Category / policy

This part of the blog features news and information about higher education policy and how BU’s research is influencing policy.

HE policy update for the w/e 15th September 2017

REF 2021

As we noted last week, on 1st September 2017 HEFCE published the initial decisions on REF 2021. This does not include decisions regarding submitting staff, output portability or the eligibility of institutions to participate in the REF. There is another consultation on those issues and BU’s response is being prepared by RKEO – please contact Julie Northam if you would like to be involved.  This week, the four UK funding bodies published a summary of the responses to the previous consultation. The document summarises the 388 formal responses to the consultation.

Consultation responses welcomed an overall continuity of approach with REF 2014 and recognised that this would reduce the burden on institutions and panels. Broad support was expressed for the principles behind Lord Stern’s recommendations. There were mixed responses to some of the proposed approaches to implementing the changes, in particular:

  • all-staff submission
  • non-portability of outputs
  • institutional-level assessment
  • open access and data sharing.

Feedback on these areas included concern about their effects on different disciplines or types of institution, their impact on specific groups, in particular early career researchers and those with protected characteristics, and the burden of implementation.

Some highlights:

  • Over a third of respondents suggested that the proposal might result in changes to contractual status, with some staff being moved to Teaching-only contracts. A small number of HEI respondents suggested that they would make such contract changes if the proposal is implemented.
  • “the predominant suggestion (by one-fifth of respondents addressing this issue) was that HEIs should retain a key role in identifying staff with significant responsibility for research”.
  • Many respondents stressed the importance of research independence as a criterion, especially for staff employed on Research-only contracts. The majority of respondents argued for a nuanced approach to the inclusion of research assistants where they could demonstrate research independence. There was some support for using the REF 2014 independence criteria, although many requested clearer guidance to limit the burden on HEIs.
  • Of those who commented on question 9c., asking for views on the minimum number of outputs per staff member, over half supported setting a minimum requirement of one output per person. Over one-third were in favour of no minimum at all. This support was often linked to the use of contracts to determine research-active status and concern about the ability to submit large numbers.
  • Of those who provided a clear view, around three-quarters did not support the introduction of non-portability rules.
  • Just over 50 per cent of respondents to Question 38 agreed in principle with the introduction of an institutional element to the environment template; this support came with a lot of caveats.
  • Almost half of the responses to Question 26 supported the principle of maintaining the volume of impact case studies overall. The majority recognised that this would affect the ratio of case studies required per FTE when applied alongside the submissions of all staff with significant responsibility for research. Respondents were keen to know the multiplier as soon as possible, to enable HEIs and submitting units to plan the number of case studies required.
  • A third of responses agreed that the minimum number of impact case studies per submission should be reduced to one. This was felt to be of particular benefit to smaller submitting units. However, a number of respondents discussed the risks associated with a minimum of one case study.
  • A small number of respondents drew attention to the Teaching Excellence Framework, which was mentioned in the context of incentivising research-led teaching and minimising burden on HEIs. It was stressed that an aligned approach is necessary to avoid creating a division between teaching and research

Office for Students

Higher Education Commission launched its report: ‘One size won’t fit all: the challenges facing the Office for Students’ The report makes recommendations for the OfS, following hot on the heels of those made by the Minister last week – it looks at alternative and niche provision. There’s a Wonkhe article here

Strategic challenges for the OfS:

  • The unintended consequences of policy reform and funding continue to favour the offer of certain modes of study and undermines choice for students
  • The balance between upholding quality and encouraging innovation is not achieved, either damaging the sector’s reputation or meaning the sector does not keep pace with changes in technology and the labour market
  • Innovation and growth in the sector does not effectively align with the industrial strategy or aspirations for regional growth
  • Price variation and two tier provision result in greater segregation across the system damaging social mobility
  • The student experience of higher education is undermined as some providers struggle with competition and funding challenges
  • Institutional decline, and ultimately failure, reduces choice and the quality of provision in certain areas, or damages the student experience or the perceived value of their qualification
  • The Office for Students in its new role as the champion of ‘choice for students’ and ‘value for the tax payer’ must address these challenges. It is hoped that the findings in this report and the recommendations outlined below will aid the new regulator in ensuring the continued success of the sector.

The report includes an interesting overview of how we got to where we are now, and then moves on to look at some knotty issues facing the sector, including alternative models, and a number of themes that arise in that context (such as access, support for students and progression). They look at class and course size, which is interesting given the new TEF focus on “teaching intensity”, practitioner lecturers, industry experience, sandwich degrees and apprenticeships. There is a chapter on funding, costs and fees and of course the report looks at part-time and accelerated courses, also another hot topic for universities as well as alternative providers.   The report also examines some of the perceived barriers to innovation which were cited in government papers – validation (which is described a barrier to innovation rather than entry) and retention being a problematic measure for alternative providers.

The consequences lf all this start in chapter 4 (page 55) where the report turns to recommendations for the OfS as the regulator.

The recommendations are:

  • Universities should learn lessons from the further education sector to create an environment that feels more accessible to students from low participation backgrounds.
  • The OfS should work with HEIs and alternative providers to identify how personalised and industry-orientated provision can be scaled up and replicated across the system.
  • The OfS, as a principal funder and regulator of the HE sector, should develop ways of incentivising industry practitioner involvement in universities.
  • Universities should consider flexible models of placements for sandwich degrees in order to meet the needs of SMEs.
  • The OfS should closely monitor the impact of degree apprenticeships on sandwich courses and other work based learning provision.
  • The OfS should address cost issues around part-time study and accelerated degree programmes, so as to support wider provision of these non-standard modes.
  • We recommend that the OfS monitors the implications of different delivery costs between HE and FE, not least in terms of enabling entry to part-time and mature students.
  • Research should be commissioned by the OfS to better understand how students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be encouraged to use sources of information more critically in their HE choices.
  • The Office for Students should provide Parliament with an annual report mapping the diversity of provision across the higher education sector, commenting on trends and explanations for changing patterns of provision.
  • The DfE and the EFSA should consider the viability of allowing employers to use the apprenticeship levy to fund work-relevant part-time HE
  • The DfE should consider the extent to which accelerated and flexible programmes could be supported by changes to the funding based on credit.

Fees and funding

There was a debate in the House of Commons this week on an Opposition motion to reverse the legislation on tuition fees – these debates are non-binding and after the DUP said they would support them the government declined to have a formal vote – so they were passed. The same thing happened on a motion about the pay cap in the NHS.   As they were non-binding, this is largely symbolic, but much has been made about the “anti-democratic” implications of this..

Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation hosted a lively debate on fees and funding – you can see the (very long) recording on YouTube, and the Times Higher did their own short version. Rumours persist that despite Jo Johnson’s staunch defence of the system, No. 10 may be getting cold feet, and the new fee cap for 2019/20 has still not been announced….

And Philip Hammond contributed to the speculation while giving evidence at the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (reported widely, here is the Telegraph link):

“I do think there’s a significant difference between a graduate who leaves university with a, perhaps, quite significant level of debt and a well-recognised degree in an area which is known to provide strong employment opportunities; and a graduate on the other hand who perhaps has a very similar level of debt but who may not have a degree that is going to enhance his or her employment opportunities in the same way..

“We need to look at…the information we provide to students to enable them to make value-for-money assessments about what they are buying and what it’s going to cost them.”

And to contribute to the debate, the Commons Education Committee have launched an inquiry into value for money in HE. They are inviting written submissions on the following issues by 23rd October 2017:

  • Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data
  • Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students
  • Senior management pay in universities
  • Quality and effectiveness of teaching
  • The role of the Office for Students

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

HE policy update for the w/e 8th September

Well, Parliament is back and we have had a lively start to the autumn.

REF 2021

On 1st September 2017 HEFCE published the initial decisions on REF 2021. This does not include decisions regarding submitting staff, output portability or the eligibility of institutions to participate in the REF. There is another consultation on those issues and BU’s response is being prepared by RKEO – please contact Julie Northam if you would like to be involved. Thanks to Julie for these highlights of the announcement:

Assessment weightings:

  • Outputs 60% (down from 65%)
  • Impact 25% (up from 20%)
  • Environment 15% (same but now includes impact strategy)
  • HESA cost centres will not be used to allocate staff to UOAs. Responsibility for mapping staff into UOAs will therefore remain with institutions.

UOA structure:

  • Total UOAs reduced from 36 to 34
  • Engineering will be a single UOA – UOA 12
  • REF 2014 UOA 17 will be restructured to form UOA 14: Geography and Environmental Studies and UOA 15: Archaeology
  • ‘Film and Screen Studies’ will be located and included in the name of UOA 33: Music, Drama, Dance, Performing Arts, Film and Screen Studies
  • HEFCE will continue consulting with the subject communities for forensic science and criminology to consider concerns raised about visibility. A decision is expected this autumn.

Timetable:

  • Impact: Underpinning research must have been produced between 1 Jan 2000 – 31 Dec 2020 andimpacts must have occurred between 1 Aug 2013 – 31 Jul 2020.
  • Environment: Environment data (such as income and doctoral completions) will be considered for the period 1 Aug 2013 – 31 Jul 2020.
  • Outputs: The assessment period for the publication of outputs will be 1 Jan 2014 – 31 Dec 2020.
  • The draft REF 2021 guidance will be published in summer/autumn 2018 and the final guidance will be published in winter 2018-19. The submission will be in autumn 2020.

Outputs:

  • Interdisciplinary research:Each sub-panel will have at least one appointed member to oversee and participate in the assessment of interdisciplinary research submitted in that UOA. There will be an interdisciplinary research identifier for outputs in the REF submission system (not mandatory).There will be a discrete section in the environment template for the unit’s structures in support of interdisciplinary research.
  • Outputs due for publication after the submission date: A reserve output may be submitted.
  • Assessment metrics: Quantitative metrics may be used to inform output assessment. This will be determined by the sub-panels. Data will be provided by HEFCE.

Impact:

  • Impact will have a greater weighting in REF 2021 (25% overall plus impact included in the environment template and therefore weighting).
  • The guidance on submitting impacts on teaching will be widened to include impacts within, and beyond, the submitting institution.
  • Impacts remain eligible for submission by the institution in which the associated research was conducted. They must be underpinned by excellent research (at least REF 2*).
  • The number of case studies required – still not confirmed – HEFCE are exploring this in relation to the rules on staff submission and the number of outputs.
  • Case studies submitted to REF 2014 can be resubmitted to REF 2021, providing they meet the REF 2021 eligibility requirements.
  • The relationship between the underpinning research and impact will be broadened from individual outputs to include a wider body of work or research activity.

Institutional-level assessment (impact case studies): HEFCE will pilot this in 2018 but it will not be included in REF 2021.

Environment: The UOA-level environment template will be more structured, including the use of more quantitative data to evidence narrative content. It will include sections on the unit’s approach to:

  • supporting collaboration with organisations beyond HE
  • enabling impact – akin to the impact template in REF 2014
  • supporting equality and diversity
  • structures to support interdisciplinary research
  • open research, including the unit’s open access strategy and where this goes beyond the REF open access policy requirements

Institutional-level assessment (environment):

  • Institution-level information will be included in the UOA-level environment template, assessed by the relevant sub-panel.
  • HEFCE will pilot the standalone assessment of institution-level environment information as part of REF 2021, but this will not form part of the REF 2021 assessment. The outcomes will inform post-REF 2021 assessment exercises.

Jo Johnson’s UUK speech – the next steps for regulation

Jo Johnson gave a speech at the Universities UK annual conference on Thursday –prefaced by a deluge of press coverage. See the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, for a sample.  He started with a summary of the current state of the national debate on universities:

Recent criticisms of higher education in the UK fall into two distinct camps: we might call them the Statists and the Pessimists. The Statists direct their criticism at student finance. They argue that the most important thing we can do is to abolish tuition fees.” and “The second group of critics, the Pessimists, have an altogether bleaker view of Higher Education. They argue that university is inappropriate for many students, that student numbers should be significantly reduced and that students should pursue other types of post-18 education”.

The Minister rejected the calls for a change to the fee structure, consistent with other speeches over the summer (see the Policy Update for the w/e 21st July 2017).   He said that the “Statist” approach is “bad for social mobility, bad for university funding, bad for taxpayers”. [ See the UUK announcements on this below. In the FT on 8th September, it is reported that Theresa May is soliciting views on tuition fees policy in an attempt to close the generational gap, with Lord Willetts attending a meeting at No 10. So despite the regular assurances of no change, this is still one to watch.] To the Pessimists, his message was that “Post-18 education is not a zero-sum game, where to improve further education we must restrict and ration higher education to a privileged few”. But he said that there must be a strong economic return from a “mass system of higher education”. He highlighted graduate salaries, an increase in GDP and national productivity. [see below for the UUK position on fees and funding]

The Minister referred to concerns about value for money and used the same words as when launching the Green Paper, talking about “patchy teaching”. He also attacked the sector for grade inflation: “There has been a significant increase in the proportion of people receiving firsts and 2:1 degrees over the past five years that cannot be explained by rising levels of attainment. Grade inflation is tearing through English Higher Education. On the face of it, the facts are shocking.Grade inflation can fuel disengagement on both sides – if students know that 80-90 per cent will get a 2:1 or first from a high-reputation provider, there is less incentive to work hard – and less incentive by the provider to focus on teaching.” The Minister attacked league tables for encouraging grade inflation by using first degrees as a metric.

And he listed 5 measures that would deliver value for money:

  • The TEF – including subject level TEF (see more below in the TEF update)
  • A focus on grade inflation – as part of the TEF (see below), and be requiring the OfS to report on degree classifications and challenge providers to explain any data that suggested grade inflation, and calling on the sector to take action themselves, for example by developing a sector-recognised minimum standard. This is something that will no doubt be the subject of debate in the months to come. This could have parallels in some PSRB accreditation systems – an analogy that may be worth exploring.
  • Student contracts -this was also discussed in the July speech (see the Policy Update for the w/e 21st July 2017). This time, the Minister said that the Competition and Markets Authority guidance was only “patchily observed”. The OfS will be asked to “embed in the system student contracts that are clear, quantifiable and fair”. There is a consultation to follow on making this a registration condition.
  • Accelerated degrees – we are waiting for the formal response to the call for evidence last year but a consultation will be taking place on the new fee cap that would be required to support this – allowing providers to charge more than £9250 per year (but with a lower overall cost for the whole programme).
  • VC Pay – the OfS to introduce a new condition of registration that they publish salary data for the top earners and provide a justification, supported by guidance. The OfS will analyse and publish this data. The Minister called for the Committee of University Chairs to develop a new Remuneration Code.

UUK position

In a blog on 5th September 2017, Chris Hale, the Director of Policy of UUK responded to the debate over the summer, referring to a report from UK2020 that was published this week and repeated allegations of the sector operating a cartel to fix prices for degrees.  In a speech presumably written without advance knowledge of what the Minister was going to say, and trailed in the press on Tuesday, the new President of UUK, Professor Janet Beer, VC of Liverpool University did call for changes to undergraduate funding. She referred to “vexed issues and opportunities” and gave a staunch defence of the sector and its contribution to health, happiness and the economy.

On student finance, Professor Beer said that the system was not broken but that it needed to feel fairer, and highlighted three areas for action:

  • Targeted maintenance grants
  • Lower interest rate for low and middle-income earners. [On this point it is interesting to note that this is how it already works – see the blog from Martin Lewis on MoneySavingExpert.com which he tweeted again to respond to this story and the clip below]
  • Ensuring that the benefits of the current system are better understood – e.g. 35% of the cost of educating students is contributed by the government and 75% of students have some of their debt written off.

UUK have now published a Parliamentary briefing on the funding issues.

On senior pay:

  • “It’s understandable that high pay is questioned and it is right to expect that the process for determining pay for senior staff is rigorous and the decision-making process is transparent. It is also reasonable to expect that decisions are explained and justified.”, and continuing:
  • However, the current debate has lost sight of the facts and shows little understanding of the role that present-day vice-chancellors play not only in their own university, but in their communities, regions and on the national and international stage. The role of the vice-chancellor has evolved from leading a community of scholars, to leading large, complex, global organisations; organisations with multi-million pound turnovers, with thousands of staff working in a variety of roles, and which play an increasingly prominent role in the economic prosperity of our regions and nations. First-rate leadership is necessary for a university to be successful, and competitive remuneration is needed to attract the best leaders with the skills to lead these complex global organisations.
  • There have also been questions raised about the pay of our leading researchers and senior professional staff. We should remember that senior staff are choosing to work at our universities to deliver public good when they might otherwise choose to work in the private sector, attracting far higher remuneration. We must not let them be put off by comments that they are not worth it or their contribution is not valued.”

Nick Hillman of HEPI also writes in response that autonomy is more important than regulation in this area: “Just a few months ago, when the Higher Education and Research Act was still in short trousers, there was widespread concern that the Office for Students would not have due regard to university autonomy. Insisting they tackle vice-chancellors’ pay as one of the most urgent priorities (and before they have taken charge) will not assuage such concerns.”

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) update

In his speech at the Universities UK annual conference on Thursday, Jo Johnson referred to a lessons learned exercise that the government has carried out on year 2 of TEF. This used the UK survey we referred to in the Policy Update w/e 1st September 2017 as well as feedback from a range of stakeholders and desk based research of the metrics. The full report plus the specification are due to be published later in September 2017. These changes will also be included in the subject level TEF pilot. The UUK review is also discussed on Wonkhe here.

  • A new metric on grade inflation (see context in Jo Johnson’s speech above). This will be a supplementary metric which will not form part of the core metrics and the process of assessing the initial hypothesis, but will be considered by the assessors while considering Rigour and Stretch (TQ3). This will be based on a provider declaration and will “record the proportion of firsts, 2:1s and other grades as a percentage of all classified degrees at that provider 1, 2, 3 and 10 years before the year of assessment”.   If the data shows that there has been grade inflation the provider will presumably have to use their written submission to demonstrate how it is being addressed. Also, the number of firsts and 2:1s cannot be considered as evidence for the quality of teaching.
  • Changes to the NSS weighting – these are interesting – particularly as there was no formal weighting for any metrics in the TEF guidance before, and no specific weighting for metrics v the written submission either. That was why there was so much interest when the Chair of the TEF Panel, Chris Husbands, suggested that the role of the NSS in the decisions on TEF should be downplayed. The paper describes this in more details in Annex B – this is a change to the way that the “initial hypothesis” (based on metrics) will be formed.
  • Changes to address the NSS boycott, by averaging the scores across the three years or simply omitting 2017.
  • Part-time providers (those with over 35% part-time students) will also be able to provide additional information relating to their part-time students and a separate assessment will be formed for part-time students.
  • Absolute values: in a change which has been flagged as a nod to the Russell Group providers who received Bronze awards in the TEF (and who, in some cases, complained about the benchmarking process), alongside the benchmarking, the top and bottom 10% values for each metric will also be highlighted (with stars and exclamation marks). This will reinforce a positive or negative flag but can also be taken into account by the assessors – although a star will be ignored if there is a negative flag or a negative flag for a split metric (so that high performing institutions with negative flags for disadvantaged groups cannot benefit). Exclamation marks will be ignored if there is a positive flag.
  • Longitudinal Education Outcomes data (LEO) will be included as “supplementary” data – this will not affect the initial hypothesis but will be considered alongside the submission. The metrics to be included are the proportion of graduates in sustained employment or further study three years after graduation and the proportion of graduates in sustained employment earning over the median salary for 25 – 29 year olds (currently £21,000) or in further study
  • Gaming” – the Director for Fair Access will be given an opportunity to comment on “gaming” has taken place (defined as “a significant alteration in a provider’s student profile since the last TEF assessment, that involves a reduction in the proportion of students from disadvantaged groups”. In extreme cases, this might lead to disqualification.

Separate from all this a research paper by Camille Kandiko Howson of Kings College and Alex Buckley of the University of Strathclyde has been published which looks at the UK Engagement Survey – something that was tipped to be a potential metric for TEF if it was more widely adopted.

Widening Participation

Justine Greening announced that the new Director of Fair Access and Participation when the Office for Students if formed will be Chris Millward, who has been Director of Policy at HEFCE. The new role will have a focus on progression and outcomes as well as access for disadvantaged and under-represented groups in Higher Education.

Brexit

In the meantime, the Brexit negotiations continue and a flurry of papers have been published by the UK government and the EU.  The most interesting one is the one on Collaboration on Science and Innovation. The paper has lots of warm words on collaboration but little detail on what a future arrangement with the EU might look like.  On Horizon 202, the paper suggests that the UK will be seeking “associated” status (it says “associated countries have the same level of access to Horizon 2020 as EU Member States. Associated countries do not have a formal vote over the work programme, but can attend programme committees, which provides them with a degree of influence. Terms of association (including financial contributions) vary, and are determined by international agreements with the EU.“)

The overall conclusions are:

  • The UK wants to continue playing a major role in creating a brighter future for all European citizens by strengthening collaboration with European partners in science and innovation.
  • To this end, the UK will seek to agree a far-reaching science and innovation agreement with the EU that establishes a framework for future collaboration. There are a range of existing precedents for collaboration that the UK and the EU can build on, but our uniquely close relationship means there may be merit in designing a more ambitious agreement. The UK hopes to have a full and open discussion with the EU about all of these options as part of the negotiations on our future partnership.
  • The UK would welcome dialogue with the EU on the shape of a future science and innovation agreement, reflecting our joint interest in promoting continued close cooperation, for the benefit of UK and European prosperity”

Of course, the other interesting Brexit story was the paper we weren’t meant to see – the leaked draft on migration (read more in the Guardian report). The draft proposed work permits for EU citizens with a two year limit, language tests for EU students and ensuring that they have sufficient funds before they come to the UK (which implies that they will not qualify for student loans). None of these things is particularly surprising even if unwelcome – essentially the same type of restrictions would apply as apply currently to international students. What is most interesting about this is the reaction and the timing – Amber Rudd has only just announced a review of the impact of international students and a review into the social impact of Brexit – both of which will not report until September 2018. Damien Green on the Today programme said that the real paper would be launched “in a few weeks” – at the Conservative Party Conference?

Other interesting reading

The Higher Education Policy Institute published:

  • a blog on graduate entrepreneurs and what universities could do to support them
  • a report on the crisis in the creative arts in the UK – looking at what has happened in schools and suggesting that the increased and simplistic focus on graduate employment outcomes will impoverish education and damage outcomes (see the TEF report above).

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

HE policy update for the w/e 1st September 2017

We continue our series of summer updates focussing on themes rather than news with a look at learning gain.  We have updates on the Industrial Strategy Bell review of Life Sciences, and an update on the TEF from UUK.

Learning Gain

Learning gain has become a potential hot topic for universities over the last year – could it be the magic bullet for problems with TEF metrics?  Why is it a policy issue and what are the implications of the policy context for universities and students?  Wonkhe recently published a helpful summary in July by Dr Camille B. Kandiko Howson, from Kings College.

Background – TEF – The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) includes learning gain alongside student outcomes more generally as one of its three main criteria for assessing teaching excellence (the others are teaching quality and learning environment).  The relevant TEF criteria are:

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain  
Employment and Further Study (SO1) Students achieve their educational and professional goals, in particular progression to further study or highly skilled employment  
Employability and Transferrable Skills (SO2) Students acquire knowledge, skills and attributes that are valued by employers and that enhance their personal and/or professional lives
Positive Outcomes for All (SO3) Positive outcomes are achieved by its students from all backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes

Further definition was given in the “Aspects of Quality” guidance (see the TEF guidance issued by HEFCE):

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain is focused on the achievement of positive outcomes. Positive outcomes are taken to include:

  • acquisition of attributes such as lifelong learning skills and others that allow a graduate to make a strong contribution to society, economy and the environment,
  • progression to further study, acquisition of knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to compete for a graduate level job that requires the high level of skills arising from higher education

The extent to which positive outcomes are achieved for all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is a key feature. The distance travelled by students (‘learning gain’) is included”.

And it goes on:

  • Work across the sector to develop new measures of learning gain is in progress. Until new measures become available and are robust and applicable for all types of providers and students, we anticipate providers will refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain – this aspect is not prescriptive about what those measures might be.”

The TEF guidance issued by HEFCE included examples of the sorts of evidence that universities might want to consider including (amongst a much longer list):

  • Learning gain and distance-travelled by all students including those entering higher education part-way through their professional lives
  • Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at preparing students for further study and research
  • Use and effectiveness of initiatives used to help measure and record student progress, such as Grade Point Average (GPA)
  • Impact of initiatives aimed at closing gaps in development, attainment and progression for students from different backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes.

TEF Assessment – If you have been following the debates about the TEF in Year 2 (results now published), you will be aware that the assessment of institutions against these criteria was done in two ways – by looking at metrics (with benchmarking and subdivision into various sub-sets), and by review of a written provider assessment.

  • The metrics that were used in TEF Year 2 for Student Outcomes and Learning Gain were from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey (DLHE), specifically the DLHE declared activity 6 months after graduation – were they in employment of further study, and if in employment, was it “highly skilled” as defined by SOC groups 1-3 (managerial and professional).
  • So the metrics used in Year 2 of TEF do not cover learning gain at all. In fact they only really relate to SO1 above, are of limited use in terms of employability for SO2. DLHE doesn’t measure employability, only employment. Of course, DLHE is being replaced, after major consultations by HESA throughout 2016 and 2017 with the new Graduate Outcomes survey, which will take a longer-term view and look at a broader range of outcomes. (read more in our Policy Update of 30th June 2017).
  • So for the TEF year 2, any assessment of learning gain was done through the written submissions – and as noted above there are no measures for this, it was left to providers to “refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain”.

Universities UK have published their review of Year 2 of the TEF (see next section below) which includes a strong endorsement from UUK members for a comparative learning gain metric in future iterations of the TEF.

Measuring Learning Gain – As referred to above, there is a HEFCE project to look at ways of measuring learning gain.

They are running 13 pilot projects:

  • careers registration and employability initiatives – this  uses surveys and is linked most closely to SO2 – employability
  • critical-thinking ‘CLA+’ standardised assessment tool – also uses the UK Engagement Survey (UKES). CLA+ is a US assessment that is done on-line and asks students to assess data and evidence and decide on a course of action or propose a solution. As such, it measures general skills but is not subject specific.
  • self-efficacy across a range of disciplines
  • skills and self-assessment of confidence measures
  • a self-assessment skills audit and a situational judgement test
  • HE in FE
  • A multi-strand one: standardising entry and exit qualifications, new measures of critical skills and modelling change in learning outcomes
  • a project that will analyse the Affective-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC) model data for previous years
  • research skills in 6 disciplines
  • psychometric testing
  • learning gain from work-based learning and work placements
  • a project evaluating a range of methodologies including degree classifications, UKES, NSS, Student Wellbeing survey and CLA+
  • employability and subject specific learning across a range of methods – includes a project to understand the dimensions of learning gain and develop a way to measure them, one to look at R2 Strengths, one to look at career adaptability and one looking at international experience.

These are long term (3 year) projects – HEFCE published a year 1 report on 6th July 2017 – you can read more on our 14th July policy update – this flags a couple of challenges including how to get students to complete surveys and tests that are not relevant to their degree (a problem also encountered by the UKES). The report suggests embedding measurement “in the standard administrative procedures or formal curriculum” – which means a survey or test through enrolment and as part of our assessment programme.

To become a core TEF metric there would need to be a national standard measure that was implemented across the sector. That means that have to be mass testing (like SATs for university students) or another national survey alongside NSS and the new Graduate Outcomes survey (the replacement for DLHE) – with surveys on enrolment and at other points across the lifecycle.

Some BU staff are taking a different approach – instead of looking at generic measures for generic skills they have been looking at measuring specific learning gain against the defined learning outcomes for cohorts of students on a particular course. This is a much more customised approach but the team have set some basic parameters for the questions that they have asked which could be applied to other courses. The methodology was a survey. (Dr Martyn Polkinghorne, Dr Gelareh Roushan, Dr Julia Taylor) (see also a more detailed explanation, March 2017)

Pros, cons and alternatives

In January 2016, HEPI published a speech delivered in December 2015 by Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris. In the speech, the author argues strongly for institutions worldwide to measure and use learning gain data. He supports the use of specific measures for disciplines although points out the difficulties with this – not least in getting comparable data. So he also focuses on generic skills – but he doesn’t suggest a specific methodology.

An HEA presentation from December 2016 mentions a number of inputs that “predict both student performance and learning gains” – including contact hours, class size (and a host of other things including the extent and timing of feedback on assignments).

It is worth looking quickly at GPA (Grade Point Average) as this is also mentioned in the TEF specification as noted above. The HEA are looking at degree standards for HEFCE now, having done a pilot project on GPA in 2013-14.  The report notes that “potential capacity to increase granularity of awards, transparency in award calculations, international recognition and student engagement in their programmes”. The summary says, “The importance to stakeholders of a nationally-agreed, common scale is a key finding of the pilot and is considered crucial for the acceptance and success of GPA in the UK”, and that “The pilot providers considered that the development of widespread stakeholder understanding and commitment would require clear communication to be sustained over a number of years.”

Wonkhe have a round up on the background to the GPA debate from June 2016,

Although the big focus for the TEF was on outputs not inputs, the Department for Education has announced that it will start to look at including some of the inputs. See our HE policy update for 21st July where we look at the new teaching intensity measure that will be part of the subject level TEF pilots. You can read more about this in a THE article from 2nd August:

  • The pilot “will measure teaching intensity using a method that weights the number of hours taught by the student-staff ratio of each taught hour,” explains the pilot’s specification, published by the Department for Education“. Put simply, this model would value each of these at the same level: two hours spent in a group of 10 students with one member of staff, two hours spent in a group of 20 with two members of staff, one hour spent in a group of five students with one member of staff,” it explains. Once contact hours are weighted by class sizes, and aggregated up to subject level, those running the pilot will be able to calculate a “gross teaching quotient” score, which would be an “easily interpretable number” and used as a “supplementary metric” to inform subject-level assessments”.

The contact hours debate is very political – tied up with concerns about value for money and linked to the very topical debate on fees (speech on 20th July by Jo Johnson .and see our HE Policy Update for 21st July 2017)

This is all very interesting when, as mentioned above, the TEF specification for year two put so much emphasis on measuring outcome and not just inputs: “The emphasis in the provider submission should be on demonstrating the impact and effectiveness of teaching on the student experience and outcomes they achieve. The submission should therefore avoid focusing on descriptions of strategies or approach but instead should focus on impact. Wherever possible, impact should be demonstrated empirically. “

Experts and evidence – There will be a real push from the sector for evidence that the new teaching intensity measure and reporting of contact hours and other things really does make a difference to students before it is included in the TEF. The HEA’s position on this (2016) is a helpful summary of the debate about contact hours.

There is an interesting article in the HEPI collection of responses to the Green Paper in January 2016  from Graham Gibbs, former Professor at the University of Winchester and Director of the Oxford Learning Institute, University of Oxford, and author of Dimensions of quality and Implications of ‘Dimensions of quality’ in a market environment. He supports the use of learning gain metrics as a useful tool. He points out that “cohort size is a strong negative predictor of both student performance and learning gains”. He also adds “Russell Group Universities have comparatively larger cohorts and larger class sizes, and their small group teaching is less likely to be undertaken by academics, all of which save money but reduce learning gains”. He does not accept that contact hours, or institutional reputation (linked to high tariff entry and research reputation) impact learning gain.

There is an interesting article on the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) website here written by the authors of an article that looked at class size.

Impact so far – So what happened in the TEF – a very quick and incomplete look at TEF submissions suggests that not many institutions included much about learning gain (or GPA) and those that did seem to fall into two categories – those participating in the pilot who mention the pilot, and some who mention it in the context of the TEF core data – e.g. Birmingham mention their access project and learning gain (but don’t really evidence it except through employment and retention). Huddersfield talk about it in the context of placements and work experience but again linked to employment outcomes, although they also mention assessment improvement.

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) – year 2 review

Universities UK have published their review of Year 2 of the TEF following a survey that UUK did of their members.

The key findings from the report are:

  • There appears to be general confidence that overall process was fair, notwithstanding the outcomes of individual appeals. Judgements were the result of an intensive and discursive process of deliberation by the assessment panel. There was a slight correlation between TEF results, entry tariff and league table rankings.
  • It is estimated that the cost of participating in the TEF for 134 higher education institutions was approximately £4 million. This was driven by the volume of staff engagement, particularly senior staff.
  • Further consideration will need to be given to how the TEF accounts for the diversity of the student body, particularly part-time students, and how the TEF defines and measures excellence. [UUK also raises a concern about judgements possibly being skewed by prior attainment]
  • If subject-level TEF is to provide students with reliable information it must address the impact of increased metric suppression [this relates to metrics which could not be used because of small numbers, particularly for part-time students and for the ethnicity splits], how judgments are made in the absence of data [particularly an issue for those institutions affected by the NSS boycott], the comparability of subject groupings and the increase in cost and complexity of submissions and assessment.

[To address the issue with suppression, the report noted that the splits for ethnicity will be reduced from 6 to 3 for subject level TEF (p35)]

These findings also suggest that if the TEF is to make an effective contribution to the ongoing success of the whole UK sector, the following issues would merit consideration as part of the independent review:

  • How the TEF defines and measures excellence in a diverse sector and supports development of teaching and learning practice.
  • The role that the TEF plays across the student decision-making process and the relationship with the wider student information landscape.
  • The process for the future development of the TEF and the role of the sector, including students and devolved nations.
  • The relationship between the TEF and quality assessment, including regulatory baselines and the Quality Code.

Figure 4 shows the data benchmarking flags received by providers at each award level – these two charts are interesting because they show that providers with negative flags still received gold (and silver).

The survey also asked about future developments for the TEF with learning gain being a clear leader – ahead of teaching intensity. HEFCE is running learning gain pilots, as discussed above, and teaching intensity will be the subject of a pilot alongside subject level TEF. Interestingly, on p 33 a chart shows that nearly 70% of respondents believed that “there is no proportionate approach for producing a robust subject level TEF judgement which will be useful for students”.

Industrial Strategy

Following our update on the Industrial Strategy last week there are a couple of updates. Innovate UK has announced funding for businesses to work on innovative technologies, future products and services. The categories link closely to the Industrial Strategy priorities including digital technologies, robotics, creative economy and design and space applications as well as emerging technologies and electronics.

There was also an announcement about funding for innovative medicines manufacturing solutions.

Sir John Bell has published his report for the government on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy. There are seven main recommendations under 4 themes, which are summarised below. You can read a longer summary on the BU Research Blog.

Some interesting comments:

  • The key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research. Strong research-based universities underpin most of the public sector research success in the UK, as they do in the USA and in Scandinavia. National research systems based around institutes rather than universities, as seen in Germany, France and China, do not achieve the same productivity in life sciences as seen in university-focussed systems.” (p22)
  • “The decline in funding of indirect costs for charity research is coupled to an increasing tendency for Research Councils to construct approaches that avoid paying indirect Full Economic Costs (FEC). Together, these are having a significant impact on the viability of research in universities and have led to the institutions raising industrial overhead costs to fill the gap. This is unhelpful.” (p24)
  • “It is also recommended, that the funding agencies, in partnership with major charities, create a high-level recruitment fund that would pay the real cost of bringing successful scientists from abroad to work in major UK university institutions.” (see the proposal to attract international scientists below).
  • On clusters “Life sciences clusters are nearly always located around a university or other research institute and in the UK include elements of NHS infrastructure. However, evidence and experience suggests that governments cannot seed technology clusters and their success is usually driven by the underpinning assets of universities and companies, and also by the cultural features of networking and recycling of entrepreneurs and capital.” And “Regions should make the most of existing opportunities locally to grow clusters and build resilience by working in partnership across local Government, LEPs (in England), universities and research institutes, NHS, AHSNs, local businesses and support organisations, to identify and coalesce the local vision for life sciences. Science & Innovation Audits, Local Growth Funds and Growth Hubs (in England), Enterprise Zones and local rates and planning flexibilities can all be utilised to support a vision for life sciences. “ (see the proposal on clusters under “Growth and Infrastructure” – this was a big theme in the Industrial strategy and something we also covered in our Green Paper response)
  • On skills: “ The flow of multidisciplinary students at Masters and PhD level should be increased by providing incentives through the Higher Education Funding Council for England.2 and  “Universities and research funders should embed core competencies at degree and PhD level, for example data, statistical and analytical skills, commercial acumen and translational skills, and management and entrepreneurship training (which could be delivered in partnership with business schools). They should support exposure to, and collaboration with, strategically important disciplines including computer and data science, engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and material science.”

Health Advanced Research Programme (HARP) proposal – with the goal to create 2-3 entirely new industries over the next 10 years.

Reinforcing the UK science offer 

  • Sustain and increase funding for basic science to match our international competition – the goal is that the UK should attract 2000 new discovery scientists from around the globe
    • The UK should aim to be in the upper quartile of OECD R&D spending and sustain and increase the funding for basic science, to match our international competitors, particularly in university settings, encouraging discovery science to co-locate.
    • Capitalise on UKRI to increase interdisciplinary research, work more effectively with industry and support high-risk science.
    • Use Government and charitable funding to attract up to 100 world-class scientists to the UK, with support for their recruitment and their science over the next ten years.
  • Further improve UK clinical trial capabilities to support a 50% increase in the number of clinical trials over the next 5 years and a growing proportion of change of practice and trials with novel methodology over the next 5 years.

Growth and infrastructure – the goal is to create four UK companies valued at >£20 billion market cap in the next ten years.

NHS collaboration – the Accelerated Access Review should be adopted with national routes to market streamlined and clarified, including for digital products. There are two stated goals:

  • NHS should engage in fifty collaborative programmes in the next 5 years in late-stage clinical trials, real world data collection, or in the evaluation of diagnostics or devices.
  • The UK should be in the top quartile of comparator countries, both for the speed of adoption and the overall uptake of innovative, cost-effective products, to the benefit of all UK patients by the end of 2023.

Data – Establish two to five Digital Innovation Hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people.

  • Create a forum for researchers across academia, charities and industry to engage with all national health data programmes.
  • Establish a new regulatory, Health Technology Assessment and commercial framework to capture for the UK the value in algorithms generated using NHS data.
  • Two to five digital innovation hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people should be set up as part of a national approach and building towards full population coverage, to rapidly enable researchers to engage with a meaningful dataset. One or more of these should focus on medtech.
  • The UK could host 4-6 centres of excellence that provide support for specific medtech themes, focussing on research capability in a single medtech domain such as orthopaedics, cardiac, digital health or molecular diagnostics.
  • National registries of therapy-area-specific data across the whole of the NHS in England should be created and aligned with the relevant charity.

Skills

  • A migration system should be established that allows recruitment and retention of highly skilled workers from the EU and beyond, and does not impede intra-company transfers.
  • Develop and deliver a reinforced skills action plan across the NHS, commercial and third sectors based on a gap analysis of key skills for science.
    • Create an apprenticeship scheme that focuses on data sciences, as well as skills across the life sciences sector, and trains an entirely new cadre of technologists, healthcare workers and scientists at the cutting-edge of digital health.
    • Establish Institutes of Technology that would provide opportunity for technical training, particularly in digital and advanced manufacturing areas.
    • There should be support for entrepreneur training at all levels, incentivising varied careers and migration of academic scientists into industry and back to academia.
    • A fund should be established supporting convergent science activities including cross-disciplinary sabbaticals, joint appointments, funding for cross-sectoral partnerships and exchanges across industry and the NHS, including for management trainees.
    • High quality STEM education should be provided for all, and the government should evaluate and implement additional steps to increase the number of students studying maths to level 3 and beyond.

JANE FORSTER                                                             |                               SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                                               Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                                              65070

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

 

Special Edition Policy Update: Sir John Bell report on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy

Following our Industrial Strategy update last week, as expected Sir John Bell has published his report for the government on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy. There are 7 main recommendations under 4 themes, which are summarised below.

Some interesting comments:

  • The key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research. Strong research-based universities underpin most of the public sector research success in the UK, as they do in the USA and in Scandinavia. National research systems based around institutes rather than universities, as seen in Germany, France and China, do not achieve the same productivity in life sciences as seen in university-focussed systems.” (p22)
  • “The decline in funding of indirect costs for charity research is coupled to an increasing tendency for Research Councils to construct approaches that avoid paying indirect Full Economic Costs (FEC). Together, these are having a significant impact on the viability of research in universities and have led to the institutions raising industrial overhead costs to fill the gap. This is unhelpful.” (p24 and see the recommendation about charitable contributions under “reinforcing the UK science offer” below)
  • “It is also recommended, that the funding agencies, in partnership with major charities, create a high-level recruitment fund that would pay the real cost of bringing successful scientists from abroad to work in major UK university institutions.” (see the proposal to attract international scientists below).
  • On clusters “Life sciences clusters are nearly always located around a university or other research institute and in the UK include elements of NHS infrastructure. However, evidence and experience suggests that governments cannot seed technology clusters28 and their success is usually driven by the underpinning assets of universities and companies, and also by the cultural features of networking and recycling of entrepreneurs and capital.” And “Regions should make the most of existing opportunities locally to grow clusters and build resilience by working in partnership across local Government, LEPs (in England), universities and research institutes, NHS, AHSNs, local businesses and support organisations, to identify and coalesce the local vision for life sciences. Science & Innovation Audits, Local Growth Funds and Growth Hubs (in England), Enterprise Zones and local rates and planning flexibilities can all be utilised to support a vision for life sciences. “ (see the proposal on clusters under “Growth and Infrastructure” – this was a big theme in the Industrial strategy and something we also covered in our Green Paper response)
  • On skills: “ The flow of multidisciplinary students at Masters and PhD level should be increased by providing incentives through the Higher Education Funding Council for England.2 and “Universities and research funders should embed core competencies at degree and PhD level, for example data, statistical and analytical skills, commercial acumen and translational skills, and management and entrepreneurship training (which could be delivered in partnership with business schools). They should support exposure to, and collaboration with, strategically important disciplines including computer and data science, engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and material science.”

Health Advanced Research Programme (HARP) proposal – with the goal to create 2-3 entirely new industries over the next 10 years.

  • Establish a coalition of funders to create the Health Advanced Research Programme to undertake large research infrastructure projects and high risk ‘moonshot programmes’, that will help create entirely new industries in healthcare
  • Create a platform for developing effective diagnostics for early, asymptomatic chronic disease.
  • Digitalisation and AI to transform pathology and imaging.
  • Support projects around healthy ageing.

Reinforcing the UK science offer

  • Sustain and increase funding for basic science to match our international competition – the goal is that the UK should attract 2000 new discovery scientists from around the globe
    • The UK should aim to be in the upper quartile of OECD R&D spending and sustain and increase the funding for basic science, to match our international competitors, particularly in university settings, encouraging discovery science to co-locate.
    • NIHR should be supported, with funding increases in line with Research Councils
    • Ensure the environment remains supportive of charitable contributions through enhancing the Charity Research Support Fund (see above for the context for this).
    • Capitalise on UKRI to increase interdisciplinary research, work more effectively with industry and support high-risk science.
    • Use Government and charitable funding to attract up to 100 world-class scientists to the UK, with support for their recruitment and their science over the next ten years.
  • Further improve UK clinical trial capabilities to support a 50% increase in the number of clinical trials over the next 5 years and a growing proportion of change of practice and trials with novel methodology over the next 5 years.
    • Establish a working group to evaluate the use of digital health care data and health systems; to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new interventions; and to help ICH modernise its GCP regulations.
    • Improve the UK’s clinical trial capabilities so that the UK can best compete globally in our support for industry and academic studies at all phases.
    • Design a translational fund to support the pre-commercial creation of clinically-useable molecules and devices.

Growth and infrastructure – the goal is to create four UK companies valued at >£20 billion market cap in the next ten years.

  • Ensure the tax environment supports growth and is internationally competitive in supporting long-term and deeper investment.
    • Address market failures through Social Impact Bonds and encourage AMR research.
    • Consider how UK-based public markets can be used more effectively in the sector.
  • Support the growth of Life Sciences clusters.
    • Government, local partners and industry should work together to ensure the right infrastructure is in place to support the growth of life sciences clusters and networks.
    • UK’s existing clusters should work together and with government to promote a ‘single front door’ to the UK for research collaboration, partnership and investment.
  • Attract substantial investment to manufacture and export high value life science products of the future. – the goal is to attract ten large (£50-250m capital investment) and 10 smaller (£10-50m capital investments) in life science manufacturing facilities in the next five years.
    • Accept in full the recommendations of the Advanced Therapies Manufacturing Action Plan and apply its principles to other life science manufacturing sectors.
    • A programme in partnership with industry to develop cutting-edge manufacturing technologies that will address scale-up challenges and drive up productivity.
    • Optimise the fiscal environment to drive investment in industrial buildings, equipment and infrastructure for manufacturing and late-stage R&D.
    • Consider nationally available financial incentives – grants and loans, or capital allowances combined with regional incentives – to support capital investment in scale-up, and prepare for manufacturing and related export activity.
    • Make support and incentives for manufacturing investment and exporting available to business through a single front door, provide a senior national account manager accountable for delivery and simplify the customer journey.

NHS collaboration – the Accelerated Access Review should be adopted with national routes to market streamlined and clarified, including for digital products. There are two stated goals:

  • The NHS should engage in fifty collaborative programmes in the next 5 years in late-stage clinical trials, real world data collection, or in the evaluation of diagnostics or devices.
  • The UK should be in the top quartile of comparator countries, both for the speed of adoption and the overall uptake of innovative, cost-effective products, to the benefit of all UK patients by the end of 2023.

The recommended actions are

  • Utilise and broaden the Accelerated Access Review to encourage UK investment in clinical and real-world studies. Deliver a conditional reimbursement approval, for implementation as soon as licensing and value milestones are delivered.
  • Create a forum for early engagement between industry, NHS and arms-length bodies (e.g. NICE, MHRA) to agree commercial access agreements.
  • Use the recommendations from the AAR to streamline the processes and methods of assessment for all new products.
  • Value assessments should be evolved in the long-term with improved patient outcome measures, affordability and cost management data beyond one year timeframes.
  • NICE’s funding model for technology evaluation should be set up in a way that does not stifle SME engagement

Data – Establish two to five Digital Innovation Hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people.

  • The health and care system should set out a vision and a plan to deliver a national approach with the capability to rapidly and effectively establish studies for the generation of real world data, which can be appropriately accessed by researchers.
  • ePrescribing should be mandatory for hospitals.
  • NHS Digital and NHS England should set out clear and consistent national approaches to data and interoperability standards and requirements for data access agreements.
  • Accelerate access to currently available national datasets by streamlining legal and ethical approvals.
  • Create a forum for researchers across academia, charities and industry to engage with all national health data programmes.
  • Establish a new regulatory, Health Technology Assessment and commercial framework to capture for the UK the value in algorithms generated using NHS data. A working group should be established to take this forward
  • Two to five digital innovation hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people should be set up as part of a national approach and building towards full population coverage, to rapidly enable researchers to engage with a meaningful dataset. These regional hubs should also have the capability to accelerate and streamline CTA and HRA approvals. One or more of these should focus on medtech.
  • The UK could host 4-6 centres of excellence that provide support for specific medtech themes, focussing on research capability in a single medtech domain such as orthopaedics, cardiac, digital health or molecular diagnostics.
  • National registries of therapy-area-specific data across the whole of the NHS in England should be created and aligned with the relevant charity.

Skills

  • A migration system should be established that allows recruitment and retention of highly skilled workers from the EU and beyond, and does not impede intra-company transfers.
  • Develop and deliver a reinforced skills action plan across the NHS, commercial and third sectors based on a gap analysis of key skills for science.
    • Create an apprenticeship scheme that focuses on data sciences, as well as skills across the life sciences sector, and trains an entirely new cadre of technologists, healthcare workers and scientists at the cutting-edge of digital health.
    • Establish Institutes of Technology that would provide opportunity for technical training, particularly in digital and advanced manufacturing areas.
    • There should be support for entrepreneur training at all levels, incentivising varied careers and migration of academic scientists into industry and back to academia.
    • A fund should be established supporting convergent science activities including cross-disciplinary sabbaticals, joint appointments, funding for cross-sectoral partnerships and exchanges across industry and the NHS, including for management trainees.
    • High quality STEM education should be provided for all, and the government should evaluate and implement additional steps to increase the number of students studying maths to level 3 and beyond

HE Policy update w/e 25th August 2017

Immigration, International Students and Brexit

The government have commissioned a series of assessments and reviews of the impact of immigration policy and Brexit via the Migration Advisory Committee:

  • Call for evidence and briefing note: EEA-workers in the UK labour market – we will be responding on the HE questions via UCEA and UUK and we are considering a regional response, please let Sarah or I know if you have evidence that would be relevant to this – it is looking at EEA migration trends, recruitment practices and economic and social impacts.
  • a detailed assessment of the social and economic impact of international students in the UK. We would expect a call for evidence for this to follow. Looking at both EU and non-EU students, the MAC will be asked to consider:
  • the impact of tuition fees and other spending by international students on the national, regional, and local economy and on the education sector
  • the role students play in contributing to local economic growth
  • the impact their recruitment has on the provision and quality of education provided to domestic students.

The Commissioning Letter from Amber Rudd says: “The Digital Economy Act provides a unique opportunity to improve understanding of the migration data and as part of this work the Home Office will be working with the ONS and other Government departments to improve the use of administrative data. This will lead to a greater understanding of how many migrants are in the UK, how long they stay for, and what they are currently doing. The ONS will be publishing an article in September setting out this fuller work plan and the timetable for moving towards this landscape for administrative data usage”

As well as the post-Brexit future of students, the letter also makes reference to the Tier 4 visa pilot which was launched last year and included a handful of universities. Amber Rudd says “the pilot is being carefully evaluated and, if successful, could be rolled out more widely”.

The pilot covered masters courses at 4 universities:

  • Masters course for 13 months or less at the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Bath or Imperial College London.
  • Participating in the pilot allowed students to:
    • stay for six months after the end of the course;
    • submit fewer evidential documents with their applications – e.g. previous qualifications and documents relating to maintenance requirements

A deluge of other data and reports gave also been published:

  • The Home Office has published its second report on statistics being collected under the exit checks programme – Exit checks data.
    • For the 1.34m visas granted to non-EEA nationals and which expired in 2016/17, where individuals did not obtain a further extension to stay longer in the UK, 96.3% departed in time (that is before their visa expired)
  • A National Statistics update has been published which gives a breakdown of all the data
  • Additional analysis by Office for National Statistics (ONS) on international students, has been published
  • The Centre for Population Change has published the findings of a survey it carried out in March 2017 in partnership with the ONS and UUK. The survey looked at the intentions of graduating overseas students and found:
  • The majority of students do not intend to stay in the UK for more than a year after finishing their studies (and those that stated they intended to stay were not certain of their post-study plans, particularly non-EU students).
  • Fewer than one in ten international students plan to stay in the UK indefinitely and find a job.

According to UUK:

  • Exit checks data shows that student overstaying is at worst 3% and much of the 3% of undetermined outcomes may be due to individuals leaving via routes where there are no exit checks currently (such as via the Common Travel Area). This means student visa compliance is at least 97%, far higher than previous (incorrect) claims.
  • The Home Office exit checks data provides a more accurate picture (than the International Passenger Survey – IPS) of what non-EU students do after their initial period of leave to study
  • The ONS report suggest that the IPS is likely to underestimate student emigration – therefore any implied student net migration figure is likely to be an overestimate
  • The ONS also commits to working with colleagues across the government statistics service to utilise all available administrative systems to further improve migration statistics. They have also asked for UUK’s input to this work.

Widening Participation

A survey of access agreements has been published this week by the Office for Fair Access. In their press release OFFA note that every university has committed to working with schools to help increase access to HE. The report also notes that universities will focus on improved evaluation of the impact of financial support and an evidence based approach more generally, a specific focus on White working class males and BME attainment, and more support for mental health issues.  The amount universities spend on widening access will rise.

Responding to the survey, UUK Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis, said: “The enhancements in support provided by universities has helped to increase the entry rate for disadvantaged young people to record levels. All UK universities work hard to widen participation and support disadvantaged students throughout their time at university. It is right to expect a continued focus on support for disadvantaged students to make further progress in closing the gap between different student groups.”

Industrial Strategy

The formal outcome of the Industrial Strategy consultation is still pending. However, there has been a reasonable amount of activity in the meantime and we thought it might be helpful to do a round up.

Clusters – The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have set up a Creative Industries Clusters Programme, starting in 2018, to facilitate collaboration between the industry and universities. The pre-call announcement sets out the plan for at least 8 research and development partnerships, each led by an HEI, and a Policy and Evidence Centre. Calls will apparently open in October 2018.

Sector deals – As part of the Industrial strategy green paper, the government announced that there were 5 sector reviews taking place and suggested that they would welcome more.

Other organisations are setting up consultations and other reviews to respond to the Industrial Strategy, such as:

The interim findings of the industrial digitalisation review are interesting – they are working on a final report for the autumn of 2017:

  • It highlights a need for more leadership – with “much stronger marketing and messaging” and proposed the establishment of a Digital Technology Institute and Digital Technology Networks
  • It discusses issues with adoption rates for technology, particularly among SMEs and suggests better support for businesses via LEPs and other organisations, work on skills through interventions such as an Institute of Digital Engineering
  • Innovation – the interim review suggests looking at additive manufacturing and AI – and creating new industries in autonomous operations, but also providing kite marked content for businesses.

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund – Innovate UK are running the Industrial strategy Challenge Fund – in April 2017 they identified 6 “core industrial challenges”:

Interesting reading

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

HE policy update w/e 14th August 2017

NSS results

HEFCE published the NSS results last week. In their press release they highlight the changes to the survey and the fact that the responses are not comparable with previous years – there were 10 new questions and wording changes to 9 questions. The NUS boycott linked to the TEF affected 12 institutions who did not achieve the necessary response rate.

Jo Johnson had made an announcement a few weeks ago about student contracts as one way of addressing student concerns about quality and value for money – there has been a fair amount of comment and the latest from Jim Dickinson on Wonkhe  suggests some practical action universities could take to improve their response to complaints.

Teaching Intensity

Teaching intensity hit the headlines in late July fuelled by the Fiscal Studies journal article on class size, the 2017 HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey, and the announcement that the TEF subject level pilots will contain a teaching intensity measure. The pilot TEF measure will collect data on class size and contact time and consider how these measures might be used to inform a subject-level assessment judgement.

A Times Higher article – Teaching intensity: the key to measuring student learning? – illustrates the diversity of approaches and opinion on class sizes. Applicant choice is a key factor and many also highlight that there is no interrelation between student experience of teaching intensity/quality and fees (yet).

A HEPI guest blog – Measuring teaching intensity: the authors respond to the critics – explains the limitations within HESA data and why the Dearing Report and Brown Review didn’t go far enough.

“We felt that there was a need to collect information than enabled more precise comparison of how teaching is delivered across institutions, accounting for the many ways in which teaching is undertaken. Our findings imply that some students receive much better value for money than others. For a market to function properly, participants must be able to compare what is offered by different providers. The enormous variation in teaching intensity found in our data strongly suggests that in the market for teaching price signals are weak. It was always anticipated the tuition fees would be variable. One of the ways in which it was expected that the fee would vary was by subject (Greeneway and Haines 2000). If the data we have collected had been publically available the uniform fee would not have been possible.”

“Unfortunately, in the absence of information about teaching intensity (as opposed to contact hours alone) school leavers have no way to choose between those universities offering more (or less) of the tuition service they are ultimately paying for. In turn, universities are not incentivised to provide more of the primary service (tuition) paid for by taxpayers and students.”

The authors call for universities to publish teaching intensity data in additional to contact hours in the belief it will create a more competitive environment and therefore drive up teaching quality.

Sarah Stevens, Head of Policy at the Russell Group, responded on Wonkhe disagreeing with the proposal to include teaching intensity in the TEF.

Widening Participation

POSTGRADUATE SUPPORT SCHEME – HEFCE published the 2015/16 postgraduate support scheme evaluation report. This was a one-off scheme designed to widen access to taught postgraduate students (within the first cohorts to pay higher fees) through a bursary of £10,000. This scheme has been superseded by the postgraduate loan scheme. The evaluation note:

  • The bursary did have a modest impact of demand but criticises the scheme’s rushed design and implementation which meant only students already committed to PG study were likely to apply – it acted as an ‘enabler’ rather than a ‘persuader’
  • Higher levels of students from certain underrepresented groups were recruited than in previous years. There was particular success in increasing students from Low Participation Neighbourhoods, NS-SEC groups 4 – 8, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups, disabled students and ‘first generation’ students. The scheme which was designed to remove financial barriers to PG study may have a particular meaning for these groups of students; it will be interesting to cross-reference these groups’ take up of the PG loan scheme.
  • The evaluation concluded that the scheme did not led to substantial change in policy or practice for most institutions and structured obligations (e.g. requirements set by OfS) is needed for genuine change.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

A Wonkhe blog Universities’ shame – unpicking the black attainment gap discusses the attainment gap between black/white and Asian/white good degree classifications. While this isn’t new news and the gap is acknowledge by the sector Wonkhe suggest the OfS ought to penalise institutions for attainment gaps and states:

Ultimately, TEF has failed in its aim to take account of any significant differences in the quality of teaching and learning experienced by different student groups if it has awarded universities Gold ratings when there are significant racial attainment gaps. The blog sparked a volley of comments from the sector which can be viewed at the end of the article.

Les Ebdon blogs giving advice to the OfS: A real step change for fair access.

I always say that good progress is being made on fair access – that it’s a national success story. Well, I stand by that, but let’s be clear, it’s good progress made from a very low baseline, which means that the overall result is still quite low.

OFFA is publishing a summary briefing on the current situation in fair access – the gains made and the challenges that remain – and it makes sobering reading.

If the OfS is built with the right mission, values, staff and systems, it will be able to drive the transformational change that is needed…OFFA is a tiny organisation and, although we’ve punched a long way above our weight, our size has always limited what we’ve been able to do. The OfS will have much bigger resources – in data analysis, for example – that will enable it to take what we’ve done and do it even more and even better. That means focusing on outcomes, following evidence, and offering support and challenge in ways that respect the wide diversity of institutions.

The OfS must strive as hard as OFFA has striven to keep access and participation on the public agenda. These issues are now embedded in government policy and a key priority for Ministers, but nothing is ever permanent in politics

HEPI have published a collection of essays on widening participation and fair access. Suggestions include bolder contextualised admissions policies for highly-selective universities (with AAA+ offers typically being reduced to CCC), more support for people in care with the potential to benefit from higher education and new Personalised Learning Accounts to meet demand for more flexible lifelong learning.

The National Networks for Collaborative Outreach 2015/16 monitoring report has been published by HEFCE. This covers the final year of the NNCO scheme and reports 98% of academies, schools and colleges were covered by the scheme and ‘genuine innovation took place’.

The Sutton Trust have published their annual Aspirations Polling 2017. They survey asks young people about their aspirations and worries for higher education, and their attitude to tuition fees and student debt. The Sutton Trust report this year’s pool shows a falling trend in likelihood to attend university and an increase in financial concerns. Headlines:

  • The proportion of young people who say they are likely to go into higher education as fallen to its lowest level since 2009.
  • 51% intending to study at university worry about the cost of HE – this is an increase on previous year and is the highest level the Sutton Trust has ever captured through their polls.
  • Young people low affluence households who intend to attend university is the lowest in seven years with the socioeconomic gap in likelihood between high and low affluence households at the highest level it has been.
  • In expectations BAME young people (82%) are more likely than white (71%) to plan to attend HE.
  • Of those not intending to apply to HE 64% cited a financial reason (this was 57% in 2013)

OFFA issued this press release and a quick facts briefing.

Parliamentary Question – MATURE STUDENTS

Q – Mr David Lammy: What plans she has to increase the number of individuals aged 24 and over in part-time and full-time education.

A – Joseph Johnson: The Government is committed to ensuring all individuals have the opportunity to make the most of their potential. The Industrial Strategy Green Paper, published in January, outlined some of the challenges that adults face when considering re-entering education. This year’s Budget therefore committed £40million to fund pilots to test ambitious, new approaches to remove these barriers.

We want to increase participation in higher education by older and part-time students, and we have taken action to support those who choose to study part-time. These measures include: From 2012, the offer of up-front fee loans for eligible part-time students, to level the playing field with undergraduate study. From academic year 2018/19, the introduction of undergraduate part-time maintenance loans, to bring greater parity of support between part-time and full-time. From 2015, the relaxation of Equivalent or Lower Qualification rules, so students who already hold an honours degree qualification and wish to study part-time on a second honours degree course in engineering, technology or computer science, have qualified for fee loans for their course. This is being extended for academic year 2017/18 to graduates starting a second part-time honours degree course in any STEM subject.

In addition, we are extending undergraduate maintenance loans to distance learners from academic year 2019/20, subject to the development of a robust control regime.

We are also removing barriers to accelerated courses. Evidence shows that accelerated courses appeal particularly to mature students who want to retrain and enter the workplace more quickly than a traditional course would permit. We have already made provisions in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to remove a key barrier to the growth of these courses, and will now consult on implementation and setting a new fee cap specifically for accelerated courses in secondary legislation.

The Office for Fair Access has also asked universities to consider the different barriers mature learners may face in accessing, succeeding in, and progressing from higher education, and to consider what more they can do to attract and support part-time learners across the whole student lifecycle as part of their Access Agreements.

Appointments

Alistair Jarvis has been appointed as Chief Executive of UUK replacing Nicola Dandridge who is now CEO of the Office for Students. Prior to appointment Alistair was the Deputy Chief Executive at UUK and a member of the Wonkhe Board. THE describe his background and reasons for appointment. Janet Beer, UUK president, said:

The challenges and opportunities afforded by the current economic, social and political climate mean that UUK was seeking a chief executive with a strong track record in campaigning, political advocacy, and the ability to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders.”

Parliamentary Questions

FEES – VALUE FOR MONEY

Q – Lord Myners: Whether they intend to take action to limit university course fees which do not represent value for money for students; and if so, on what basis they intend to determine which courses provide value for money.

A – Baroness Sugg: The Government has introduced the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) assessment, to tackle concerns about value for money in Higher Education. Only providers who successfully achieve a high quality rating under the TEF will be permitted to maintain their fees in line with inflation.

The results of the TEF assessment gives students clear information about where teaching quality is best and where students have achieved the best outcomes. This will promote student choice and encourage a stronger focus on the quality of teaching, as higher education providers will need to ensure they are giving students, their parents and the taxpayer value for money.

Furthermore, the Office for Students, once established, has a general duty under section 2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to have regard to the need to promote value for money in the provision of Higher Education by English Higher Education providers.

Q – Alex Burghart: What estimate she has made of the cost of abolishing university tuition fees.

A – Joseph Johnson: The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated that abolishing tuition fees would increase the fiscal deficit for the 2017/18 student cohort by around £11bn, with the long-term cost of student funding increasing by around £6.5bn.

The major reforms to English higher education in 2012 have significantly increased average per-student funding. Graduates do not start repaying loans until their annual incomes reach £21,000, and loans are written off after 30 years. By enabling English universities to charge current tuition fees, the Government no longer has to ration access to higher education via a cap on student numbers. This enables it to offer more places, including to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are now going to university at a record rate – they are 43% more likely to go to university than they were in 2009 (LINK).

Graduates earn, on average, substantially more than people with A levels who did not go to university. Various pieces of research show that Higher Education graduates earn, on average, at least £100,000 more over their lifetimes than those without a degree but with 2 or more A-Levels. The most recent BIS commissioned research shows that, on average, a male graduate could expect to earn £170,000 more and a female graduate £250,000 more over their lifetimes, than someone without a degree but with 2 or more A-levels, net of tax and other costs (2012 prices). Abolishing tuition fees would be socially regressive: as well as unfairly burdening the general taxpayer, it would benefit mainly those students going on to well-paid jobs, who repay their loans in full.

CAPPING THE STUDENT LOAN

Q – Lord Myners: Whether they intend to place a cap on student loans, in order to prevent any increase in the total debt arising as a result of the interest paid being less than the interest accrued in any one year.

A – Baroness Sugg: The student funding system removes financial barriers for anyone hoping to study and is backed by the taxpayer. A key feature of the scheme is that outstanding debt – including any interest accrued that has not been repaid by the end of the loan term – is written off after 30 years. This means that borrowers are protected if their repayments are less than the interest accruing on their accounts.

Monthly student loan repayments are linked to income, not to interest rates or the amount borrowed. Borrowers earning less than the repayment threshold (£21,000) repay nothing at all.

Once borrowers leave study, those earning less than £21,000 are charged an interest rate of RPI only. Post-study interest rates are variable based on income, tapering up from RPI for those earning less than £21,000 to RPI+3% for borrowers earning £41,000 and above. The system of variable interest rates based on income makes the system more progressive, as higher earners contribute more to the sustainability of the higher education system.

We have a world class student finance system that is working well, and that has led to record numbers of disadvantaged students benefiting from higher education. As ever, we will keep the detailed features of the system under review to ensure it remains fair and effective.

TERTIARY EDUCATION

Q – Mr David Lammy: What assessment she has made of the implications on individual testing entitlement for her policy of the recommendations of Professor Alison Wolf’s report, Remaking Tertiary Education, published in November 2016. [5482]

A – Joseph Johnson: We welcome contributions to our thinking from experts on, and from within, the education sector. We are committed to delivering high performing further, technical and higher education, which represents good value for people throughout their lives.

For example, we have legislated to remove the barriers to the provision of two-year degrees. We are also introducing a new maintenance loan for part-time undergraduate study for academic year 2018/19 and intend to offer maintenance loans to support students on further education courses at Levels 4 and 5 in National Colleges and Institutes of Technology. This year’s Spring Budget committed £40million to fund pilots that will test ambitious, new approaches to removing barriers adults might face when considering re-entering education.

TEF

Q – Lord Jopling: How any higher education provider that does not obtain a Bronze status or higher in future Teaching Excellence Frameworks will be categorised.

A – Baroness Sugg: All providers who successfully meet the eligibility criteria, including the rigorous quality assessments by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education​​, and which have sufficient metrics to be assessed, will achieve a Bronze award, or above, in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Those providers which have met the eligibility criteria but do not have sufficient metrics will instead receive a provisional award.

As noted during the Higher Education and Research Bill process some providers do not meet the eligibility requirements noted for TEF. Providers who do not meet the eligibility requirements, or who chose not to participate, will appear without a TEF award on Unistats and on the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

International students

In last week’s HE policy update we gave statistics on the value of transnational education. This week THE reports that Offshore students are ‘no substitute for UK-based learners’. THE explain that UK universities delivering education overseas accounts for less than 5% of the foreign student income. Dominic Scott, chief executive of the UK Council for International Student Affairs, stated that transnational education could never realistically replace lost income if the number of overseas students studying in the UK declined dramatically. “It has often been argued by government that the UK should, in the face of tough visa restrictions, seek to grow foreign student numbers overseas, largely as an alternative to UK recruitment.” However, HESA 2015/16 figures confirm there are only 701,000 offshore students compared to 450,000 international students studying in the UK. Furthermore, of the 701,000 45% are all on a low-fee accountancy distance learning course at one UK university.

HEFCE respond to last week’s controversial Sunday Times article Universities take foreign students ahead of British. Mario Ferelli, HEFCE’s Director of Analytical Services, explains what the UCAS data really shows and why the statistics the Sunday Times used weren’t appropriate for the young UK population.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

 

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

Denyse King’s Health Education England project ‘NoObesity’

NoObesity

The government’s key priority of reducing childhood obesity through adult education (as announced by Jeremy Hunt in Sept 2015), prompted BU’s Denyse King to write a proposal to Health Education England. Denyse is a Midwifery Lecturer / Public Health Practitioner in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) at Bournemouth University. The proposal outlined her wish to develop a stand-alone mobile learning resource for health workers who care for families of overweight or obese children, and for families who need to identify individual needs to facilitate behavioural changes.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor childhood obesity statistics uk, 2016

The development of this project pivoted on putting patients and the public in the centre of the process. Patients and the public were engaged through focus groups where insights were gathered to identify the challenges and issues to the problem. A series of online focus groups were undertaken with service users and professionals to understand the key challenges and issues respondents came across when trying to prevent/manage overweight and obesity. Key themes from the focus groups were:

  • Empowering – the solution needs to recognise the experiences people bring and therefore the tools need to be empowering in supporting families to address obesity.
  • Parenting tips – to address challenges with encouraging positive health behaviours with children.
  • Responding to barriers – from parent/carers who are being supported by health professionals.
  • Obesity isn’t a quick fix – recognising that sustained behaviour change takes time and support to overcoming barriers is vital.
  • Healthy snacks and activities – provide easy and simple ideas to support parents/carers and professionals to identify quick ways to support healthier eating and increase activity.
  • Portion size – understanding that portion size is important in addition to eating healthily.

Topic experts were identified and invited to join the project steering group where they provided the governance and steer of the overall development of this project whilst Denyse King wrote the content. The following Apps have been developed as a result and will be available to all as free download in IOS and Android platforms from late September 2017:

  • NoObesity Family Focused App – After consultation with a healthcare worker, families set health goals, identify potential barriers and strategies to overcome them, record their progress towards their goals, earning points and awards as they go. Families are encouraged to link accounts to healthcare professional accounts (see below). The tool also includes parenting tips, games and useful links.
  • NoObesity Professional Focused App– Healthcare professionals can see the goals, barriers, strategies, progress, points and awards of linked families, making them better able to provide tailored advice to the families, to help them achieve their goals. This is based on research findings that ‘one-size- fits-all’ health advice simply doesn’t work for most families. The tool also includes the Wessex MECC-based guidance on how to best support families, how to handle common objections, games and useful links.

Denyse would like to thank Dr. Joanne Newton project proposal support, Felicity Hargreaves and Helen Bingham for approval of the final project proposall. Thanks to all those who contributed to answering the research questions, as well as those who tested and fed back on the prototype, and also to Bournemouth University, University of Southampton, and NHS England for their support of this project.

 

List of the members of the steering group

Name Job Title Organisation Steering Group Role
Em Rahman Head of Public Health Workforce Development Programmes Health Education England (Wessex) Steering Group Chair
Alison Potter Technology Enhanced Learning Lead (South) Health Education England (South) Deputy-Chair
Dr. Jenny Godson (MBE) National Lead for Oral Health Improvement Public Health England Dental and dental aspects of nutrition
Prof. Edwin van Teijingen Professor – Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health Bournemouth University Research supervision and education governance
Dr. Juliet McGrattan General Practitioner Cumbria Medical Chambers GP role governance
Kate King-Hicks Health and Wellbeing Programme Lead Public Health England (South East) Obesity governance
Tony Hewett Intervention Manager and behaviour change specialist Miltoncross Academy School staff role governance
Dr. Jo Walker Consultant Paediatrician Portsmouth Hospitals Trust Consultant doctors role governance
Dr. Wendy Marsh Lead Midwife for Safeguarding Portsmouth Hospitals Trust Safeguarding governance
Kate Lees Consultant in Public Health and Dietitian Lees & Latouze Nutrition governance
Denyse King Lecturer in Midwifery and Public Health Practitioner Bournemouth University Content author and governance

HE Policy update – week ending 4 August **updated**

TEF

Wonkhe bloggers imagine alternative ways to run (ideally improve) the TEF in Visions for the AlterniTEF – can we do TEF better?  Ideas ranged from:

  • individual institution-specific targets as a condition of registration OfS (and therefore accountable under the Higher Education and Research Act);
  • metrics produced through relational analyses and cross referencing – this complex idea stemmed from measuring the quality and impact of reciprocal relationships;
  • individual learning statements setting institutional goals which the provider would be measured against – similar to current Fair Access Agreement;
  • ignoring undergraduate TEF and focusing on bringing post-graduate TEF online, including the influence of social capital and the added value of the post-graduate qualification on social mobility. This approach controversially espouses a metrics only approach and abolishes the provider statements.

Wonkhe also continue to unpick the influence of the provider statement in changing an institution’s initial metrics-based TEF rating. Marking the TEF creative writing challenge suggests the panel compensated providers who appeared to be effectively addressing poor NSS scores, took into account a London effect, and rewarded institutions with successful outcomes for part time study.

 

Brexit and Erasmus

A Times Higher article on the alternative to Erasmus post-Brexit highlights the downsides inherent in an Erasmus alternative. The EU exit agreement will determine whether the UK continues to participate in Erasmus, however, the government is currently pursuing a hard line on free movement which decreases the likelihood Erasmus would continue in its current form. An alternative is to establish bilateral agreements to exchange students with key European universities – just as we do now with international institutions. However, the article highlights the negative impact on social mobility – bilateral agreements mean the students must cover their own costs to some extent – decreasing the likelihood lower income students could afford to participate. While the obvious answer (to divert the UK’s contribution to the EU budget which funds Erasmus to a home-grown scheme) seems reasonable the budget required would be in excess of €113 million and the government have yet to confirm this as an option. Furthermore the time and administrative costs for universities to individually negotiate grants and agreements is excessive. The article also touches on lower demand from EU students to come to the UK suggesting exchanges may not be viable.

Parliamentary Questions

Q: Catherine West: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the future of the UK’s participation in the Erasmus scheme.

A: Mr Steve Baker: The Department has regular conversations with officials and Ministers from other governmental departments about a range of policy issues arising from EU exit. With regards to the Erasmus+ programme, the Government recognises the value of international exchange and collaboration in education as part of our vision for the UK as a global nation. There may be European programmes in which we wish to continue to participate after we exit. This will be considered as part of ongoing negotiations with the European Union

Brexit – staff and students

The Russell Group published 10 points requiring greater clarity in response to the UK Government’s position on EU nationals. This included calling for:

  • ensuring academic and student time abroad for study, training, career development and research purposes does not negatively impact on continuous residency
  • interpreting ‘strong ties’ broadly to ensure academics and students spending 2+ years abroad do not lose their settled status once this has been established
  • EU students starting courses in 2017/18 and 2018/19 should be able to stay and work here after their studies and be eligible for settled status after accruing five years residence
  • ensuring that professional qualifications obtained in either the UK or the EU before the UK’s withdrawal continue to be recognised across borders

 

Education-related exports and transnational education activity

The government released experimental statistics estimating the value of exports from the UK education section, the respective contribution of the higher and further education sectors, and transnational activity for 2010-2014. (Transnational education is education provided in a country different to that of the awarding institution.) The total value was estimated to be £18.76 billion – an increase of 18% against 2010. HE was the main contributor accounting for 92% of the total value, with revenue from transnational education contributing the remaining 8%. The full report is here.

Accompanying the experimental statistics is a report analysing the value of transnational education to the UK (originally published November 2014). The report discusses the benefits of transnational education to UK HE institutions (see page 11 for a summary).

 

Nursing & midwifery places

The Royal College of Nursing spoke out this week highlighting the discrepancy between the Government’s plans to expand the mental health workforce and the significant downturn in nursing applications attributed to the introduction of fees and the withdrawal of the NHS bursary. The Government has earmarked £1.3 billion for mental health services, pledging to treat an additional one million patients by 2020-21 through 24/7 services. The RCN says there is already a dangerous lack of workforce planning and accountability, and warns the Government will need to work hard just to get back to the number of specialist staff working in mental health services in 2010. They state that under this Government there are 5,000 fewer mental health nurses.

Janet Davies, RCN Chief Executive & General Secretary, expressed skepticism at the government’s plans and stated: “If these nurses were going to be ready in time, they would be starting training next month…but we have seen that the withdrawal of the bursary has led to a sharp fall in university applications and we are yet to see funding for additional places.” [The government previously stated the removal of bursaries will mean an additional 10,000 training places for healthcare students could be made available by 2020.]

On the ending of the bursary Jon Skewes, Director, at Royal College of Midwives (RCM) said: ‘We believe this decision is a fundamental mistake by the government and have warned about the wide reaching implications of removing the student midwifery bursary given the existing crisis in our maternity services. In England alone we remain 3500 midwives short. This, coupled with younger midwives leaving, an ageing workforce and the loss of EU midwives post-Brexit, means the RCM has grave concerns for staffing our maternity services. The government has completely ignored RCM advice to make any loans forgivable if students then go to work in the NHS. The axing of the bursary and introduction of tuition in England will without doubt worsen the current shortage of midwives.’

 

Tuition Fees

The Centre for Policy Studies released an Economic Bulletin on tuition fees: Wealthy Graduates: The Winners from Corbyn’s tuition fees plan. It reiterates known messages including increases in disadvantaged pupils accessing HE and the social unfairness of expecting non-graduates to subsidise education for degree students. It also makes the following points:

  • The maximum fee ceiling is charged by most universities, there is little differentiation. This means the intended competitiveness was unsuccessful as there is no clear link between tuition fees paid and job prospects. (See page 8 of the full report for more detail.) While TEF still intends to differentiate fees paid on quality the scale of the difference is limited.
  • It calls on ministers to avoid retrospectively increasing graduate’s fee repayments, to consider reducing loan interest rates, and to incentivise courses linking to labour shortages.
  • It also recommends policy makers consider intergenerational fairness but without abolishing tuition fees
  • Scotland’s previous no tuition fee policy which resulted in a student numbers cap means their social mobility outcomes are lower than England’s.

Widening Participation

Statistics – progression and outcome

The Department for Education have published statistics on the 2014/15 entry cohort –  Widening Participation in HE. These are the regular annual statistics detailing young participation in HE with social background comparisons and graduate outcomes. Headlines:

  • The progression rate of free school meals (FSM) pupils has increased, but so has the gap between FSM and non-FSM. Page 5 has a diagram breaking this down by region.
  • The state school Vs independent school gap in progressing to the most selective HE institutions has widened slightly
  • Graduate outcomes – disadvantaged students employed in the most advantaged occupations is up by 1%, although the gap between most and least advantaged students in these high-end jobs remains static at 6%.

School-age attainment trends

The Education Policy Institute has published Closing the Gap? Trends in Educational Attainment and Disadvantage. The report focuses on school aged children analysing the attainment gaps between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers plus other pupil characteristics. It covers the progress made, the enduring challenges (including magnitude of learning gaps and lack of progress for the most persistently disadvantaged pupils). It recommends an additional 8 local authority districts on top of the 12 Opportunity Areas currently identified by the Department for Education. Finally, it states that without significant acceleration in the rate at which gaps are being addressed it take until 2070 before disadvantaged children did not fall further behind other students during their time in education.

 

UK UG Vs International Student numbers

The Sunday Times led with an article claiming universities recruitment of the financially more lucrative international students was crowding out intake of UK undergraduates: Universities take foreign students ahead of British.

The sector responded on Twitter and Wonkhe set out what is misleading in the Times article in their blog: What the Sunday Times got Wrong. This states that the Times article used inappropriate statistics and reminded that UK school leavers now enter university at the highest ever levels.

David Morris (Wonkhe) writes: when I confronted Gilligan about this on Twitter, his response suggested (to me at least) a realisation that a mistake had been made. He argued that his piece “was mainly about the fact that non-EU undergrads are admitted with lesser qualifications” and that we shouldn’t suggest that part-time and second degree students “don’t count”.

In his critique Morris also acknowledges the difficulty navigating HESA statistics for the uninitiated: HESA’s website is not the easiest to use, and one could easily look at overall undergraduate numbers and make an assumption about a story that simply isn’t there. I would urge HESA to make finding historic data more ‘journalist friendly’ for hacks with a deadline. To write this piece I have had to have six different tabs open on HESA’s website, plus three different Excel sheets and the HESA mobile app. No wonder mistakes can be made.

 

Case Studies

Universities UK have published a directory of case studies illustrating how universities are tackling harassment, violence against women and hate crime. The case studies cover a range of areas including prevention, improving incident reporting procedures, effective responses, student and staff training, and good practice.

 

HE Policy update w/e 28th July 2017

Migration & Brexit – the big news this week was the announcement on Thursday that there would be a major study of EU workers and the role that they play in the UK economy and society.  This has been welcomed although there has been criticism of the timing (it should have been started before and will only report in September 2018 – 6 months before the UK leaves the EU).  The committee will look at:

  • current patterns of EU and EEA migration, looking at sectors, regional distribution, skill levels, duration of assignments, self employment, entrepreneurs, part time, agency, temporary and seasonal workers, the evolution of EU and EEA migration since 2000 and possible future trends (absent new immigration controls)
  • the methods of recruitment used by UK employers to employ EU and EEA migrants and how does this impact on UK workers
  • the economic and social costs and benefits, including fiscal impacts to the UK economy and impacts on public services and infrastructure of EU and EEA migration
  • is it possible to estimate the potential impact of any future reductions in EU and EEA migration and how may these be felt differently across the economy and society? How could business adjust if EU and EEA net migration was substantially reduced? What mitigating actions could be taken by employers and government and over what timescale?
  • Aligning the UK immigration system with a modern industrial strategy
    • What is the current impact of immigration, both EU, EEA and non-EEA, on the competitiveness of UK industry, including on productivity, innovation and labour market flexibility?
    • What impact does immigration have on skills and training?
    • Is there any evidence that the free availability of unskilled labour has contributed to the UK’s relatively low rate of investment in some sectors?
    • Are there advantages to focussing migrant labour on highly skilled jobs or across the entire skills spectrum?
    • Does the shortage occupation list need to be amended to include skills shortages at lower skills levels than NQF6?
    • What lessons can be drawn from the approach taken by other countries.

The government remains steadfast in its plans to include students within net migration figures. There has been limited understanding on how far students contribute to migration until recently when Migration Watch UK published a report showing that in the last seven years nearly 200,000 grants of settlement (approx. 27,000 per year) were made to non-EU citizens who entered the UK to study.

Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said:   “It would be absurd to remove students from the net migration target when close to 200,000 grants of settlement in recent years were to former students. Graduates are no doubt valuable to our economy but, with immigration driving our population at the fastest annual rate for nearly 70 years, we must have an honest assessment of the contribution of students who stay on.”

Despite this recent report the quality of migration information, particularly relating to the economic activity of immigrants, is not robust and the Economic Affairs Committee has called for this to be addressed to facilitate the intended new immigration system. The Lords have also stated the Government must devise a better way of accounting for the departure of international students.

Meanwhile rumours of a transition deal whereby free movement of EU citizens into the UK will continue for two to four years after Britain leaves the EU. Politics Home reports this would allow British business to avoid the ‘cliff edge’, with a new immigration system introduced after that period.

Local MP Tobias Ellwood broke ranks recently declaring he believes the drop in EU students to be as a result of uncertainty around Brexit.

Parliamentary Questions

Q: Gordon Marsden: What plans her Department has to ensure that changes to immigration rules will not reduce the number of EU students able to study in UK universities.

A: Brandon Lewis: We are working across Government to identify and develop options to shape our future immigration system. Parliament will have an important role to play in this and we will ensure universities and the higher education sector have the opportunity to contribute their views.

Q: Gordon Marsden: What discussions she has had with university representative bodies on the effect of changes to immigration rules on students from the EU studying in UK universities.

A: Brandon Lewis:  [The same response as above was given] We are working across Government to identify and develop options to shape our future immigration system. Parliament will have an important role to play in this and we will ensure universities and the higher education sector have the opportunity to contribute their views.

Research post Brexit – Parliamentary Questions

Q: Edward Vaizey: What plans the Government has for the relationship between the UK and the European Research Council after the UK leaves the EU.

A: Joseph Johnson: This Government wants the UK to be the go-to place for researchers, innovators and investors across the world, and we intend to secure the right outcome for the UK research base as we exit the European Union. As my Rt Hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we would welcome an agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives. However it is too early to speculate on the UK’s future relationship with the EU Research and Innovation Framework Programme, which includes the European Research Council. The Government is committed to ensuring the UK remains a world leader in international research and innovation.

T-levels delayed – Apprenticeships and Skills Minister Anne Milton confirmed the first T-levels (new technical qualifications for the 16-19 age group) have been delayed until 2020, with the remaining T-level routes planned to come on board from September 2022. This was welcome news to the sector – awarding bodies had been calling for an extension to the ‘impossible’ timescale, no appointments had been made to the T-level advisory development panels, and the DfE had challenged the plan to only have one awarding body per qualification. Pippa Morgan, Head of Education & Skills at the Confederation of British Industry, said the delay was “welcome news” because the technical education reforms were “important and complicated”. David Hughes, Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges, welcomed the timetable change because T-levels will require a “massive effort because of the complexity of the change, but also because we also collectively need to challenge the snobbery and unfairness which goes well beyond the education system”.

HE Patterns and Trends – UUK published Patterns and Trends in UK Higher Education 2017 covering the period 2006/7-2015/16.

  • Disadvantaged backgrounds – Students from a wider range of backgrounds are now entering higher education, with the number of 18-year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds on full-time undergraduate courses increasing by 52% since 2006 and reaching record levels in 2016.
  • Demand for courses  – Entrants to full-time first-degree, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research courses have increased considerably since 2006–07 (by 31.2%, 30.5% and 25.7% respectively), and the proportion of 18 year olds applying and entering HE were at record levels in 2016. However, demand for part-time courses has continued to decline, with entrants to part-time first degree courses falling by 28.6% and entrants to other part-time undergraduate courses by 63.1% since 2006-07.
  • International staff – Non-UK nationals accounted for nearly two thirds of growth in all academic staff since 2006-07. For some subjects, such as engineering, and the humanities and language-based studies, non-UK nationals have accounted for most of the growth in academic staff numbers (63.5% and 54.6% of growth between 2006–07 and 2015–16 respectively).
  • Staff equality and diversity – Between 2009–10 and 2015–16, consistent increases are reported in the number and proportion of both black and minority ethnic (BME) and female professors. BME professors increased by 50.7% over the period (compared to 10.5% for white staff) and female professors increased by 41.8% (compared to 6.5% for males), however both groups are still under-represented among professors in 2015-16.
  • Employment – Young and older graduates have had consistently lower unemployment rates and higher earnings compared with non-graduates, even during recessions. In 2016, graduates aged 21-30 were 40% less likely to be unemployed compared to non-graduates in the same age group.

Commenting on the report, Dame Julia Goodfellow, President of Universities UK and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kent, said: “The report covers a ten-year period that has seen significant changes for universities, both in terms of the way they are funded and their increasingly important roles locally and internationally. During this time, there has been continued growth in the overall demand for university courses and the number of younger students from disadvantaged backgrounds has increased. However, UK universities continue to face a number of challenges, including the possible impact of Brexit. We have to continue to work hard to attract the staff, students, funding and partnerships that are central to the sector’s, and the country’s, success.”

There is a forward-looking chapter on some of the emerging demographic, technological, economic and political changes and the opportunities and challenges for the sector within the full document.

Parliamentary Questions

Q: Gordon Marsden: What assessment she has made of the reasons for the decline in part-time undergraduate study among (a) higher-income households and (b) lower-income households

A: Joseph Johnson: “Studying part-time brings enormous benefits for individuals, the economy and employers. Government regularly assesses the reasons for the decline in part-time undergraduate numbers since their peak in 2008 but does not hold data on their household income background.  We are committed to helping people from all backgrounds enter higher education in a way that suits them and we have taken action to support those who to choose to study part-time. These actions include: From 2012, the offer of up-front fee loans for eligible part-time students, to level the playing field with undergraduate study; From academic year 2018/19, the introduction of undergraduate part-time maintenance loans, to bring greater parity of support between part-time and full-time; From 2015, the relaxation of Equivalent or Lower Qualification rules, so students who already hold an honours degree qualification and wish to study part-time on a second honours degree course in engineering, technology or computer science, have qualified for fee loans for their course. This is being extended for academic year 2017/18 to graduates starting a second part-time honours degree course in any STEM subject”.

Q: Angela Rayner: What assessment she has made of the effect of (a) rising tuition fees and (b) the abolition of maintenance grants on the increasing proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are dropping out of higher education; and if she will make a statement.

A: Joseph Johnson: “The Department for Education published an equality analysis in May 2016, to cover the reforms set out in the Success as a Knowledge Economy White Paper , that were subsequently taken forward through the Higher Education and Research Act (2017). This included an assessment of the impact of allowing institutions who were successful in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) assessment process to increase their fees up to inflation. The Department also published in December 2016 an Equality Analysis for the 2017/18 student finance package, which covered both the increase in fees and accompanying loan support. These assessments concluded that this change was unlikely to significantly alter participation decisions. Tuition fees will not increase in real terms and Higher Education and publicly funded institutions will remain free at the point of access for those who are eligible, as tuition fee loans will increase to cover increased tuition fees”.  Equality Analysis – Higher Education and Research Bill (published May 2016).

  • “The Government is committed to maintaining the UK’s world class higher education system while living within its means and ensuring all those with the talent to benefit from a higher education can afford to do so. To put higher education funding onto a more sustainable footing, the Government asked future graduates to meet more of the costs of their studies through replacing maintenance grants with loans. The equality analysis for the 2016/17 student support regulations assessed the impact of this policy change, including the impact on students from low income backgrounds.” 
  • “Non-continuation rates for UK students at English Higher Education Institutions are lower than in 2009/10, including for the most disadvantaged students. Analysis by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has found that students’ age, subject studied and entry qualifications account for a substantial portion of the gap between the most and least disadvantaged students.
  • “Young people from the poorest areas are now 43% more likely to go to university than they were in 2009/10. Not only are application rates among 18-year-olds in England at record highs, but drop-out rates for young, mature, disadvantaged and BME students are all lower now than they were when the coalition government came to power in 2010.
  • “By measuring retention rates as one of its core metrics and requiring all participating providers to submit a statement for fair access, the TEF aims to recognise those institutions that do the most to welcome students from a range of backgrounds and support their retention and progression to further study or a graduate job.
  • “We want to continue to see reduced non-continuation rates for all students. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 requires institutions to publish admissions and retention data by gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background, and this greater transparency will help the Higher Education sector make further progress to build on what has already been achieved. We are working closely with HEFCE and the Director of Fair Access to target resources effectively and to ensure that universities take more responsibility for widening access and retention for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, prioritising activities that demonstrate the greatest value for money.”

Local issues

Local MP Christopher Chope intends to present a large number of Private Members’ Bills when parliament reconvenes in September.  Private Members’ Bills rarely complete the process to become legislation – there is a ballot as to which are discussed but the limitations on parliamentary time means they do not get often get much further.   Some of the Bills proposed by Mr Chope include:

  • Voter Registration – a Bill seeking to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections in more than one constituency; and for connected purposes. [This is in direct contrast to the Lords’ amendments during the Higher Education and Research Bill which aimed to increase overall numbers of students registered to vote by facilitating cooperation between universities and local Councils but picks up on press stories that students may have voted twice, increasing the Labour vote.]
  • Student Loans (Debt Interest) – a Bill to limit the rate of interest chargeable on outstanding student loan debt; and for connected purposes.
  • Student Loans (Debt Discharge) – a Bill to make provision about the forgiveness or discharge of student loan debt in certain circumstances; to make provision about the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings; and for connected purposes.
  • Principal Local Authorities (Grounds for Abolition) – a Bill to prohibit principal local authorities being abolished in the absence of the authority of its elected councillors and a local referendum; and for connected purposes. [this one is directly linked to the proposals for the merger of Dorset local authorities, which Christchurch have opposed]
  • Benefits and Public Services (Restriction) – a Bill to make provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens to publicly-funded benefits and services; and for connected purposes.

Student Loans and Tuition Fees

The “national debate” continues with a lot of political squabbling and big focus from the government in criticising the Labour party’s alleged u-turn on writing off existing loans.  Andrew McGettigan has written a blog on some inaccuracies in the reporting – our conclusion, it’s all very complicated and simple headlines are probably inaccurate.  There were two parliamentary questions this week:

Q: Lord Hunt Of Kings Heath: What assessment they have made of the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the public cost of student loans.

A: Viscount Younger Of Leckie: The Government has noted the recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The student funding system is fair and sustainable. The cost of the system is not an unintended loss, nor a waste of public money. It is the policy subsidy required to make higher education widely available, achieving the Government’s objectives of increasing the skills in the economy and ensuring access to university for all with the potential to benefit.

Q: Lord Hunt Of Kings Heath: What estimate they have made of the long-term cost of providing student loans.

A: Viscount Younger Of Leckie: The Government’s reforms to the undergraduate student finance system have ensured that it is financially sustainable for the taxpayer in the long-term, while enabling those with the talent to benefit from a higher education to be able to afford to do so. The Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) charge estimates the value of loans that will not be repaid during their 30-year term, expressed as a percentage of the loan outlay made in the relevant year. For full time tuition fee and maintenance loans and part time fee loans issued in 2016/17, we estimate the RAB charge to be around 30%.

Although so far this summer things haven’t gone particularly quiet, we are expecting less policy news over the next few weeks, so we will only send an update if there is enough interesting news – we’ll be back at full tilt in September.

Fair Access Research project (FAR) webpages are launched

The FAR project webpages have now been published.

BU’s pioneering Fair Access Research project has brought together students, SUBU, professional, service and academic staff from across the university to develop and expand expertise and reflexive practice in the field of fair access to higher education.

Each member of the team has brought different knowledge and experiences to a series of innovative research projects exploring what it means to be a ‘non-traditional’ student in the 21st century. FAR has inspired new ways of thinking about fair access and widening participation through this ‘whole institution approach’,

The team has explored all the different stages in the student lifecycle developing an understanding of the challenges some students face in accessing or succeeding at university, how university is experienced by diverse groups of students and how the university can support them in the optimum way when they are here.

Explore the five themes of the FAR programme on the webpages at https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/project/fair-access-research-and-practice-far/

 

Outreach

Admissions

Experience 

Continuation 

Ways of Working

 

 

Contact principal investigators Dr Vanessa Heaslip or Dr Clive Hunt for further information

New publication by FHSS PhD student

Congratulations to Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS) PhD student Folashade Alloh and Dr. Pramod Regmi, newly appointed lecturer in International Health.  They just published ‘Effect of economic and security challenges on the Nigerian health sector’ in the journal African Health Sciences.  The paper is Open Access and can be found here!

Well done!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

HE Policy Update w/e 14th July 2017

Learning gain pilot projects – HEFCE published the first annual report looking at the 13 pilot projects that are looking at how to measure learning gain and the value of the data that such measurements will produce.  The final reports won’t be for a while – and then it will be interesting to see what happens.

  • Learning gain has been suggested by many as a better measure of student outcome and teaching quality than the current metrics used in the TEF. However, to become a core TEF metric there would need to be a national standard measure that was implemented across the sector.  The current position is that institutions are free to include learning gain in their TEF submissions.
  • Of course the QAA or the OfS might start to be interested in any one particular model that they want to become standard.  To make it work nationally there would either have to be mass testing (like SATs for university students) or another national survey alongside NSS and the new Graduate Outcomes  survey (the new name for NewDLHE) – with surveys on enrolment and at other points across the lifecycle.
  • The report suggests embedding measurement “in the standard administrative procedures or formal curriculum” – which means a survey or test through enrolment and as part of our assessment programme.
  • The report notes that some institutions are already using the data that they are getting – for personalised support, in reviewing pedagogy and curriculum, to support promotional work for careers services or with alumni.

Industrial strategy – Greg Clark gave a speech on 10th July about the industrial strategy – notes have not been published, but there has been some tweeting – the main news is that there will be a formal green paper in the autumn. There was a mention of “self-reinforcing clusters that embed productivity via competition and collaboration”, and a repeat of the focus on place. It will be interesting to see what these self-reinforcing clusters look like and how they will be created and supported.

Social Mobility and Widening Participation

Sutton Trust Reports  – The Sutton Trust have published reports on the State of Social Mobility in the UK, Social Mobility and Economic Success, and What the Polling Says

Sutton Trust chairman Sir Peter Lampl said Britain had very low social mobility compared with other countries. “Our research shows that if social mobility were brought up to the western European average, GDP would increase by 2.1%, equivalent to a monetary value of £39bn. The government should make improving social mobility a top priority. Alongside other initiatives there needs to be a concerted effort to… provide fairer access to schools and universities and address the numerous social barriers which exist.” Source

Key points include:

  • Public sentiment that people in the UK have’ equal opportunities to get on’ has dropped and only 29% believe today’s youth will have a better quality of life than their parents
  • When asked which measures would most likely improve social mobility and help disadvantaged young people get on in life, almost half of respondents (47%) chose ‘high quality teaching in comprehensive schools’, ahead of two social mobility policies adopted by the main parties in the recent election: ‘lower university tuition fees’ (cited by 23%) and more grammar schools (8%).
  • Without concerted effort, social mobility could deteriorate further due to trends shaping the future of work, including the rise of disruptive technologies, new ways of working, demographic changes and globalisation. Additionally we may see less stable full-time employment, greater demand for technical skills, and an increased value of essential life skills (such as confidence, motivation and communication). This will advantage those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, who typically have greater opportunities to develop these skills.
  • There has been a large increase in demand for STEM jobs. Studies show that there is a greater proportion of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in STEM subjects than in other subjects such as law and medicine. This could be positive for social mobility as the demand for STEM skills grows. In addition, technology could also create more opportunities for individuals to re-skill themselves through the use of free/low cost online learning platforms (such as MOOCs).
  • A modest increase in the UK’s social mobility (to the average level across Western Europe) could be associated with an increase in annual GDP of approximately 2%, equivalent to £590 per person or £39bn to the UK economy as a whole (in 2016 prices). One factor driving this relationship is the fact that improved social mobility should lead to an improvement in the match between people and jobs in society. Greater mobility means both that the talents of all young people are recognised and nurtured, and that the barriers to some jobs are reduced—these entry barriers exist because of biases in recruitment processes or inequality of educational opportunity.

Recommendations:

  • State schools must do more to develop “soft” or “essential life skills” in less advantaged pupils, through a richer programme of extra-curricular activities.
  • Promotion of the apprenticeship model and vocational tracks, including the new ‘T-levels’ will be needed to ensure the supply of skills meets the demand in the labour market. Apprenticeships should combine workplace training with off-site study, and lead to a professional accreditation. There should be a focus on higher and advanced apprenticeships, along with automatic progression.
  • More should be done to increase the study of STEM subjects (particularly among women) to ensure young people are equipped for the changing world of work.

Mary Stuart blogs for Wonkhe: Social mobility can be much more than just widening HE access. Excerpt:  what does this all mean for the work of universities to support upward social mobility? The focus on social mobility already grows our remit beyond widening access towards considering added value and employment. Our role as anchor institutions takes this further, to incorporate the wider economic and societal environment into which our students will graduate. Drawing together the breath of university activities in this way is particularly important for institutions operating in those areas that are seeking to catch up: it can include our work with schools, the design of new courses to meet employer demand, and expanding our provision into further education and more diverse delivery of higher education.

Schools – Justine Greening’s speech at the Sutton Trust Social Mobility Summit 2017 as (reported on the BBC):Education Secretary Justine Greening has announced the creation of an “evidence champion” who will make sure that decisions on improving schools in England are based on real evidence.  “We have a lot of evidence about what works in schools, but it’s not spread within the school system,” she said. Sir Kevan Collins, chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation, will be the first to take the role. Ms Greening said her top priority would be to improve social mobility

Widening ParticipationIn a compelling article, “I went from care to Cambridge University. Let me show you where the barriers are”, a care-leaver student writes about the cultural and psychological barriers she faced at university and urges institutions to do more than just facilitate access and bursaries to HE for WP students. She touches on the persistence of unhelpful messages about “not for the likes of us”, discouragement, peer attitudes and lack of awareness, alongside the general challenges a child in care has to overcome.

  • “Many solutions have been proposed, such as lowering entry grades for students from marginalised backgrounds, which I support. But such remedies will only ever help the tiniest fraction of those targeted, as so few care leavers even get to the point where a lower grade requirement may allow them to apply. Instead, what is needed is a radical overhaul of the way we conceive of social mobility in this country: from the merely economic, to the cultural. And the government needs to ensure that everyone – no matter their postcode or budget – has access to culture, literature, art, politics and science: not just at school, but in their neighbourhood and community. Studying these subjects needs to feel possible for children and young people from all backgrounds. There’s a reason why I’ve succeeded where others like me have stumbled: a reason that’s not related to my hard work, tenacity, or intellect … for most of my childhood I was surrounded by books, art and culture. It was not a lofty dream for me to apply to university. In my experience, nobody gets anywhere worth going without some degree of privilege. Our most important job is not to celebrate those who might have “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps”, but to ensure that those born with little social privilege have access to the information and cultural advantages that most people reading this can probably take for granted.”

Applications – the national picture

UCAS statistics have confirmed a 4% drop in full time applications nationally within the 2017 cycle. Particularly notable is the 19% reduction in nursing applications (attributed to the removal of bursaries and new fee paying status), alongside a 96% fall in EU nurses seeking to work in the UK.

They  also report a 5% decrease in EU applications to HE institutions, offset slightly by the predicted slight rise in overseas applications. Applications from mature students continues to fall, which has also shows up in the nursing applications.

Media coverage

Independent Providers – The Independent HE Survey 2017 highlights few changes to the make-up of independent providers. They remain relatively small organisations that are industry-focussed and often deliver specialist programmes through varying models and durations. The survey found that 55% of independent providers believe the Higher Education and Research Act changes will benefit their institution and only 3% do not plan to register with the Office for Students. The independent sector with their specialist business focussed delivery are well placed to capitalise on the parliamentary drive for industrial strategy, productivity and competitiveness, alongside the reviews of tertiary education and the ripple effects from the shake up of apprenticeships. 22% of independent providers plan to apply for Taught Degree Awarding Powers. The majority of independent providers support a different funding model across tertiary education, with 60% pressing for funding based on academic credit, not the academic year. Of the independent providers surveyed 50% offer part-time and flexible learning (a current government and OFFA priority), 40% offer online, distance and blended learning, 16% run accelerated degree programmes and 10% offer apprenticeships – all of which the Government are pressing traditional HE institutions to do more of.

Graduate outcomes – On Thursday HESA published their Experimental Statistical First Release on Destinations of UG leavers from alternative providers (in 2015/16).

EU (Repeal) Bill – The EU (Repeal) Bill was presented at Parliament on Thursday. See BU’s policy pages for the background and controversial aspects of this element of Brexit legislation.   It is described by the government as “technical in nature rather than a vehicle for major policy changes”.  It repeals the European Communities Act 1972, but as so much UK legislation and rules are dependent on (and cross refer to) EU rules, there are two more controversial aspects.  Firstly, it converts EU law into UK law – preserving existing law as it is, un-amended (but ready to be amended later in the usual way – and then, most controversially, it gives ministers “temporary powers” to “correct” the transposed law if it does not function effectively.  These changes will be made in statutory instruments subject to parliamentary oversight (but these generally get less debate than primary legislation, and the likely volume of them will make long debate very difficult – estimated at 800-1000 statutory instruments).   There is a great deal of concern about the correcting powers in particular, but a few practical examples will be needed to see what this means in practice – these will not doubt emerge in the debates on the bill.  The notes say:

“The correcting power can only be used to deal with deficiencies that come as a  consequence of the UK leaving the EU. Deficiencies might include:

  • Inaccurate references. These could include references to EU law or to the UK as a member state.
  • Law that gives the Commission or EU institution a function to provide services or regulate, if the UK and EU agree these arrangements won’t continue.
  • Law that gave effect to a reciprocal or other kind of arrangement between the UK and the European Commission or EU member states. If these arrangements do not continue to exist in practice, the law that gave effect to them will be deficient”

There are specific fact sheets on a number of areas including:

There’s a helpful BBC article here

Tuition fees, student loans etc.  – The debate on tuition fees has continued, read Jane’s updated blog for the Lighthouse Policy GroupThe BBC had a story  summing up the status of the debate.

Select Committee News – On Wednesday MPs voted for select committee chairmanship using the alternative vote method. The number of committees a political party can chair is proportional to the number of seats they hold within the House of Commons. The news surrounding the chairs appointment speculates that Theresa May will face renewed challenge as many of the MPs elected to chair these powerful committees voted to Remain in the Brexit referendum.

  • Robert Halfron (Conservative, Harlow) has been appointed Chair of the Education Select Committee.
  • Rachel Reeves (Labour, Leeds West) has been appointed Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee.
  • Nicky Morgan (Conservative, Loughborough) has been appointed Chair of the Treasury Committee.
  • Normal Lamb (Lib Dem, North Norfolk) has been appointed Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.
  • Damian Collins (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) has been appointed Chair of the Culture Media and Sport Committee.
  • Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central) has been appointed Chair of the Exiting the EU Committee.
  • Dr Sarah Wollastone (Conservative, Totnes) has been appointed Chair of the Health Committee.
  • Yvette Cooper (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) has been appointed Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
  • Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) has been appointed Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee).
  • Stephen Twigg (Labour and Co-operative, Liverpool and West Derby) has been appointed Chair of the International Development Committee.
  • Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke) has been appointed Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Parliament enters recess next week (Commons on Thurs 20, Lords on Fri 21). This is the period when MPs return to their constituencies and focus primarily on local matters. Although the select committee chairs are now in place due to recess its likely little business will occur until parliament reconvenes mid-way through the first week of September.

Parliamentary Questions

Thangam Debbonaire (Labour, Bristol West) has tabled a parliamentary question due for answer next week: What recent assessment has been made of the effect of changes in immigration policy on levels of university recruitment?

Lord Jopling has asked: How any higher education provider that does not obtain a Bronze status or higher in future Teaching Excellence Frameworks will be categorised and which HE providers declined to participate in the TEF? (due for response Wed 26 July).

 

Jane Forster                                               Sarah Carter

VC’s Policy Adviser                                    Policy & Public Affairs Officer

 

New publication on Community Hospitals

The Health Services Journal published a commentary this week on Community Hospitals [1].  This online article is written by Dr. Emma Pitchforth who is based at RAND Europe in Cambridge (& BU Visiting Faculty), Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (Faculty of Health & Social Sciences) and Dr. Ellen Nolte based at the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies

The authors highlight the recently completed NIHR study on Community Hospitals [2].  The notion of a Community Hospital in the UK is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential.

With ease of access and a sense of homeliness, there is potential for Community Hospitals to be better integrated into NHS in England.  The authors suggest that a more strategic role for ‘traditional’ Community Hospitals might be timely within the NHS in England.  They further conclude that if challenges around Community Hospitals are addressed and their within the English health system is properly defined, they could provide positive benefits to the health service. It seems that, if done correctly, Community Hospitals could be a traditional solution to help address some of the modern day challenges of the NHS.The full NIHR report is Open Access and can be found here!

Last year the research team had already published a scoping review article from the NIHR study [3].

 

 

References:

  1. Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen, E., Nolte, E. (2017) Community hospitals: a traditional solution to help today’s NHS? Health Services Journal (11 July) https://www.hsj.co.uk/community-services/community-hospitals-a-traditional-solution-to-help-todays-nhs/7020019.article#/scientific-summary
  2. Pitchforth, E., Nolte, E., Corbett, J., Miani., C, Winpenny., E, van Teijlingen, E., Elmore, N,, King, S,, Ball, S,, Miler, J,, Ling, T. (2017) Community hospitals and their services in the NHS: identifying transferable learning from international developments – scoping review, systematic review, country reports and case studies Health Services & Delivery Research 5(19): 1-248.
  3. Wimpenny, E.M., Corbett, J., Miami, C., King, S., Pitchforth, E., Ling, T., van Teijlingen, E. Nolte, E. (2016) Community hospitals in selected high income countries: a scoping review of approaches and models. International Journal of Integrated Care 16(4): 13 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2463

 

HE policy update w/e 7th July 2017

Office for Students

Nicola Dandridge (currently Chief Executive of Universities UK) has been appointed as the Chief Executive of the Office for Students (OfS).

  • Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Education, said: “Nicola Dandridge’s knowledge and experience will be key for this important role…The OfS will replace an outdated regulatory system with a framework that can truly respond to the challenges of our 21st Century and ensure the university system meets the needs of the students.”
  • Jo Johnson, Universities Minister, stated: “I am delighted that Nicola Dandridge is taking up this crucial role. Her knowledge and experience of the higher education system makes Nicola an excellent choice to work alongside Sir Michael Barber at the helm of the OfS…The new regulator will rightfully put the interests of students at the heart of regulation and play a pivotal role in reforming one of our nation’s greatest assets – the higher education sector.”
  • Les Ebdon, Director of Fair Access, has also welcomed and commended Nicola and emphasised her connection to social mobility: “…she is ideally placed to take up this important post. I know from the leadership Nicola showed when she chaired the Social Mobility Advisory Group that she has a strong personal commitment to fair access.”

UUK anticipate announcing their new chief executive in September.

Michael Barber is the Chair of OfS, Martin Coleman is the deputy chair, and five other OfS Board members have been confirmed – two Board spots remain open, including the seat for student experience, which was advertised this week.

In other people news, Chris Husbands (VC of Sheffield Hallam and Chair of the TEF panel) has been appointed as the new chair of HESA. Chris stated: “HESA is a jewel in the crown of UK higher education: a trusted source of insightful data and analysis across the higher education landscape in the UK, which helps to shape policy and promote wider understanding and confidence in the sector. High quality data and data analysis is increasingly critical to successful organisations.”

On Tuesday, Sir Mark Walport, the Chief Executive Designate of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) made a speech outlining his vision for the future of UKRI, which you can watch here.

Focus on tuition fees

Labour’s promises to abolish tuition fees (and forgive loans for graduates) have been credited in some quarters as leading to an increase in turn-out amongst young people at the election, and a consequent increase in the Labour vote. Speculation is building about a government response to this. As a result, tuition fees and the loan system have been all over the press this week, with Jo Johnson on Newsnight and the Today programme, and active on twitter.

The voting problem

Did young people turn out in massively increased numbers as claimed immediately after the election? Some suggested more turn out figure above 70%.

  • The BBC reality check uses two polls – a YouGov poll released on 13th June and an Ipsos Mori poll released on 20thYouGov found that about 58% of people between the age of 18 and 24 voted, while Ipsos Mori estimated that it was 54%. Both of those figures are a proportion of all 18- to 24-year-olds, not just those who are registered to vote.
  • That is compared to an Ipsos Mori poll for the 2015 election showing 28% turnout amongst that group, 43% of those registered to vote. The piece adds “The overall turnout (and these are actual figures – not based on polling) was 69%, compared with 66% in 2015, so it appears that the youth vote increased by considerably more than the overall turnout.”
  • See also the Full Fact article

Of course, we don’t trust polls as much as we used to. There’s an interesting pre-election piece on the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) blog and BU’s Darren Lilleker asked about the impact of polls on voting. After the 2015 general election, an inquiry was commissioned into election polls, which concluded that the main issue in 2015 was unrepresentative samples. Accuracy was an issue again during and after the EU referendum. And the same issues arose in the General Election, although the final BBC poll was remarkably close. The House of Lords have appointed a new committee to look at Political Polling and Digital Media, which will report by March 2018 – so maybe that will give us more confidence.

Did the increased number of young voters vote Labour? The BBC reality check says all the polls show a substantial swing to Labour amongst younger voters (18-24).

So was the swing to Labour amongst the young a result of tuition fee promises? That’s a very reductive perspective – surely, students are interested in the same issues as everyone else? And, of course, many among that group do not attend university. HEPI had a piece on student voting intentions in May based on a YouthSight poll. At BU, the Students’ Union (SUBU) organised the only local hustings for parliamentary candidates with all five candidates present. The audience was mostly students and the debate was wide ranging. It covered public sector pay, Brexit, immigration, the economy, housing, security and local matters amongst other things. Tuition fees barely got a mention.

The tuition fees problem

The debate about tuition fees is complex, and highly political. So some key points:

What had happened before the election?

During the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, issues with fees and loans, and the repayment threshold in particular were regularly discussed, in both houses. There was a debate on a “motion to regret” on 5th April in the House of Lords.

The government amended the bill so that inflation based tuition fee increases (already permitted under legislation, but requiring a statutory instrument to implement each change), now require positive approval by both houses. The inflation-based increase in the cap for students starting in 2018/19 should be announced relatively soon – and is likely to be more than the £250 that takes effect this September.

The government also delayed the differentiated fee cap linked to TEF – see more in our HE policy update from a couple of weeks ago. As I wrote on Wonkhe recently, the link between fee increases and TEF has caused all sorts of problems with the TEF – it isn’t the only reason that the NUS are opposed to TEF and called for a boycott of the National Student Survey (NSS) but it is one of the reasons – apparently 25 student unions supported the boycott, and at least some will not have valid NSS data for the TEF next year.

In the election campaign there was a great deal of debate about the affordability of the Labour commitment to abolish tuition fees – one analysis on Wonkhe here.

Media coverage:

And what is happening now?

Damian Green, the First Secretary of State, called for a “national debate”. Michael Gove explained and defended the current position, and Jo Johnson appeared on Newsnight to defend it.

Jo Johnson argues that the fees improve access to HE for deprived students because of the removal of the student numbers cap, that it provides sufficient funding for universities to offer world-class teaching and research, and is fairer to the tax-paying public. And on Radio 4 today’s programme said that the unpaid written-off debts are the government’s contribution to higher education funding.

There has been speculation that a Conservative manifesto commitment to review Further Education funding will lead to a massive shakeup of university funding – if that is added to a review of tuition fees then change is really on the horizon.

Amongst many blogs and articles on the subject, David Phoenix has written for Wonkhe about why it is time for a review. He argues that while Labour’s abolition of tuition fees isn’t progressive the Conservative alternative doesn’t work either and calls on the sector to find a balanced solution. He writes:  “The majority of students do not object to making a contribution to the cost of their education, but it’s the scale of the contribution that matters. A better balance between the student (or graduate) and state acknowledges that students will benefit financially from their degree, whilst also acknowledging the wider public good of higher education: social mobility, civic engagement, productivity, and innovation.”  Speaking of the recent election result, he states: “It’s clear to me is that young people have, in large numbers, rejected continuity of the current system. We also know that the current funding structure is being quietly rejected by potential mature applicants. The job is now for the universities sector and policy makers to work together to rebalance the system to meet the needs of learners, our economy, and our public services.”

And the Wonkhe article noted above quotes the Dearing Review of 20 years ago, which started the move to debate on tuition fees: “One backbencher in the debate on Dearing nearly 20 years ago presciently remarked: “There is real concern that the Government’s decision not to follow Dearing’s proposal to introduce tuition fees while maintaining the maintenance grant, but rather to abolish the maintenance grant and replace it with loans will, far from widening access, narrow it.” Theresa May – for yes, it was she – hit the nail on the head. Discussions about affordability and access have to take place while looking at the entire student support and HE funding package. Taking a report (as happened with both Dearing and Browne) and cherry-picking politically or economically attractive aspects is not a recipe for a fair or sustainable system.”

Realistically – what might happen now?

Labour are sticking to their policy, despite affordability questions and the regressive nature of the change, and criticism of the repeated – an inaccurate- claim that fewer people from poor backgrounds are going to university.

Looking at the statistics above, it seems unlikely that this policy had as big an impact on the outcome of the election as was initially claimed. Apart from students, the policy may also have been popular with parents – but unlikely to have been a game changer in its own right.

So what will the government do?

  • There might be some sort of review/consultation – it is hard to see that this will result in major changes to the structure but it would look like doing something
  • There might be a change to the interest rate – to delay or reduce the rise that will otherwise happen in September
  • There might be a relenting on the repayment threshold freeze – passed in 2015 for 5 years, so perhaps it won’t be extended
  • They could choose not to increase fees by inflation at all in 2018/19. There is no rule that says they have to; even though they announced that they plan to as part of the White Paper/TEF implementation.
  • There might be more consideration given to maintenance funding arrangements. As noted above, these add hugely to student loans, and disproportionately so for students from lower income families.

It is hard to see more drastic changes than that at a time when there are so many calls on the “magic money tree”. Although I’m still not making predictions in this uncertain world…

International staff and students

Hotcourses insights Brexit report compares global demand for HE over the last 12 months. It finds that international student interest has decreased from 28% to 25.6%, although EU student interest has dropped more substantially from 36.9% to 30.7%. The USA share of the student interest has also dropped, whilst Canada and Ireland have both gained.

Jo Johnson announced the Ernest Rutherford Global Talent Research Fund (£100 million) which aims to attract highly skilled researchers to the UK. Johnson stated: “Rutherford and his immense contributions to science exemplify our vision of a Britain that is open to the best minds and ideas in the world, and stands at the forefront of global collective endeavours to understand, and to improve, the world in which we live…We look forward to welcoming these talented Rutherford research fellows to the UK. The Rutherford Fund will send a strong signal that, even as we leave the European Union, we are open to the world and will reinforce our ambition of making the UK the go-to country for innovation and discovery.”

Widening participation

OFFA and the Open University published a joint report and evaluation tool arguing for more ambitious outreach for mature students

Parliament

As parliament begins to bed down the select committees will re-form and appoint their new chairs.

TES report that Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Tim Loughton are all contesting for the Education select committee chair. FE week also covers the story.

This week relevant Parliamentary Questions have dovetailed the media interest in tuition fees. Angela Rayner has tabled two PQs (due for answer next week). The first asks the government for a statement on whether they intend to privatise the student loan book. The second asks what estimate has been made of potential revenue in privatising the student loan book.

 

Policy Update w/e Friday 30 June 2017

TEF

As the sector continues to digest TEF the date to register for appeals has already passed. The Times report that Durham, Liverpool, Southampton and York will be appealing their ratings. Read Jane’s TEF blog published by Wonkhe. The Times Higher have published a comprehensive review of the data.

Graduate Outcomes

The second NewDLHE consultation has closed and the new survey will be called the Graduate Outcomes survey. Read about it on the HESA website and Rachel Hewitt’s Wonkhe blog: What’s in a name? Arriving at Graduate Outcomes. Rachel writes: The new model will enable us to provide high-quality data that meets current and anticipated future needs, while also realising efficiencies in the collection process. The data that will be available, including new graduate voice measures, will expand our understanding of what graduate success means.

HESA have published the synthesis of responses to the consultation and also have a helpful response and clarification page which follows more of a Q&A style. The first cohort of graduates to receive the new survey will be from the 2017/18 academic year and there will be a minimum 70% response rate requirement for full time UK undergraduates (some concern has been expressed about whether this is achievable). The first full Graduate Outcomes publication will be in early 2020, followed by the LEO earnings data later in Spring 2020. HESA clarify that there will not be a gap in data for TEF, although some students will be captured a little later than the existing DLHE model. When asked how HESA would mitigate the change in census point impacting on the TEF data they clarified it was for HEFCE to consider the matter.

Widening Participation

It’s been a busy week for widening participation. OFFA have released the national outcomes of the 2015/16 Access Agreement monitoring and announced a new HESA data set will be released at the end of July which will support institutions to evaluate the impact of their financial support (including bursaries) to students.

The Access Agreement monitoring noted greater investment during 2015/16 and ‘significant and sustained’ improvements in fair access in the last decade. However, it identified particular challenges in the fall of part-time student numbers, non-continuation rates for mature students (almost double the rate of young students), little progress in retention and attainment of students from certain BME backgrounds, and professional employment rates, which are significantly lower for graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds. It also stressed the importance of flexible study options, particularly for mature students.

The Social Mobility Commission published Time for change: an assessment of government policies on social mobility 1997 to 2017 which considers the impact and effectiveness of the key social mobility policies over the last 20 years. The HE sector has seen success in improving disadvantaged students access to university (less so at selective institutions), however, the retention rates and graduate outcomes for disadvantaged students still lag behind with only minimal improvement over the 20 year period. For more detail read our summary of the report here.

Research Councils UK released their Measuring Doctoral Student Diversity report. And the Herald has a piece on how Glasgow University contextualises its admissions successfully ‘Dumbing down’ myths scotched.

EU citizens’ rights

The Home Office have published a policy paper addressing the continuation of UK residence rights for EU nationals, which was the basis of the government’s proposal to the EU for negiotiations on this issue, which is a gateway issue to wider negotiation on Brexit. A short factsheet explains the intended process for EU citizens to remain in the UK. The policy paper mentions access to fee and maintenance loans for undergraduates and EU citizens access to research council PhD studentships – both to continue until 2018-19. Upon Brexit EU students with “settled status” will be permitted to complete their studies.

The current UK proposal appears to be relatively generous to EU citizens currently in the UK – although there is a cut off date which has yet to be set and will be between 29 March 2017 and 29 March 2019.  Those arriving after that date will not have the same rights.  It does propose a registration requirement for those acquiring “settled” status (or in the course of acquiring it – it takes 5 years) but it proposes a 2 year transition period for that process to avoid administrative chaos.  The EU have already said that they are not happy with the proposal that the EU court will not have jurisdiction.  This is the opening position in a negotiation, so expect it to evolve over the next few months.

Local MPs

Three of our local MPs have been appointed to Government positions.

  • Simon Hoare has been appointed as Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Ministerial team within the Home Office.
  • Conor Burns has moved from BEIS and been appointed as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Boris Johnson (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs).
  • Michael Tomlinson has been appointed as Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Ministerial team within the Department for International Development.

Parliamentary Questions

There were a number of HE relevant parliamentary questions this week.

Catherine West asked the Secretary of State for Education whether it remains the Government’s policy to allow the opening of new grammar schools. Justine Greening responded: There was no education bill in the Queen’s Speech, and therefore the ban on opening new grammar schools will remain in place.

William Wragg asked the Secretary of State for Education whether the proposals relating to universities in the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation document will be taken forward. Justine Greening responded: “As part of the Government’s commitment to create more good school places, last September we published the consultation document: Schools that work for everyone. This asked how we could harness the resources and expertise of those in our higher education sector to work in partnership to lift attainment across the wider school system.

The Government has welcomed the way that our world-class higher education institutions are willing to think afresh about what more they could do to raise attainment in state schools, in recognition of their responsibility to their own local communities.

Universities are currently agreeing Access Agreements with the Office for Fair Access. Earlier this year, his strategic guidance to the sector, the Director for Fair Access set out an expectation that HEIs should set out in their access agreements how they will work with schools and colleges to raise attainment for those from disadvantaged and under-represented groups.

The Government hopes and expects more universities will come forward to be involved in school sponsorship and free schools, including more mathematics schools, although support need not be limited to those means.”

Lastly, Justine Greening confirmed that her department would provide further information on the Schools that work for everyone consultation ‘in due course’.

Other news

Research England is recruiting members for the first Council.

The House of Commons Library have published a briefing paper on The value of student maintenance support.

 

 

 

Jane Forster                                               Sarah Carter

VC’s Policy Adviser                                    Policy & Public Affairs Officer

HE policy update w/e 23rd June 2017

Two items have dominated this week – the Queen’s Speech at the state opening of Parliament, and the TEF results.

Queen’s Speech

The Queen’s Speech sets out the government’s legislative agenda for the session of parliament. In a rare departure this year the parliamentary legislative session is planned to last for two years, instead of one, to accommodate Brexit and the Repeal Bill. Both the Commons and Lords will debate the planned legislative programme for six working days.  Education will be debated on Tuesday 27 June by the Commons and Thursday 29 June by the Lords. Usually during the final days of debate two Opposition amendments are considered and one is voted upon – it will be interesting to see what they pick. The Commons vote on the final motion takes place on Thursday 29 June. The government must win this vote  -although the DUP are likely to support the government, Labour are hovering in the wings ready to capitalise on any opportunity.

The significance of the Queen’s Speech for HE was more about what it did not contain. Across the board many manifesto commitments were absent or lacked detail, but that is not unusual.

Schools were addressed with a commitment to increase the schools budget further and to make schools funding fairer. Furthermore, of importance to HE, in line with the ‘Schools that work for everyone’ consultation, the Queen’s Speech makes reference to encouraging more people, schools and institutions to come forward to help to create more good school places. This falls short of promising legislation to force universities or independent schools to sponsor or open free schools, as mentioned in the manifesto. However, legislation isn’t required to force universities into sponsorship.  We await the next steps in the response to the Schools consultation.  Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Angela Rayner, has tabled the parliamentary question: What her policy is on the involvement of universities in academy sponsorship and the founding of free schools and charging maximum tuition fees. We’ll bring you the response in next week’s policy update. Grammar schools were not mentioned. While the policy has not been officially dropped the BBC cite a DfE source who stated ”the Queen’s Speech was an unambiguous decision not to go ahead with creating more grammar schools”.

The commitment remains to refreshing technical education, funding and delivering the new Institutes of Technology as part of the Industrial Strategy. Angela Rayner has also tabled a parliamentary question on reviewing funding across tertiary education. HEPI published a report on technical and professional education this week.

Immigration – the government pledged “A Bill to establish new national policies on immigration, completed by legislation to ensure that the UK makes a success of Brexit”. The new factor in this debate is the role of the DUP which has indicated it wants a policy that meets the skills needs of Britain. This may not completely dovetail with May’s commitment to the net migration target. In the election aftermath there have been rumours that the government will soften their immigration stance. However, the migration cap was confirmed again by Damien Green on Wednesday.

The Queen’s Speech also addressed Social Care, Mental Health and the tech sector. Please contact Sarah for a summary if these areas interest you.

The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)

Relish or rubbish it TEF is one of the most significant policy initiatives in recent years. Despite sector opposition and Lords legislative amendments, Jo Johnson’s drive to bring teaching excellence into focus survived largely intact with a review promised in 2019. The categorisation of universities into a single label of Gold, Silver or Bronze gives a highly visible message to the public. A debate rages on how much influence TEF will have on prospective students’ choices and their parents’ opinion. However, including the awards on unistats, and UCAS course pages means that  TEF is a force to be respected.  Jane’s blog for Wonkhe gives a personal perspective – the good outweighs the bad.

What is TEF?

TEF is a government endorsed evaluation of teaching excellence. Wonkhe have a useful beginner’s guide to the TEF which sets out the component parts within the three categories of Teaching Quality, Learning Environment and Student Outcomes and Learning (also see diagram, and explanation of  TEF flags). Controversy within the sector (and Lords debate during the HE and Research Bill) centred on the metrics- which use measures of student experience, retention, and outcomes as a proxy for teaching excellence. In May Jo Johnson stated that TEF was ‘an iterative process’ and would ‘evolve and develop’ over the years. New metrics including LEO will be considered for inclusion as TEF matures.

The government’s aims for TEF are to:

  • Inform prospective student choice
  • Recognise, reward and drive excellent teaching (balancing a research focus at the expense of teaching experience)
  • Inform and meet employer, business and industry needs

Read Wonkhe’s interesting political history of the methods successive policy makers have attempted to drive progress. And HEPI’s (short!) idiots guide to the arguments for and against the TEF.

Participation in TEF was voluntary but most (nearly all in England, fewer in the devolved administrations) chose to participate. TEF is linked to the raising of the higher fee cap.  However, to allow the HE and Research Act to pass swiftly the government agreed to postpone the further link which differentiated the fee cap based on TEF ratings. This has been postponed until 2020 and can only be reinstated after an independent review of TEF has been conducted. Read John Vinney’s research blog which highlights the Lords unease over the TEF fees link as the HE and Research Bill made its way through parliament.

TEF also aligns with the government’s social mobility agenda. The metrics deliberately split out widening participation indicators such as BME and part time students to ensure consideration of these groups at institutional level.

TEF – the outcome

As the data that underlines the metrics are widely published, he sector already had a ball park idea of where institutional ratings would fall, although the subtlety of the individual benchmarking process did make it hard to predict with confidence.  For some the TEF heralds a refreshing shake up of the sector, a move away from research influenced league tables.  For pre-results release comment see TEF will check the most complacent and privileged and Performance management is here to stay, but TEF needs a rethink.

The TEF results for all participating providers were released by HEFCE on Thursday 22 June. At the time of writing the HEFCE TEF webpages were very slow, as an alternative see this Times Higher page which lists all institutions results but not the provider results statements. The Times Higher page also compares each provider’s TEF result with their THE World University Ranking and REF GPA.

As the policy wonks digest the national results picture, questions emerge about the relative influence of the provider statement against metrics, and a good article by Wonkhe provides volumes and information on institutions that were up or downgraded against their initial metric based ranking. There are interesting results analysis tweets and diagrams by the University of Huddersfield.  Chris Husbands, the chair of the TEF, has responded to the reaction with a strong defence of the system on Wonkhe.

Jo Johnson, in the TEF results release, harks back to the original TEF objectives:  “These results, highlighting the extraordinary strengths of our higher education system, will help students choose which university or college to study at. The Teaching Excellence Framework is refocusing the sector’s attention on teaching – putting in place incentives that will raise standards across the sector and giving teaching the same status as research. Students, parents, employers and taxpayers all have a shared interest in ensuring that higher education equips the next generation of graduates for success.”  He also tweeted “Kudos to all 295 institutions that volunteered for the first Teaching Excellence Framework assessment”.

BU’s approach

BU’s continuing approach to TEF reflects our fundamental commitment to Fusion. Read John Vinney’s HEPI blog which addresses the importance of both research and teaching in inspiring learning excellence, and the comments from Professor Holley on this research blog: “BU is unusual in the sector in drawing together preparation for both REF and TEF, mirroring their Fusion agenda of excellence in research, education and professional practice. It is exciting to be at the centre of these policy opportunities, to build synergy in a way that will further enhance the student experience. At BU we pride ourselves on delivering innovative teaching and learning that works for all of our students, regardless of background.”  If you missed it, you can read about BU’s silver award here.

The Future

Amid the excitement of ‘results day’ it is easy to forget that TEF is still evolving. There will be an extended two-year subject level pilot in 2017/18 and 2018/19, with a final version rolled out in 2019/20 (TEF year 5). Despite extensive sector consultation and comment over the past year few decisions have been made about the complexity and level of detail that will dictate the subject level structural framework.  The approach based on many categories of disciplines will most genuinely reflect the learning experience of students but could be  burdensome and costly – some say broader groups will be easier and less time consuming to manage but will have a masking effect by grouping together subjects that don’t really belong together. For example, subjects as diverse as geography and nursing could banded together under a social sciences heading. Subject level TEF will also make labelling harder. How will a silver institution with a range of gold and bronze subject judgements market themselves effectively but unambiguously? Will parents and prospective students (who need clear, simple branding to make decisions) pay more attention to the Gold rating for their intended subject or an overall Bronze for the intended institution? If that doesn’t have you reaching for the headache medication read Wonkhe’s article which delves further into the complexities of subject level TEF.

Also don’t forget postgraduates. Postgraduate TEF was scheduled for TEF year 4 (assessed in 2018-19 based on 2017-18 data); however, many speculate that given the extension of the subject level TEF pilot and the independent review of TEF, as well as everything else, postgraduate TEF may be shelved until further notice.   See Wonkhe’s TEF article about postgraduate TEF.

But with the Bill passed, what will the Universities Minister do during this parliament? Perhaps focus more on the Science and Research part of his portfolio, with the Industrial Strategy and Brexit issues to deal with.

Lastly, at a June Wonkhe TEF conference Mark Jones (HEA) called on the sector to ‘take back control’ of teaching excellence and play a part in developing teaching metrics rather than simply critiquing them. He advocated engaging with Gibbs (2010) Dimensions of quality research and looking at international initiatives as part of potential metric development.  Chris Husbands repeated this call in his blog this week.

Media Coverage

Times Higher has a hub page where they gather together key articles and comment on the TEF, and Wonkhe gather together many articles and blogs whilst also providing key results analysis. You may like eight first lessons from the TEF results.

Media coverage has focussed mostly on the mixed ratings achieved by Russell Group members:

Sector response

Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said:  ‘The Teaching Excellence Framework would have comprehensively failed if it had simply replicated existing hierarchies. It was always designed to do something different to other league tables and rankings – namely, to show where there are pockets of excellence that have been ignored and to encourage improvements elsewhere.

‘So the fact that some of the results seem surprising suggests it is working. I visit around 50 universities a year so know the Gold ratings have been hard won by committed staff and students and are very well deserved.

‘Nonetheless, in this early guise, the TEF is far from a perfect assessment of teaching and learning. While it tells us a lot of useful things, none of them accurately reflects precisely what goes on in lecture halls. I hope university applicants will use the results in their decision making but they should do so with caution, not least because the ratings are for whole universities rather than individual courses.’

 

Jane Forster                                   Sarah Carter

VC’s Policy Adviser                                    Policy & Public Affairs Officer