI.

Additional Funding

Wonkhe reports: Research England has confirmed allocations for the additional QR funding and Research Capital Investment Fund (RCIF) grants announced by the government last week. Eligible providers – those already in receipt of QR or RCIF funding for 2022-23 – will receive an allocation in proportion to their current entitlement, though with QR funds capped at £5 million and RCIF at £3 million. UKRI has also outlined the disbursement mechanisms for the new Talent and Research Stabilisation funding, which will be allocated according to historic performance in four Horizon 2020 schemes.

Quick News

Regulatory

Regulatory Quick News

  • THE – Great expectations: Almost two-thirds of English universities could potentially face sanctions for failing to meet new quality thresholds that were introduced last month, analysis suggests.
  • US regulatory signs: THE – Small print:US universities are promising to make clearer to students their actual costs, agreeing through their nationwide leadership associations to create a single standard for understanding and comparing net prices and financial aid offers.
  • Research Professional report that more than 300 people applied to be “boots-on-the-ground” inspectorsfor the Office for Students.

Regulatory Parliamentary questions

OfS typology

The OfS has developed a new typology system for classifying providers. Institutions are categorised by two criteria – by financial attributes and by the make-up of their student population or study characteristics (aka tariff).

The new system is disappointing as a missed opportunity to change the language in this area and move away from the unhelpful Russell Group/everyone else that the press can’t seem to move beyond.  But in practice, the chances of these becoming standard labels in policy circles is very small, given the catchy names they have selected. The OfS specifically state: These typologies have no regulatory status. They do not imply any particular regulatory status or judgement of regulatory risk for providers in one group rather than another, and they will not inform our regulatory decision making.

As such they will sit alongside the other categorisation that Research England have done for the KEF – that has not become mainstream (or at least not so far).

Wonkhe have a blog.

FE reclassification

We’ve seen lots of reclassifications over the last few years. Reclassifying how student loan payments were counted within the national debt resulted in teeth gnashing about the huge outlay on HE students and led to calls for more skills based technical education instead of the academic route. The reclassification of R&D spending resulted in artificially hitting R&D targets early (prompting sector fears the Government would not honour the original spend intention).

Now the Office for National Statistics has ruled that FE colleges should be reclassified as public sector bodies. Research Professional (RP) do a wonderful job at explaining the implications of this. And remind us that the implications for higher education are huge as ONS will also perform a classification review on the HE sector (reporting December 2024 – interesting given the potential election timing).

In short, the review could impact on universities’ ability to borrow money and insidiously impact on Governance. RP say:

  • Suddenly, the direction of travel for government policy on skills does not look so benign for universities. Once, Theresa May spoke about universities working more effectively with schools. Now there is a genuine risk that universities could be taken under the control of the DfE as part of public sector education.
  • Anyone familiar with the onerous principles of the higher education restructuring regime proposed by the DfE during the Covid-19 pandemic as the condition for any government bailout will understand what would be at stake for universities brought under direct control by Whitehall. Everything from executive pay to enforced merger would be on the table.
  • The fact that this is now a possibility through the mechanism of the 2022 Skills bill ought to send alarm bells ringing throughout university boardrooms. Universities will be quickly lawyering up and deploying the lobbyists in force.
  • Some will say this could not possibly happen to universities, there are international treaties that guarantee the autonomy of higher education institutions. The same used to be said about the Free Speech bill, and there are no international treaties that require universities to be designated as part of the private sector.
  • If we consider last week’s news that the government was said to be considering only allowing “elite” universities to recruit international students, is a pattern of intention emerging from the government? For example, might we see a scheme of internationalisation and research intensification for the Russell Group and nationalisation and skills provision for everyone else?

Students

There has been a surprising amount of focus on students’ eating habits last week alongside big coverage of the latest analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which suggests that England’s poorest students will receive £1,000 less support with living costs in real-terms this academic year than they would have in 2020/21 – a significant cut each month. Key points:

  • If inflation forecasts had been accurate, maintenance loan entitlements would have kept rising over the last two years. Students from the poorest families studying outside London and living away from home would now be entitled to £11,190 in living cost support – around £1,500 more than they are actually receiving. Put differently, these students are £125 per month out of pocket merely because of errors in inflation forecasts.
  • These cuts in support will affect students potentially for many years to come. There is no mechanism in place for these cuts ever to be undone, as past forecast errors are not considered when the adjustment in entitlements for the following year is determined.
  • This means that – unless and until policy changes – any cuts will stay in place. Indeed, if the government continues to use out-of-date inflation forecasts for uprating, the IFS expects a small further cut in the real value of entitlements next academic year.
  • Most students fall through the cracks in the government’s ‘cost of living’ support package. They are typically not eligible for benefits, and so are not entitled to targeted payments for those on low incomes. Most households received £400 towards their energy bills this winter but, as others have pointed out, we still do not know whether students living in halls will be eligible for payments through an expansion of that scheme.
  • Government ministers regularly defer to universities’ own ‘hardship funds’ and to the £261 million of funding from the ‘student premiums’. IFS say this overstates the funding available to support students in financial hardship, and the real value of funding being provided has in fact been cut compared with last year.
  • The expectation of financial hardship may prevent prospective students from attending university in the first place. Analysis from the IFS shows a 21-year-old student could earn nearly £1,200 more working in a minimum wage job this academic year than they will receive in maintenance support. This gap is set to increase to more than £2,000 next academic year – the biggest gap since the national minimum wage was introduced in 1999.
  • Correcting the fall in maintenance loan entitlements will be less expensive for the taxpayer than it may at first appear. This is because students can be expected to repay a portion of any extra maintenance support over the coming decades. The IFS estimate that restoring maintenance loan entitlements this academic year to the same real value they had in 2020–21 would cost £0.9 billion for the cohort starting university in 2022, or around 70% of the initial outlay. Completely correcting forecast errors made in the last two years would cost £1.3 billion for this cohort.

Research Professional cover the report: inflation-related cuts to maintenance loans are worse than first appeared. In the playbook they state: On Monday, skills and higher education minister Robert Halfon claimed in parliament that the government was doing “everything possible” to help students during the cost of living crisis. After today’s IFS paper, he may wish to revisit that analysis.

Parliamentary questions

A selection of the best news and articles relating to student matters this week:

  • A short exchange on student cost of living support in last Monday’s oral education questions. Excerpt – Skills Minister Halfon: I reiterate that we are doing everything possible to help students with financial hardship.
  • THE: Government action including more hardship funding, bigger maintenance loans and restored grants would all complement universities’ efforts to help students cope with the cost-of-living crisis, argues Sarah Stevens, director of policy at the Russell Group.
  • Universities Minister Halfon provides a comprehensive reply in response how the Autumn Statement (2022) supports students. He also states that a Treasury-led review will be launched to consider how to support households and businesses with energy bills after April 2023 (includes students).
  • Wonkhe: Learning from students – and from their data – early interventions are key in improving student engagement, so it makes sense that engagement data needs to be used as early as possible in targeting these. Low engagement four weeks into the first term offers an accurate prediction of retention – as engagement rises so too do predicted grades. And it turns out that the traditional “welcome week” may mean that September starts have a better overall experience than those who start in January. See blog: Drawing links between insight, practice, and student success
  • Spiking: Home Secretary Suella Braverman respondedto a letter from the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee on Spiking yesterday outlining the work the Department for Education and universities have undertaken to tackle spiking in night-time venues which was predominantly a communications campaign aimed at perpetrators. She also promised an update on the need for a specific criminal offence for spiking before Christmas and a statutory report on the nature and prevalence of spiking by April. (Wonkhe)
  • Wonkhe: The Financial Times has a pieceon the student housing crisis.

Alternative Student Finance

The Government has been promising Sharia compliant finance for almost a decade now and this was highlighted in last Monday’s Education Topical Questions. Clearly there still isn’t a solution (yet) and Skills Minister Halfon believes it will be introduced as part of the future Lifelong Learning changes. Here is a similar parliamentary question, and this the actual exchange that took place in the chamber:

Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): It is estimated that 4,000 Muslim young people every year choose, with a heavy heart, not to enter higher education because their faith bars them from paying interest on a student loan. David Cameron said nine years ago that he would fix that. Will the new ministerial team, whom I welcome, commit to introducing alternative student finance and give us some indication of when that will be?

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon): I am strongly committed to introducing alternative student finance, something my Harlow constituents have also lobbied me about. The issue is that we want, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to introduce the lifelong learning entitlement, and we will introduce alternative student finance in conjunction with that.

The constituency connection that Halfon mentions is important. MPs want to be re-elected (and a General Election is on the not-so-distant horizon. It represents the twin pressure on Ministers – the need to deliver on behalf of the Government and the need to represent and satisfy the views of those that ultimately elect them to parliament. Having a constituency connection may make the matter more pressing for Halfon and therefore may result in a system finally being set it in place.

Admissions

Personal Statements

Last update we mentioned HEPI’s paper on the inadequacies of admissions personal statements. Wonkhe have a rejoiner from a guest blogger: It may well be a good idea to rethink the personal statement, but for Katherine Lloyd Clark there are other admissions issues that are more pressing.

Snippets:

  • Universities themselves and the schools they support conspire to hide the real dynamics of HE admissions from the applicant and parent community. Universities are afraid to reveal that their processes have become progressively impersonal over time.
  • Now we dispatch beautiful branded CRM messages in bulk to inboxes, portals, and apps, praying that we don’t make a mistake affecting thousands. Our offer processes are automated, at least in part, grouping those with the same grades ready for release when the data analysts say it’s safe. 
  • Amid all this, the applicants themselves, quite rightly, just want some agency over their own future and to believe that the application process will deliver it. This is entirely reasonable…But unless you apply to…a discipline that offers an interview, agency will largely escape you. Volume dictates this. UCAS is flagging that there will be a million undergraduate applicants by 2026.
  • Are personal statements a key element of the problem? For the most part, no. Predicated and achieved grades still matter most, sadly.

Admissions Cycle – record numbers

UCAS’ 2022 end of cycle data highlights record numbers of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas (POLAR4 quintile 1) have been accepted onto a course – 32,420 students compared to 30,910 last year (+4.9%). It narrows the entry rate gap between the most and least advantaged to 2.1 – a record low.

Key points:

  • Growth in demand for places has not discouraged UK 18-year-olds, with 330,780 applicants this year – up from 315,945 in 2021 (+4.7%) and significantly higher than the pre-pandemic number of 280,815 in 2019 (+17.8%).
  • This uptick has translated into 277,315 UK 18-year-olds gaining a place, the highest-ever number to date – an increase on 275,235 in 2021 (+0.8%) and 241,515 in 2019 (+14.8%).
  • This despite more cautious offer-making from universities and colleges, leading to a 54.3% overall offer rate at higher tariff institutions, down from 59.7% last year.
  • The number of UK 18-year-olds securing their firm choice of course (200,615) is second only to last year’s high (214,015) – 72.3% of all placed UK 18-year-olds, compared to 77.8% in 2021.
  • A total of 761,740 applicants of all ages and domiciles applied in 2022 (+2.1% on 2021), of which 563,175 were accepted (+0.2% on 2021).
  • The overall entry rate for UK 18-year-olds is 37.5% this year, the second highest on record (slightly down on 38.3% in 2021 but up from 34.1% in 2019). Broken down by nation, the 2022 entry rates are: 38.4% in England, 40.6% in Northern Ireland, 32.4% in Wales and 30.1% in Scotland.
  • All regions in England bar one saw an uplift in 18-year-olds being accepted onto a course compared to last year. West Midlands saw the biggest increase (+2.5%) while the South West saw the only decline (4.6%) Accepted applicants in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland remained comparative to 2021 figures.
  • In total, 92% of applicants (all ages, all domiciles) received an offer, the same proportion as last year. UCAS analysis found that 21,080 active applicants did not have a place on results day (Free to be placed in Clearing), of which 12,010 were subsequently accepted onto a course (57.0%).
  • There has been a 22.1% increase in the number of apprenticeship views on Career Finder compared to last year.
  • Continued demand among international students of all ages – with the highest number of accepted applicants on record from China (+13.4% on 2021), India (+43.7%) and Nigeria (+32.7%).
  • This was the first year of T-levels results – the vast majority received an offer and 80.2% were placed.

Blog: Clare Marchant, Chief Executive of  UCAS, blogs for Wonkhe: Five key findings from UCAS end of cycle data for 2022.

Access & Participation

Care experienced students

UCAS published Next Steps: What Is The Experience Of Students From A Care Background In Education? stating that while care-experienced students aspire to HE 60% receive no specific support relevant to their circumstances when deciding on their options. Key points:

  • Education disruptions: 19% had moved schools once, 11% had moved schools multiple times.
  • Care-experienced students’ journeys are often longer and nonlinear: one third of applicants were aged 21 or above, compared to one fifth of applicants without a care background. Applicants were more than twice as likely to take the Access to HE Diploma.
  • Applicants have lower average attainment prior to HE and are more likely to attend lower tariff providers. 51% less likely than their non-care-experienced peers to achieve the highest grades and 30% less likely to be accepted at higher tariff providers.
  • Access to specific guidance about going to HE as a care-experienced student is inconsistent: 60% stated they received no guidance specific to being care-experienced during their application journey. Applicants seek advice from a wide variety of trusted people, not all of whom will have had access to the latest information and resources about UCAS applications or the specific support available in HE for care-experienced students.
  • The intersectionality of care experience with other personal characteristics presents additional challenges: these applicants are 38% more likely than non-care-experienced applicants to come from the most disadvantaged areas (POLAR4 Quintile 1), twice as likely to be from Mixed or Black ethnic groups, 79% more likely to identify as LGBT+, almost twice as likely to share a disability, and nearly three times as likely to share a mental health condition.
  • Applicants do not always talk about their circumstances with school staff: only a quarter were always open about their care background, and a third did not discuss this with anyone at school unless they had to.
  • They have positive expectations for support in HE: two thirds expect the pastoral and educational support and student living to be good or very good, and two in five believe the social and extracurricular support will be good or very good.
  • Applicants from a care background are motivated by career prospects, especially in health and social care: they are 179% more likely to apply for health and social care than non-care-experienced students, and 50% more likely to apply for nursing and midwifery.
  • HE choices are strongly influenced by applicants’ individual support needs: over three quarters prioritised access to mental health and wellbeing support, with financial support, accommodation, and pre-entry support also important influential factors.

Recommendations start on page 7 of the report.

UCAS’ Clare Marchant blogs for Wonkhe on the report findings: Bridging the gap between ambitions and access for care experienced students.

Social Mobility Commission: Employer Advisory Group

The Social Mobility Commission announced the membership of its new Employer Advisory Group (EAG) which aims to drive social mobility in the workplace in the UK and support the Commission’s employer focused programme of work. Scroll down on this link to read about the people appointed to the EAG.

You can also read the oral evidence on the work of the Social Mobility Commission examined by the Women and Equalities Committee here.

International

No promises or reassurance to the sector on international students were made in last Monday’s Education topical questions (although there were some weaselly words):

Q: Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) – …Can my right hon. Friend categorically confirm that the UK will continue to welcome students from across the word to all our universities?

  • A: Robert Halfon: I have good news for my right hon. Friend: we were proud to meet our international target of 600,000 students by 2030; we have actually met that target already. It is currently worth £25.9 billion to the economy and it will be £35 billion by 2030.

Q: Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) – Reports that this Government could cause monumental damage to higher education by restricting international students to so-called elite universities have been described by former Universities Minister Lord Johnson as a “mindless crackdown”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will not implement such a mindless policy?

  • A: Gillian Keegan – I can confirm that we have a world-class education system and we will attract the brightest students from around the world. That is good for our universities and delivers growth at home. We were proud to meet our international student ambition earlier this year to attract 600,000 international students per year by 2030. Today that is worth £29.5 billion and we are now focused on bringing in £35 billion from our education exports, which are the best in the world.

They’re both stock government responses which could mean (a) doom and gloom – the Government are making no effort to refute because they are seriously considering a reduction in student numbers (whilst trumpeting support for targets already reached) or (b) they are undecided on which side to come down – and weighing up all the factors (e.g. economics, income vs cost to the country, HE funding that isn’t drawn from the public purse, and the likelihood of  in-party revolt at a change to restricting international student numbers). Cynics would also point out the continued news coverage is distracting away from other Government business so may be serving them well.

Here is the piece that Carol Monaghan MP quotes from by former HE Minister, now Lord Jo Johnson who spoke out against curbs on international student recruitment last week. THE: Backwards step:  It is “hard to imagine” a policy more likely to torpedo the Westminster government’s higher education policy goals than a “mindless crackdown” on international student enrolment, former universities minister Lord Johnson of Marylebone warns.

The NUS have responded to the Government rhetoric on reducing international student numbers:

  • International students are our friends and colleagues, and benefit our lives at universities, colleges, in workplaces and communities across the UK beyond measure. The government is treating that rich diversity of experience and humanity like a number on a spreadsheet.
  • This is hugely cruel to those students, who have taken the brave step of travelling to pursue their education and sometimes moving their families across the world.
  • This move would be grounded in hypocrisy- the government starves the education sector of funding and forgoes concern for international students and migrant staff. This has encouraged and legitimised institutional strategy to exploit international students as cash cows through astronomical fees and violent visa regimes.
  • Against the backdrop of the UK skills shortage, it is laughable that the government would be actively preventing international students from studying here.

Dods report that the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for International Students are speaking out to raise concerns about the inclusion of international students in net migration figures and reiterating the findings from their 2018 inquiry which called for international students to be removed from the migration figures. The APPG for International Students has consistently argued against international students being counted in net migration figures, not least as international students are temporary immigrants with the overwhelming majority returning to their home countries on completion of their studies. Based on Home Office data from exit checks, the Oxford Migration Observatory reports that at least 98% of non-EU students leave the UK on time and before their visa expires.

Paul Blomfield MP, Co-Chair of the APPG International Students, said: Nobody’s concerned about international students in the debate on net headline migration numbers. They provide a huge benefit bringing nearly £30 billion a year to the UK economy, supporting jobs and businesses in every part of the UK, including those which the Government claims it wants to level up. This student group plays an important role in our universities, enriching our campuses, and they bolster Britain’s place in the world at a time when we need it.

Co-Chair Lord Bilimoria commented: As a former international student myself I know the value of the British university degree, our universities are the finest in the world along with the USA. The APPG for International Students recommended a target for international students which the government listened to and we have now crossed the figure set of 600,000. International students are one of the strongest elements of soft power the UK has, not only enriching the experience of our domestic students but building generation long links and friendships; there are more world leaders educated at British universities than any other country along with the USA.

Paul Blomfield MP: If the Government don’t welcome international students and their families, they’ll simply turn to one of the many countries that will. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary must think again and drop this backwards-looking proposal. Lord Bilimoria agreed and said: We are in a global race and many of our competitor countries do not include international students when calculating net migration figures as the vast majority of international students are not immigrants!

Degree apprenticeships

A Sutton Trust report The Recent Evolution of Apprenticeships: Apprenticeship pathways and participation since 2015 has garnered interest because it finds a greater underrepresentation on higher and degree apprenticeships from low-income background young people (those classified as older are represented in greater numbers. There is also an overall decline in apprenticeship starts over the last few years with this effect exacerbated for individuals from areas of high deprivation. This despite the continued emphasis the Government has placed on technical education and apprenticeships since the last general election, the 2017 Apprenticeship Levy changes, and an increase in apprenticeships as a route to employment from young people. No comparison is made between the levels of deprived young people who access HE degrees (traditional route) and the numbers accessing degree and higher apprenticeships. The report feels as though it misses the point on a number of occasions and the recommendations for change could be seen to be in line with the political approach of the Conservative party.

Recommendations (our comments in blue text):

  1. While the growth of degree apprenticeships in recent years is welcome, action should be taken to further boost the supply of higher and degree level apprenticeships targeted at young people, and advertised externally on portals such as UCAS or Find an Apprenticeship. Yet they don’t seem to consider revising their methodology to examine the effect that younger people from deprived backgrounds may take longer to reach degree level apprenticeships, nor investigate the link between mid-lower GCSE attainment meaning degree apprenticeships are not pursued as the younger ages.
  2. The apprenticeship levy should be reviewed, with social mobility and widening participation as an explicit criterion. The balance of apprenticeships across age groups, levels, those with equivalent qualifications and existing staff versus new starters should be examined.
  3. Measures should be taken to rebalance the profile of apprenticeships back towards those who are younger and more disadvantaged. This could include:
    1. Requiring employers to ‘top up’ levy funding for certain categories of apprentice, or otherwise incentivising the creation of apprenticeships most conducive to increasing opportunities for groups who need it most. A nifty route for the Government to spend less on degree apprenticeships, except for those top GCSE performing degree apprentices who are already making it. Although if skills gaps are the genuine aim one would hope the Government would remove this top up requirement for older degree apprentices (because it takes them longer to get there – otherwise surely this is a negative social mobility double whammy).
    2. A maximum salary ceiling for levy funded apprentices, meaning that limited public funding is concentrated on providing opportunities for those who would not otherwise be able to afford training.
  4. In order to improve transparency and ensure that apprenticeships are delivering for social mobility, levy employers should be required to publish anonymised statistics on the age, level, socio-economic background and salary level of apprentices, along with the proportion of new and existing staff benefiting from apprenticeships. So businesses supporting existing staff already on good salaries who are aspiring higher can be easily picked out of the data. It’s easy to understand the Government’s aim here – to ensure funding is spent on those currently outside of the workforce and train them up to a skilled worker from zero to hero. However, it is slightly at odds with the apprenticeship model of working and training within a company to meet their skills needs and gradually progress up the career ladder to highly skilled labour.
  5. Universities should step up access and outreach activities for degree apprenticeships, working in collaboration with employers and harnessing the experience, skills and resources of both.

Sir Peter Lampl (Sutton Trust): today’s report highlights that there is much work still to be done. Young people and those in deprived areas have not been the beneficiaries so far of this expansion. If we are to harness degree apprenticeships as a driver of social mobility, and as a high quality alternative to university, we need many more of these opportunities open to, and targeted at, 17, 18 and 19 year olds leaving school…we must take this opportunity to build a system that will create genuinely new opportunities for those who will benefit most. We need a step change to really deliver apprenticeships as the engine of opportunity they can be.

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: TASO call for evidence on risks to equality of opportunity | 23 December 2022

Other news

Transnational: THE – Farrar cited:  Universities will play a “critical role” in addressing some of the transnational challenges the world faces in the 21st century, the director of the Wellcome Trust says.

Graduate Mobility: THE article – Returning home after graduation? It’s more complicated than that: Research reveals more detailed picture of where students go to work after finishing their degree. It’s a quick read!

State scholarship: Parliamentary question from Shadow Education Minister Matt Western asking about progress on the establishment of a UK national state scholarship (announced February 2022). Halfon confirmed that the Government are considering the responses to the HE Reform consultation on the matter and will provide further information in due course.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

HE Policy Update for the w/e 17th November 2022

EU, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement, UKRI

We’re keeping the news as light as possible this week and running a catch-up feature on the important research announcements that didn’t reach you over the summer period.

Autumn statement

You can read the detail behind the headlines on the autumn statement here.

Education Select Committee – new chair

Robin Walker has been elected as the Chair of the Education Committee, beating Caroline Ansell, David Simmonds, and former schools minister Jonathan Gullis. Walker did a stint as Minister of State for School Standards (2021-22) as well as other non-education junior ministerial roles. He’s also participated in APPGs on Apprenticeships, Financial Education for Young People, Youth Employment & Outdoor education, and was recently elected as the vice-Chair for the APPG for Students.

The Education select committee is responsible for scrutinising the work of Government and holding them to account for education matters. In this Walker has stated he is keen to learn from different parts of the UK as well as internationally. He states he will continue Halfon’s (the previous Chair) work on skills, SEN, attendance and levelling up. However, he intends for the Committee to also focus on childcare, safeguarding and the cost pressures facing schools and families. There’s been no mention of HE. Walker has described himself as a constructive critic of the Government and stated he is passionate about creating opportunity for businesses and for people to escape benefit dependency

Walker is from a political family, his father was also an MP. He went to a private school and read history at Oxford, and he interned in a US Congressman’s office. Prior to his political career he ran his own public relations business, staying on as an advisor after his appointment to parliament. Ultimately, he had to resign his advisory position following a complaint that he was contravening lobbying rules. Prior to parliamentary appointment he was also the press agent to previous local Dorset MP Oliver Letwin. He was the first in his family to attend university and his siblings both work in education – one in SEN and the other in a literacy role. He states he is acutely aware of the challenges and costs of childcare. He also supports a rich curriculum and believes schools should teach a wide range of subjects including STEM, creativity, outdoor education, RSHE, languages, and the arts

In his School’s Minister stint he states he: Presided over the return to school after the pandemic; co-wrote the White Paper including the levelling up premium & Education Investment Areas; prioritised deprivation in the funding formula & delivered the largest ever cash increase in schools funding; Co-chaired the Attendance Action Alliance bringing together the Childrens’ Commissioner, schools and councils to tackle severe absence; reformed the National Tutoring Programme to be schools-led; supported early delivery of manifesto pledge on £30k starting salaries for teachers; made preparations for the first successful exam series in 3 years, and previously he launched the Natural History GCSE.

Walker has a clear focus on schools and children. It remains to be seen how quickly he’ll find his feet with the tertiary and skills agenda. The Chair of a select committee is a driving force in what a committee selects for their inquiries. This may mean HE matters feature less or simply continue in the vein Halfon started. Or he may delve into new waters to grasp the agenda. Focussing on deprivation and access to HE would be an obvious starting point.

Research – round up

A round up of the key news and announcements.

Science superpower lacks cape

The Lords Science and Technology Committee published “Science and technology superpower”: more than a slogan?, their report following the inquiry into Delivering a UK science and technology strategy. The report states that the Government’s unfocused strategy means that science policy has been let down by short-termism and a proliferation of disparate strategies without an overarching vision. They go on to state that there are a large number of government bodies with unclear remits and interactions, which means that it is often unclear who owns a specific policy. At the time of writing, there was no science minister, which further blurs lines of accountability. [There is now, although the division of responsibilities between George and Nus has yet to be clarified.]

The report points to the lack of an implementation plan as a key weakness and a barrier to becoming a high-tech, high-growth economy. Of course, with a new PM and even more ministerial changes to come the impetus behind the UK as a science superpower may wane. The Lords call on the incoming Cabinet to maintain the commitment to R&D funding and the focus on science and technology– it will be fundamental to economic growth and improving public services.

The Lords highlight areas of critique:

  • Internationally, the Government’s own-collaborate-access framework was meant to clarify policy on strategic areas of technology, but the Committee thought it was poorly understood and inconsistently applied. The failure to associate with Horizon Europe and cuts to Official Development Assistance have damaged the UK’s reputation as a collaborative partner, and risk damaging its science base.
  • The Government hopes to leverage private sector funding to reach the 2.4% target. It has identified areas for reform, such as public procurement, regulations, and pension rules, but these are perennial suggestions and the Committee was unconvinced that this attempt would more successful. Industry has been insufficiently engaged with the Government’s strategy.

The full recommendations to Government can be read on pages 56-61. The Government was due to respond to the Committee’s report by now. However, given the political disruption it isn’t surprising the response is late.

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Chair of the Committee, reiterates the key points in her statement:

  • The Government has high ambitions for science and technology, which the Committee welcomes…But science policy has been far from perfect. R&D is a long-term endeavour which requires sustained focus and an implementation plan. But we found a plethora of strategies in different areas with little follow-through and less linking them together. There are numerous bodies and organisations with unclear or apparently overlapping responsibilities, and more are being added in the form of the National Science and Technology Council and the Office for Science and Technology Strategy. It is often unclear who is accountable for individual policies, and critically, for delivery. 
  • The Government has suggested areas of reform to increase private sector investment in R&D such as public procurement for innovation, regulatory reform, and R&D tax credits. But these areas are perennial suggestions. New ideas – and specific details – developed with business are needed if this time the outcomes are to be different.
  • “On the international stage, the failure to associate to Horizon Europe, and recent cuts to Official Development] Assistance, have damaged the UK’s reputation. The UK cannot be a science superpower in isolation; relationships must be repaired.
  • UK science and technology remains strong and respected around the world, but they will not deliver their full potential for the UK with an inconsistent and unclear science policy from Government. A new administration must retain the ambition for science and technology and develop a clear plan for delivery.

More superheroes – selecting a cape

Centre-right think tank, Onward, published under the same theme – Rocket science: how can the UK become a science superpower? making recommendations for the UK to become a true “science superpower”. Their researchers identified four characteristics of science superpowers which they say should guide the UK’s own ambitions:

  1. First, science superpowers prioritise academic foundations. That is to say, competitive R&D investment, well-regarded research institutions and strong intellectual property assets.
  2. Second, science superpowers have deep knowledge networks, in that they host the best research, attract the most promising scientists, and lead global regulation of technologies.
  3. The third trait of science superpowers is absorptive capacity: the ability to absorb ideas within the real economy for economic benefit.
  4. Fourth, science superpowers typically exert their scientific influence overseas through technology exports– the sale of high-tech products and services, including intangibles, overseas.

They argue that, to become a science superpower, the UK science ecosystem must be reformed to meet five key tests:

  1. Strategic direction. The Government should be more assertive in deploying R&D funding in areas of UK comparative advantage or to address a strategic weakness.
  2. Applying ourselves. The UK’s higher education system should do much more to encourage application of research, and businesses should respond by increasing their own R&D intensity, increasing demand for scientists within the domestic economy.
  3. Policy certainty. Private investment in R&D should be encouraged by giving businesses simpler, long-term incentives providing a stable policy environment that allows companies to plan investments with certainty.
  4. Relentless adoption.The UK should do more to support businesses and individuals to adopt cutting edge technologies so we can fully realise the benefits of technology.
  5. Exporting influence. UK firms could do much more to export their products overseas, particularly intangibles, and to set standards for future technologies to get ahead of these emerging markets.

Onward’s Head of Science and Technology, Matt Burnett said: The COVID-19 pandemic showed us just how important science is for our health security. We need to seize this moment and invest in science and technology to solve the other problems we face such as climate change and the energy crisis. The new Prime Minister should put science and technology at the top of their agenda, lest we be unprepared for the next global crisis.

Lord Bethell, Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences (2020-21): Working at the frontline of the pandemic innovation, I realised at first hand the huge power of the science at our great universities, and the lack of depth in our industrial capacity to turn that science into deployable solutions. This report is an excellent start to a conversation about how we can use our traditional strengths at the lab-top to turn Britain emphatically into one of the world’s great science superpowers.

Rt Hon Lord Hague, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2010-2014): An excellent contribution to what should be our most vital national debate. Ensuring science is at the core of our society and economy is indispensable to the UK’s future prosperity. Failure in this field would be fatal to future growth.

George Freeman, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (2014-16); Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Research and Innovation (2021-22), and now Science Minister again (2022): The path to faster growth and better wages starts and ends with science and innovation. The UK is already a Science Superpower in discovering new ideas and building thriving knowledge networks, but we could do much more to apply them for the benefit of the UK’s strategic and economic priorities. This excellent report sets out a bold plan to lift our scientific ambitions and secure our future – it is essential reading for the new Conservative Prime Minister.

Review of UKRI

The independent review of UKRI, led by David Grant, has been published. The report calls for more effort on realising the benefits of a single body rather than a cluster of research councils. Ministers and UKRI leadership have expressed their support for the review’s 18 recommendations, which include investment in harmonising IT systems, clarifying roles and responsibilities within UKRI and with BEIS, and further focus on demonstrating outcomes from their funding.

Recommendations

  • In delivering its efficiency plan, UKRI should aim for simplicity, integration, harmonisation and agility of its systems. These should be objectives of any monitoring framework or performance indicators used to monitor progress and delivery.
  • In delivering its efficiency plans and developing its operating model, UKRI should clarify the roles and responsibilities between the Corporate Hub and the councils. This process should ask if the right functions are centralised or devolved and should explore appropriate reductions in size, for example in the Corporate Hub.
  • In delivering its efficiency plans, UKRI will need to invest in capability, IT systems and infrastructure in the short term that will improve efficiency in the long term, ensuring that the ambition set out in the UKRI DDaT Strategy 2020-23 is implemented. This will require UKRI to ensure that it retains the right technical and project delivery capability across the organisation.

The interim report was published in January and there’s a thank you letter to David from the Secretary of State. The Government has promised to respond to the specific recommendations within the report later in the year.

Wonkhe have a blog but a reader comment doesn’t agree and believes the blog to be too forgiving of UKRI.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: I welcome Sir David’s recommendations. To support our ambition to establish the UK as a true Science Superpower, we have given UKRI its largest funding settlement ever, with over £25 billion across the next 3 years. Our ambitions for a world-class research and innovation system require a world-class funder, which is why we will work closely with UKRI to deliver these recommendations and ensure they are equipped and ready to support those goals.

Review of Research Bureaucracy

And another independent review, this time led by Professor Adam Tickell (VC, Birmingham) considering Research Bureaucracy. Who was set this agenda:

Unnecessary bureaucracy diverts and hampers research, and the work of individual researchers and research teams. Ultimately, it diminishes the returns from research funding.

You can read a summary of the consultation responses here.

Seven Principles

The Review developed seven principles to cut unnecessary bureaucracy which they state should inform the government response and future action across the sector:

  1. Harmonisation– Reducing the volume of administration through the use of common processes between different funders to make essential work easier.
  2. Simplification– Reducing the complexity of individual processes to address unnecessary bureaucracy.
  3. Proportionality– Ensuring that the obligations placed on researchers and institutions are commensurate with the size of the risk or reward.
  4. Flexibility– Supporting and embracing excellence wherever it is found and not excluding research that does not fit within narrowly defined parameters.
  5. Transparency– Communicating the rationale for systems and processes which have a bureaucratic burden.
  6. Fairness– Developing approaches to systems and processes that support fairness, rather than erode it.
  7. Sustainability– Cutting bureaucracy in ways that avoid destabilising the system to deliver a more efficient system over the long term.

The Review focussed on aspects of the research system where there was consistent feedback on the need and scope for change. As a result the review identified six themes where there is believed to be scope for significant positive change:

  1. Assurance

Information provided to funders and regulators to demonstrate that research is carried out in accordance with funding terms and conditions. The principle of ‘ask once’ should be paramount throughout the assurance system.

Findings

The Review identified the following key issues with regard to assurance bureaucracy:

  • Overall, there are too many requirements relating to assurance bureaucracy and they are often complex and duplicative;
  • Uncertainty in the sector about how to manage assurance issues contributes to risk aversion and over-compliance in institutions’ internal assurance processes;
  • A lack of trust, coordination, partnership working and knowledge exchange on assurance throughout the research sector;
  • An incremental growth of bureaucracy – changing priorities have meant that, over time, new assurance requirements have been introduced. However, few attempts have been made to remove or reduce redundant assurance requirements.

Recommendations

To address these issues they recommend that:

  • Government departments that fund research should work together to ensure there is greater alignment of assurance approaches, removing duplication. UKRI should take forward action to achieve greater alignment and coordination across UKRI Councils;
  • Government should facilitate closer working with other funders, including charity funders, to increase coordination and reduce assurance burdens on the sector;
  • Funders and research organisations should develop collective approaches and resources to support institutions in managing their assurance processes; and
  • Funding bodies should explore the function and benefits of self-certification and/or earned autonomy for institutions with a robust track record of assurance
  1. Applying for Funding

Funding applications were one of the most cited causes of unnecessary bureaucracy by organisations and individuals in the Review’s call for evidence.

Findings

  • The Review heard concerns from researchers and research managers about the length and complexity of application processes;
  • The overall success rates for research grant applications are low – often around 20%. Given this, single stage processes which require applicants to provide all the information at the outset mean that for a majority of applicants this information is unused and ultimately wasteful;
  • Two stage application processes may deliver improvements across the system but may present funders with resourcing challenges or take more time and UKRI and others are piloting these approaches now. The Review received a range of views on how best to manage the prospect that more streamlined application processes could lead to higher numbers of applications;
  • There is already evidence of funders tackling these issues in a variety of ways, but there is scope to go much further. 

Recommendations

To address these issues they recommend that:

  • Funders should experiment with application processes to reduce burdens for applicants, (including two-stage application processes) where the information required increases in line with the likelihood of being funded;
  • Funders should work together to increase standardisation across their application processes in terms of the use of language and the questions they ask where appropriate. UKRI should facilitate this across Research Councils in the first instance;
  • Funders should review what adaptations will be needed to assessment processes to take account of changes to application models. This should include the information necessary for national security assessments alongside innovative approaches from the use of peer reviewer triage to limit the number of applications requiring full peer review to experimenting with new models such as randomly allocated funding;
  • Funders should ensure that application processes support their commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion;
  • Funders should remove the requirement for letters of support from applications in most circumstances.
  1. Grant Implementation and In-Grant Management

Research is inherently unpredictable so the review suggests areas where more flexibilities may be beneficial, once a research project is underway:

Findings

  • The period between issue of award letter and start of a research project can be too short, leaving little time for procurement, recruitment and financial administration;
  • Conversely, the time taken to get agreement from research funding organisations to changes to a project or to the profile of funding can be too long;
  • It is often unclear to funding recipients what the purpose is of information requested in project monitoring;
  • Contracting and collaboration agreements are a major source of delays because many research organisations prefer to use their own version rather than standard formats such as Brunswick or Lambert Agreements.

Recommendations

To address these issues they recommend that:

  • Funders and recipients should ensure there is adequate time for the completion of all necessary tasks (including providing assurance information) between the issue of the award letter and the start of the project;
  • Universities and research organisations should wherever possible use standard templates for contracts and collaboration agreements, recognising that this would not just be faster, but would also facilitate third-party collaborations;
  • Wherever possible, funders should build in flexibilities including no cost extensions within manageable parameters to reduce delays in addressing project changes and the number of queries funders receive;
  • Ethical and other regulatory approvals should be the responsibility of the lead partner on a multi-institution research project and counterparties (including in the NHS) should not require additional duplicative approvals.
  1. Digital Platforms

Every aspect of research bureaucracy depends on digital platforms and the extent of the sector’s reliance on them can heighten the impact of any flaws in their design or function.

Findings

  • There is a challenge in creating digital platforms that are capable of supporting institutional diversity and keeping pace with change in UK research without being overly complex
  • There is scope for greater harmonisation of digital platforms. However, this will also be limited to a degree by the differing nature and objectives of individual funders;
  • Greater inter-operability and data sharing between systems could significantly reduce bureaucracy;
  • There is currently a window of opportunity to deliver vastly improved services across key funders as UKRI, NIHR and Wellcome amongst others move away from older platforms;
  • Funders are continuing to drive forward programmes to reduce bureaucracy in their systems and processes. Through the Simpler and Better Funding programme, UKRI is piloting a new digital platform – UKRI Funding Service – which from 2024 will deliver end to end functionality for all Research Council grant applications.

Recommendations

To address these issues the review recommends that:

  • For the higher education sector, Jisc should lead on the creation of sector-wide groups responsible for overseeing the development and further integration of the research information ecosystem, including research management data;
  • Funders, universities and regulators should ensure interoperability and improved data flows are considered as integral to the design and implementation of any new digital systems;
  • For existing systems, approaches to improving the flow of data between different platforms should be explored using, for example, application programming interfaces, point to point integration and machine learning.
  1. Institutional Bureaucracy

There are strong links between bureaucracy related to requirements of funders, regulators and government and each research institution’s own systems, processes and approaches. Research organisations, particularly universities, need to address their own unnecessary bureaucracy to support the Review’s aim of freeing up researchers to focus on research.

Findings

  • Institutional bureaucracy was the most cited source of unnecessary bureaucracy by individuals in the Review’s call for evidence;
  • There is a culture of risk aversion within universities. Whilst much of this is understandable, it has a negative impact on the processes for decision making;
  • Risk aversion has, in some cases, led to unnecessary approval hierarchies which can cause major delays and operational difficulties;
  • Use of generalist professional services department to provide key elements of research support – for example, legal services – can lead to longer delays because of a lack of familiarity or confidence with handling research grant agreements or contracts.

Recommendations

To address these issues they recommend that:

  • Wherever possible, research organisations should examine the feasibility of delegating research-related approvals to research managers and officers who are closer to research;
  • Universities UK should bring universities together to find new platforms and methods for working together on research management issues such as increasing risk appetite, streamlining burdens including through greater  standardisation;
  • If they do not already have them, research organisations should establish “Trusted Funder” policies to enable projects to proceed at risk, within certain parameters.
  1. Communications

There are a number of communications issues in relation to unnecessary bureaucracy. Funders can address antipathy towards necessary bureaucracy by communicating more clearly why it is required and what they do with the information. A lack of clarity can lead to “gold plating” by institutions who are trying to manage regulatory and other requirements.

Findings

  • Frustration with necessary bureaucratic requirements may be related to how widely the rationale and role of particular R&D funding systems and processes are communicated and understood;
  • There is also scope to increase awareness of existing tools and methods that can reduce bureaucratic burdens, e.g. persistent digital identifiers;
  • Uncertainty about the introduction and approach to implementing new requirements could be addressed through proactive communication and engagement by funders and regulators;
  • In addition, the review heard that government and funders could go further to engage with the sector on the specifics around implementation of new requirements to identify the most efficient approach;
  • There were a series of specific concerns with regard to the approach to communications with the sector including use of jargon and inconsistent language, working to ensure communications are received by the right audiences (for example, not just Vice Chancellors or Pro Vice-Chancellors of Research) and timeliness in relation to submission deadlines

Recommendations

To address these issues they recommend that:

  • Government, funders and regulators should undertake wide ranging consultation with research organisations prior to the introduction of new regulatory or other requirements;
  • Government and funders should proactively communicate on new and emerging regulatory issues. The Research Collaboration and Advice Team (RCAT)i model providing support on national security matters is good practice in this regard;
  • Funders should ensure important messages about research are sent to research office contacts as well as Vice Chancellor/Pro-Vice Chancellor Research.

What’s next?

The Government should formally respond to the review and likely support certain elements while ignoring others.

The review also said that there should be consideration of the governance and other arrangements needed to ensure the longer-term change required to fully deliver on this vision is in place. Alongside ongoing monitoring and evaluation to keep bureaucracy at bay in the future.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: The work of our exceptional researchers will not reach its full potential while the research system is bound up by excessive red tape. The findings of Professor Tickell’s thorough review shine a light on the huge opportunity for improvements in this field. I am confident this report will act as the stimulus needed for institutions, funding bodies, regulators – and for government – to come together and make the progress required.

Author of the Bureaucracy Review, Professor Adam Tickell, said:

UK research is world-leading, however… there are huge opportunities to improve how our research system works. The Review has unearthed excessive bureaucracy across the system.

It will now take a collective effort involving individuals, institutions, funders, regulators and government to realise the potential benefits of change while ensuring the vital checks and balances in the system are not lost. I hope this report signposts the way forward and provides the impetus needed.

Chief Executive of UK Research & Innovation, Ottoline Leyser, said:

We warmly welcome this thoughtful and excellent review…The review’s recommendations, and the principles that underpin them, strongly align with ongoing work at UKRI, such as our Simple and Better Funding Programme. By working in partnership across the UK research and innovation system we can catalyse transformational change, maximising the value from record-breaking levels of public investment in R&D.

The recommended changes will allow essential research – from healthcare development to studies in environmental science – to be delivered unhindered by excessive red tape, supporting the UK’s ambition to maintain its competitiveness, and secure its position as a science superpower.

The Russell Group respond to both independent reviews, Stephanie Smith, Head of Policy (Research and International) at the Russell Group, said:

Freeing up unnecessary bureaucracy will require a joint effort from all parts of the research system, and the Tickell review makes a number of welcome recommendations to improve coordination and standardisation across the sector, streamline the funding application process and free up time for grant holders to focus on research.

Alongside the Grant review of UKRI, it is positive to see a focus on how we can ensure the UK research sector is as efficient and effective as possible so world class research can thrive and we are ready to tackle the major challenges we face, from productivity to climate change. It is vital that we maintain this momentum and we look forward to working with Government and the wider sector to deliver early action to implement these changes, which will benefit researchers, funders and universities.

Blog: James Coe reviews Adam Tickell’s Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy and finds much to admire – while still being filled with questions on how this relates to the future of research.

Not on the Horizon…

It is incredibly unlikely that the UK will associate to Horizon Europe.

There are no signs of any resolution to the political issues which are preventing association. There is no sign that the UK Government has the ability or desire to resolve them.

And there is no sign of any change in position from the European Union to enable association.(Source.)

While this news didn’t come as a shock to anyone in the summer and it still doesn’t now. However, it is still disappointing to have reached this point. During the summer the Government announced the details of the UK’s plan B (assuming affiliation to the EU research programmes doesn’t make it over the Horizon). All the details are here including this suite of temporary transition measures:

  • the Horizon Europe Guarantee – If we are unable to associate, we will fund applications that are submitted to a Horizon Europe funding call with an EU final call deadline date before the point of non-association, are successful in the EU evaluation and meet the eligibility criteria of the guarantee. This includes those where grant signature dates fall beyond the end of 2022. This would pick up where the current guarantee has left off, so there is no gap, and no eligible successful applications would go unfunded
  • funding for successful, in-flight applications – We will support UK entities with eligible in-flight applications to Horizon Europe (to calls that have closed or are open at the point of non-association, where such applications are not being evaluated by the EC), by assessing such applications domestically, to ensure the best get funded should the EC no longer carry out the evaluation
  • uplifts to existing talent programmes – We will increase funding for our best existing talent schemes covering a broad range of disciplines via National Academies and UKRI. This will be followed by the creation of our bold new UK fellowship and award programme, designed to retain and attract top talent in the UK.
  • uplifts to innovation support – We will increase funding for a range of our best innovation schemes targeted at small and medium sized businesses (SMEs), delivered by Innovate UK, and go on to create exciting new mechanisms, ensuring they are bigger, bolder with less bureaucracy and more flexibility
  • the Talent and Research Stabilisation Fund – We will use formula funding to support a range of eligible UK institutions who have been most affected by the loss of Horizon Europe talent funding. The fund will enable eligible research organisations and universities to support talent retention and target funding vulnerabilities at a local level
  • Third Country Participation – Around two-thirds of Horizon Europe calls are open to UK researchers and companies as Third Country applicants, as part of consortia with at least 3 other applicants from EU member states or associated countries, provided they bring their own funding. As this is a priority for businesses and researchers, the government will fund all eligible UK entities participating in any such consortia signing grant agreements before 31 March 2025.The government will consider our approach to funding for Third Country Participation beyond this date and make an announcement by October 2024

Wonkhe have a blog. And there’s a parliamentary question on the topic:

  • (1) the change in the level of collaborative scientific funding for UK organisations if the UK does not participate in the Horizon Europe programme, and (2) reports that the UK is losing out on £100 million as a result of not participating

Student KE involvement

For anyone playing word bingo with today’s policy update we’re approaching a full house on ‘independent’ reviews. The OfS commissioned independent researchers to conduct an evaluation of the ‘Student engagement in knowledge exchange’ programme. The programme aims to support 20 projects to develop and share understanding of effective practice in student engagement in knowledge exchange, and to inform ongoing policy and investment.

OfS have published three summary reports providing interim findings from the evaluation of projects within the competition, for the reporting periods to May 2021, November 2021 and March 2022.

The final evaluation report is expected to be published next summer (2023).

Research England Funding Budgets 2022-25

The Russell Group issued a statement in response to the Research England funding budgets 2022-25: We particularly welcome the stable allocations over the spending review period which give the sector much needed certainty, and the boost to schemes proven to deliver returns, like the Higher Education Innovation Fund… The increase in quality-related (QR) funding will allow universities to plan long term and pursue high-risk high-reward discovery research – which underpinned breakthroughs in graphene, genomics, and laid the foundations to develop the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine… However, despite this increase, its value has declined in real terms over the past decade. [The value of QR funding declined by 22% in real terms between 2010/11 and 2020/21.]

ARIA top appointees

Ilan Gur and Matt Clifford MBE were appointed as CEO and Chair of new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA). Ilan Gur (CEO) will set the agency’s agenda, direct its initial funding of high-risk programmes and engage the domestic and international R&D sector. As Chair, Matt Clifford will support the work of the CEO as he takes post on 15 August, acting as the steward for ARIA’s effective governance.

Ilan Gur obtained a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Schmidt Futures Innovation Fellow, an advisor to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in support of the Moore Inventor Fellowship, and a judge for MIT Technology Review’s TR35 award

Matt Clifford MBE is co-founder and CEO of Entrepreneur First, an international investor in technical talent that has helped to build technological companies worth over $10 billion. Clifford is also co-founder and non-executive director of Code First Girls, has served as a Council Member at Innovate UK, and is a Trustee of the Kennedy Memorial Trust. Before starting Entrepreneur First, Matt worked at McKinsey & Co and earned degrees from the University of Cambridge and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kwasi Kwarteng (was Business Secretary) said: The appointment of Ilan Gur as ARIA’s first CEO is a huge victory for the future of the agency, and for the UK. He has a distinguished track record in translating exceptional talent and ideas into commercial success, and his leadership will ensure the funding of high-risk programmes that will continue to push the boundaries of science and technology. Under Dr Gur’s leadership and with the support of the brilliant Matt Clifford, ARIA will ensure the benefits of research and development will be felt in our society and economy over the course of generations. By stripping back unnecessary red tape and putting power in the hands of our innovators, the agency has the freedom to drive forward the technologies of tomorrow.

ARIA blog: With a new ARIA Chair and Chief Executive in place James Coe argues it’s time for the sector to take a step back and allow the new research funder to succeed or fail on its own terms in a Wonkhe blog. And another blog summing up the key known information about ARIA.

Defence

The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and the Alan Turing Institute have jointly launched the Defence Centre for AI Research (DCAR), to tackle problems related to advancing artificial intelligence capability.

Research England Executive Chair

Kwasi Kwarteng (was Business Secretary) selected Professor Dame Jessica Corner as the preferred candidate for the role of Executive Chair of Research England. Professor Corner will be responsible for quality related research funding to English universities, largely informed by the results of the Research Excellence Framework exercise, as well as funding for knowledge exchange activities. She will also lead Research England’s role in ensuring the health and stability of English universities in their research and innovation activities. She will be part of the UKRI senior leadership team working closely with UKRI’s Chief Executive, UKRI Board and the other Executive Chairs to collectively oversee UKRI’s strategy, funding programmes and infrastructure.

Professor Corner has a background in nursing and as an academic specialising in cancer palliative care. Recent employment includes Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange at the University of Nottingham. She was awarded a DBE in 2014 for services to Health Care Research and Education and was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences in 2015.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: I am delighted to name Professor Dame Jessica Corner as preferred candidate to steward Research England through the years to come. I look forward to working closely with her and the UKRI leadership team to ensure the continued success of the world leading research carried out by our universities, building on the UK’s reputation as a science superpower.

I would also like to thank Dr David Sweeney for his tireless work for the research sector as inaugural Executive Chair of Research England and previously at HEFCE. I wish him the very best for his retirement.

Professor Jessica Corner said: I am delighted to be chosen as the preferred candidate for the role of Executive Chair of Research England at this time of huge opportunity for the country’s truly outstanding research base…I look forward to supporting our national community of researchers as they continue to explore, discover, and innovate to transform lives across the globe.

Alan Turing Institute: Director of Innovation

Simon Reeve was appointed as Director of Innovation at the Alan Turing Institute. He is the former VP of Technology and Innovation at Lloyd’s Register Group and Director of Commercial Engagement at long-term Turing partner Lloyd’s Register Foundation. He has previously had a relationship with Turing through his work supporting the Foundation-sponsored data-centric engineering programme. As Director of Innovation Reeve will support Turing’s goal to develop solution to problems using AI and data across several areas:

  • Increasing the impact of the Institute in delivering positive change to society through entrepreneurship and commercial application of data science and AI
  • Providing innovation leadership to the Institute’s team and its vibrant partnership network, in cooperation with the executive leadership team, in support of its research and innovation strategy and goals
  • Promoting and facilitating engagement and partnership between the Turing’s community, private and public sector businesses, government, and non-government bodies, to accelerate innovation opportunities, delivering data and artificial intelligence science solutions in support of the Turing’s mission.

Quick research news

  • Government Office for Science – Sir Patrick Vallance to stand down as Government Chief Scientific Adviser at the end of his five-year post in April 2023.
  • Nine new commissioners have been appointed to the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) to serve for four years. Three commissioners, Ms Susan Bradford, Professor Jamie Colemanand Dr Jamie Fraser, whose four-year tenure ended this year, have also been reappointed. The CHM provides independent expert advice to ministers on the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines, and promotes the collection and investigation of information relating to adverse reactions for human medicines. It is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.

The nine new commissioners are:

  • Professor Tony Williams, professor of translational medicine at Southampton University
  • Professor David Hunt, chair of neuroinflammation medicine, Wellcome Trust senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant in neurology, University of Edinburgh
  • Professor David Dockrell, chair of infection medicine/director of the Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh
  • Dr Gerri Mortimore, associate professor in post-registration health care, University of Derby
  • Professor Paul Dargan, consultant physician and clinical toxicologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and professor of clinical toxicology at King’s College London
  • Dr Vanessa Raymont, senior clinical researcher, University of Oxford and R&D director and honorary consultant at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
  • Mrs Julia Cons, Independent Chair, National Individual Funding Request Panel for NHS England
  • Professor David Moore, professor of Infectious Diseases & Tropical Medicine, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Consultant Physician at The Hospital for Tropical Diseases, UCLH.
  • Professor Rui Providencia, associate Professor, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL

Blogs

The QAA released an interesting review of global research and interventions on grade inflation. DK had a read on Wonk Corner.

The first Research England funding allocations since REF 2021 results were published see a welcome increase in income for most providers. James Coe and David Kernohan looked into the details.

Parliamentary Questions

Access & Participation

NEON and the BBC report on the Social Mobility Foundation’s warning that the cost of living could create a “two-tier” university system.

  • The Social Mobility Foundation has said it’s “concerned” those from poorer backgrounds may have to work while affluent peers enjoy the “uni experience”. “It’s never been a level playing field,” Sarah Atkinson, the chief executive says. “But we’re looking at a two-tier system for this cohort,” she adds.
  • Alongside extra work, Sarah says more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds worry about money and live at home while studying .In recent weeks, students’ unions have said they are having to step in to help students cope with the rising costs of food.

Read more from the BBC article here.

Other news & latest reports

Video games degrees: Increasing the number of students studying for a degree in video games.

Graduate underemployment: What is the scale and impact of graduate overqualification in the UK?  looks at how graduate outcomes have changed over the past 30 years, and the job quality of overqualified graduates.

Local Gaps: The Centre for Progressive Policy (CPP) has published a report on the educational attainment gap and local economic outcomes, in which they look at how to transform educational opportunities to support inclusive growth.

Economic Growth: UUK published a report exploring ways in which universities can contribute to economic growth, and make several recommendations such as establishing collaborative hubs for skills development, building on the Help to Grow scheme, and the rapid expansion of University Enterprise Zones (UEZ).

Research theft: Research Professional – the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity has warned that cybersecurity researchers will increasingly be at risk of having their findings stolen by third-party actors.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

HE Policy Update w/e 8th November 2022

international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement

Parliamentary News

It’s a little unsettling that informing you of the cabinet and leadership changes is becoming a regular feature. After our last update there were more changes.  So here we go again…!

Our new education ministerial team, supporting PM Rishi Sunak, are:

  • Gillian Keegan – SoS for Education
  • Nick Gibb – Minister of State for Schools (DfE)
  • Robert Halfon – Minister of State Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education – (DfE)
  • Claire Coutinho – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State – Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing (DfE)
  • And Baroness Barran survives yet another reshuffle and has an interesting role – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System and Student Finance. The Student Finance part is an addition, and it is interesting that this is not in the Halfon role.
  • Baroness Barran will also continue as the Lords spokesperson for Education.

So we knew Kit Malthouse was out but also goodbye to Kelly Tolhurst, Andrea Jenkyns and Jonathan Gullis.

Robert Halfon’s brief: Minister of State (Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education)

  • overall strategy for post-16 technical education
  • T Levels and transition programme
  • qualifications reviews (levels 3 and below)
  • higher technical education (levels 4 and 5)
  • apprenticeships and traineeships
  • further education workforce and funding
  • Institutes of Technology
  • local skills improvement plans and Local Skills Improvement Fund
  • adult education, including basic skills, the National Skills Fund and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund
  • careers education, information and guidance including the Careers and Enterprise Company
  • technical education in specialist schools
  • relationship with the Office for Students
  • higher education quality and reform
  • Lifelong Loan Entitlement
  • student experience and widening participation in higher education
  • funding for education and training, provision and outcomes for 16- to 19-year-olds
  • college governance and accountability
  • intervention and financial oversight of further education colleges
  • reducing the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training
  • international education strategy and the Turing Scheme

Halfon is well known for his leadership of the Education select committee and was previously the skills minister (2016/17) until he stepped down. He is also scheduled to provide evidence to the Lords Science and Technology Committee next Tuesday for the People and skills in UK STEM inquiry.  Halfon’s promotion also means the Education select committee chair is now vacant. We’ll keep an eye out for news on who will fill this powerful and high profile committee position. Nominations close on 15th November.

Their SpAds (special advisers):

  • Lawrence Abel has been appointed as Special Adviser to the DfE team. He previously served as senior policy and communications adviser to Gillian Keegan whilst she was at the FCDO and as DfE Minister. Previous to this Abel was Keegan’s Parliamentary Assistant.
  • Currently ex-No 10 policy adviser Rory Gribbell remains in post as a DfE SpAd (appointed two months ago under Kit Malthouse).
  • It’s speculated that Abel will hold the media and comms SpAD brief while Gribbell will focus on policy.

Science Minister: George Freeman is back as Minister of State for Science, Technology and Innovation (he held this role under Boris Johnson). Currently Nusrat Ghani also remains as Minister of State for Science and Investment Security. However, Politico suggest only Freeman will retain the science brief once the dust settles:

Both George Freeman and Ghani tweeted that they had been appointed science minister last week — but after some confusion, the PM and the BEIS boss Grant Shapps confirmed the job was Freeman’s. The two issues are said to have left Ghani, who had been appointed science minister under Truss, feeling bruised. Since she had moved in some weeks ago during the previous administration, a compromise was to let her keep the science minister office rather than move all her things. The knock on effect … is that a load of civil servants have to swap offices instead. 

What does it all mean for Education?

There’s an interesting article in The Times about the Education team: Education could be Rishi Sunak’s big revolution, snippets below. Education is a crucial topic at every election so Rishi would be wise to use education to settle the recent turbulent political waters and demonstrate both progress and gain voter’s hearts. Snippets:

  • Gillian Keegan, the new secretary of state — ridiculously, the fifth this year — is a rarity in the Sunak cabinet: she hasn’t sat around that table before. Her appointment suggests a desire to do something different with the department. She left school at 16, became an apprentice at a car plant and went on to have an extremely successful business career in the technology sector. She is the first degree-level apprentice to enter parliament. In the struggle for parity of esteem between academic and technical education, having a secretary of state who went down this route is significant
  • Alongside her are Nick Gibb, returning as schools minister for a third time, and Robert Halfon, the former chairman of the education select committee and a champion of technical education. The other junior minister is Claire Coutinho, who was Sunak’s adviser before becoming an MP. She shares his view that all children should do maths until the age of 18 and is a champion of the £500 million numeracy programme he introduced as chancellor to address the fact that one in five adults lack the numeracy skills expected of a nine-year-old.
  • It is a rare team in that every minister has deeply held views on their assigned subject. The mix of characters — Gibb an advocate of a traditional academic education and Halfon of vocational education — has led some to wonder if the focus will be on skills or knowledge. But this may miss the point. Sunak’s view is that education goes way beyond your school years and that the country must do more to adjust to that new reality.
  • Sunak… regarded UK universities as world class, producing a sizeable number of graduates. The great British problem, he thought, was believing education is something that ends when you enter the workforce.
  • The closest Sunak has come to a personal manifesto is his Mais Lecture back in February, when he focused on adult skills… To improve the skills of the 2030 workforce means training today’s workers now… Any attempt to boost skills by focusing solely on trainees, Sunak argued, will have a limited impact.  He has long bemoaned the fact that British employers spend barely half the European average on training their workers. Only one in five British workers aged 25 to 64 has a technical qualification, a third lower than the OECD average. As chancellor, Sunak used to talk about using the tax system to turn this around. The lecture was overshadowed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which occurred on the same day, but this may well prove a significant focus of his premiership.
  • As well as a renewed push on apprenticeships, Sunak wants his education ministers to extend their reach into the workforce. The need for more highly skilled workers is all the greater given that technology is expected to play a far greater role in the economy.
  • The need for in-work training doesn’t carry the same resonance as the familiar arguments over academic selection, the school curriculum and the balance between knowledge and skills. But getting skills right could have a more immediate impact on growth and productivity…

ICYMI: other key ministers:

  • Grant Shapps – Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (was
    Jacob Rees-Mogg)
  • Steve Barclay – Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (was Therese Coffey)
  • Michael Gove – Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations) (was Simon Clarke)
  • Kemi Badenoch – Secretary of State for International Trade; President of the Board of Trade; Minister for Women and Equalities (retained post during leadership change)
  • Therese Coffey – Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (was Ranil Jayawardena)
  • Michelle Donelan – Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (retained post during leadership change)
  • And he’s back as a Minster of State (Minister without Portfolio) including attending Cabinet: Gavin Williamson (although at the time of writing there are questions about how long he will stay in post).

How many did you get on your Cabinet bingo card this time?

Cabinet Committees: National Science and Technology Council

The latest list of Cabinet Committees is here. Notable is that it now includes the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), again. Slightly confusing – this is not the same body as the existing Council for Science and Technology. The cabinet committee NSTC was one of Boris’ innovations (or perhaps that of his adviser of the time Dominic Cummings) to achieve their Britain as a ‘science superpower’ ambition alongside the new Office for Science and Technology Strategy which was headed up by Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. The NSTC was disbanded by Truss during the reduction in the volume of cabinet-level bodies. You’ll recall us highlighting the backlash at this decision from the science sector in a recent policy update. With the Lords Science and Technology Committee requesting the committee be reconvened and a science minister (attending Cabinet) to be appointed. The Truss administration acquiesced  announcing the establishment of a “new” National Science and Technology Council – the “new” part being that it would be chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the PM as previously, with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster serving as deputy.

However, the reconvened NSTC will return to previous arrangements with the following attendees:

  • Prime Minister (Chair): Rishi Sunak
  • Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Secretary of State for Justice: Dominic Raab
  • Chancellor of the Exchequer: Jeremy Hunt
  • Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs: James Cleverley
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department: Suella Braverman
  • Secretary of State for Defence: Ben Wallace
  • Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Deputy Chair): Oliver Dowden
  • Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Grant Shapps
  • Secretary of State for International Trade, and President of the Board of Trade, and Minister for Women and Equalities: Kemi Badenoch
  • Secretary of State for Education: Gillian Keegan
  • Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: Michelle Donelan
  • Minister for Science, Research and Innovation: George Freeman

International Students

International students haven’t been far from the news since then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, made unwelcoming comments about international students at the Conservative Party conference. She suggested that some students were bringing large numbers of dependents with them insinuating this was a backdoor route to increased immigration. Of course, only doctoral students are permitted to bring family members with them. However, the media has been abuzz and the HE policy organisations have regularly espoused the benefits of international students for education and economy alike.

Since Rishi announced his new ministerial education line up there has been a calmer Government rhetoric in relation to international students. Most notably Robert Halfon has been responding to parliamentary questions making it clear that international students are valued. This doesn’t mean the tough immigration stance has disappeared, particularly among some sections of the party. However, for now, Government spin has been gentler.

Meanwhile Chris Skidmore (former Universities minister and co-chair of the University APPG) will launch a new International HE Commission next Monday (14 November). The full details are available through the tabs on the link however the Commission intend to seek to develop a new ‘International Education Strategy 2.0’ to be submitted to the Department of Education as a sector-wide plan for the future. You may recall that Chris launched the first UK International Education Strategy when he was the Minister in 2019.

We have a lot of information but not the full detail. For example the commissioners are expected to be announced late November. We have a timeline for development of the new strategy but, of course, we don’t know what the strategy will say. The Commission will begin running evidence sessions in mid-December and intend to publish their full report in late Spring 2023. This would coincide with the annual update for the Government’s strategy.

Below follow the Commission’s focus questions. There’s certainly some key content the sector will want to follow (and perhaps influence) during the course of the Commission’s work.

The Commission will seek to address multiple opportunities and challenges that international education and future student pathways including:

  • What should a future student number target be set at, given the broader policy and economic objectives of the UK?
  • What are the future target countries that the U.K. should be working with in order to establish or expand future international student pathways? How do these link to international research collaboration and knowledge transfer?
  • How can we ensure that universities do not become over dependent on specific countries for recruitment? What does a sustainable recruitment strategy look like?
  • How should local regions develop tailored local international education strategies and plans to reflect local strengths and priorities?
  • What should a future visa offering for international students look like?
  • How can the U.K. continue to be competitive in its international offer to students, recognising that other countries such as Canada, Australia and the US will also seek to attract students?
  • How can we ensure international students are fully integrated on campus by taking an inclusive approach to international education? How do we ensure that the benefits for domestic students are realised?
  • How can we prioritise student welfare and success so that international students have the best possible experience of life in the U.K.?
  • How can we ensure student numbers are matched with the necessary accommodation and support services?

THE have coverage of the Commission: Keeping up – The UK needs a new international education strategy to provide a “clear vision” for the sector, according to former universities minister Chris Skidmore.

Parliamentary Questions on international students: Discussions with the Home Secretary on the number of international students at UK universities.

Answered (excerpt) By Robert Halfon: The department remains committed to and continues to work towards the ambition in the International Education Strategy, published in 2019 and updated in 2021 and 2022, to host at least 600,000 international students in the UK per year, by 2030… Attracting the brightest students from around the world is good for our universities, delivering growth at home as well as supporting the creation of more university places for UK students. This remains a priority for the department.

Research

Select Committee session: Doctoral students and graduates – opportunities and challenges: The Lords Science and Technology Committee ran sessions focusing on people and skills in UK science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). This included a focus on PhD students and graduates, particularly their main opportunities and challenges.

Main challenges: Professor Julia Buckingham CBE: the biggest problem was the insecurity posed by fixed term contracts, she stated she believed that all other problems stemmed from that. That fixed term contracts were not good for individuals or for their research, which required longer periods of time.

Claudia Sarrico answered that the number of doctoral students had been increasing a lot and in many countries they simply cannot stay in academia. Still, there was evidence in many countries that PhD were not as attractive as they used to be for the most talented students.

Precariousness: Viscount Hanworth (Lab) asked what were the main factors that led to a precariousness of PhD in the UK.

Sarrico: The danger was that, the more PhD’s were becoming popular and common, the less they were attractive to the most talented students. There was evidence in France and Japan that the best students were completing Masters but not proceeding to PhDs. Finally, Sarrico said that the quality was also decreasing in PhD’s which was a natural consequence of the fact that it was not the best students that were studying for this degree.

Government’s strategy: Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB) asked if the witnesses were familiar with the Government’s R&D talent strategy.

Buckingham confirmed familiar and replied that in the sector there was a strong feeling that research culture had to be improved. She thought there was a ministerial group looking at the recommendations regarding how the strategy could be implemented.

Sarrico added that it was not about offering long-term contracts to everybody but rather about improving working conditions for everybody and about offering more transparent and clear career prospects.

Making research attractive: Lord Holmes (Con) asked what the Government should do to ensure that the widest group was attracted to undertake and engage in research.

Buckingham replied that there was need for more cross-fertilisation between industry and the private sector and academia. There were already examples of how things had improved in recent years but it was critical to work more on this.

Sarrico agreed and added that socio-economic background also influenced this issue. She also mentioned that there were challenges regarding transparency in recruitment when it came to parts of the private sector

Careers outside academia: Lord Winston (Lab) asked if current graduates were ready for highly skilled careers outside academia. Buckingham: No, she did not think that enough was being done to try prepare students for a career outside academia.

Sarrico said that many countries were doing industrial PhD’s or internships in the public sector in order to encourage PhD students to join careers outside academia. The key was to try to provide a wide range of experiences doctoral and post-doctoral training so that people experience different possibilities.

New research commercialisation unit

The Government launched the “first of its kind” government unit for commercialising research –  the Government Office for Technology Transfer (GOTT). The intention is for the new unit to support the way the government manages and commercialises the (estimated) £106 billion of ‘knowledge assets’ including intellectual property, software and data. GOTT will be led by Dr Alison Campbell (BEIS) who has a cross-government mandate to supercharge the identification, development and exploitation of public sector knowledge assets and to encourage the public sector to be more innovative and entrepreneurial in how it manages its own assets.

Knowledge assets include know-how, data, brands, business processes, expert resources and technology. Technology transfer is about sharing these assets with other organisations to stimulate innovation and the development of new products, processes and services and the creation of new commercial ventures. You can read more here.

Quick News

  • Free-conomics: Conservative former science minister George Freeman has warned that cuts to UK research spending, including for association to the EU’s Horizon Europe, will remain a risk if the government “ploughs on with unfunded tax cuts”, despite securing Treasury commitment not to cut the science budget. (THE)
  • The Russell Group calls on Government to prioritise science and innovation-led growth ahead of medium-term fiscal plan.
  • The Higher Education Policy Institute has published a report on research leadership

Parliamentary Questions:

NSS

The OfS have announced the results of the latest consultation on the NSS including plans for changes to the questionnaire for 2023.  The analysis of responses to the consultation is here.. The guidance and the final questionnaire are here.

To reduce the work expected of providers, it has been agreed to continue with the principle that providers in England are not required to promote the 2023 survey to their students

The timetable for NSS 2023 is:

  • All participating providers are asked to review, and where necessary update, their relevant NSS provider contact details by 28 November 2022
  • All participating providers should also submit their completed ‘My survey options’ form by 28 November 2022 through the NSS extranet. This form asks for providers’ preferences for their survey start week and optional questions, and details of any prize draws
  • All providers should populate their NSS 2023 sample templates with the requested contact details for all students on their target list; this is a list of all students eligible for NSS 2023, based on the 2021-22 student data. Details should be supplied by 28 November 2022 via the ‘Upload sample data’ section of the NSS extranet. Any proposed additions to or removals from the target list should follow the process set out by Ipsos, starting in mid-December
  • The NSS will launch on 11 January 2023
  • Fieldwork will take place between 11 January and 30 April 2023 and will be run by Ipsos
  • OfS and UK funding bodies will issue a publication in spring 2023 detailing the plans for NSS 2023 results publication
  • Results will be published on the OfS website in summer 2023
  • Detailed results will be supplied to individual providers through the NSS results portal provided by Texuna Technologies.
  • NSS results at course level will be published on the Discover Uni website

There is a Wonkhe article here which expresses some frustration about the power of the consultation.  We share this view except we cannot understand why 90% of respondents wanted to keep question 27.  Not having it means everyone will have to focus on the detail, which is where the NSS adds value.

  • For example – around ninety per cent of respondents were against the removal of the summative question (current Q27) in England. The justification for removing it is simply that OfS do not use the question within current regulatory approaches. And that’s it. If you want to compare across nations, you’ll need to use some kind of agglomeration of the other questions.
  • A majority of respondents did not see the value in the freedom of expression question – we get an “issue raised by stakeholders” justification without any indication of who those stakeholders might be, or whether this question actually addressed the issues that stakeholders raised.
  • On this, one curiosity is that apparently some students saw freedom of expression as “essential to a sense of inclusion and belonging”. This issue didn’t come up in our recent research, but never mind. You’d think a specific question on inclusion and belonging may be of more use – but the current question 21 (“I feel part of a community of staff and students”) is being removed, with the justification that apparently some students didn’t understand it well enough and it wasn’t really about belonging and inclusion anyway.

Blended learning

Following the publication of revised conditions of relating to the quality of courses which came into force on 1 May 2022, the OfS announced a review of blended learning in higher education which was published in October.

It is worth a read, for the examples included:

Complying with condition B1: Condition B1 states that a high quality academic experience includes ensuring that B1.3.a each higher education course is up-to-date… B1.3.c each higher education course is coherent B1.3.d each higher education course is effectively delivered B1.3.e each higher education course, as appropriate to the subject matter of the course, requires students to develop relevant skills.

We would be likely to have compliance concerns in relation to condition B1, if a provider’s blended learning approach:

  • Uses lecture recordings that are no longer up-to-date when re-used, or are not appropriately informed by subject matter developments, research, industrial and professional developments, or developments in teaching and learning.
  • Does not facilitate feedback for students that is appropriate to the content of their course, such as where dialogue and immediate feedback is required for course content to be effectively delivered.
  • Does not foster collaborative learning among students registered on a course, which may indicate the course is not being effectively delivered.
  • Does not consider changing expectations for students’ digital skills in related disciplines or industries, if this means that a course is no longer up-to-date, or that a course does not require students to develop relevant skills, in a manner appropriate to the subject matter and level of the course.
  • Does not require students to develop practical skills in a manner appropriate to the subject matter and level of the course.
  • Is driven by an arbitrary fixed blend ratio for a course, rather than using the most appropriate delivery method for the subject material. If decisions about the delivery method (for example: online or in-person) are not being made for sound pedagogical reasons, this may indicate that the course is not being effectively delivered.
  • Is driven by limitations in the supply of physical learning resources, including physical locations, which may indicate that a course is not coherent or effectively delivered, as decisions are not being made for sound pedagogical reasons.
  • Is delivered in a way that results in low attendance and engagement that may mean there is an inappropriate balance between delivery methods or between directed and independent work that indicate that the course is not effectively delivered.
  • Is confusing or difficult to manage for students due to insufficient coordination across modules on a course, meaning there is not an appropriate balance between delivery methods, leading to a course not being effectively delivered. j. Contains a volume of recorded online lectures and other digital learning resources that is too high for students to engage with effectively and adversely affects their ability to participate fully in their course. This may indicate that a course is not being effectively delivered.
  • Is not communicated effectively to current or prospective students in terms of the pattern of blended delivery, which may suggest that a course is not coherent or being effectively delivered.

Complying with condition B2: Condition B2 states that providers must take all reasonable steps to ensure: each cohort of students registered on each higher education course receives resources and support which are sufficient for the purpose of ensuring: i. a high quality academic experience for those students; and ii. those students succeed in and beyond higher education;

We would be likely to have compliance concerns relating to a provider’s blended learning approach in relation to condition B2, if a cohort of students:

  • Does not receive adequate access to appropriate physical spaces for students that allow them to access and engage with digital learning. This would be particularly likely if there is evidence that students are not receiving access to physical resources because of pressures on the supply of those resources which the provider could have mitigated.
  • Does not receive adequate access to sufficient hardware, specialist software and IT infrastructure, as appropriate, to access digital content.
  • Does not receive sufficient support to develop the skills students need for effective digital learning and a high quality academic experience.
  • Does not receive, where relevant, well-produced online lectures, instead, for example receiving poorly recorded audio or video which leads to students missing course content or administrative information relating to their course.
  • Receives re-used lecture recordings that contain incorrect and confusing administrative information.
  • Is not provided with appropriately qualified teaching staff, with sufficient digital skills to effectively deliver their course.
  • Does not receive timely and high quality feedback that supports students to engage with their course and understand subject content, as appropriate to the course.
  • Does not receive appropriate support to develop skills to engage with in-person teaching and learning, informed by consideration of the cohort’s academic needs.
  • Does not receive appropriate support to manage their timetables and overcome the challenges of combining online and in-person delivery and the need to balance on-campus and independent work. This may include a failure to support students to develop skills in knowing how long to spend on tasks or how to prioritise work.
  • Does not receive sufficient resources and support that are appropriate to students’ academic needs, (including those which may be linked to students’ protected characteristics), in order to ensure a high quality academic experience.

Students

Growing problem: More than four-fifths of UK students have been affected by mental health difficulties, a survey suggests. (THE)

Student Loans

The DfE confirmed that the current interest rate for pre-2012 income contingent (ICR) student loans will increase to 3.25% (due to changes in the Bank Base Rate). The increase took place at the end of October.

Welsh graduates will remain on their current scheme for a further year. Welsh Education Minister Jeremy Miles said: “It is hugely frustrating that we were given little warning of these significant changes before they were announced”, and that the Treasury “took an extremely long time to communicate the budgetary position.” New borrowers will be subject to the existing terms and conditions. This means Wales will continue to use the £27,295 repayment threshold, not the £25,000 Plan 5 threshold.  Graduates in Wales will repay loans under the 30-year repayment period, not Plan 5’s 40 year repayment period.

Cost of Living Crisis

The Campaign for Learning published a new policy paper examining the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on all aspects of post-16 education. It makes 30 recommendations. Here are the points most relevant to the HE sector:

Maintenance Loans for Full-Time Level 4-6 Students Increased by at Least Earnings Growth in September from 1st January 2023

  • The increase in maintenance loan rates for AY2022/23 by 2% is in effect a real terms cut when inflation is running at 10%. Whilst it is true that maintenance support is not a form of benefit and, as consequence, not linked to the September inflation rate as measured by the CPI, there is a case for uprating maintenance loans above 2% bearing in mind the cost-of-living crisis faced by full-time students.
  • In this context, the Government should increase payments of maintenance loans from 1st January 2023 in line with earnings growth as of September 2022. If earnings growth is 5.5% in September 2022, an extra 3% should be added to maintenance loans given the existing 2% uplift.

Close the Maintenance Gap between Full-Time Higher Education Living at Home and Living Away from Home

  • There is a significant gap in the value of maintenance loans if a full-time student lives with their parents, compared to one who lives away from home.
  • Assuming parental income of £25,000 and study is outside of London, the amount received living at home could be £1,600 less than living away from home. Parents facing a cost-of-living crisis could find supporting a full-time student living at home difficult. Hence, DfE should consider increasing maintenance loan rates to students living at home.

Uprate Part-Time Maintenance Loans for Level 6 Degrees by at Least Earnings Growth in September from 1st January 2023

  • Maintenance loans are currently available to support achievement of a first Level 6 through part-time study. The value of maintenance loans should increase by the growth in earnings recorded in September, with higher payments introduced from 1st January 2022.

Uprate Part-Time Maintenance Loans for Part-Time Level 4-5 Higher Technical Qualifications from 1st January 2023: Maintenance loans are not currently available to support achievement of a first Level 4 and Level 5 through part-time Higher Technical Qualifications. They are not due to be introduced until AY2023/24. DfE should make available part-time maintenance loans to achieve a first Level 4 and 5 through part-time HTQs from 1st January 2023.

Bursaries for Level 4-6 Short Courses from 1st January 2023: DfE is currently piloting short courses in higher education, lasting between four weeks and twelve months. Course costs are funded through fee-loans. To boost take-up and assist students with the cost-of-living crisis, DfE should make available means-tested living cost bursaries from 1st January 2023

DfE Should Introduce Part-Time Maintenance Loans for Adults Seeking a First Full Level 3 Through Access to HE courses

  • Access to HE courses (Level 3) in the FE system and Foundation Years (Level 4) in the HE system are two different non-traditional routes into higher education.
  • 19-23 year-olds seeking a first full Level 3 via an Access to HE courses pay no fees, whilst those seeking a second Level 3 via Access to HE courses have the option to take out a fee-loan. Adults aged 24 and over have the option to take out a fee-loan for their Access to HE course, if it is their first or subsequent Level 4. Meanwhile, Foundation Year students have access to fee-loans to cover course costs. The cost of an Access to HE course is c£3,250 compared to £9,250 for most Foundation Year courses. Despite no fees or lower fee-loans, demand for Foundation Year courses has risen whilst Access to HE courses has fallen.
  • Part of the explanation is due to the accessibility and level of maintenance support. Students on Access to HE courses can apply for means-tested bursary grants, but there is no entitlement to full-time or part-time maintenance loans. By contrast, Foundation Year students are entitled to maintenance loans and since most study full-time, have access to full-time maintenance loans.
  • The cost-of-living crisis could see further falls in the demand for Access to HE courses as uncertain and insufficient levels of maintenance support are currently available.
  • Where adults are seeking a first full Level 3 through an Access to HE course and are studying part-time, DfE should make available access to part-time maintenance loans on the same basis as part-time maintenance loans for Level 6 first degrees and part-time Level 4-5 Higher Technical Qualifications from AY2023/24.

Abolish Employee National Insurance Contributions for Apprentices Under 25: Employers do not pay national insurance contributions on the earnings of apprentices aged under 25 up to £50,270. The Treasury should boost the real earnings of apprentices by abolishing employee national insurance contributions of 12% between £12,570 and £50,270. This would mean under 25 year-olds on a Level 2 apprenticeship earning an average of £8.23 per hour and working an average of 37 hours per week, and earning £15,834,52 per year would save £392 per year in NI contributions.

Provide Publicly Funded Post-16 Providers with Greater Certainty over Energy Bills Until the End of AY2022/23: The EBSS is scheduled to last until March 2022 although the 2022/23 academic year lasts until August 2023. The Government should signal as soon as possible when energy support will be available to publicly funded post-16 education and training providers for both the spring and summer terms. An extension will enable post-16 providers to open longer and become warm spaces for students and trainees.

Post-16 Providers Should Assess Their Financial Stability in a New Era of Higher Interest Rates: Higher interest rates are here to stay. Post-16 education and skills providers should assess the impact of higher interest rates on interest-bearing assets and interest-bearing liabilities on their short and medium financial positions.

DfE Should Set Realistic Post-16 Participation and Outcomes Measures

  • DfE should be realistic about participation in all forms of post-16 education and training and associated outcomes measures in the context of the cost-of-living crisis.
  • Lower participation by young people and adults, lower demand by employers and higher drop-out and non-completion rates are likely as individuals, households and employer put earnings and income before learning.

The Treasury Should Not Clawback Underspends in Post-16 Provision Budgets

  • Even where the cost-of-learning is to individuals and employers or fee-loans for adults prevent the need for up-front cash contributions, demand for education and training might fall leading to underspends on post-16 budgets.
  • The Treasury should recognise the role of the cost-of-living crisis on causing underspends and should not claw these back as part of efficiency savings – but instead, carry them over to support demand later on.

Progression to HE: official statistics

The DfE published the latest progression to higher education or training figures covering key stage 4 (KS4) and 16 to 18 (KS5) students going into apprenticeship, education and employment destinations.

  • The proportion of students that progressed to a sustained level 4 or higher destination was 66.0%, very similar to the previous year (66.2%).
  • Of the 66% their destinations were as follows:
    • 5% were studying for a degree (a level 6 qualification)
    • 7% were participating in an apprenticeship at level 4 or higher
    • 8% were studying qualifications at level 4 or 5

Some other interesting stats:

  • Students from state-funded mainstream (SFM) schools are much more likely to progress to level 4 or higher education and training (74.6%) than students from SFM colleges (54.9%). Of course, this could be due in part to the different remit and intentions between school and college students as well as the
  • Students from selective schools continued to progress at a very high rate (88.5%).
  • The gap in progression between London and the South West widened slightly – London 77% progression, South West 59.5% (prior attainment and qualification type was controlled for in these statistics). Proximity to HEIs was suggested as an explanation. Also urban local authorities show higher rates of progression than those in rural and coastal areas.
  • Disadvantaged students (those eligible for pupil premium in year 11) were less likely to sustain a level 4 or higher destination (61.8%) than other students (67.0%).
  • Female students were more likely to progress to a level 4 or higher destination (69.0%) than male students (62.6%)
  • Male students were more than twice as likely to sustain an apprenticeship.

There is large variability in the rate of progression by ethnicity group:

  • Students from the Chinese major ethnicity group were the most likely to sustain a level 4 or higher destination (88.7%), more than 27 percentage points ahead of students from the White major ethnicity group, who had the lowest progression rate. Once prior attainment and qualification type were accounted for, students from the Black or Black British major ethnicity group achieved the highest progression scores (+19.1), followed by students from the “Any other ethnic group” (+14.7) and the Asian or Asian British major ethnicity group (+14.4).
  • Students from the White major ethnicity group were the only ones to average a negative progression score, however while they were more than 30 percentage points less likely than students from the Chinese group to sustain a degree destination, students from the White major ethnicity group were more likely than students from other groups (besides the very small Unclassified group) to have an apprenticeship or level 4/5 destination.

Parliamentary Questions

Other News

The Institute of Economic Affairs published a report on university funding.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

 

HE policy update w/e 18th October 2022

parliament, policy, Research news, Uncategorized

With apologies for the short break in the policy updates, we are back!  Thanks to those of you who were missing our updates and reached out to us.  We were just a bit busy.  We hope you enjoy this summary – of course the national political situation may change but the HE policy wagon rumbles on, with very little change.  The money situation is getting worse, association to Horizon looks less and less likely and there is a continuation of anti-HE rhetoric (different people, same record).  We don’t even get our own Minister in the Truss government (Andrea Jenkyns is Minister for Skills, which includes HE).

We were not expecting a major shift in policy for HE, regardless of who won the Tory leadership election, and the same is probably still true now, although of course the financial pressures on the government would suggest that as well as tuition fees staying frozen and little movement on maintenance or hardship support for students, research funding will also be under pressure.

Outstanding government policy decisions include:

Parliamentary News

As we write Liz Truss is still PM and Jeremy Hunt is Chancellor.  Kit Malthouse is Education Minister.  Jacob Rees-Mogg is Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.  After the PM’s appointment the reshuffle took rather a long time, interrupted of course by the period of national mourning, and then it took even longer to confirm the portfolios of some of the unaligned junior ministerial appointments.  Some of these responsibilities and titles are different from what went before.

Andrea Jenkyns replaced Michelle Donelan (who is now in DCMS having taken over from Nadine Dorries) but there is some subtlety implied by the changes to the job title.  Michelle was Minister for Higher and Further Education.  Andrea is Minister for Skills with a remit as follows:

  • strategy for post-16 education
  • T Levels
  • qualifications reviews (levels 3 and below)
  • higher technical education (levels 4 and 5)
  • apprenticeships and traineeships
  • funding for education and training for 16 to 19 year olds
  • further education workforce and funding
  • Institutes of Technology
  • local skills improvement plans and Local Skills Improvement Fund
  • adult education, including basic skills, the National Skills Fund and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund
  • higher education quality
  • student experience and widening participation in higher education
  • student finance and the Lifelong Loan Entitlement (including the Student Loans Company)
  • international education strategy and the Turing Scheme

Minister for Science and Investment: Nusrat Ghani has been appointed as the Minister of State for Science and Investment Security within BEIS.  Nusrat’s responsibilities are:

  • science and research (domestic and international) 
  • Horizon Europe membership (or perhaps we should say Plan B arrangements)
  • innovation strategy / science superpower 
  • critical minerals and critical mineral supply chains
  • maritime and shipbuilding
  • life sciences (including vaccine production)
  • space strategy (excluding OneWeb)
  • technology, strategy and security
  • artificial intelligence (including the Office for AI)
  • fusion
  • R&D people and culture strategy 
  • research approvals 

Supporting the Secretary of State on:

  • investment security
  • investment pipeline and opportunities
  • UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
  • Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA)

Wonkhe have a blog on Nusrat and what we might expect. Here’s a snippet:

  • If you’ve not yet spotted anything else in Nusrat Ghani’s background to suggest any previous interest in science it is unlikely that you are alone. Her discussions of science and research in the House of Commons have been limited to support for businesses in her constituency, and – as we shall see – lockdown scepticism. She was a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, but focused largely on her former transport role and her work on extremism.
  • Fundamentally, there are ministers appointed for their domain expertise and ministers appointed for their loyalty to the party – it is hard not to see Nusrat Ghani as an example of the latter… it is a little bit of a worry.

Jackie Doyle-Price has been appointed as the Minister for Industry.  Jackie’s responsibilities as Minister for Industry include advanced manufacturing, infrastructure and materials, industrial decarbonisation, professional and business services, retail and consumer goods, economic shocks, supply chains, levelling up / regional growth and skills

Nus Ghani had her first outing as sciences minister when she was questioned by the Commons Science and Technology Committee on the government’s R&D policy this week.

  • The Minister re-committed to the current spending allocations of £22bn for R&D.
  • The Minister also said the Nurse Review would report in the Autumn, with civil servants adding that Nurse had spent the summer engaging with stakeholders, and that the report was in the refinement stages.

The Committee sessions also examined the usefulness of R&D tax credits in promoting growth for the UK economy and heard how Horizon Europe negotiations were impacting the academic and business research sectors.

Local MPs

  • Local MP Michael Tomlinson has been appointed as Solicitor General. This means he will be supporting the Attorney General. The Attorney and Solicitor General provide legal advice to government, and answer questions about their work in Parliament. They do not provide legal advice to members of the public or businesses.  One area which often receives publicity is the area of unduly lenient sentences. This is where people feel that a criminal has received a sentence that is too low for their crime. The Solicitor General or Attorney General will examine the case, and may refer it back to the Court of Appeal for review. Michael was sworn in as HM Solicitor General for England and Wales on 29th September and will be subsequently appointed King’s Counsel (KC).
  • Local MP Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) has lost the Conservative Party whip following controversy at the Conservative Party conference. Conor now sits as an independent MP and no longer holds his ministerial position as Minister of State for Trade Policy (Greg Hands MP was appointed to the trade role).
  • Local MP Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) had the Conservative Party whip removed when he missed the Parliamentary vote of confidence in Boris Johnson in July 2022 because he was overseas.   Johnson won the vote, although of course he later resigned.  Tobias has now been reinstated (14th October 2022).

Research

They’re at it again (R&D targets)

Remember when the way the debt associated with the student loan book was reclassified within Government’s accounts? While the methodology of the amount being spent didn’t change it made the student loan figures look like an astronomical outlay and Ministers have been vocal about how university isn’t for everyone (and there are other routes instead) ever since. Well they’ve done it again. A reclassification in how the R&D spend is calculated has led to the Government meeting their original target overnight. Wonkhe explain the change here. The short version is the way the Office for National Statistics account for tax credits and the underreporting of small firms involvement in R&D has resulted in an uplift or scaling up of the estimates but in ‘now’ time rather than retrospectively accounting for their R&D further down the road.

Did I lose you at tax credits? If so Wonkhe put it simply:

  • Meeting the 2.4 per cent target because we are now measuring it better doesn’t feel like a win: it feels like the target was wrong. That’s no-one’s fault. But we should now revise the target to keep it stretching. The poor productivity performance of the UK remains, and measuring R&D differently doesn’t change that. So we still need to aim for higher R&D spending (and investment in general).

The new approach is not without its critics (the Wonkhe article was written by Josh Martin, an economic advisor at the Bank of England and on secondment from the UK Office for National Statistics) so we can expect further methodological tweaks over time, not least because there are concerns about tax fraud within the new definition. On the surface the ‘achievement’ of the target is a win for Government who will already be thinking about how their performance will reflect on them for the next general election.

Levelling Up

When Theresa May gave way to Boris Johnson as PM the focus on the Industrial Strategy morphed into Boris’ levelling up agenda. Now, with Liz Truss at the helm, the constant burble is whether levelling up will remain or slide into obscurity. Of course, these labels are only the coat hooks on which the Government hangs their plans to tackle the same underlying problems within the country, but they are more than just labels they determine the focus of funding to tackle these problems. With this in mind there’s a new Wonkhe blog that is of interest: Engaging with a Truss government on research – The Johnson-era arguments around “levelling up” are now uncertain. James Coe asks how we make the case for research to the current crop of Conservatives. Here’s a snippet:

  • Essentially, the task for universities will be to demonstrate that their work drives economic growth aside from the distributional benefits of doing so. This is particularly important when there are suggestions that research funding could be subject to spending cuts. This would hamper growth, but the government know this. It is a political calculation that as research is not widely understood it will attract less public backlash if cut.
  • So, to make the case for research as an engine of growth. The central concern of universities in this era should be on promoting the importance of research as an economic good which needs properly funding as it faces dual threats of public funding cuts, and a home secretary who has expressed scepticism about some international students. For example, in the clamour to demonstrate the levelling up benefits of research there has been less discussion of core research funding. The R&D Roadmap committed to exploring the possibility of full economic cost of research but there has been little progress or pressure on this front.
  • Any pivot should be about the continual explanation of how research touches the real economy. Research is of course about the breakthroughs but it is also the relentless pursuit of the brilliantly banal. It’s the partnerships with business which bring efficiencies, the marketers, advertisers, and illustrators, and its engineers, chemists, and all those whose work is at the face of business. It’s the parts which might never make the front of a prospectus but make the economy tick over. It’s difficult to expect government to intuitively understand how research is an economic good unless it’s made tangible.

You can read more here. Be sure to read the readers’ comments to the article!

Horizon Europe/Plan B

HEPI (the Higher Education Policy Institute) published a new policy note on the Horizon Europe program and proposed Plan B alternative. The report states that full association with Horizon Europe remains preferable but provides a checklist for making Plan B work, including:

  • incentivising the participation of less well-resourced UK universities in European research and innovation, for example through staff exchange schemes;
  • allowing greater freedom for individual researchers to devise their own research topics;
  • co-funding schemes between the UK Government and the private sector for applied research projects;
  • minimising bureaucracy with short and simple applications; and
  • guaranteeing EU-based entities’ eligibility for UK funding, at least in specific areas, to help pave the way for regaining full association.

You can read the full recommendations here.

Quick Research News

  • You can read oral research and development parliamentary questions here.
  • Greg Clark has been elected uncontested to the position of chair of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, for the second time. Earlier in his career Greg was the Secretary of State for BEIS and most recently the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (from July 2022).
  • The Government has confirmed it will establish a “new” National Science and Technology Council, based in the Cabinet Office, with the Chancellor in the chair. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Nadhim Zahawi, will serve as deputy chair. The NSTC will “double down its efforts to create a UK science and technology system that will be a sustained engine for future economic growth, prosperity and security.” It will “deliver a plan to harness science and technology to support economic growth and the UK’s position on the geopolitical stage, sending a clear signal to the sector about the government’s priorities in this area.” You may recall that the previous NSTC was dissolved only a few weeks ago, however, lobbying from the sector led Truss to sanction the establishment of a ‘new’ NSTC. The dissolution of the original NSTC (which was one of Boris’ babies and only ever convened three times) was seen by some as a clear message that the UK as a Science Superpower wasn’t high on Liz’s agenda. Although the official line was that the Truss administration was keen to reduce the number of PM-chair subcommittees. Here is THE’s coverage of the story: Science friction.
  • The AI Standards Hub, led by the Alan Turing Institute, launched a bid to facilitate collaboration and improve how AI is used across the economy in sectors such as healthcare, transport and finance. The Hub will work to ensure that industry, regulatory, civil society and academic researchers are equipped with the tools and knowledge necessary to contribute to the development of standards and so they can make informed use of published standards.
  • HEPI have published a collection of pieces from 12 authors covering The past, present and future of research assessment
  • Just a blip: China’s retreat from international collaboration in scientific research will prove to be temporary, according to the head of one of the country’s largest funders. (THE)
  • Over in America – Helping hand: The Biden administration is expanding its push to help less-competitive institutions share in federal research funding, opening an office to help guide their students and scientists through its grant application processes. (THE)

Parliamentary Question – EU Grants & Loans (unable to take up)

  • Q – Chi Onwurah: …the number of UK-based scientists who have been informed by the European Research Council that their grant can no longer be taken up in the UK, since 1 January 2022, (b) the number of such grantees who have decided to re-locate, and (c) the total value of European Research Council grants awarded to UK-based scientists since January 2022 that can no longer be taken up in the UK.
  • A – Nusrat Ghani: The Government launched the UK Horizon Europe guarantee in November 2021 to make sure successful UK applicants to Horizon Europe, including ERC winners, can access funding from UKRI, instead of the EU. The guarantee is working as planned and take up is strong.

According to the EU’s publicly available data, 132 UK-based researchers have won awards from the ERC 2021 calls. The EU does not make information public on additional awards for UK applicants who are promoted from the reserve list. As of 30/09, 152 grant offer letters with a value of £235m have been issued by UKRI to UK ERC winners and the promoted reserve list. The application window remains open for any outstanding winners to apply.  Everyone taking up the guarantee will carry out their research in the UK as planned. There is no information available on whether UK winners choose to relocate in order to access ERC or other available funding globally.

Labour policy on education

In case you are wondering what might happen if there were to be a general election and a change of government, we remind you that the latest date for an election is January 2025.  Labour have been a bit reticent on detailed policy ahead of a manifesto process but here are some hints:

  • Labour announces landmark shift in skills to drive growth and equip our country for the future:
    • Turn the Tories’ failed Apprenticeships Levy into a ‘Growth and Skills Levy’ enabling firms to spend up to 50% of their levy contributions, including current underspend, on non-apprenticeship training – including modular courses and functional skills courses to tackle key skills gaps. By reserving 50% of the Growth and Skills Levy for apprenticeships, we will protect existing apprenticeship provision
    • Better align skills policy with regional economic policy and local labour markets by devolving combining and various adult education skills funding streams to current and future combined authorities
    • Establish a new expert body, Skills England, to oversee the national effort to meet the skills needs of the coming decade across all regions, and ensure we can deliver our Climate Investment Pledge.
  • Labour ‘very close’ to unveiling ‘sustainable’ HE funding plan – THE “There has been speculation that Labour will opt for a graduate tax – and Mr Western’s comments seemed to leave the door open to that policy.”
  • Higher education policymaking in Opposition: What should Labour do now? HEPI blog by Nick Hillman

Students

Student Loans & withdrawals

The latest student loan spend is that £2.6 billion had been paid to UK students at the end of September. More details here.

The Student Loans Company has published new figures showing a 23% increase in the number of students withdrawing from university courses, NUS Vice President Higher Education, Chloe Field, said: These figures are shocking, but not surprising given the cost of living crisis which is pushing students to the brink. We’ve warned that student dropouts could increase as university becomes less affordable, and it could get even worse this year.

Cost of Living  MillionPlus released new analysis on the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on HE students.

  • The analysis of the 2022 Student Academic Experience Survey identifies the more than 300,000 undergraduates that will be hardest hit financially in the coming academic year.
  • These students are more likely to belong to groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Black and mature students are the two groups most at-risk of immediate financial hardship.
  • Additionally, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, those from areas with lower rates of participation in higher education and students who live-at-home or commute to campus are also more likely to be at-risk.
  • Given the close links between thoughts of quitting, mental health problems and financial difficulties, universities face significant rates of attrition in the coming months. This places successful widening participation policies at significant risk.

MillionPlus calls on the Government for increased maintenance funding for students (ideally grants not loans), the better inclusion of students in the wider cost of living assistance programmes announced in September 2022 and ensuring energy discount payments are passed on to student tenants where fixed energy costs are included in rental charges. In their recommendations to the OfS they ask for an immediate increase in hardship funds for universities to target at students most at need.

Mental Health  The OfS also published mental health reports:

Here are the key points from the Mental Health Challenge Competition (MHCC) evaluation:
The MHCC sought to deliver a ‘step change in mental health outcomes for all students’. The evaluation states that the programme achieved this in three key areas:

  • It led to strengthened strategic partnerships between universities, colleges and local partners and NHS services
  • Services for students became better connected and more accessible
  • There was an improved range of preventative and proactive mental health support available to students.

The report sets out a series of recommendations for the sector and regulator including co-creating mental health initiatives with students:

Next steps for the Sector:

  • Work around student transitions from FE to HE would benefit from a national approach to avoid a ‘postcode’ lottery emerging.
  • Greater collaboration between HE providers is encouraged – to maximise opportunities for shared learning.
  • The MHCC piloted several new models of student support that go beyond traditional university counselling services. Providers are urged to explore these approaches and adopt models which may help to address challenges faced within their own setting.
  • Further work is needed still to drive forward early intervention. We encourage the sector to continue to develop and test innovative approaches that support preventative efforts in student mental health.

Standards and excellence

Minimum Student Outcomes  The OfS announced the latest student outcome minimum expectations. The new thresholds tackle continuation, completion, and post-graduate destinations.

For full-time students studying for a first degree, the thresholds are for:

  • 80% of students to continue their studies
  • 75% of students to complete their course
  • 60% of students to go on to further study, professional work, or other positive outcomes, within 15 months of graduating.

Different thresholds have been set for courses depending on their mode and level of study, which take into account the differences in outcomes for students who study full- and part-time, and those on undergraduate and postgraduate courses. The OfS have stated they will also consider performance in individual subjects, to ensure pockets of poor performance can be identified and addressed.

Institutions performing below these thresholds would face investigation and if performance is not adequately explained by a provider’s context, the OfS has the power to intervene and impose sanctions for a breach of its conditions of registration.

Susan Lapworth, Chief Executive of the OfS, said:

  • ‘Many universities and colleges deliver successful outcomes for their students and our new thresholds should not trouble them. But too many students, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, are recruited onto courses with weak outcomes which do not improve their life chances. We can now intervene where outcomes for students are low, and where universities and colleges cannot credibly explain why.
  • We recognise that students choose higher education for a variety of reasons. Many are focused on improving their career prospects and it is right that we’re prepared to tackle courses with low numbers of students going into professional work. Our new approach also takes into account other positive outcomes, for example, further study, or graduates building their own business or a portfolio career.
  • Most higher education students in England are on courses with outcomes above our thresholds, often significantly so. These courses put students in a good position to continue their successes after graduation. But today’s decision provides a clear incentive for universities and colleges to take credible action to improve the outcomes of courses which may be cause for concern.

Teaching Excellence Framework  The data, guidance and timeline for TEF 2023 has now been finalised. Submissions are due in by 24th January.  Results will be published “from” September 2023.  A reminder that this process is mandatory. The guidance is here. You can find all the data here.  A reminder that it is available split by student characteristic and subject. The press release says:

  • All universities and colleges regulated by the OfS must meet minimum requirements on the quality of their courses and on student outcomes. TEF recognises increasing degrees of excellence above these minimum expectations and universities and colleges can receive one of three ratings: ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’, or ‘Bronze’. Where there is an absence of excellence above the minimum requirements, the outcome will be ‘Requires improvement’.
  • TEF outcomes will last for four years. They are assessed by a panel of experts in learning and teaching, including academic and student members. Panels make an assessment based on evidence submitted by each university or college, an optional student submission and a set of indicators produced by the OfS. Guidance is also published today to help inform the student submissions. The TEF panel considers the following, for the mix of student and courses at each university and college: students’ academic experience and assessment; resources, support and student engagement; positive outcomes; and educational gains.

Also note the NSS consultation that was rushed through by the OfS with a short deadline over the summer.  ICYMI, question 27 will be abolished in England, with working changes and some new questions on hot topics such as freedom of speech and mental health provision.

Harassment and sexual misconduct  The OfS also announced they plan to consult on a proposed harassment and sexual misconduct condition of registration in the new year. OfS stated they have begun work to develop a pilot ‘prevalence survey’ to understand the scale and nature of sexual misconduct affecting HE students in England. Subject to the outcomes of the consultation the new condition may be in effect by the start of the 2023/24 academic year.

OfS consultation on changes to the approach to Access and Participation plans. This closes on 10th November.

International

At the Conservative Party conference Suella Braverman, Home Secretary, made unwelcoming comments about international students and suggested that some are bringing large numbers of dependents with them insinuating this was a backdoor route to increased immigration.

In response to Braverman’s comments THE wrote: Those barbs, some suggest, may have been playing to the crowd when Tory spirits were at a low ebb, but others worry that this rhetoric could set the tone for a year or two where ministers see HE as a punching bag, rather than a crucial means for solving the deep economic problems that the country now faces.

The Russell Group issued a comment on the contribution of international students to the UK:

  • The fact that our universities attract people from around the world is an asset and should be seen as a UK success story. It’s why the Government’s ambition was to host 600k a year by 2030 and why it celebrated hitting that target years ahead of schedule.
  • International students help ensure our campuses provide a vibrant and diverse environment for young people to learn in and generate funds that are re-invested in our universities and benefit the wider UK economy.
  • The global market for international students is highly competitive. The recent strong growth in applicants from India and Nigeria, prioritised in the UK’s International Education Strategy show efforts to attract students from across the world, like the graduate route, are beginning to pay dividends. It would be a mistake to undo this good work and reverse course now.
  • Indeed, international students make up over two thirds of UK education exports and will be critical to meeting the Government’s export strategy to increase education exports to £35 billion by 2030.

The Times covered Braverman’s speech: Ministers may cap number of children foreign students can bring to UK stating that Zahawi and Braverman were discussing a plan to tackle ‘bad migration’ and that Ministers are understood to be looking at ways to tighten the rules.

Responding to the article, Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern tweeted:

  • Only postgrads get to bring dependents- but that’s because [they] tend to be older and therefore more likely to have spouse and children. Odd that growth-obsessed govt would want to turn them away when they contribute so much to the economy.

Dods report that Zahawi told Sky News on Sunday that the Government wanted to “bear down on bad migration”, citing international students as an area of concern. “International students are . . . a really positive thing for our universities, for our communities,” he said, before adding: “But if you look at the number of dependents that come with international students, you’d expect most international students may bring one dependent, or if they are doing a PhD they might bring their wife and maybe a child. There are some people who are coming to study in the UK who are bringing five, six more people with them. Is that right? No.”

The Government are appearing slightly out of touch with the populace on this matter. An interesting report on migration came out this week. The Ipsos/British Future immigration attitudes tracker Tracking attitudes to immigration in 2022  found that British people are supportive of immigration.

  • Attitudes to immigration today remain among the most positive since the tracker began. This might be seen as surprising during this period of political and economic turbulence. Almost half of the population believes that migration has had a positive impact on Britain, while less than a third believes it to be negative.
  • …at a time of high immigration for work and study, most of the public are relatively relaxed about the impact of immigration. Support for reducing immigration is at its lowest level in seven years. Many would welcome more migration to fill skills and labour gaps in particular areas, for example in the care sector and the NHS. Yet there is also a curious paradox. While the British public has changed its mind significantly on immigration, they are largely unaware that this has happened.
  • Control continues to be more important than numbers: People continually see it as more important that migration is controlled, whether or not numbers are reduced, than that the UK pursues a policy based on deterrence that keeps numbers low. Significantly more people (40%) see it is as important that the UK government has control over who can or can’t come into the UK, whether or not that means numbers are significantly reduced, than the 27% of the public who prioritise deterring people from coming to the UK to keep numbers low

Dods have the “final” say on the topic (this week): As the new Cabinet debates a choice over whether relaxing some immigration restrictions could help the economy to grow, while other Cabinet voices prioritise cutting overall numbers, the research finds that Prime Minister Liz Truss has ‘pragmatic permission’ for a balanced approach to immigration.

Of course, the characters involved may not be in their roles all data much longer.  But a more relaxed approach to immigration may be one of the pro-growth policies that survives the wreckage of Trussonomics.

International Education: London Higher published a new report calling for the establishment of a dedicated International Education Champion for London.

Free Speech

Free speech is back on the central agenda of Government as the HE Freedom of Speech Bill resumes its journey through Parliament. It is scheduled for Committee Stage within the Lords from 31 October. Committee Stage is when the parliamentarians get into the full nitty gritty of the Bill and may even call witnesses to further consideration as to the Bill’s provisions. If we cast our minds back to when Michelle Donelan was universities minister she had to backtrack slightly during the Bill’s progression due to cross-party criticisms (particularly from the Lords) and she agreed to bring the Bill back into play with elements redrafted. We’ll be keeping a close eye on the passage of the Bill as it goes through under the stewardship of Kit Malthouse and Andrea Jenkyns.

Student and Public Opinion  Kings College London published The state of free speech in UK universities: what students and the public think stating there is strong agreement among students that free speech, robust debate and academic freedom are protected in their universities. Here are the key points (although the report is worth a browse as there are good charts and illustrations available):

  • 65% of students now say free speech and robust debate are well protected at their institution, while 15% disagree with this view. And 73% report that debates and discussions in their university are civil, respecting the rights and dignity of others, with 10% disagreeing. Both sets of figures are largely unchanged from 2019.
  • 80% of students also now say they’re free to express their views at their university, while 88% said the same three years ago. This is higher than the 70% of the general public who say they feel free to express their views in UK society.
  • The proportion of students who believe that academics are free to express their views at their university has declined slightly, but Kings state it still represents a strong majority, at 70% in 2022 compared with 77% in 2019, with 14% of students disagreeing.
  • 75% of students say they are free from discrimination, harm or hatred – virtually the same as in 2019 (78%).
  • Universities are also seen to be doing (increasingly) well in handling protests: 55% of students say their university manages student protests fairly – up from 48% in 2019. And only 12% now disagree with this view (32% say they don’t know).

However, growing minorities of students feel freedoms are under threat in their institutions: 34% of students say free speech is very or fairly threatened in their university – up from 23% in 2019. Similarly, 32% of students now feel academic freedom is threatened at their institution, compared with 20% who felt this way three years ago.

Despite these increases, a majority of students still feel these liberties are not at risk: 59% still think free speech is either not very threatened or not threatened at all. And students are more likely to think free speech is under threat in UK society as a whole (53%) more than it is at their university (34%).

No platforming – in 2019, 37% of students said that students avoided inviting controversial speakers to their university because of the difficulties involved in getting those events agreed – this has now risen to 48%.

Perceptions of a “chilling effect” on speech are increasing – interestingly for both conservative and left-wing views

  • Half (50%) of students now feel that those with conservative views are reluctant to express them at their university, compared with 37% who said the same in 2019. This perception has grown in particular among students who say they’d vote for the Conservative party, rising from 59% to 68% over the last three years.
  • It is a similar story when it comes to left-wing views, with the proportion of students who say people are reluctant to express such opinions at their university more than doubling, from 14% in 2019 to 36% in 2022.

Quiet No-platforming  HEPI published a new report on free speech: New study finds ‘quiet’ no-platforming to be a bigger problem than actual no-platforming i.e. the pre-emptive cancelling of events for fear of attracting controversy, tackling the matter from the perspective of student societies, student self-censorship and the speakers they do or don’t invite. The report argues this is a more pervasive problem than no-platforming in its traditional form. Aside from its content which is of interest to the continued free speech debate considering the author’s allegiance (LSE graduate, LSE received media attention for their speaker events) and the sponsorship of the report by the University of Buckingham (read the foreword, it puts the sponsorship into context) helps set the tone for the piece. It’s a long read so for those not able to wade through the author intended to leave you with this thought:

  • The Government should work with universities to bring about a cultural shift in the way speaker events are handled and received. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is an encouraging start, but the risk of legal action may make students more cautious rather than more adventurous with the speakers they invite. Streamlining the Bill and supporting students will allow the Government to hold universities accountable and encourage students to hold genuinely bold and thought-provoking events.

Here is THE’s story covering the HEPI report: Not-so-free speech: The Westminster government’s controversial university free speech bill might actually increase early cancellation of hostile speakers, according to a study from the Higher Education Policy Institute.

The Russell Group’s response to the HEPI paper is also worth noting: Exposing students to new ideas and perspectives is a vital part of the university experience so this report is right to highlight the risk of unintended consequences if we get legislation wrong. If university staff or student groups are too worried about legal risks or unnecessary red tape to host a speaker then the government’s free speech bill risks doing exactly what it is trying to prevent.

Free Speech & Decolonisation: Civitas published Free speech and decolonisation in British universities.

Conservative Party Conference

BU’s Nathaniel Hobby, PR and Corporate Communications Manager, attended the Conservative party conference and kindly shares his experience of the front line with colleagues.

​The best way to describe conversation around HE at the Conservative Party Conference: Polarising. On the one hand, Skills Minister Andrea Jenkyns MP was quick to praise universities, using her time on the main stage to say, “we have to be proud of our universities” and their international reputation. A fringe event from the Tony Blair Institute, with an all-star HE cast of Phillip Augar and David Willets, argued for a 70% target for school-leavers into HE, and plenty of MPs (Anna Firth, Tom Hunt and more) took their opportunity on fringe panels to talk about the important role of universities in their own towns.

However, it was hard to be wholly positive, and there was plenty to concern the HE sector too. Away from the main stage, Andrea Jenkyns was much less effusive, using her speech to The Bruges Group to say, “The current system would rather our young people get a degree in Harry Potter studies, than in construction” and accusing British universities of feeding “a diet of critical race theory, anti-British history and social Marxism”.

Jonathan Simons at Public First was quick to denounce this as ‘uninformed at best’ and many at the conference did not take kindly to her words. In further worrying news, Home Secretary Suella Braverman seemed to take aim at the ‘very high number’ of international students and the dependents they bring with them and “propping up frankly substandard courses in inadequate institutions”.  It was hard not to be a little concerned about the view that some central figures in the party have when it comes to universities.

Jenkyns still has HE within her brief (despite the confusion), but the focus on ‘skills’ will be central, and Jenkyns clearly outlined that Britain shouldn’t rely on academia, but that a suite of tertiary education, including degree apprenticeships, T-levels, FE and business-delivered courses could feature.

In more welcome news, a Science Minister was appointed – Nus Ghani taking on the brief and there were many calls for the Party to honour their commitment of 2.4% GDP to be spent on R&D to keep up with other countries.

Overall, the theme of the conference was ‘growth’ and, despite the sheer number of events focussed on levelling-up, the mood music seems to suggest that this terminology might be dialled-down in favour of growth under the Truss-administration. With the education strand, the key theme was ’place‘– and what universities can do in their own contexts to pursue growth and become leaders, conveners, skills providers and mobilisers in their own communities – the Civic agenda isn’t going away any time soon!

Other news

  • Parting shot: THE article Universities need long-term plans and consistent support, not governments that “lurch from hurricane to tropical storm” with policies and “anti-intellectual rhetoric” that sow divisions and spread uncertainty, the outgoing vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford has said.
  • It’s not often Sarah recommends reading a speech but this piece from a few weeks ago from Nick Hillman (Director of HEPI) on How higher education changed during the Queen’s reign (and, astoundingly, which issues are the same as in 1952) is worth your time. It’s delightfully packed with little snippets and facts that you’ll feel better for knowing. For example in 1952 student mental health, international students, graduate outcomes/preparedness for employment, HE funding from the public purse, and – my mind is blown – even the call for universities to intervene with schools were all issues just as today. Also, one for the pub quiz, Freshers/Welcome week first started in 1952. Try to make it to halfway, and if you’re keen you can finish the piece to spot how Nick cleverly argues for some key HE securities such as no caps on recruitment, expansion and the final paragraph reminds us how well UK HE compares to our European counterparts. Something to remember when you’re feeling jaded from the media anti-HE tirade.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

  • 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.
  • 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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

BU Academics Written Evidence Published by UK’s Parliament

BU research, parliament

Academic research should actively shape government policy, especially in times of crisis. In light of the energy crisis in the UK, written evidence provided to the UK 🇬🇧 Parliament has been published on the parliament website.

You can read the evidence here: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/109639/pdf/ 

This evidence is in support of “The Financial Sector and the UK’s Net Zero Transition – Considering Economic Welfare Implications of Pathways to Retirement of Fossil Fuel Assets and Local Interventions”

Congratulations to Dr. Alan Kirkpatrick (BUBS), Dr. Tahani Mohamed (BUBS), and Dr. Festus Adedoyin (FST).

#BUproud #collaboration #tax #BournemouthBusinessschool#bournemouthuniversity #research #energy #parliament

Prof John Oliver appointed to Horizon & Foresight Scanning Board

BRIAN, BU research, Business Engagement, Impact, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, parliament, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, policy

Prof John Oliver has been appointed to the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology’s new Advisory Board responsible for Horizon & Foresight Scanning. The new board has been set up in response to an inquiry into the effectiveness and influence of the Select Committee system by the 2017–19 House of Commons Liaison Committee.

The advisory board aims to improve the efficacy of horizon and foresight scanning processes to inform the identification of Areas of Research Interest (ARI). ARIs are lists of policy issues or questions used by Select Committees, parliamentarians and by parliamentary staff to produce more research evidence in certain topics to scrutinize the government and to inform future policy work.

The advisory board will also be responsible for developing ‘futures thinking’ capabilities by developing training opportunities and resources for parliamentarians and staff to enable them to think more long-term and manage the uncertainty in policy-making.

Prof John Oliver commented that “the world is becoming more and more uncertain with Covid-19, Brexit, Russia-Ukraine War and global economic uncertainty. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund’s World Uncertainty Index recently reported that global uncertainty has reached “unprecedented levels” in recent years. This makes horizon and foresight scanning more of a priority for many policy-makers and organisations as it helps them manage the uncertainty around future dynamics”.

This new role builds on Prof Oliver’s previous scenario planning research and work with the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology and the House of Commons.

HE policy update 11th August 2022

COVID-19, NHS, parliament, policy, Student Engagement, Uncategorized

This is part 1 of your bumper summer catch up – with a focus on the general political situation and on education – we will come back to you with a mega update on research next week!

Parliamentary News

ICYMI: New ministerial briefs

  • James Cleverly, Secretary of State for Education
  • Brendan Clarke-Smith, Minister for Children and Families
  • Will Quince, Minister for School Standards
  • Andrea Jenkyns, Minister for Skills, Further and Higher Education
  • Baroness Barran, Lords Minister/Minister for the School System
  • Chair – Commons Science and Technology Committee: With Greg Clark appointed as the Secretary of State (SoS) for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities he had to leave his role as Chair of the Commons Science and Technology Committee. This means a new Chair will be elected after the summer recess, although if the new PM appoints a different Secretary of State Greg may return to Chair the Committee again. The rumour is he doesn’t expect to retain the SoS post once the new PM takes over.

Labour frontbench: Labour have made some shadow Cabinet changes:

  • Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) has been appointed Shadow Minister for Veterans and Defence People. She retains her shadow CO role to reflect the fact that the government veterans position is also cross-departmental.
  • Hopkins takes over from Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) who has been appointed Shadow Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure.
  • Peacock replaces Chris Elmore (Ogmore) who has been appointed to the new post of Parliamentary Lead for the Labour Party Chair. He also continues as an Opposition Whip.

Profiling the new ministers

Andrea Jenkyns MP is (currently) the Minister for HE having replaced Michelle Donelan in the post resignation reshuffle. Previously Ms Jenkyns was a member of the Health committee (2015-17) and two EU focussed select committees (her son is nicknamed Brexit!). Jenkyns entered employment after leaving school and achieved her diploma in economics from the Open University and a BA in international relations and politics (graduated 2014) from Lincoln University later in life. Before politics she worked as an international business development manager(15 years), a councillor for Lincolnshire County Council, a music tutor in three secondary schools (she sings soprano and has a huge vocal range – that should liven up Cabinet!), and worked as a musical theatre director.

Jenkyns is a charity fundraiser and supporter of the charity Antibiotic Research UK. She is a trustee and voluntary regional representative for the charity MRSA Action UK. She has also become a reviewer for the National Institute for Health Research.

When elected to parliament her campaign priorities were the development of brownfield sites, delivering excellent local health services and growing the local economy. She is against repealing the hunting ban. Jenkyns has stated that the death of her father at a local hospital in 2011, from the hospital superbug MRSA, motivated her to stand as an MP, to ensure compassionate care is a priority. In November 2015 she launched a campaign to promote good hand hygiene in schools and hospitals.

Jenkyns received notoriety when she presented her middle finger to the crowd gathered outside of Downing Street calling for Boris’ resignation. She described the crowd as a “baying mob” and said she was standing up for herself.

James Cleverly also went into work after leaving school (he attended a selective school). He joined the army (left due to injury) and still volunteers with the TA. James studied at Thames Valley University graduating with a degree in hospitality and management. Swiftly followed by a move into magazine and digital publishing where he set up his own company.

Cleverly’s political career began as a London Assembly member, he was a board member of the London Development Agency, and unsuccessfully ran for Parliament in 2005. He was finally elected in 2015 and emphasised local business alongside road and internet connectivity. He put forward a Private Members’ Bill in 2015 to give further powers to the Health and Safety Executive (it didn’t succeed – but they rarely do). He was a founding member of Conservatives for Britain (a group calling for fundamental change with the UK’s relationship with the EU), voted to leave the EU and became the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union in April 2019. He was appointed Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party in January 2018. He was then appointed as Minister of State for Middle East and North Africa in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development in February 2020. North America was added to his responsibilities in December 2021. And he became Minister of State for Europe and North America in February 2022. He has been a member of the APPG Showing Racism the Read Card since 2017. His political interests are stated as local business, technology, trade out of poverty and international trade.

He’s married to his university girlfriend and recognises the importance of family values. He’s President of Bromley District Scouts. He gave a daring interview in November 2015 in which he admitted to trying cannabis at university, and watching online pornography. He also said he would like to become leader of the party. When Theresa May stepped down he announced his candidacy in the leadership content but withdrew a week later as he recognised he was unlikely to make the final cut.

PM Candidates

YouGov released a poll of the leadership race showing Truss currently leads Sunak by 69% to 31% among Tory members. Here are the latest pledges from the prime ministerial candidates relating to education and young people.

Liz Truss:

  • Would lift ban on new grammar schools and replace failing schools with them
  • Pledged to expand high-performing academies and replace failing ones with new free schools and grammars
  • Would focus on literacy and numeracy – stick to the current government target for 90% of primary children to reach the expected standard in literacy and numeracy – as well and post-pandemic catch-up
  • Wants to give working parents access to childcare around the school day and extend the range of providers who accept government childcare entitlements
  • Would also follow through on government plans to change staff-to-child ratios for early years providers
  • All A Level students with three A*s would be automatically offered interview at Oxford or Cambridge. (Wonkhe have a great blog on the topic highlighting that it isn’t the social mobility improvement Liz believes, and really highlights her lack of awareness.)
  • Would look to introduce post-qualification admissions (PQAs) for university entry – purported to be considering moving the start of the university academic year to January, to accommodate PQA reform
  • Pledged to move subsidies from poor quality degree courses to vocational training
  • Would create designated “Investment Zones” to drive innovation

Rishi Sunak:

  • Would create a new British Baccalaureate that would require all 16-year-olds to study core subjects, including maths and English, beyond GCSE up to age 18
  • Would reverse ban on new grammar schools and support expansion
  • Would ask Ofsted to assess the quality of sports and PE in school at every inspection
  • Also pledged to open up school sport facilities over summer holidays
  • Suggested he would reform the curriculum to focus on workplace skills, as well as science, maths and technology
  • Pledged to improve professional development for teachers, as well as introduce AI and technology to the classroom to reduce teachers’ workloads
  • Committed to the plan to open 75 new free schools, as announced by the government in June
  • Would give school trusts an “accountability holiday” for two years after taking on underperforming schools
  • Plans to stop organisations such as Stonewall from delivering sex and relationships education (SRE)
  • Pledged to put SRE on to a statutory footing, providing schools with guidance on what is acceptable, and giving parents the ability to request to see teaching materials, including from external groups (it’s understood this would be done via an amendment to the Schools Bill)
  • Would ban all 30 Confucius Institutes in the UK and force universities to disclose foreign funding partnerships of more than £50,000
  • Would “strengthen networks of technical institutions and their links with industry, as well as giving them powers to award degrees”
  • Would create a “Russell Group of world-class technical colleges” to improve prestige of vocational training (this idea is akin to that within the Northern Research Group pledge card, which Sunak signed)
  • Wants to “clamp down” on some university degrees that don’t lead to good outcomes – assessing their quality through drop-out rates, graduate jobs, and salary thresholds
  • Would expedite the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, currently sitting with the Lords

Lord Hague, the former Conservative leader, has weighed into the leadership race with suggestions on how the PM hopefuls could increase the science and technology prowess of the UK, including the creation of a secretary of state for science and technology.

Voting will close on 2 September. The new PM is still scheduled to be revealed on 5 September.

Overall – we would not expect a major change of direction in relation to HE.  The ferocity of the culture wars will perhaps depend on who the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Universities are in a reshuffled government, but Liz Truss looks likely to maintain the current direction if she wins.  Her espousal of PQAs, after the DfE consultation was ditched by Nadhim Zahawi earlier this year, will cause sighs across the sector, but at least the DfE have an oven ready set of consultation responses they can use to inform the next step.

OFS consultations

Consultation outcomes – the outcomes of the three outstanding OfS consultations(which closed in March) have been published – although there is a lot of detail still to come – and we have a new one (with a very tight deadline)

NSS consultation: Following earlier consultations on changes to the NSS, the OfS have just launched another, closing on 1st September.

This has been slightly challenging area for the OfS, with government ministers making bold statements about how the NSS causes “dumbing down” and demanding it be dropped as a metric for regulatory purposes and the TEF – and the OfS resisting on the basis that it provides useful context and informs action on student experience at universities.

The latest consultation, issued on 28th July with a 1st September deadline (what sort of response do they expect?) includes some options for change to the questionnaire, and proposed removing question 27 completely for England (which addresses the dumbing down point).  They ran a pilot of some of these questions this year and have published a review of the pilot which informed this consultation.

Main changes

  • The NSS currently opens in January and runs until the end of April. We are proposing to shorten the survey window by delaying the launch of the survey to mid-February
  • We propose establishing a four-year review cycle for the NSS to ensure the survey can reflect changes in practice and continue to meet the needs of the UK funders and regulators, students and providers. To date, the survey has been reviewed on an ad hoc basis with the last major review conducted in 2015
  • The questionnaire currently uses the Likert scale, which measures student agreement or disagreement with particular statements. 22. We propose to change the questionnaire to more direct questions for 2023 – which would change how questions are asked – to offer students the opportunity to rate different aspects of their experience on a scale designed specifically for a particular question

Some examples are given in the consultation but they have not made final proposals for all of the questions, and are still thinking about the scales in some cases – see Annex D of the consultation.  

 In addition to the changes to existing questions, there are some new proposed questions.

They are proposing to remove the summative question [question 27] for England. A version of the summative question would remain for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The consultation says:

  • There were significant concerns about the wording of the current question. In particular, the term ‘satisfaction’ was regarded as unhelpful as it detracted from the wider findings of the survey and was seen as too consumerist in nature. There were also concerns about the use of the summative question by the media in England when reporting on the outcomes of the NSS each year. The current question 27 on overall satisfaction is the most commonly used metric in league tables, and its removal might make the results less susceptible to ranking. Phase one of the review found that the question was unhelpful for the survey as a whole. Most questions ask students to rate their experience of different aspects of their academic experience, and no other question asks about satisfaction. Yet critics often derogatively dub the NSS as a ‘satisfaction survey’. There was no consensus on what should replace it

There are proposed questions on freedom of expression and a provider’s mental wellbeing provision.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this consultation is although we don’t expect an outcry in favour of question 27 and given the timing of this (and the OfS approach to consultations (see below), they are likely to finalise their views on the outstanding questions and plough ahead. Wonkhe have two blogs: one reviewing the proposals, (pithy summary of an interesting blog: “poor show”) and one looking at what else could be considered. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in Autumn 2022. The OfS anticipate implementing any changes in the 2023 NSS. If you wish to comment on an aspect of the consultation please contact Jane.

Teaching Excellence Framework

The final decisions have now been made about the TEF timetable.  Guidance will be published in late September; the submission window will open at that time and will close in mid-January.  Outcomes will be published in September 2023.  The outcomes are here.  Few changes have been made to the proposals, there is a bit of clarification on the new “educational gain” aspect (which is largely being left to providers to define), to make apprenticeships an optional element in the assessment, to make the provider submission 25 instead of 20 pages, and to clarify the requirements for student submissions.  They have not yet made a decision about how much of the data will be published.

  • Of our 15 proposals most respondents agreed with 11 of them. Views on one proposal were split and a majority disagreed with three proposals
  • Disagreement was most strongly expressed in relation to:
    • proposals 3 and 4 which relate to the categories in the rating scheme (Gold, Silver and Bronze)[ Approximately two thirds of respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagree with this proposal], [no change was made]
    • the use of ‘Requires improvement’ where there is an absence of excellence[ Almost three-quarters of respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal], [no change was made]
    • proposal 15 which relates to the timeline for implementation [almost nine in ten of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing]

After the publication of a set of new licence conditions earlier this year, which re already in force, the last one, B3, has now been finalised and will come into force on 3rd October.  B3 is the condition that applies minimum thresholds for continuation, completion and progression into highly skilled employment.  These thresholds are absolute, not benchmarked, and will be applied across a range of splits – notably level (including postgraduate) and subject. Some outcome measures were used before in the TEF, split by characteristic – but that was for undergraduate only and at an institutional level, not split by subject, so this is a major change.

Licence condition B3

The B3 proposals were fairly controversial, as is illustrated by the response that the OfS got:

  • Around three-quarters of respondents disagreed with the proposed timing of implementation, almost two thirds disagreed with the approach to constructing the student outcomes indicators and almost half disagreed with the approach to setting numerical thresholds

But they are going ahead anyway, with only minor changes.

  • They have decided to adopt the cohort tracking methodology for constructing the completion outcome measure – two options were proposed in the consultation.
  • The final numerical thresholds will be published in September, and will be no higher than those proposed in the consultation.
  • More information about publication of the B3 data and the TEF data will be available in September.

You can read the final condition B3 here.  For reference, these were the original proposed thresholds (and as noted above, the final ones to be confirmed in September will not be higher than those originally proposed).

The third consultation was about constructing the indicators for both of the above and the outcomes are here.

In a blog, the Director of Quality says:

  • Our revised condition of registration (condition B3) means that students from all backgrounds can achieve positive outcomes and are protected from performance that is below our minimum expectations, whatever, wherever and however they study. At the same time, through the TEF, we want to incentivise universities and colleges to achieve excellence in teaching, learning and their outcomes – above and beyond our minimum expectations and in a way that recognises the full diversity of higher education courses and many ways students study.
  • We’ve carefully considered more than 600 responses to our phase three consultations. We’ve made some changes as a result of those responses, but we remain committed to the policy agenda we set out in January….
  • …Some responses to our consultation asked whether positive outcomes for students should be defined more broadly when students may gain wide-ranging benefits from their studies. We recognise that higher education produces wider value than we have captured in our indicators. This might be a reason to look at additional measures in the future, but it shouldn’t prevent us from measuring and regulating the things we already know matter to students: continuing through to the end of their course and progressing successfully into the next stage of their career or studies. We must be able to protect students from courses which don’t deliver these benefits. 

In a blog for Wonkhe, David Kernohan and Jim Dickinson give their perspectives, including this one, which highlights the key contradiction at the heart of all this:

  • For some time now, OfS has been saying that opportunities for study are not meaningful if students are able to choose or continue on “low quality courses delivering weak outcomes” because the regulatory system has endorsed such performance. But does that mean working over time to improve the quality and outcomes, or killing off those courses – especially if they’re a component of your partnership portfolio? Minister for skills, further and higher education Andrea Jenkyns says “Following on from the first wave of OfS inspections, this consultation response is an important next step to halting dead-end courses.” But the OfS documentation says that it recognises that providers may choose to close courses rather than take steps to improve student outcomes, and if it suspects that’s been happening it will “interrogate whether a provider had taken action to improve its performance” and sought to “evade regulatory action by closing courses with weak performance”. How about if we sleep a little bit longer and forget all this nonsense?

One (cynical) way to read it, in today’s politicised environment – closing a course to avoid regulatory interference is BAD – being made to close it by the regulator is GOOD (for the regulator and the government).

The Russell Group aren’t best pleased with the outcomes. Sarah Stevens, Director of Policy at the Russell Group said:

  • We support the OfS’s efforts to set challenging baselines that will ensure all students are entitled to a minimum quality of provision. However, this needs to be delivered in a proportionate and risk-based manner so low-risk providers can get on with the job of providing students with a high-quality experience. In particular, we are concerned that plans to change the way courses are prioritised for investigation each year will increase the burden on low-risk providers, and hope the OfS can move to a more consistent and transparent approach.
  • The plans to take into account absolute values and the increased weighting of the provider submission when assessing a provider’s performance will help ensure TEF awards are more robust. However, the TEF remains a significantly burdensome activity and we are concerned that the implementation timeline does not give the sector enough time to fully engage with the changes announced. With the TEF submission period beginning in September, it’s also vital that the OfS publish detailed guidance to providers as soon as possible.

Quality of HE courses: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

  • Q – James Grundy (Leigh) (Con): What progress he has made on improving the quality of higher education courses.
  • A – The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan): For the first time, universities will be subject to stringent minimum thresholds for student outcomes on completion rates and graduate jobs. Boots-on-the-ground inspections have begun, and through our transparency drive to give students all the information that they need and a focus on participation and outcomes, we are driving out the pockets of poor quality in our world-leading higher education sector.

Mini horizon scan

A proper horizon scan, which we would usually do at this time of year, may seem a little bit challenging when the last few years have shown that the priorities and convictions of those in the Secretary of State and Minister for Universities role have had a huge impact on direction: Jo Johnson of course was behind the creation of OfS, the TEF and the new regulatory regime, but to give some more examples, Gavin Williamson ramped up the focus on “poor quality courses” (and tried hard on PQA).  Damien Hinds started the campaign that eventually stopped conditional unconditional offers.   We can thank Michele Donelan for ramping up the culture wars, and leading the charge on free speech.

But a lot of fairly major change is already in hand, things are fairly well developed and therefore unlikely to change.  There may be differences in emphasis and nuance, and additional priorities (PQA for Liz Truss) but we would not expect major shifts in approach to any of the current hot topics.

Of course, there will be a general election at some point – the latest this can be is 24th January 2025 although after the fixed term legislation was repealed the PM can seek an earlier election.  Given the cost of living crisis alone, a newly installed PM this autumn is unlikely to find that appealing, as they will want to make some sort of impression before going back to the people.

Levelling up A flagship Johnson policy. Linked to the access and participation work referenced below.

The Skills and Post-16 Education Act became law in April.  It will be for the new leader and their team to implement this including the local skills improvement plans (chapter 1 of the new act), changes to technical education including continuing the implementation of T-levels (and closing some BTECs), and changes to implement the lifelong learning proposals (see below).

See more in the skills section below on local skills improvement plans.

 Levelling up as a headline may not be the branding of choice for a new leader but the policies are likely to stay in place, certainly as regards skills and technical education
Lifelong learning The  Skills and Post-16 Education Act makes provision for modular learning.

LLE was the subject of a DfE consultation which closed in May, and the outcome will presumably be finalised by the new ministerial team.

Read more: policy update 3rd March 2022 and 3rd May 2022

 As noted, this is the big flagship HE  policy for the Johnson government and his successor is unlikely to change tack on this.

 
Student number controls This was part of the big release of material in March responding finally to the Augar review.

It is now expected (and Michelle Donelan confirmed, although that might change) that controls will be applied on a university and subject basis to restrict numbers on certain courses that do not meet B£ or other licence conditions.  We await the outcome of this part of the (DfE, not OfS) consultation, which will presumably be in the in-tray of the new universities minister.

Read more: policy update 3rd March 2022

 This is unlikely to change under a new team, although there may need to be more work on how it will be implemented in practice.
Minimum eligibility requirements Another part of the Augar response in March, intended to limit access to HE (and control costs}.  They consulted on a requirement for a pass (grade 4) in GCSE in English and Maths, or the equivalent of 2 E grades at A level.  These would not apply to mature students (over 25), part-time students, those with a level 4 or 5 qualification or students with an integrated foundation year or Access to HE qualification.  If they apply the GCSE requirement it would not apply to someone who has subsequently achieved A levels at CCC or equivalent.

Read more: policy update 3rd March 2022

 This is unlikely to change under a new team, although there may need to be more work on how it will be implemented in practice – especially if it requires changes to student loan legislation.
Access and Participation Big focus from the OfS now on universities having an impact on school level attainment and supporting disadvantaged students.    The Director for Fair Access and Participation has been clear about the direction:

·       strategic partnerships with schools to raise attainment

·       improving the quality of provision for underrepresented students

·       developing non-traditional pathways and modes of study

Read more: policy updates on 4th April and 14th February

 OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team.

 
Regulation – quality and outcomes As above, being delivered this year with little change from the original proposals.  Will lead to regulatory intervention based on student outcomes that are below the absolute levels set and these metrics will be applied to PGT and PGR students as well as UG.

Apart from B3, discussed above, the other B conditions introduced earlier this year have a lot of detail about course content and delivery – where there are concern about outcomes, there are complaints or other reasons for the OfS to look this can include investigating whether course content is “up to date”, for example.

 

Linked to this, the OfS announced in the early summer that they would be looking at online delivery in some universities after Michelle Donelan roundly criticised the speed (or lack of it) at which (some) universities had returned to full on campus learning last year.

 OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team.

 

Note the points about grade inflation below.

 

If online learning is still a story in the new academic year, expect more government and OfS pressure.

 

 
Grade inflation One of Gavin Williamson’s earlier themes which he stopped talking about, but which is now back with a vengeance as a topic for university bashing.  UUK have gone early with a sector commitment to reduce by 2023 the proportion of students achieving firsts and 2:1s to pre-pandemic levels, and a renewed commitment to publishing degree outcomes statements.  The OfS have been making strong statements about “unexplained” grade inflation for some time but have now started to clarify what they might do about it, new condition B4 has a direct reference to the ongoing credibility of awards and so the OfS now have a clearer mandate to intervene in what has always been seen as a question of institutional autonomy.

Read more: 5th July policy update

 OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team.

 

The OfS will be looking to ramp up intervention in this area and will be examining this year’s degree outcomes statements closely.

 

 
TEF As above, being delivered this year with little change from the original proposals.  Includes a focus on subject level performance and performance across split characteristics and includes a new “requires improvement” rating  – and getting that caps fees at £6000. OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team.
NSS Following earlier consultations on changes to the NSS, the OfS have just launched another.  See above for more information.
Student information and marketing, admissions One of Michelle Donelan’s signature policies.  There has been discussion of marketing practices before, storied about university marketing budgets etc but the focus was mostly on conditional unconditional offers.   MD went further with the DfE guidance on advertising that came out on 1st July with some frankly bizarre requirements to reference out of date subject level data in all marketing material and advertisements.

Read more: 5th July policy update

This PQ suggests the government are sticking with it for now: Encouraging universities to advertise (1) subject drop-out, and (2) employment, rates for courses

This followed the Fair Admissions Code that was published in the Spring by UUK which outlaws conditional unconditional offers, and talks about incentives and information alongside more general principles.  This was opt in – and most have.

Read more: 10th March policy update

 May be less of a priority for a new Minister.  The DFE guidance is bizarre, voluntary and possibly unworkable – and it seems very strange for the DfE to issue such guidance which should really come from the OfS.  It smacks of political campaigning rather than serious regulation and we await the next steps on this with interest.

Fair admissions, though, will remain on the agenda, though the Director of Fair Access, and the OfS.
PQA This was a Gavin Williamson policy.  As noted above, Liz Truss wants to reopen this after Nadhim Zahawi shelved Gavin Williamson’s efforts.  The range of potential outcomes from the DfE consultation are presumably sitting on a shelf somewhere.  The responses to the consultation were:

Two-thirds of respondents (324/489, 66%) were in favour of change to a PQA system in principle, but many respondents were concerned by practical implications of how it could operate, and 60% respondents felt that the models of PQA would be either worse than, or no better than, current arrangements. There were a variety of different models favoured but no consensus as to what change should look like.

 If Liz Truss wins she will have a lot on her agenda, but we can expect the new ministerial team to at least brush off the recommendations and have another look.

 

 
Free Speech A key bit of the Michelle Donelan manifesto for future promotion.  As noted below, the OfS data doesn’t demonstrate a significant issue but that does not stop the rhetoric.    The higher Education (Freedom of Speech) bill is now at committee stage in the Lords, having made it through the Commons.  Expect lively debate, amendments and eventual ping pong as the HE informed members of the Lords contest the whole premise of the bill as well as the detail.

Read more: 5th July policy update

 Under a Liz Truss government this is very unlikely to be significantly watered down.  Rishi Sunak has demonstrated less appetite for the culture wars so much would depend on the ministerial team.  Expected to pass (eventually) and but practical impact may be low (as the sector have long argued this is a solution looking for a problem)

Skills, skills, skills…

Occupational skills needs: The DfE published independent research examining changing skills needs within certain occupations in the next 5-10 years:

  • managers
  • science and technology
  • skilled trades
  • health

Technical and digital skills

  • The key skills that are, and will continue to be, required are the knowledge and effective use of relevant technologies
  • Digital literacy is already an essential (if basic) requirement, while understanding and use of data will only increase in importance in future
  • Some specific technical skills are (and will be) needed in health and skilled trades (e.g., ability to adapt clinical skills to developments in health and care, knowledge of the technical or scientific basis of work, understanding of relevant standards and legislation)
  • Expected changes in the selected occupations and emerging skills point to: (i) skills needs in using specific new hardware and software; (ii) data science skills; (iii) the need to apply, or adapt, skills to future-related goals such as combatting climate change
  • Participants suggested that the promotion of multiple routes into these professions, along with clear definitions of skills and qualifications and the funding of continuous professional development, should be improved.

Communication and people skills

  • People and communication skills are and will likely remain critical in future with the ability to work in a team being key in addressing complex needs in coordinated way
  • The ability to provide long-term vision, exploit opportunities and manage risks was identified as most important for managers and health professions while awareness of equality, diversity and inclusion emerged strongly across examined occupations, both with a view to current and future skills needs
  • Areas of change and adaptation focused on skills required for modern ways of working as well as communicating and working collaboratively to address climate change, improve sustainability and meet expectations for increased efforts on equality, diversity and inclusion
  • Teamwork skills were also highlighted as a key area for intervention with current teaching and training not seen to impart these skills sufficiently at present.
  • It was also noted that policy intervention on culture change was key to generating the necessary people and communication skills for the above goals but also a long-term process requiring open minds from all stakeholders.

Local Skills Dashboard: The DfE also launched the prototype of its local skills dashboard showing a subset of employment and skills statistics at Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) level to support local skills planning and deliver (including LSIPs). The statistics include:

  • employment rates and employment distribution by occupation
  • online job vacancy units
  • further education aim achievement volumes and achievements by sector subject area

The dashboard has been produced to support the aims of the new Unit for Future Skills, which was a key pledge within the Levelling Up White Paper earlier this year.

Local Skills Improvement Plans: And we’re not done yet – the DfE also published statutory guidance for the development and review of local skills improvement plans (LSIPs). It sets out the process for developing and reviewing an LSIP and the duties placed upon relevant providers once there is an approved LSIP in place.

  • LSIPs set out the key priorities and changes needed in a local area to make post-16 technical education or training more responsive and closely aligned to local labour market needs;
  • an LSIP will provide an agreed set of actionable priorities that employers, providers and stakeholders in a local area can get behind to drive change;
  • the agreed priorities will be informed by evidence of unmet and future skills needs and meaningful engagement between employers and providers;
  • an LSIP should not attempt to cover the entirety of provision within an area but focus on the key changes and priorities that can gain traction and maximise impact;
  • the priorities should look up to three years ahead. It is expected that the LSIP process will be repeated around every three years with interim reviews;
  • duties in respect to LSIPs have been placed upon specific providers that deliver English-funded post-16 technical education or training. These duties apply to Sixth Form Colleges where they deliver post-16 technical education for example T-Levels and BTECs; 3 and
  • the LSIP should describe how skills, capabilities and expertise required in relation to jobs that directly contribute to or indirectly support Net Zero targets, adaptation to Climate Change or meet other environmental goals have been considered.

Parliamentary questions

HE Bursaries (temporary!): Education Secretary James Cleverly has announced new bursaries to support learners taking part in the flexible short courses trials.

  • Learners who could struggle with study-related costs…can now apply for up to £2.5 million worth of targeted bursary funding to help them access new higher education ‘short courses’… 22 universities and colleges across England will be offering over 100 short courses to students from this September as part of a 3-year trial.
  • These courses that could be as short as 6 weeks – or as long as a year if studied part-time –  in subjects vital for economic growth including STEM, healthcare and education.
  • To support this flexible study, learners can now apply for tuition fee loans created especially for the short coursesto support them for the duration of their study and administered by the Student Loans Company.
  • Alongside this, bursary grants will be available for learners who need extra financial support to pay for additional costs associated with study… This includes the costs of learning materials such as books, childcare fees and learning support for disabled students.
  • The bursary is for the time-limited trial only, as broader decisions on the lifelong learning maintenance support are still subject to government policy decisions.

Degrees not required: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) calls on employers to think strategically about their workforce requirements in new report. New CIPD research highlights that the majority of employers (57%) still mainly look for degrees or post-graduate qualifications when recruiting staff. While a degree is a requirement for certain occupations and roles, the CIPD is warning that too often employers base hiring decisions on whether someone has a degree or not, regardless of its relevance. By doing this, the CIPD says employers could be missing out on key talent, exacerbating skills gaps and reducing employment opportunities for people.

It is calling for employers to ensure that employers are thinking carefully about whether a degree is required for roles when hiring, and to invest in a range of vocational training options to upskill existing staff. The call comes at a time when the UK is facing a tight labour market and firms are struggling to find the skills they need in job candidates and in their own workforces.

Free Speech

The OfS published data on the number of speakers or events that were rejected by English universities and other higher education providers in 2020-21. The data is published alongside sector-wide information on the data universities and colleges return to the OfS as part of their compliance with the Prevent duty.

The data shows that 19,407 events were held by universities and colleges with external speakers in 2020-21, with 193 speaker requests or events rejected. A further 632 events were approved subject to mitigations. In previous years:

  • 53 events or speaker requests were rejected in 2017-18
  • 141 were rejected in 2018-19
  • 94 were rejected in 2019-20.

Commenting on the data, Susan Lapworth, interim chief executive at the OfS, said:

  • This data shows that more than 99% of events and speaker requests were approved in 2020-21 and suggests that – in general – universities and colleges remain places where debate and the sharing of ideas can thrive.
  • However, it is the case that the number and proportion of rejections sharply increased in 2020-21, with almost 200 speakers or events rejected. We would be concerned if those cases suggest that lawful views are being stifled.

Parliamentary questions

International Donors: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

  • Q – Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Do the Government share my concern at the injection of vast quantities of communist cash from countries such as China and Vietnam into our universities—Oxbridge colleges in particular? Will they set up a taskforce to examine the problem and make recommendations?
  • A – Michelle Donelan: We have recently added a further clause to our Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to ensure that there is more transparency when it comes to the donations that our universities receive.

Quality Changes

The QAA made a surprise announcement that they would cease to be the Designated Quality Body in England from 31 March 2023.

Wonkhe report: In a move that sent shockwaves last week, the agency has chosen to “demit” statutory responsibilities in order to comply with international quality standards, thus remaining eligible for work in other UK nations and overseas. Though there will be no immediate impact on students or (for the most part) providers, the announcement embarrasses the Office for Students – the quality work it has been asking QAA to do deviates from those international standards by not involving student reviewers and not meeting transparency requirements.

More details in the blog – What does QAA walking away from being the designated quality body mean for universities? David Kernohan tries to make sense of it all.

Student Loans

The DfE and Student Loans Company announced that student loan interest rates will be reduced to 6.3% from September 2022 for those on Plan 2 and Plan 3 loans.

In June (in light of a potential 12% interest rate due to inflation) the Government used predicted market rates to cap interest rates to a maximum of 7.3%. The actual market figure is now 6.3%, so the cap has been reduced further to reflect this. The current maximum interest rate is 4.5%.

As we all know, these changes don’t affect actual payments, only the rate at which the amount owned will accrue.  As a consequence, press stories that this reduces the burden on graduates are nonsense, given that the majority will not repay in full.

You can read all the detail here.

Student Loans: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

Q – Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP): The number of graduates owing more than £100,000 in student loans has gone up by more than 3,000% in a single year, with over 6,500 graduates now having six-figure balances. Next year, with inflation, things could be even worse. Will the Secretary of State detail what urgent action he is considering to tackle the huge levels of graduate debt?

A – The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan): As the hon. Member will know only too well, we responded to the Augar report in full a few months ago. We tried to get the right balance in who pays, between the graduate and the taxpayer, so that we have a fair system in which no student will pay back more in real terms than they borrowed. This Government are focused on outcomes, making sure that degrees pay and deliver graduate jobs.

Homelessness, accommodation, mental health, cost of living and community

HEPI published a new report arguing that universities should do more to track and prevent homelessness among their students and could play a wider role in support efforts to end all forms of homelessness.  The report sets out 10 steps that universities can take to address homelessness.

Report author, Greg Hurst, said:

  • Widening access to higher education means broadening the composition of a university’s student body and, therefore, admitting more students whose past experiences and circumstances mean they face a higher risk of homelessness.
  • As we experience a surge in inflation to beyond 9 per cent, this is likely to mean that from the autumn more students struggle to pay higher food and energy costs alongside their rent. Many universities could and should ask themselves if they are doing enough to prevent homelessness among their current and recent students.

FE News reports on a new NUS survey related to the cost of living hike.

  • A third of students are living on less than £50 a month after paying rent and bills
  • Student survey finds over half are cutting back on food with more than one in ten accessing food banks
  • 42% being forced to travel less or can’t make it to campus
  • 41% are neglecting their health as a means to save money e.g. dental appointments
  • 1 in 5 not able to buy toiletries and 1 in 10 unable to buy sanitary products when needed.
  • To bridge the financial gap – 83% of students have sought financial support by other means:
    • a third are using credit cards
    • 24% have turned to buy now, pay later credit schemes
    • 12% have taken out bank loans
    • 53% of students have turned to their families and friends for financial support and 40% have reached out to them for loans
    • a third say the cost-of-living crisis has impacted those who support them.
  • Mental wellbeing: 92% of students reporting a negative impact on their mental health, and 31% reporting this to be a ‘major’ impact due to the financial struggles.
  • Apprentices were similarly affected by cost of living concerns and cutting back on their spending

A range of student focussed Wonkhe blogs:

Parliamentary Questions:

Student Mental Health: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

  • Q – What steps his Department is taking to help support students with their mental health.
  • A- The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan): I have been relentlessly focused on this area, allocating £15 million to student mental health services to support the transition from school to university via the Office for Students. I have worked with the Office for Students to deliver and to keep student space and with the Department of Health and Social Care. I held a summit just last week with the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), investing £3 million in bridging the gaps between NHS and university services

Admissions

HE success: Wonkhe blog – the OfS uses student and applicant characteristics to build models of likely success in higher education. With Associations Between Characteristics quintiles coming to Office for Students regulation, David Kernohan sets out to explain the confusing world of the ABCs.

Results Day: The Sutton Trust published new research on A Levels and university access this academic year finding that:

  • In 2021/22 over a third (34%) of students who applied for university this year have missed 11 or more days of school or college over the last academic year for covid related reasons, with 21% missing more than 20 days.
  • 72% of teachers think the attainment gap between poorer pupils and their classmates will widen at their school.
  • Almost half (45%) of teachers involved with exams this year do not think the mitigations in place have gone far enough to account for pandemic related disruption. This figure was higher for those working at state schools (46%) than in independent schools (38%). The research shows concerns about grades among university applicants have increased since 2021.
  • 62% of this year’s applicants felt they had fallen behind their studies compared to where they would have been without the disruption of the pandemic. This figure was higher for students in state (64%) than in private schools (51%).
  • Most A level teachers (80%) were able to cover the vast majority, 90% or more, of the content released in advanced information topics for most subjects. No teachers reported that they covered less than half of the content. A similar proportion (75%) had been able to cover 90% or more of the full syllabus. (But at what cost for students who require a slower pace, e.g. due to SEN?)
  • Most A level students applying to university felt the advanced information was helpful (76%). But only 52% thought the arrangements for exams this year had fairly taken into account the impact of the pandemic on students’ learning.
  • Most teachers (57%) agreed with Ofqual’s approach to grade boundaries this year, but a sizeable minority (29%) felt the approach was too strict. This proportion was higher in state (30%) than in private schools (23%).

Concerns for the future

  • 64% of applicants said they were worried about their grades, 8 percentage points higher than said the same last year. Just over 1 in 4 (27%) are very worried this year.
  • Students from working class backgrounds were 8 percentage points more likely to be concerned about their grades, at 70%, compared to 62% of those from middle class backgrounds.
  • 60% of applicants were worried about getting a place at their first choice university. 71% of working class applicants expressed concern about getting a place, 13 percentage points more than those from middle class backgrounds, at 58%.

Recommendations:

  • Applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds who have narrowly missed their offer grades should be given additional consideration in admissions and hiring decisions. Universities, employers, colleges and other training providers should consider that young people taking exams this year, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have faced considerable disruption over the last few years, and that the exam system has not taken into account individual learning loss within the pandemic.
  • Schools, colleges, training providers and universities should put adequate support in place for results day. Results day this year is likely to be particularly challenging, with many young people potentially needing to adjust plans if they have not met their offers. Schools, colleges, training providers and universities should work together to ensure adequate support is in place for young people having to make quick decisions on their next steps.
  • Universities should identify key gaps in learning at an early stage in the first term, and provide support if necessary. Students going onto higher education this year will still require additional help and support. Plans should be put in place to support students develop in key areas necessary to succeed in their course.
  • Universities should provide additional wellbeing supports for the incoming cohort. We are still learning the extent of the impacts on young people, and they are likely to have additional need of support for their wellbeing and mental health as they transition to life in higher education.
  • Government should fund additional catch-up support for school and college students. A renewed catch-up plan, with a scale of funding at a level to meet the need caused by the crisis should be put in place by government for future year groups, including those in 16-19 education. This should include extending the pupil premium to students in post-16 education.
  • Ofqual should review the mitigations put in place this year and consider adapting them for 2023, taking into account the views of teachers and young people who have been through the system this year. Next year’s exam students will have had longer back in school and college, but will still have faced considerable disruption due to the pandemic which should be taken into account in the exam process next year. Ofqual should carefully review this year’s approach and use learnings to inform any mitigations in place next year, including re-examining current plans to reduce grade inflation to pre-pandemic levels next year.

Parliamentary Questions:

Scotland: Despite the return to exams a record 60.1% of Scottish students gained a place at their firm choice university, up from the pre-pandemic level of 57.5% in 2019. This figure will rise as more confirmation decisions are made. You can see more of the detail in the UCAS statistical release. Scotland are also reporting continued success in widening access, with a chunk towards closing the gender progression gap for young people in Scotland (19 and under). In 2019, 50% more females progressed to higher education than males; on release day that has narrowed to 39% (from 47% last year).

Participation of young students from the most disadvantaged areas (SIMD40) was also up from pre-pandemic levels, with 23.9% of all acceptances from SIMD40 areas compared to 23.4 last year and 22.4% in 2019.

The overall number of Scottish students accepted is 30,490, up from 28,750 in 2019.
Of those accepted, 29,630 will be studying in Scotland – an increase of 1,740 on 2019.
The number of students accepted on to nursing courses is 2,960 – up by 450 compared to 2019.

Is free tuition in Scotland really capping places for Scottish university applicants? On Wonk Corner Jim takes a critical look at a report from Reform Scotland that calls for tuition fees..

Access & Participation

Summer Schools: TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE, the ‘what-works’ centre) published Summer Schools in the time of Covid-19 – interim findings of the impact on widening participation. (Also see the analysis conducted by the Behavioural Research Team here.) It assesses the impact of summer schools on disadvantaged students and finds that the programmes are not reaching those most in need. They concluded that summer schools designed to reduce equality gaps in access to higher education are largely attended by students already destined for university. However, the findings also indicate that attending a summer school may have a positive effect on disadvantaged or underrepresented students’ confidence in their ability to apply to, and succeed at, university, their perception of barriers to entry, and fitting in. This suggests that attendees are likely to start higher education in a better position than those who don’t attend.

In response to the findings, TASO recommends HE providers:

  • Collaborate with schools and colleges to better target and support disadvantaged and underrepresented young people to enrol in higher education.
  • Increase efforts to reach a wider range of young people through summer schools, or develop alternative programmes that effectively support those who are presently less likely to attend higher education.
  • Review attainment-raising activities for school age children, in line with recommendations in TASO’s recent rapid evidence review.
  • Continue to effectively evaluate programmes and generate more causal evidence to understand the impact of outreach activities by following TASO guidance.

Colleagues within this field won’t be surprised by the recommendations which are clearly in line with TASO objectives.  The final summer schools report will be published in 2023/24, and will focus on behavioural findings, including attainment and enrolment in higher education. TASO is running a second evaluation of face-to-face summer schools being delivered between June and August 2022 to compare the effects of online versus traditional delivery.

Free School Meals: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published analysis of free school meal recipients’ earnings, in comparison with their better-off peers. It finds that people who grew up in low-income households have lower average earnings at age 30, even when matching educational level and secondary school attainment.

  • Half of FSM students earned just £17,000 or less at age 30.
  • There is a persistent earnings gap between those who received free school meals in childhood and other students. Part of this overall gap in lower earnings is because of people from income-deprived backgrounds being much less likely to go on to higher education. The size of that overall earnings gap widens between the ages of 18 and 30 years, particularly around university graduation age. But even among those with the same qualification level and similar attainment in secondary school, disadvantaged pupils went on to earn less than their peers.
  • Researchers have explored explanations for the gap: education, experience in the workplace, ethnicity, gender and other possible factors. The earnings gap between free school meals recipients and non-recipients in state-funded schools can be mostly accounted for by these characteristics. However, students who went to independent privately funded schools (who are not eligible for free school meals) typically out earned most other students with a similar qualification level and key stage 4 (KS4) attainment by age 30. A free school meals student with similar characteristics would still earn around 20% less on average than an independent school student.
  • Of independent school students, the top 10% earned £71,000 or more but the top 1% earned upwards of £180,000. By contrast, of state school students not on free school meals, individuals would need to earn over £85,000 a year to be in the top 1%. Their earnings were at least double the salary of 90% of individuals in this group. The top 1% of free school meals students earned around £63,000. By contrast, 50% of people who were on free school meals earned £17,000 or less aged 30 years.
  • At age 18 years, there are only small differences in earnings between this cohort of free school meals recipients, non-recipients and independent school students. Between the ages of 18 and 30 years, the earnings gap widens between the three groups. There is a notable difference in earnings from around age 22 years, which is a common age to graduate university and take up employment.
  • 48% of those eligible for free school meals during their KS4 year completed a qualification above GCSE level. That compares with 71% of state-educated students who were not eligible for free school meals, and 96% of students at independent school who went on to complete a higher qualification than GCSE level.
  • At all levels of qualification, those eligible for free school meals were earning less at age 30 years than their peers who had the same highest level of qualification.
  • At age 30 years, independent school pupils have the highest earnings in almost every group of people with the same highest level of qualification. For example, of everyone who left school after GCSEs, individuals who went to independent school have the highest earnings, likewise for bachelor’s degree and those with no qualifications.
  • The earnings gap is largest for those with level 6 qualifications (which includes degree level).
  • Educational KS4 attainment does not close the earnings gap: How well individuals do at each level of education can also affect their earnings later in life, but this alone does not close the earnings gap between students of different backgrounds.
  • Those with higher KS4 attainment (GCSE level) had higher earnings in all groups, that is, for students on free school meals, state-educated students not on free school meals and independent school students.
  • As the gap in earnings widens over time between these groups, particularly at a typical university leaving age of 22 years, educational attainment at KS4 does not account for differences in future earnings.
  • An independent school student who was in the bottom 20% nationally for GCSE attainment earned an average of around £22,000 at age 30 years. An individual who was from an income-deprived background and on free school meals would typically have to be in the top 40% nationally for KS4 attainment to have similar earnings aged 30 years.

Care Experienced: Hear from care experienced student, Anas Dayeh, on why he has chosen to run for the National Labour Students Committee.

WP Statistics: The DfE published the 2022 Widening participation in HE statistics.  They include estimates of state-funded pupils’ progression to higher education (HE) by age 19 according to their personal characteristics (at age 15) with all the measures you’d expect including FSM, care and SEN. The publication also includes:

  • geographic breakdowns to enable comparisons of HE progression rates between local authorities and regions
  • estimated percentages of A level and equivalent students at age 17, by school or college type, who progressed to HE by age 19
  • progression by POLAR disadvantage and Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework rating
  • breakdowns for high tariff HE providers

Steven Haines, Director of Public Affairs at youth charity  Impetus  said:

  • We’re encouraged to see a historic rate of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds progressing to university and a decrease in the access gap after many years of it growing.
  • However, even with more people entering higher education than ever, the gap remains stubbornly large. It is not enough to rely on Higher Education expansion to close this gap – we need concerted efforts to ensure young people from all backgrounds get the support they need to access and succeed. This means high-quality tutoring, comprehensive contextual offers, and support to overcome additional barriers such as a sense of belonging.

Parliamentary Questions:

Gypsies, Roma and Travellers participating in HE

HEPI published Gypsies, Roma and Travellers: The ethnic minorities most excluded from UK education. Key points:

  • Gypsy, Roma and Travellers of Irish heritage have the widest attainment gap in measures of pupils achieving a good level of development in early years education;
  • Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils have some of the lowest rates of attendance and the highest rates of permanent exclusion from schools;
  • in 2020/21, 9.1% of Gypsy / Roma pupils and 21.1% of Irish Traveller pupils achieved a grade 5 or above in GCSE English and Mathematics, compared to a national average in England of 51.9%;
  • young people from Gypsy / Roma and Irish Traveller communities are the least likely ethnic groupings to enter higher education by the age of 19 – just 6.3% of Gypsy / Roma and 3.8% of Irish Travellers access higher education by the age of 19 compared to around 40% of all young people;
  • Gypsy and Irish Travellers are the UK’s ‘least liked’ group, with 44.6% of people holding negative views against them – 18.7 percentage points higher than Muslims; and
  • Irish Travellers face a ‘mental health crisis’, with one-in-10 deaths caused by suicide.

Policy recommendations include:

  1. Better data collection: clear and consistent data collection of students and staff who identify as Gypsy, Roma, Traveller, Showman and Boaters at education institutions.
  2. Recognising Gypsy, Roma and Traveller histories: marking Holocaust Memorial Day (January), International Roma Remembrance Day (April) and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller participation History Month (June).
  3. More tailored funding: £60 million Government funding to work with community groups to improve outcomes.

Dr Laura Brassington, said: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals still face exclusion from education. It is tragic that so many avoid identifying by their ethnicity for fear of racial prejudice. It is scarcely believable they still face so many barriers when accessing mainstream education. Education institutions could commit to change this situation by doing more to recognise the challenges and signing the Pledge to tackle them, while policymakers should improve data collection and find the modest sum of money that could make a huge difference.

Undergraduate data skills

The Office for Students (OfS) has published the final report of the National Data Skills pilot programme, which in partnership with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

The pilot programme was funded as part of an extension to the artificial intelligence and data science postgraduate conversion course programme, which has shown an increase in diversity for groups who are underrepresented in the AI and data science industries, and to fill the skills gap in technology.

Recommendations

  1. DCMS should work with key stakeholders to develop and agree appropriate terminology and definitions for data skills and data literacy, including the extent to which these should be considered ‘foundational’ in the context of HE provision.
  2. The sector should undertake further strategic consultation with industry to establish the types of data skills that employers are seeking from graduates, to ensure that curricula and other data skills learning is as fit-for-purpose as realistically possible.
  3. The sector should consider a focused programme of work to develop a range of materials demonstrating the value of data skills to those working in a wide range of early careers, so that more students appreciate their potential future value.
  4. Providers need to undertake longer-term, substantive evaluation of different approaches to data skills teaching, building on the pilot projects in this study, in order to obtain a more robust evidence base about the effectiveness of approaches.
  5. The sector should consider the potential value of a national programme to upskill noncognate HE teaching staff to build their confidence in delivering data skills teaching, highlight best practice in teaching students with mixed abilities and prior experiences, and share practice and resources

Other news

  • PQ on Nurse training places (universities)
  • PQ on Strategic priorities grant – London weighting
  • PQ on what steps they are taking to ensure sufficient funding for arts and humanities subjects in higher education in the (1) short, and (2) long, term; and what assessment they have made of (a) the potential shortfall in funding after the cessation of funding from the European Research Council ceases, and (b) general pressures on funding for arts and humanities subjects in higher education.

Allied health returnees: New university courses launched to help allied health professionals return to practice.  The short, distance-learning courses are aimed at AHPs including art, drama and music therapists; chiropodists and podiatrists; occupational therapists; dietitians; orthoptists; paramedics; physiotherapists; operating department practitioners; prosthetists and orthotists; diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers; and speech language therapists.

It is hoped the initiative can be extended to support other professions including biomedical scientists, clinical scientists, hearing aid dispensers and practicing psychologists.

Funding of up to £800 is also available to help students with out-of-pocket expenses. More information is available here:-  https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/allied-health-professions/return-practice-allied-health-professionals-healthcare-scientists-practising-psychologists/supporting-your-study

Welsh Student Social Workers:  Student led campaign increases financial support for social work students in Wales. Starting from September 2022, the bursary for both undergraduates and postgraduates in Wales will be increased by over 50%

Professional Services: What about professional services staff? Richard Watermeyer, Tom Crick and Cathryn Knight take steps to amplify the voices of a “massive minority” of colleagues on their experiences during the pandemic.

Level 3 courses: The Department for Education has published a report on the findings from an independent evaluation of the level 3 free courses for jobs offer and the impact it has had on adult learners and providers.

Recognising qualifications: UK and India signed an agreement officially recognising each other’s higher education qualifications. The agreement is expected to attract more international students to the UK – with each student estimated to be worth more than £100,000 to the economy This is the first of three elements of the UK-India Enhanced Trade Partnership agreed by the Prime Minister in 2021.

Bust: Wonkhe notes that five years into the life of the Office for Students, we are still no clearer about what happens to insolvent providers.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

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.

Did you know? 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.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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