Category / Student Engagement

A research seminar session ‘A Story of Blockchain Impact in Asia’ 😇 is on the way! 19th December 2019, 11:30-12:30. Venue: EB602

We will have a seminar session with the guest lecturer, Professor Nariaki Ikematsu (Consultant, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology; NICT). This session is the third ‘spin-out’ event from DEEP TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF ORGANIZATIONS (6-7 December 2019). This research seminar is conducted as a Skype video conference.

Professor Ikematsu will present a contemporary topic of blockchain impact in the Asian countries, Thailand and Vietnam. He will talk about some cases including the business practices of ‘PIZZA 4P’S Makes the World Smile for Peace through “Edutainment”’ referring to the key factors ‘local consumption’ and ‘innovative supply chain management’. https://www.earthackers.com/pizza-4ps-makes-the-world-smile-for-peace-through-edutainment/ (Accessed 12 December 2019).

This seminar is held in line with the suggestions from a Key Note Speech made by Professor Sangeeta Khorana at the conference, DEEP TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF ORGANIZATIONS on the 6th December in Tunis.

This session will provide unique topics in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as ‘Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’ and ’Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals’.

This session also aligns with BU2025 strategic investment areas (SIAs), Simulation & Visualisation and Assistive Technology.

The BU ECRs, PhD researchers, and MSc students are welcome to this session.

The session will be facilitated by Dr Hiroko Oe and an ECR, Ediz Akchay. Mr. Gideon Adu-Gyamfi (MSc International Management) will also contribute as a discussant.

*For more details, please email to hoe@brounemouth.ac.uk

HE policy update for the w/e 13th December 2019

It’s a full moon on polling day and the results will be announced on Friday the 13th! Superstitions aside we’re issuing your policy update early this week before the election outcomes are announced so you can focus on all the educational news. Fear not, we’ll bring you all the election fall out and early outcome scenarios in a post-election special edition.

Measuring Up the Educational Manifestos

We’re not including the myriad of speeches and party declarations this week. However, worth a short mention is the Education Policy Institute (EPI) who have (like many others) analysed the five main parties’ manifestos, compared them against EPI costings, and considered what the impact would be from an independent perspective. They conclusions don’t paint the rosiest of futures for the education sector:

  • Although all parties have made bold pledges about reducing opportunity gaps and raising educational attainment, the policies in their manifestos are unlikely to deliver on these aspirations.
  • Despite a large proportion of the attainment gap between poor children and the rest emerging before entry to school, party policies seem to focus on improving childcare for employment and cost of living reasons, rather than focusing on high quality early years education. While Labour and the Liberal Democrats are making major funding commitments in this area, there are serious questions about whether their policies can be delivered effectively and secure high quality and value for money over the limited implementation periods envisaged. The Conservatives give no indication of whether they will take action to improve the quality and progressiveness of early years entitlements.
  • All major parties are pledging additional funding for schools, colleges and special needs education – with Labour and the Greens committing to the biggest increases. This could help to deliver effective interventions and may improve teacher retention. But under Conservative policies, there will be a relative shift in funding away from schools with higher levels of disadvantage – and this attempt to “level up funding” could widen the disadvantage gaps in attainment. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats may have under-estimated the cost of their policies on free school meals, and this could require funding to be diverted from other parts of the schools budget.
  • Large policy differences have opened up between the parties over school inspection, school testing and performance tables. The current system of accountability is in need of improvement, but education research suggests that Labour and Liberal Democrat plans to scrap primary tests and move to lower stakes inspection could damage attainment, and might particularly pose a risk to improving outcomes for the most vulnerable learners. The Conservatives do not commit to improving the current system or addressing any of its negative incentives and impacts.
  • Party policies on post 18 education are particularly disappointing. Labour proposes that its most expensive education policy should be allocating around £7bn to scrap university tuition fees, even though this may not improve participation, or the access of vulnerable groups. The Conservatives offer few policies on higher education, and the one concrete measure (reduced interest rates on student loans) would disproportionately benefit higher earners. The Liberal Democrats appear to be offering a similar “Review” to those included in their two previous manifestos.
  • While all parties are committed to additional education funding over the years ahead, there is a high level of uncertainty about the revenues which have been earmarked for such funding. The Conservative plans assume that the growth impact of Brexit will be moderate; the Labour plans assume the same, and also rely upon large tax revenues from a limited number of sources; meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are banking on a “Remain Bonus”, and revenues from uncertain sources such as tax avoidance. With all parties, it is unclear how education spending plans would be altered if the projected revenues isn’t realised and cuts have to be made.

Natalie Perera, Executive Director and Head of Research at the Education Policy Institute, said:

  • “All of the main parties are united by one thing – bold ambitions to raise attainment and close gaps. However, our analysis shows that while each party has some well-designed and helpful policies, none has a properly evidence-based strategy to meet their ambitions”

A NUS General Election survey with healthcare students found that 68% of students (with a loan) are more likely to vote for a party because they plan to bring back maintenance grants post-election. Claire Sosienski Smith, NUS Vice President (Higher Education) also mentioned the NUS Homes Fit for Study Report which said 1 in 6 students are unable to keep up with their rent payments. She said “we know that a student finance system based on individual debt is fundamentally flawed.” This was reinforced by the recent General Election survey with 2 out of 3 students stating they did not have enough money left to pay for everything once they had paid their rent and 43% rely on their bank overdraft. Healthcare students particularly raised issues of having to fund placement expenses up front, inadequate hardship funding systems and paramedics who are unable to access reimbursement for placements.

Also hitting the news this week are the health care courses at risk due to the bursary removal recruitment crisis – podiatry, radiotherapy, prosthetics, orthoptics, and mental health and learning disability nursing. BU’s Steve Tee, Executive Dean of HSS, is quoted in the article:

  • Now the bursary has been taken away there are specialist courses with small numbers nationally that have been put at risk. This is intensified if the course is in an area like radiography, which requires expensive kit. Why would a university invest if they are only getting 20 people?”

Grade Inflation

There is an interesting article on Wonkhe by Mark Corver of dataHE. Sarah was lucky enough to hear him speak at Wonkfest and explain how claims about grade inflation rely on inaccurately data.  The data modelling actually suggests grade deflation –a double whammy for students. The article is a little technical but worth a read to understand why the Government’s claims are being refuted. It also has a high number of comments at the bottom of the article showing how engaging it is (and as Wonkhe only publish the ‘most interesting’ comments we can imagine there was a lot more chatter than published). Some excerpts to get you started:

  • It is likely that the true attainment of today’s young people is being seriously underestimated, putting them at a disadvantage, and damaging universities in the process.
  • ..there might be areas where this powerful grade deflation could be causing problems for young people and universities. Here are two examples.
  • The first is the damage from the charge that the sector is “dumbing down”. This has that – in contrast to the past – universities are now admitting people whose attainment is simply not good enough for higher education. That the average A level grades for UCAS acceptances has been going down provide fuel for this view… If you correct for the modelled grade deflation (Figure 8), average grades held by UCAS applicants who get into university have not been going down. They have been going up.
  • The second problem is where post-2010 grade data is used for analysis through time. Particularly so if that analysis is used by government to pursue policy. Which takes us back to those sharply worded complaints of degree grade inflation that the government has levelled at universities, and its calls for action to stop it. These rest on Office for Students statistical models of degree grade inflation. A level attainment is a very powerful factor in that model. And rightly so because the stronger your A level grades the better your odds of getting a higher class degree.
  • But the way the model is built effectively assumes that A level grades are an absolute measure of educational attainment that are stable through time. With this model construction, if universities maintain their academic standards then it is inevitable that the neglected A level grade deflation will pop up as degree grade inflation. But it would be a false signal. Degree quality would be unchanged. It is the measure of the input quality that has changed.
  • Our proposed A level grade deflation might not be a big enough effect to account for all the degree grade increases seen. But it would be a very substantial effect. We think that this, and other potential weaknesses in the model, do amount to reason enough to look again at the models and their conclusions. Meanwhile, government might want to think again about its pressure on universities to make it harder for students to get “good” degrees. Otherwise a double whammy for young people looms: those who have already been hit by deflated A level grades risk being hit again with a lower degree class than their attainment deserves.

Student Finance & Accommodation

Clear Accessible Finance Information throughout the Student Lifecycle

In June UUK and NEON published The Financial Concerns of Students. They said that the available information on tuition fees and the student loan system in England is often inaccessible and unclear, and that students want more information on how universities spend tuition fee income. The main findings were:

  • Prospective and UG students need clearer and better-targeted financial advice on the full implications of taking out a student loan.
  • Prospective students are uncertain what universities spend tuition fee income on.
  • Living costs are a more significant concern for current UG students than the level of tuition fees.
  • Strong agreement that going to university generally helps graduates to earn more money in the longer term (64% of prospective students and 77% of UG students).
  • More than half of students believe they should make some contribution to the cost of their education.

Since the report NEON and UUK ran a student finance information advisory group consisting of sector experts from nationwide leading organisations who work with prospective and current students to communicate student finance information. This week the group published Improving the provision of information on student finance and have proposed a Student Finance National Education Programme which recommends how to ensure student finance is more understandable and accessible for all (including family members). In summary:

  • Student Finance Information should be more coherent and collaborative – government and information providers should develop and sign up to an industry standard of core messages.
  • Teachers, schools and parents vary in their capacity to support prospective students’ decision making – leading to access gaps. Approaches and activities offered to schools should be underpinned by a more robust, funded, national careers policy than exists at present. Specific parental information is important as they are one of the most influential actors on the young person’s decision.
  • Take a student lifecycle approach to the provision of information required. Focus on sharing information during study and post-graduation (differentiated for particular groups of students) as well the prospective student stage.
  • The UK’s student population is larger and more diverse than ever before. A national education programme on student finance must reflect this diversity with a balance of different approaches to information sharing. It should reflect the needs and circumstances of prospective and current students, from school leavers to those in work considering study, and those with caring and other commitments. There is potential to strengthen a range of different approaches, such as online and face-to-face provision, and explore implementing tailored approaches for groups like mature students and care leavers.
  • Policymakers need to adopt a more strategic approach to the provision of information on student finance and be more ambitious in their goals particularly on coherence. A strategy should be developed collaboratively and in consultation with students, those who advise them, and student finance information providers. This strategy should aim to provide more than a basic level of information at the pre-higher education stage and ensure that students have a level of knowledge enabling them to make the right choices for them, based on an understanding of the costs and benefits of higher education prior to, during and after study.

Wonkhe have a blog on the topic: How we communicate student finance needs a re-think.

Accommodation

Wonkhe report that Commercial Estates specialist Cushman and Wakefield have reported on the level of private student accommodation. Key points:

  • 87% of new student beds are delivered by the private sector
  • The average ensuite accommodation is priced at 70% of the level of the maximum student loan. (NUS recommends rent by no more than 50% of maximum available.)
  • There are 23% more places in private halls since 2013
  • Demand for student accommodation rises 30% faster than can be built (although there are huge increases at some providers balanced by decreases elsewhere). Research Professional state – the top five universities for recruitment accounting for 41% of all growth in the last five years while the bottom five universities by student growth have seen a 29% decrease in student numbers.

The Times covers the report in the (very short!) Students struggling to find affordable accommodation.

Research Professional also covered the report in their own way highlighting concerns over absence of affordable student rooms stating that private student accommodation blocks are becoming more luxurious but affordable options remain scarce.

Eva Crossan Jory, vice-president for welfare at NUS echoed this and called for rent controls to stop prices spiralling further. “This is the latest report to confirm the increasing cost of accommodation has created a real affordability problem for students,” she said, adding that “reform is urgently required.”

Social Mobility

HEPI have released a wide range of content this week. Their policy note (prepared by colleagues at Exeter University) on Social Mobility has particularly been picked up by the media.  The note begins by stating

  • Much of the heavy lifting on widening participation in higher education to date has been undertaken by newer and less selective higher education institutions. The access challenge therefore remains greater at more selective institutions. They could learn from the best practice that exists in less selective universities.
  • It will take nearly a century for highly-selective universities in England to raise the participation rate for 18-to-30-year olds from the least advantaged areas to the existing participation rate for 18-to-30-year olds from the most advantaged areas.

Interestingly they state that if the number of degree places at the selective institution remains static (i.e. doesn’t grow) the number of places for advantaged pupils would need to fall by as much as 10,000, which is one-third of current annual intakes [to meet social mobility targets]. To meet the targets highly selective universities would need to double their places over the next 20 years to ensure all young people access the same participation rates as the most advantaged students. An extra 19,400 18-year old students from the least advantaged areas would need to enrol each year at highly-selective universities to equal the current participation rate of 18-year olds from the most advantaged areas.

Other recommendations:

  • Social mobility rankings for universities should be established, measuring outcomes for disadvantaged students.
  • The Office for Students should challenge highly-selective universities to expand student numbers in innovative ways to diversify intakes, including degree apprenticeships, foundation years and courses for part-time and mature learners.
  • Universities should undertake a social mobility audit, benchmarking their work on outreach, access and academic and pastoral support for disadvantaged students.
  • Universities should also consider using random allocation of places for students over a certain minimum academic threshold (as has occurred in other countries).

On Contextual Admissions the report states:

  • Universities have long taken into account the context of prospective students when assessing their potential. Contextual admissions are used in many ways – giving students a taste of university life, establishing which candidates should be interviewed or offering a degree place on lower grades.
  • But too often universities operate in the dark, worried that reduced offers will damage their reputations. ‘How low can we go?’ is the first question, sometimes followed by ‘how can we keep this out of the public eye?’ What is baffling for applicants is that contextual information is used differently from one university department to another. Research suggests that more consistency and transparency is needed.

Later the policy note acknowledges how university league tables have ‘chilling effects’ on universities’ efforts to promote social mobility. But rankings are here to stay.

  • The problem is that league tables punish universities for improving social diversity. Perversely, the tables do not generally measure the gains made by students. Universities gain higher rankings for the higher A-Level entry grades they demand – a direct disincentive to award lower grade contextual offers or consider applicants without traditional academic qualifications. Dropping down the newspaper rankings and losing status can mean fewer future applicants from the very groups a university is trying harder to attract. A succession of government representatives have tried in vain to convince newspaper compilers to reform their rankings.

Instead the policy note authors suggest that social mobility rankings could bring balance to the importance placed on current attainment based ranks.

On the place lottery:

  • Post-qualification applications would open up more radical possibilities. Universities could use random allocation of places for students over a certain threshold of A-Level grades. This is the fairest way of selecting equally-qualified candidates for degree courses. Lotteries have been used widely in education. You might compensate losers in the lottery – such as guaranteeing a place at another institution. Dutch medical schools select the highest academic performers by traditional means, and enter lower achievers into a lottery.
  • The benefit of these schemes is their simplicity. Admissions tutors have amassed a battery of criteria designed to distinguish between thousands of equally well-qualified applicants: personal statements; teacher recommendations; predicted exam grades; essays; university admissions tests; interviews; and much more. But how much of this data add to predicting which candidates are best suited for degree courses? And how much does the complexity alienate potentially excellent applicants?

The policy note concludes:

  • The time has come for a simpler, more transparent, consistent and honest system of university admissions, recognising that A-Level grades (still less predicted grades) are no longer the gold standard of entry.
  • Failing to find ways of expanding university places will prompt acrimonious battles over who secures degree places – a clash of the classes – with politicians, parents and students questioning the fairness of university admissions.
  • Universities need to embrace a cultural shift in the support provided for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, seeing greater diversity as an opportunity to enrich the academic experience for all students and staff.

The Times takes up the HEPI report arguing for most selective universities to allocate places to all those meeting the A level grade criteria threshold by lottery (with a fall back place at another University for students who do not ‘win’ the lottery).

HEPI have also published a reply to the paper on their website by Tim Blackman, VC of the Open University.

  • “‘Elite’ universities are described as such simply because they are so selective. They are the grammar schools of the higher education sector and cause the same problem for other universities as grammar schools cause for other schools. This problem is that they cream off students who have had all the advantages that enable them to be academic high-achievers at school, concentrating these students in institutions that are full of other students like them, making all universities less diverse and denying other universities a mix of abilities that is likely to enrich their learning environment and benefit everyone.
  • Lee is silent about the many, often post-92, universities that have become the secondary moderns of the higher education sector because of the self-perpetuating prestige of highly selective institutions. While the measures he advocates would help diversify these institutions, they would do so at the cost of other universities that do not have the prestige that comes with the academic snobbery that pervades British higher education.
  • Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to address this problem is to return to student number controls at an institutional level and require institutions to use entry quotas banded by grades above a minimum matriculation requirement to create mixed ability intakes across the board. This would be a requirement of their access or outcome agreements. There could be some exceptions; in The Comprehensive University I suggested that a regional distribution of research universities could be excluded on the basis that they explicitly prioritise research over education and the unique open access mission of The Open University would continue to serve a valuable role.
  • What I do not think is a good idea is to advocate more audits and more league tables. The sector is already creaking under the number of reports and returns it is required to complete, paradoxically never including institutions’ own strategic plans and institutional performance indicators. There are many progressive incremental reforms that can be made – I would add to Lee’s list the scandal of part-time distance learning students being denied access to maintenance loans in England – and in that sense his note is certainly to be welcomed. But there are great dangers in a one-sided argument that frames the debate as one that is just about access to ‘elite’ universities.”

Meanwhile Prospect Magazine takes a differing tack arguing that education is no longer a path out of the social mobility trap and that a greater focus on creating better jobs is a solution.

Finally Wonkhe have a new blog on the transformative experience of HE for care leavers.

Mental Health

Student Minds have created the University Mental Health Charter – a set of principles to ensure student and staff mental health becomes a UK wide university priority. The principles will inform the Charter Award Scheme which will be developed during 2020 to recognise universities promoting with excellent mental health practices. This summary contains the key recommendations under various topics such as transitioning to university, learning and assessment, support services, managing risks, residential accommodation, and proactive interventions. There is a timeline highlighting the next steps as the Charter Award Scheme is developed and piloted. The Scheme is due to launch in Winter 2020.

Student Minds highlight that the Charter has drawn on all the current evidence, research and sector context to ensure its real world validity for the university sector. It states it isn’t intended to be definitive and encourages institutions to combine the elements to fit the local context. Future work will review the Charter and refresh it as new evidence emerges with a major review every 3-5 years. In conclusion Student Minds state:

  • It is not expected that universities will aim to fulfil each of these themes perfectly (no such a thing exists), but we hope they inspire discussion, thought, new interventions, evaluation and learning. The evidence we have suggests that progress on each of these themes will bring us closer to a moment when our universities are mentally healthy environments.
  • Universities are incredible places. Within our universities we have established the basis of science, unravelled the mystery of DNA, discovered stem cells and even located a long lost King under a car park. Improving the mental health of students and staff is within our ability, given time, resource and commitment. We hope the University Mental Health Charter helps to make a contribution to this process.

Mark Fudge, Chair of the University and Colleges Division for the British Association of Counselling, responded to the Charter’s publication:

  • Student Minds’ University Mental Health Charter is a step in the right direction and something for the higher education to sector to aspire to… But higher education leaders need to ensure they invest in counselling services to ensure they have enough resources so student have access to a range of mental health and wellbeing support options while at university.
  • There are thousands of students who are accessing counselling services every year. These services are at the forefront of supporting the most disenfranchised and vulnerable university populations.  They don’t just offer counselling but all sorts of group work, training and other support. They are often under-resourced, but they are having a positive impact on students’ lives and universities need to see that and invest more in them.
  • Universities need to invest in all forms of mental health support so that students have access to a range of options when they need them.”

Immigration

Universities UK has published a public poll (data available here). British adults were interviewed on their attitudes towards the immigration of university staff coming into the UK. Had there not been a purdah period for the General Election the timing of this poll would have hit whilst the Migration Advisory Committee considers how to implement a points-based immigration system and a salary threshold for international staff. Key points:

  • 87% strongly agree that it is more important that the UK’s immigration system attracts university staff who are highly skilled than it being more important that the UK’s immigration system attracts university staff who are highly paid (3% felt high pay was an important factor to allow immigration).
  • 89% agree that scientists, academics and their support staff are valuable to the UK, with half (51%) saying they strongly agree. 3% disagree.
  • 85% agree that it is important for the UK to be a world leader in science and research. 5% disagree.
  • 82% agree that the UK should try to compete with other major economies to attract scientists, academics and their support staff. 7% disagree.
  • 69% said that a UK points-based immigration system should be designed so that scientists, academics and their support staff score highly.

Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of Universities UK, commented on the findings:

  • “Technicians, researchers, and language assistants are all vital in supporting both high-quality teaching and innovative research at our universities. These skilled roles are critical to the ongoing success of our universities. As the UK prepares to leave the EU, it is more vital than ever that the UK remains a world leader in science and research and continues to attract international talent at different stages of their careers – from support staff and technicians to Nobel Prize winners.
  • If a new immigration system were to have a salary threshold, Universities UK has called for a threshold of £21,000 which would allow recruitment for most technician and language assistant roles in the higher education sector. This polling shows the strength of feeling among the British public that immigrants should be welcomed into the country on the strength of their skills and potential rather than facing a system that judges them on their income. This is vital for the UK to continue to lead the way in research and education.”

Wonkhe reported that a linked report from Universities Scotland had similar attitudinal findings with 78% of Scottish adults agreeing that the immigration system should support the entry of academics and support staff. The National covers the Scottish perspective.

Other news

Political untruths: Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price published a new draft law on Thursday that would make deliberate lying by politicians a criminal offence. The bill states “It shall be an offence for an elected representative acting in their capacity, or an agent acting on their behalf, to make or publish a statement they know to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular”. Adam was interviewed by Sky News highlighting how Parliament had changed: “Unfortunately we are normalising a dishonesty, we used to have conventions, social mores and norms etc. you know people used to resign in parliament if they mislead”. Adam said the push for the lying law was triggered by the misleading and false information such as Conservative HQ rebranding their twitter account to appear to be a fact checking service alongside other politicians Brexit claims which the EU have refuted.

Student Vote denied: The Independent report on the c.200 Cardiff Halls students who registered to vote but were not informed their application was incomplete and have been denied the vote. The student quoted in the article selected her address from a pre-filled drop down list but later discovered it had not registered her because it did not contain her room number. NUS called for Cardiff Council to resolve this unacceptable outcome. The Council said they had not been able to contact the c.200 people who supplied the incomplete addresses to register them in time.

Gamification: A Wonkhe article considers whether gaming could be a positive outreach method (alongside more traditional current efforts) in Simulation games: can gaming break barriers to university?

System Working: NHS Digital has published  a briefing on workforce challenges in the NHS:

  • As part of the drive to offer staff incentives to stay in the system, trusts are seeking to collaborate with local partners to make it easier for staff to move between organisations. Initiatives like rotation agreements and staff ‘passports’ have the dual benefit of creating a varied developmental employment offer for staff who might otherwise look outside of the system for new opportunities, and creating a more efficient mechanism for filling vacancies where they arise.
  • Our workforce has a substantial role to play in driving the progress of system working. How we work with our valued workforce to enable closer relationships between trusts and other health and care organisations, and how we support staff throughout periods of change and transformation, will be an important determinant of how systems work in collaboration to tackle workforce pressures and drive integrated care

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

FHSS PhD student Orlanda Harvey in this month’s edition of HED Matters

PhD student Orlanda Harvey featured in this month’s edition of HED Matters as Early Career Researcher (ECR) with an article on ‘ECR Spotlight: From Social Work to Studying Steroids’ [1]HED Matters is an online magazine about the use of legal and illegal substances to enhance the human condition published biannually by the HED network. It brings together recent advances in drug research and experiences from both drug users and practitioners. This December 2019 issue focuses on sexual human enhancers.  Orlanda’s PhD research project addresses men’s experiences of recreational Anabolic Androgenic Steroid (AAS) use.

Earlier this year she also published a peer-reviewed paper form her research : “Support for people who use Anabolic Androgenic Steroids: A Systematic Scoping Review into what they want and what they access” in the Open Access journal BMC Public Health [2].  Since there is a paucity of research on support for people using Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS), this latter article synthesised the available evidence.  Orlanda’s  PhD I the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences is being supervised by Dr Margarete Parrish, Dr Steven Trenoweth and Prof Edwin van Teijlingen.

 

References:

  1. Harvey, O., (2019) ECR Spotlight: From Social Work to Studying Steroids, HED Matters 2(2):16-19.
  2. Harvey, O., Keen, S., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2019) Support for people who use Anabolic Androgenic Steroids: A Systematic Literature Review into what they want and what they access. BMC Public Health 19: 1024      https://rdcu.be/bMFon

Programme Available – The 11th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference

Conference programme is available!

Abstracts are now live:

Booking for the conference via Eventbrite is still open, with limited spaces. All student and staff are invited to the Live Research Exhibition and Poster Presentation and viewing in FG06 between 09:30 – 11:00 no need to book just drop-in however, a conference ticket will provide you with free U1 bus travel between Talbot and Lansdowne on the day.

We look forward to seeing as many as you there supporing postgraduate research here at BU.

Sustainability @ The 11th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference

Are you attending The 11th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference?

If so I would like to encourage you to bring along your [Doctoral College] reusable water bottles and hot drinks cups for the day. There will be refreshments available including tea and coffee and many water fountains throughout the Fusion Building.

There are still some conference spaces available: register here.

 

 

 

HE Policy update for the w/e 15th November 2019

Breathe – in four weeks the general election will be done and dusted, meanwhile we’ve listed the key information sources and looked at the education related pledges made so far. Of course, the HE sector has been busy too with research funding, postgraduate satisfaction, student accommodation, more free speech, value for money, and widening participation under the microscope this week.

Research

Research Fundermentals have a blog from Wonkfest on discussions with John Kingman (Chair UKRI, ex-Permanent Secretary to the Treasury). Key points:

  • UKRI has challenges because the core funding is ‘tight’ – which has consequences for the system
  • The 2.4% GDP research and development (R&D) spend target is a ‘stretch target, but not necessarily a crazy one.’ He emphasised that the target was for the economy as a whole, and two thirds of R&D happens in the private sector. He felt using public money to ‘crowd in’ private investment was a sound policy. With both the Government and Opposition backing the 2.4% target he stated the sector should be very pleased about this strong cross-party consensus.
  • UKRI ready to administer the Government’s promise to underwrite UK involvement in European funding, however he couldn’t say how this will ‘play out,’ he would be arguing strongly for UK science, and was already ‘heavily involved’ in policy discussions.
  • On international engagement we was more reticent – ‘We’ve got to think hardheadedly,’ he said, ‘and consider what benefits will come from any links we make.’ There should not just be memoranda of understanding and photo calls just for the sake of it.
  • Kingman was positive about Darpa and didn’t see it as a sign the government want greater control of research funding: ‘I see this as part of a wider jigsaw…It should be wholeheartedly welcomed.’
  • On talent Kingman stated: Developing the next generation of researcher is a priority for UKRI. Those working in science are pressured to deliver results quickly. To do so, ‘we need incredibly talented people…and we need to worry about people as much as money.’ UKRI are focused on encouraging and supporting early career researchers and believe research (especially science) needs to be seen as a positive option by people before they leave school. He also stated UKRI should ‘own it’ because there is much to do on equality, diversity and inclusivity.
  • Kingman was in favour of REF and believes research has benefited from the system. He agreed REF isn’t perfect and need to continue to develop but that, for him, there was still a strong case for the dual support system, regardless of the legal obligation to continue it, and that we ‘shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket of project research.’
  • Kingman was not in favour of prescriptive regional funding, and believes research should be funded wherever it was found.

On Wednesday the PM made a speech on ‘unleashing the potential of the whole country’ in which stated he would double funding for R&D to £18bn in the “biggest ever increase in support for R & D”. Theresa May’s government committed £7 billion extra R&D funding over five years as part of the 2017 Industrial Strategy, and set the target of reaching 2.4% by 2027. Earlier this year, Johnson said he would “double down on our investment in R&D”, and committed to making an extra investment of £2.3 billion in 2021/22. The science, research and innovation community support the 2.4% target but few believe it is achievable without considerable levels of private investment. With the new announcement that the Conservatives would commit to £18bn this would provide a major boost. Of course, there are not yet details about how this spending will be balanced between competing areas of R&D.

Other commitments made in the speech included investing more in electric vehicle technology and creating a Britain that would lead the world in tackling climate change and reach net zero by 2050. In his own words: “not because we hate capitalism, not just by gluing ourselves to the tops of tubes trains or whatever, as important as that may be, but because it is precisely companies like this one [the London Electric Vehicle Company] that make the brilliant technical breakthroughs that will enable us to cut CO2 and go carbon neutral by 2050”.

Venki Ramakrishnan, President of the Royal Society, responded to the announcement: “Successful science is not based on money alone. We will also need to maintain full participation in European funding schemes and the collaboration that they promote, rather than trying to replace them.” (Source: Wonkhe/Financial Times.)

Postgraduate Student Satisfaction

AdvanceHE have published the 2019 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES).

The Office for Students has announced that they will have a new measure of postgraduate satisfaction so this is likely to become an area of focus for the regulator.

  • “Overall satisfaction is high and has remained consistent over several years. The one exception to this was in 2018, when a temporary dip in satisfaction appears to be related to UCU (University and College Union) strike action. Despite the strong scores, satisfaction levels remain slightly below those reported by undergraduates through the National Student Survey (NSS).
  • …institutions across the sector score particularly highly for providing effective resources (e.g. library, IT, subject-specific) and information, although organisation (logistics, guidance, communication) and assessment (criteria and timeliness) continue to be rated least positively. …The main specific aspect that requires attention is how to provide opportunities for postgraduate taught (PGT) students to be involved in decisions about how their course operates, which scores consistently lower than all the other measures in the survey.
  • In 2019, for the first time, we have conducted detailed analysis of the open comments, specifically around suggestions for improvement. This analysis identified some key areas of consistency with the quantitative analysis, building a clear picture of some areas to prioritise across the sector. In particular, these included how teaching staff provide support and how the course is organised.
  • A relatively small proportion, 20%, had considered leaving their PGT course to date, which compares favourably with similar data collected at undergraduate and postgraduate research (PGR) level – and is an endorsement of the levels of support provided across the sector.
  • In terms of ethnicity, the results go against the stark White/BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) contrast that we have previously found at undergraduate level. Instead, there is a more nuanced picture, with Black, Chinese and White students reporting strong satisfaction levels, contrasted by evidence of a more disappointing experience for Asian and Mixed students, as well as those of “Other” ethnicity. A particular challenge for investigating the concerns of these cohorts lies in the fact that they are comprised of a range of different subgroups, each of which may be facing their own particular issues.
  • There is a strong picture among overseas students, who tend to report a very positive experience. One of the factors contributing to this is that overseas students tend to spend little time working for pay. Our analysis shows that time spent working for pay can link strongly to a greater likelihood of leaving the course, and hence the high levels of retention among overseas students are likely to be strongly linked.
  • Motivations for choosing an institution can vary, but analysis highlights how the type of motivation can be linked to the subsequent quality of the experience. Where students have chosen an institution based on reputation (of tutors, course or institution) or content of course, they tend to go on to be much more satisfied than those for whom the choice may have been a more restricted one – e.g. based on the location of the institution of whether there was funding available.”

According to PTES, Black postgraduate taught students are more motivated to progress to a higher-level qualification than white students – which is interesting in the context of the recent Leading Routes report which found that only 1.2 per cent of UKRI-funded PhDs over the last three years went to Black or Black mixed students.

Mental Health

The OfS have published an insight brief on mental health – Mental health: Are all students being properly supported? It highlights that students who report a mental health condition are more likely to drop out of higher education, less likely to progress into skilled work or further study, and graduate with a first or 2:1 – compared to students without a declared mental health condition.

Key points:

  • PT students from deprived areas are most likely to report mental health conditions
    Whereas PT students from advantaged areas were least likely to report a mental health condition
  • Black students with a declared mental health condition have low continuation and attainment rates.
  • Full time students declaring a mental health condition has more than doubled in the last five years (1.4% in 2012-13 to 3.5% in 2017-18)
  • Females are more likely to report a mental health condition (4.7% females report; 2% males report)

The report does mention the distinction between a clinically diagnosed mental health condition and the broader mental ill health/distress.

Participation and Attainment

School Families: The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has re- launched the Families of Schools Database. This is an online database for schools to compare themselves against other institutions nationally by a range of criteria (e.g. levels of free school meals pupils, or similar disadvantage/poverty area measures). It aims to help schools understand more about their disadvantage attainment gaps. Every school in England has been placed into ‘families’, based on the characteristics of pupils who attend them. The EEF hopes schools will use this as a springboard to learn from, and collaborate with, the most successful schools in their ‘family’ of similar schools.

Analysis published by the EEF found that the national disadvantage gap would be significantly reduced if schools are able to help their disadvantaged pupils reach at least the average performance achieved by their 30 most similar schools.

Educational Cold Spots: just before Parliament entered purdah Robert Halfon questioned whether the extension to the DfE Opportunity Areas which tackle the national cold spots (including West Somerset) was a suitable use of Government funding and whether it provided value for money. However, the Government have reconfirmed their commitment and stated that the funding is beginning to boost GCSE grades.

Social Mobility: The Sutton Trust has published their Mobility Manifesto aiming to influence politicians to embrace social mobility at the heart of their election campaign. It covers fairer school admissions, early education, widening access to universities, banning unpaid internships, degree and higher apprenticeships, and best practice in widening access in employment. Below is the light touch summary on each. Incidentally in the run up to the vote for the new speaker of House of Commons, The Sutton Trust CEO wrote to all the candidates to urge them to commit to tackling unpaid and unadvertised internships in Parliament.

Residential Model

HEPI and UPP (a major student accommodation provider) have published Somewhere to live: Why British students study away from home – and why it matters examining the ramifications of the choice of most students to move away from home to study. Excerpts:

  • ‘There are many problems with the residential university. It is expensive – and becoming ever more so. It disadvantages those students who do not live away from home and those young people who never get a chance to attend university. It can alienate and exclude others, especially the communities who live around the campus. And yet, residence is undeniably popular and remains desirable, despite its costs. By tracing its history, we can also consider its future, and how it might come to serve the interests of all.
  • Demand for student accommodation remains strong, with many young people still wishing to leave home to benefit from a fully immersive higher education experience.
  • The report considers how the issue of the value-for-money of accommodation has emerged as a key area of focus for both the NUS and the OfS in the wider context of the affordability of going to university.’

The report also looks to the future and how diversity drives need – what student accommodation should be like in the future; what proportion of students should live away from home; how costly should it be to live in bespoke student accommodation; and what support should be on offer?

Here are the key points:

  • For the overwhelming majority of UK undergraduates, attending university means leaving home. It is certainly a distinctive feature of British higher education, and one that marks Britain out from both its nearest neighbours and its most obvious comparators.
  • In Britain, in the academic year 2017-18, just over 80% of full-time students left home for study. On average, 36% of European students live in their parental home. In America nearly 40% of students live at home and 77% attend college in their home state.
  • Student accommodation is now worth something like £53 billion in the UK. Struggling to keep up, even traditionally residential universities are having to invest millions in providing new housing – with Cambridge borrowing nearly £1 billion and Oxford recently agreeing a joint venture with Legal and General worth £4 billion.
  • Residence has an effect on the host communities, who may find themselves irritated, changed and outpriced by the students who live within them.
  • ‘Commuter students’, do not always have such rounded and fulfilling experiences as other students, and they sometimes do not benefit from their higher education as much as those students who reside at university.
  • If universities are to remain residential for most, they still need to think about those who are excluded or disadvantaged precisely because they do not share the same benefits as the overwhelming majority who do study away from home.

Recommendations:

  • Although there are some examples of good practice, universities as a whole must do better at providing appropriate information about accommodation to prospective students. This means offering accurate details about the true cost of living.
  • Universities should review how they support their students: both those who live on campus and those who do not. There is a need to better integrate commuter students.
  • The design of accommodation should be reviewed by universities and other providers alike. As a report published in 2019 outlines, many developments have not been designed with student wellbeing in mind.
  • Both government and accommodation providers need to address an increasingly unsustainable rise in rents.
  • Universities should review how their accommodation policies affect the local community and how their resources can be shared.

Freedom of speech

The Policy Exchange have had another “go” at free speech in universities in their report, enticingly titled “Academic Freedom in the UK”..

It starts with an allegation of political discrimination which *may* be violating academic freedom and confirms that there is really no evidence of a problem:

Britain’s universities are world-leading. Yet there is widespread concern that, instead of being places of robust debate and free discovery, they are being stifled by a culture of conformity. Universities have a particular role in upholding free speech in society more broadly, with academic freedom central to this. The danger is that academic freedom is being significantly violated due, in particular, to forms of political discrimination.

There has to date been a lack of good evidence, specific to the UK, which confirms or disconfirms whether academic freedom is being infringed beyond a small number of high profile cases. In addition, beyond statements like the ‘Chicago Principles’, which affirm the value of free speech in universities, there is a relative lack of policies which would protect academic freedom. The link between academic freedom among faculty and freedom of speech amongst students has also not been thoroughly explored in a UK context.

New polling by Policy Exchange supports three key findings.

  1. There is evidence of a chilling effect for undergraduate students. For instance, on Brexit, only 4 in 10 (39%) of Leave-supporting students say that they would be comfortable espousing that view in class.
  2. Despite such chilling effects, a significant proportion of students are consistently supportive of academic freedom. This figure is likely to be between 3 out of 10 to a half of students.
  3. Support for academic freedom is significantly affected by the context in which one considers the issue. In particular, it is affected by whether one is exposed to narratives that affirm either the need to create safe spaces for disadvantaged groups who have been subject to systemic oppression, or the value of free speech in preventing censorship and in promoting liberty and the free exchange of ideas. These findings reinforce the need for, and value of, policies which protect academic freedom

But it goes on to set out a framework anyway.  The key to this seems to be the Chicago Principles, as referred to above, plus a system of “champions” across the sector and a new charter-mark for viewpoint diversity.

Universities should:

  1. Adopt an academic freedom commitment, such as the Chicago Principles, that clearly states that ‘debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed’.
  2. Appoint an Academic Freedom Champion (AFC), reporting directly to the Vice-Chancellor, with the power to investigate complaints of political discrimination across the Higher Education Institution (HEI), and to recommend actions as appropriate.

The Office for Students should:

  1. Appoint a National Academic Freedom Champion who would have the power to investigate allegations of academic-freedom violations from academics and lead on enhanced monitoring requirements or other sanctions where appropriate.
  2. Impose an obligation on HEIs to have a senior person responsible for protecting academic freedom in each HEI, and to have an Academic Freedom Code of Practice.

The Government should:

  1. Establish a statutory duty of non-discrimination for political and moral beliefs and judgments for the purposes of employment in higher education.
  2. Extend the existing statutory duty to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom to include students and Student Unions, as well as those involved in governance in HEIs.

Civil society should:

  1. Incorporate academic freedom as a criterion against which universities are measured in international rankings of universities.
  2. Establish an Academic Freedom charter organisation, awarding kitemarks to HEIs for their demonstrated commitment to political anti-discrimination and viewpoint diversity.

The report has been criticised by David Kernohan on Wonkhe: who calls the underlying research a “terrible survey” and says that “The recommendations are nonsensical.”

This section is interesting (page 15):

Are academics brainwashing students?

When asked how most students acquired their opinion on the Peterson and Greer cases, 68% said social media. This was by far the most important influence on student opinion on these issues, with parents well down the list at 14%. New partisan online news sites like Vox, Buzzfeed, Breitbart, the Mail or the Guardian came in at 8%. University lecturers and schoolteachers both scored a paltry 1%. This suggests that the content of what students are learning is not directly shaping their worldviews on the speech issue. A further data point in favour of this interpretation is that older students (those 20-25) were 19 points more likely than 18-19 year olds to back the free speech position over emotional safety. It must also be emphasised that more research is needed to test this finding as some of this effect may be due to mature students. While it is reassuring that students do not appear to be directly influenced by their University experience to oppose free speech, given the range of opinions on this issue, it is important for universities to consider how their policies, structures and culture can encourage support for free speech rather than inadvertently suppress it.

A limitation of this polling is that it does not probe the social influence that lecturers may exert on students, through the way that they speak about and present politically-salient topics in their teaching. For instance, it is unknown whether the 6 in 10 Leave-supporting students who do not say that they would be comfortable expressing that view in class are cautious of how other students would react, or of how their lecturers may react. Further work is needed on this too.

And an interesting Times article –  Students have every right to ban speakersexplores a very different perspective of how politically and media savvy Gen Z students are, how they care about world issues, and how they avoid the pitfalls of being drawn into furious Twitter rows that older generations are floored by.

General Election 2019

We list below some sources of information on the election:

HEPI’s latest is about how manifesto promises don’t really mean much for HE:

“Finally, it is also worth remembering that the biggest higher education policies tend not to feature in election manifestoes at all. That was true of:

  • Tony Blair’s introduction of tuition fees;
  • Tony Blair’s tripling of tuition fees;
  • David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s tripling of tuition fees; and
  • George Osborne‘s abolition of maintenance grants.”

Last week there was a lot of press coverage about students voting tactically and it is rumbling on – HEPI referred to it in a student voting report: this has been widely cited as a storm rages on social media about student voting.  For the record, students can register both at home and at their university address but it is illegal to vote twice.  BU and SUBU have been working together to promote student registration and we will be sharing impartial information with students about policies nearer the time.  The voter registration deadline is midnight on 26th November.

Sky News has announced they will hold a 3 way head to head debate on 28th November between Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson (Swinson a late add to the line-up after the Lib Dems complained to ITV about their exclusion).

Finally, in parliamentary news, last week Sir Lindsay Hoyle was elected the new Speaker of the House of Commons. He is a Labour MP and former deputy speaker. He has pledged to be a “neutral” speaker and highlighted his desire to restore respect to the Commons. He also stood on the platform of safeguarding the welfare of MPs and staff.

Local candidates

Candidate selection closed on 14th November.

  • BCP have announced the candidates in Bournemouth East, Bournemouth West, Christchurch, Mid Dorset and North Poole and Poole:
  • Dorset Council have announced the candidates for North Dorset, South Dorset, West Dorset (and they overlap with some of the above too)

Party Education pledges so far

These all come with a pinch of salt because the manifesto pledges have not yet been published…

Labour  

Labour’s pledges sit within their National Education (cradle-to grave) Service (which they have been talking about for a long time and which are therefore relatively well developed),  They plan to:

  • expand adult education and lifelong training, including:
    • increasing reach of basic skills provision (on Tuesday they published research stating the number of adults currently learning is at its lowest point since 1996, and the number of people achieving basic skills qualifications has plummeted since 2011).
    • Retraining for adults (improve job chances, tackle displacement through automation/AI, and address skills shortages/meet changing needs of industry and the climate emergency) they expect to reach an extra 300,000 people per year and “throw open the door” for adults to study.
  • Ensure vocational education is considered on a par with a university degree, in particular they aim to increase the flexibility adult learners receive to resolve the mature tensions.
  • Support adults studying with 30 hours of free childcare for all 2 to 4 year olds.
  • They also state they will involve employers in designing qualifications to ensure the training equips them with the right skills.

The ‘free’ education covers:

  • any adult without A-level or equivalent qualification to attend college and study for free;
  • every adult a free entitlement to six years of study for qualifications at level 4-6 (undergraduate degrees and equivalents such as Higher National Certificates and Diplomas, Foundation Degrees, Certificates and Diplomas of Higher Education in areas such as rail engineering technicians, nursing associates, and professional accounting technicians);
  • provides maintenance grants for low income adult learners to complete their courses;
  • gives workers the right to paid time off for education and training;
  • Make sure everyone has access to the information they need to return to study through a national careers advice service.

Angela Rayner also told BBCR4 Today programme that a Labour Government would crack down on high wages for vice chancellors, and abolish university tuition fees. It will be interesting to see if this makes it into the manifesto.  Labour’s ‘rescue plan’ for the NHS also includes a promise to restore bursaries for student nurses and tackle the staffing crisis. There are also proposals to extend statutory maternity leave to 12 months, legislate for menopause friendly workplace policies and fine firms who fail to report on gender pay gaps.

Healthy Young Minds: Labour have also pledged £845 million to put a qualified counsellor into every school across the country, to combat the long waiting times for treatment and the lack of mental health services available to young people. The commitment is considered timely as it dovetailed the publication of the National Education Union’s league table of underfunded schools which found that there are just 18 out of 533 Parliamentary constituencies where per-pupil funding will be above its 2015 level in real terms.

Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats have proposed a “skills wallet” providing every (English) adult with £10,000 to spend on education and training throughout their life. People would get the money in three instalments: £4,000 at 25; £3,000 at 40 and another £3,000 at 55. Individuals, their employers and local government will be able to make additional payments into the wallets. Access to free careers guidance will also be provided.  They intend to fund this by reversing government cuts to corporation tax – returning the business levy to its 2016 rate of 20%. However, they would consult on their proposal and therefore would not bring it in until 2021-22.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, Sam Gyimah, (ex-Conservative Universities Minister, of course) stated:

  • “By stopping Brexit and investing in our Skills Wallets, Liberal Democrats will empower people to develop new skills so that they can thrive in the technologies and industries that are key to the UK’s economic future and prosperity.”

Conservatives

The Conservatives have been tight lipped about their manifesto intentions (not unexpected – they published their 2017 manifesto far later than the other parties). So far they have proposed a National Retraining Scheme for adults needing to update their skills for work. Prior to purdah Johnson also made the schools funding pledges. On Thursday they promised to cut immigration numbers ‘overall’ after Brexit if elected to government. Home Secretary Priti Patel said the party would not set an “arbitrary” target if it wins the election, having failed to meet previous targets, but the policy ambition is in line with the Conservative’s agenda for a points-based system based on skills and other factors. And they intend a NHS visa scheme (reduced application cost, 2 week decision fast track, 5 year visa) to run alongside the introduction of the points based system in 2021. The scheme has been criticised because it fails to consider worker retention and critics feel it doesn’t address how dependent the UK is on clinicians from abroad. Priti stated: “We will reduce immigration overall while being more open and flexible to the highly skilled people we need, such as scientists and doctors.”

They Conservatives have also attacked Labour’s immigration policy in their own published report by the Conservative Research Department. They argue that Labour’s official immigration policy is to ‘maintain and extend free movement rights’, which includes closing down all detention centres, providing unconditional rights to family reunions, scrapping immigration targets and maintaining and extending free movement of peoples , including outside of the EU through facilitating an open-borders policy. It notes that Labour voted against specifically ending free movement (Public Bill Committee Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill fifth sitting motion).

The Conservatives claim there are leaked Labour documents whereby Corbyn’s team have been reviewing ways of extending visa schemes to allow thousands of unskilled immigrants access to the UK. Finally the Conservative paper refers to immigration under the previous Labour Government where between 2003 and 2008 there was a 91% increase in employment levels accounted for by foreign nationals. Dods report that the Conservatives have been pulled up on their claims and Shadow Home Secretary Dianne Abbott stated it was “more fake news from the Conservative party’s make-believe research department”.

SNP

The SNP campaign focuses on the NHS and pledges an NHS protection Bill which “would explicitly prevent any future UK government from signing up to any agreement that made the NHS, in any part of the UK, a bargaining chip of any kind in any future trade deals”. This is in response to Trump’s interest in access to the NHS in a US/UK trade deal (which the Conservatives have strenuously denied). They also push for a second Scottish independence referendum. Labour who, should they be in a position to form a minority government would rely on the support of the SNP, have suggested they would permit another independent referendum however, Corbyn has been heavily criticised this week as he will not commit to a timeframe for it to be held.

Lots if interest groups will also publish their calls for policies:

MillionPlus have published their Manifesto entitled; The soaring twenties: investment, innovation and inclusion in UK higher education. They ask parliamentary candidates to commit to six key pledges that will boost the country by embracing, engaging and enhancing what modern universities have to offer to students and the economy. Key Pledges:

  • Increase current levels of investment in line with inflation and guarantee sustainable resourcing for universities to provide world-leading education for students
  • Restore maintenance grants for students from lower income backgrounds
  • Reform the student visa system to attract global talent to study across the UK
  • Invest 3% of GDP in research and innovation to boost our national productivity
  • Improve student financial support so mature and part-time students can better access higher education in a way that works for them
  • Recognise modern universities as being at the heart of technical education and pivotal providers for a skilled public service workforce

The British Academy has published a Manifesto for the Humanities and Social Sciences setting out 6 priorities for the Government to tackle. It includes supporting a sustainable HE sector and highlights that skilled arts, humanities and social science graduates fuel the service sector (80% of the economy) and asks for a funding system which maintains the breadth of subjects at both FE and HE. You can read the other priorities such a research environment and global talent here.

The final word

And the Institute for Fiscal Studies are warning the main parties about their ambitious spending pledges being made during this election campaign. Lord Gus O’Donnell, President of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spoke on BBC R4 Today to explain that spending pledges could only be met by increased taxes. He said:

  • “When you look at the big capital spending increases – it’s about £50bn for Labour, £20bn for the Conservatives – do we have the capacity? The civil servants who are writing their briefing packs for the incoming ministers for various parties will be thinking, ‘well what could you spend this on’? ‘What’s, as it were, shovel ready? Will you get good value for money if you rush at it this quickly?’ So I think there’ll be lots of bottlenecks.”

Other news

Pay Gap: Thursday was Equal Pay Day where, due to the 13.1% pay gap, women have (on average) effectively stopped earning for the rest of the year. The Fawcett Society have launched a campaign today “right to know” which would allow women the right to have access to equivalent male counterparts salary details. They have a Bill drafted and will be pushing for MPs to introduce it in the new Parliament. The Lib Dems have also pledged to compel large companies to publish data on employment demographics for gender, BAME and LGBT employees.

Labour have pledged to eradicate the gender pay gap by 2030 through measures such as fines for organisations that fail to report on the subject, and by extending the reporting requirement from firms with 250 or more employees to those with more than 50.

Value for Money: HEPI have a new blog by Sir Nigel Carrington (VC, University of the Arts, London) on the multifaceted nature of value for money in degree provision. While this is a topic where we’ve regularly heard all the arguments this is a nice simple blog that brings the points together.

Multi-skilled engineers: IMechE have published an article, Adapt or Perish, on the growing trend (and challenge) of multidisciplinary engineering teams. The changing job market and AI revolution is creating a need for engineers to be technically fluent in a wider range of areas alongside collaboration and problem solving skills. Early-career engineers stated that they left university without skills such as coding and augmented reality, and that their degrees were often out of sync with the future needs of the industry.

The article states that embracing life-long learning will become a way of life for engineers at all career stages as new, disruptive technologies come into play. However, the research suggested that there is currently a mismatch between what higher education is delivering at masters level and what industry actually needs.

Italian or Chips?: This week’s best read has to be the (statistically modelled) article demonstrating how the Brexit leave / remain voting significantly correlates with the dominant type of fast food restaurant in the constituency area. Fish and Chips correlate with a leave vote, Italian with a remain. Without spoiling the amusement factor it is worth noting that Fish and Chips dominant constituencies also tend to be less diverse, and that the influence of holding a degree trumps all culinary effects. Worth a look at the map just to see the startlingly regional patterns in takeaway preference!

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

A seminar sesssion ‘Community branding on the consensus building’ is on the way😇 27th November 2019, 10:00-11:30. Venue: EB206

We will have a seminar session with the guest lecture, Dr Sachiyo Kwakami (Fukui University, Japan) on the 27th November. This session will be held as a Skype meeting at EB206.

Dr Kawakami is a PostDoc researcher who is specialised in the field of ’Consensus Building in communities, and she has been working on the research projects on ‘Learning and collaborative problem solving attitudes’ in Fukui area.

During this session, we will discuss ‘potential functions of a community and citizens’ collaboration’ and the impact of ‘collaborative work as the management platform’ to contribute to the local issue solving (e.g., problem recognition of high-radio active waste disposal and how to support marginal settlements in the deprived area).

This session will provide unique topics in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as ‘Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being’, ‘Goal 9: Sustainable Cities and Communities’ and ‘Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals’.

This session also aligns with BU2025 strategic investment areas (SIAs), Simulation & Visualisation and Assistive Technology.

The BU ECRs, PhD researchers, and MSc students are welcome to this session.
The session will be facilitated by Dr Hiroko Oe with a contributor, Mr. Gideon Adu-Gyamfi (MSc International Management).
*For more details, please email to hoe@brounemouth.ac.uk😇

HE Policy Update for the w/e 1st November 2019

Temperatures are rising as election fever grips the politicians, there are reports on educational spending and OfS have more to say on unconditional offers.

Parliament

General Election

It has been confirmed the general election will be held on 12 December. Parliament will dissolve on 6 November, with purdah commencing and full scale campaigning officially from 7th November.   The election for a new speaker will take place on Monday, as planned.

Election signs and banners are already appearing, requests to donate to the party’s campaign are being emailed, the commentators are in full tweet mode, and MPs are campaigning .

Jeremy Corbyn made a major speech on Thursday which covered many areas we can expect to appear in the Labour election manifesto including ending rough sleeping, cancelling tuition fees and tackling “tax dodgers, dodgy landlords, bad bosses and big polluters”. Particularly trailed was his commitment to using the first day in office to buy all the properties necessary to house rough sleepers. Labour also stated that they would be happy to govern the country as a minority Government and had no intention of forming a pact or coalition with other parties. Should parliament return Labour as a minority Government they intend to stick to their manifesto and believe parliament would fall into line behind their policies.

Boris Johnson continues to highlight his health, education, and crime themes whilst stating that if the electorate deliver him a majority then he “can deliver on the priorities for the British people.” He stated the UK could leave the EU on 31st January 2020 as his Withdrawal Agreement was “oven-ready” and ready to go in the “microwave.”

Earlier this week Boris welcomed half of the ostracised MPs who rebelled over Brexit back into the party stating they had completed an internal party process for readmission. Alistair Burt, Caroline Nokes, Greg Clark, Sir Nicholas Soames, Ed Vaizey, Margot James, Richard Benyon, Stephen Hammond, Steve Brine and Richard Harrington have all had the party whip returned meaning they can stand as the Conservative candidate in their constituency again. Interestingly the Liberal Democrats will not field a candidate to run against Dominic Grieve in his constituency of Beaconsfield to avoid diluting the vote and help him be re-elected as an independent (as he is one of those who has not had the Conservative whip restored). Amber Rudd was also not given back the whip and has now said she is standing down.

And (more rumours) the Brexit Party are reported as saying they will not contest key seats to ensure the Conservative candidate is elected. It seems the parties are being unusually open about the political manoeuvring required to maximise seat gains this year.

At each election there is always churn as some parliamentarians retire from politics or switch to different constituencies. Here is a list of the 46 MPs standing down (so far). The list feels quite significant for this election not necessarily because of the volume of churn but because of the prominence of ex-Ministers and long-standing parliamentarians who will not run for re-election. While some members had long planned to step down, some are doing so because of disagreements with their party or because of personal reasons linked to abuse and security.

Election purdah is a confusing concept.  A simple view is that civil servant decisions are handcuffed and all MPs stop Government and constituency business to campaign for election. But it is more nuanced than that in practice. Here is a comprehensive guide to Purdah from the parliamentary perspective in case you want to understand more. Meanwhile colleagues engaging with parliamentarians from 6 November onwards should contact the policy team.

Select Committees

Parliamentary business effectively ceases during the run up to a general election. This means those MPs and Lords who were successful in the Private Members Bill ballots will not be able to introduce their legislation. It can also mean bad news for the Select Committees who were conducting ongoing investigations. Technically all open inquiries cease and after a general election select committees must re-elect their members. However, the new members can choose to continue the previous inquiries and still publish reports based on evidence already gathered. The change in personnel does lead to changes in priorities and allows an avenue for the new Government to kill off any troublesome inquiries.

Other business this week

The Commons Speaker of 10 years, John Bercow, stepped down from his role. He cites personal reasons for his retirement from politics, however, during the last few months he has been dogged with accusations of siding with the opposition and angered Boris when the Benn (Brexit extension) amendment passed.

Sajid Javid also announced that the Brexit budget planned for 6 November would not go ahead – the decision was taken before parliament agreed the general election because it was linked to Brexit.  . Labour intend to continue their previous manifesto pledge to abolish tuition fees and cancel student debt so tuition fees will continue to be a hot topic in this election – we wait to see what will be in the Tory manifesto.

We expect little in the way of announcements before Christmas when the new Government meets. Parliamentary recess generally commences on the Friday of the week prior to Christmas. If this timescale is adhered to then the new Government will only have one week before recess, barely enough time to quibble over premium parliamentary office space and what will happen before the new 31st January Brexit deadline, Brexit let alone introducing new Bills.

So what now for HE and academics aiming to influence policy through their research?

Traditionally purdah is a time for lobbying. The big organisations, NGOs and charities publish policy recommendations, case studies and stark statistics trying to influence the parties to adopt a sympathetic stance to their cause through the party manifesto or individual speeches. We can expect to hear much from UUK and social mobility organisations over the next month. However, the main focus of the parliamentary candidate is to be (re)elected and for the party to form a majority Government. A lone researcher can often get lost or be ignored during this period. Often the time is best spent identifying key contacts and preparing information to target parliamentarians once the election outcome is known. Talk to Sarah or Jane in the policy team if you are aiming for policy influence and impact through your research. We can advise on approach, content and timing so you are primed once the parliamentary dust settles.

Voting Behaviour

Wonkhe report a surge in voter registration:

  • Almost a third of the 316,264 voter registration applications submitted this week have been from voters aged under 25, according to figures from the government’s Voter registration service. Almost 45,000 applications were submitted on Tuesday after the announcement of a snap general election on 12 December, which increased to 59,000 on Wednesday. The totals marked the highest and second highest number of applications submitted on any day of 2019.
  • However the Electoral Reform Society said that with up to 9.4m people missing from the electoral roll, there is “a long way to go” before the registration gap is closed – and has reissued calls for a “registration revolution” to narrow the gap.

HEPI always have something to say on the student vote phenomenon and this week they put out two blogs on the topic. The first has some interesting points:

  • The power of the student vote – Cambridge was a safe Conservative seat for much of the twentieth century. Students got the right to vote in their place of study in the mid-1970s (a few years after the minimum voting age fell from 21 to 18) and the Conservative vote share in Cambridge then fell in every general electionfrom 1979 to 2005.
  • Term dates are important – the HEPI blog provides examples from Canterbury and the University of Kent comparing results from 2015 (Conservative, election held before term started) and 2017 (Labour, election held just before the end of term).
  • The change from household to individual voter registration led to big drops in the number of students registered to vote. HEPI explain when the new individual registration system came in, meaning halls of residence couldn’t just put all their resident students on the electoral roll in one go, it was said that 9% of voters fell off the registerin University ward in Lancaster. Many students find voter registration a hassle and not always as straightforward as it should be.
  • Constituencies with the most students tend to be Labour, seats with the fewest number of students have much more mixed representation. HEPI state: there is a huge difference between the results in seats with very high proportions of students and seats with very low proportions of students. Of the 20 seats with the highest proportion of students, 19 were won by Labour in 2017…Of the 20 seats with the smallest proportion of students, there are MPs from seven different parties. However, HEPI go on to explain that sometimes student votes just stack up to bigger majorities – Universities tend to be in big towns and cities and it is probably true to say that urban areas have a higher tendency to vote Labour… whereas rural ones have a higher tendency to vote Conservative. So Paul Blomfield may be sitting on a stonking Labour majority of 27,748 in Sheffield Central, with 70.9% of the vote. thanks in part to students. But my guess is that, if you remove the students, it would still be red.

PM Boris has been criticised for his earlier plan to hold an election in early September (before students arrived/or while they were still settling in and had not registered at their new student address) and similar criticisms have been made of the 12 December date which falls at or after the end of term. It is particularly important in marginal constituencies. It is a gamble which could result in more Conservative wins and it is difficult to see what the downside is for the Conservatives (unless it motivates more students to register and turn out!).  There is a Wonkhe blog on the topic too – Will the student vote swing a December election?

Other points made in the HEPI blog:

  • The arguments over the introduction of £9,000 fees [losing votes for the Lib Dems] were too long ago to make much difference to many students. For a new student today who is aged 18, debates about £9,000 tuition fees may be old hat. Well, maybe.
  • Corbyn remains relatively popular among students but Corbynmania has dissipated… more than one poll this year (see hereand here, for example) suggest students’ support for Jeremy Corbyn is not what it was.

And in summary on the influence of the student vote HEPI say:

  • For the student vote to make a difference, lots of things have to happen. As hinted at above, to make a difference to the outcome in any single constituency, students must register to vote, turn out to vote, be in a marginal constituency, vote as a block rather than cancel each other out and not just support the party that would have won anyway. Although there are hundreds of thousands of student voters, their voice can easily get swamped when voters as a whole decide to give one party or another a clear mandate. Indeed, it is hard to find a single general electionwhen the student vote determined who got the keys to Number 10. Even if the contested claim that student support for Jeremy Corbyn made a big difference at the 2017 election is true, Labour still lost (as Kay Burley famously reminded Richard Burgon MP the other day).

HEPI’s second blog More thoughts on the student vote (and pricking some of the nonsense) has some more interesting points. HEPI dismiss claims that students are too busy to vote and highlight that the sympathies of the student vote varies over time not due to volatility but because every 3-4 years undergraduates graduate are replaced by a different set of individuals. To illustrate this point HEPI say:

  • Consider this: only one-third of students on three-year degrees were doing their courses back when Theresa May called her 2017 election and pretty much none were students when the referendum happened over three years ago, let alone when Cameron’s last election took place in 2015.
  • Given the political cycle is designed to be five years long and the average undergraduate degree course lasts for only three years, in normal political times it is even possible to go through higher education without the chance to vote in a general election
  • So changes in the student vote have less to do with individual students changing their minds and more to do with students themselves changing. They are, quite simply, different people.

HEPI also highlight that student voters care about matters far wider than ‘student issues’. And on Augar’s proposals for tuition fees HEPI say: new evidence suggests recent specific proposals to tweak fees, such as those in the long-awaited Augar report (which proposed fees in England of £7,500 with a 40-year repayment period), are no more popular among students than the current system of £9,250 fees with a 30-year repayment period.

Finally, on student issues the blog states the Conservatives…enter this election with some important parts of their higher education policy currently opaque. This means it could be hard for someone who is determined to vote on so-called student issues to know whether to back them or not. [By this HEPI mean the TEF review, which remains unpublished, no response to Augar recommendations or the final conclusions of the Post-18 Education and Funding review].

The New Statesman also has an article on the (lack of effect) of the student vote. They argue the university left/liberal effect is due to the viewpoints of the university staff who’s employment concentrates these political leanings in the residential areas surrounding the university. And that the students who won’t be in residence on 12 December election date really only means a Russell Group effect.

Unconditional Offers

OfS have published a report following further work to extend their Jan 2019 data analysis into unconditional offers to examine how it affects continuation rates between years 1 and 2 of the HE study  and the impact of conditional unconditional offers.

  • In 2019 1 in 3 students received an unconditional offer (in 2012 it was 1 in 100).
  • An unconditional offer is associated with lower performance in A level/level 3 exams (source).
    An additional 5 in every 100 students holding an unconditional offer underperforms compared to those holding conditional offers (see 21-22 on page 11). This 5% difference has remained stable during the recent increases in unconditional offer making.
  • Students who accept unconditional offers are less likely to continue into year 2 of their HE study – the analysis was statistically significant and took a range of factors such as entry grades and student characteristics into account. OfS estimate a 10% rise in the non-continuation rate, which equates to reducing the continuation rate by 0.65%. [OfS modelled the data to reach this 10% rise prediction. This was necessary because other factors influenced whether a student continued their studies such as the institution and the subject of study alongside student characteristics. See page 15 for the modelling methodology notes and Table 4 which sets out the model estimation rates.]

Conditional offer holding entrants continuation rate = 94.5%
Unconditional offer holding entrants continuation rate = 92.9%

There is a potential interaction here. OfS state:

  • Continuation rates are known to vary by level and type of entry qualification13. In particular, students who enter higher education with BTEC qualifications tend to have lower continuation rates than those who enter with A-level qualifications. The level of attainment is also important. If unconditional offers lead to lower attainment at A-level or BTEC this could potentially lower continuation rates.

And a potential confounding variable – we know BTEC students are more likely to drop out and less likely to achieve a top grade in degree outcome – they are also more likely to receive an unconditional offer (15% of BTEC students Vs 8% of A level students). However, the unconditional continuation phenomenon doesn’t seem to apply to BTEC students. OfS note:

  • ..continuation rates are slightly lower for unconditional offer entrants at each predicted A level attainment level, but generally much higher for entrants holding A-levels than those holding BTEC qualifications. Among BTEC entrants the continuation rates are not always lower for those who enter with unconditional offers than with conditional offers.

While OfS modelling found that non-continuation for those with unconditional offers was statistically significantly worse than those with conditional offers the effect is relatively small as the below charts illustrate (and see this). Both show the same data but the continuation rate axis is adjusted on figure 3 to highlight the differences more saliently:

There is an excellent Wonkhe blog by David Kernohan which digests and sets the OfS finding in context. It highlights the standard error rate in the OfS calculation is larger than the effect size (therefore the significant finding is more likely to be erroneous or a less meaningful finding. He also highlights that the larger population (because of more unconditional offers) itself makes it easier to find statistical significance. If you are interested in the unconditional offer debate (but statistical speak leaves you cold) read the first 12 and last 4 paragraphs of the blog which explain the practicalities around OfS’ figures. David concludes with a mild call to action – ignore the headlines and media/Government push and instead focus on the intersectionality behind the non-continuation rates, particularly entry qualifications and BAME, to make the data actionable and design and target interventions which stop students dropping out of their studies. He says:

  • It’s only two years of data but you could imagine building it year on year to do a fairly decent piece of research that could have a real student benefits.
  • I suppose the continuation of a moral panic over unconditional offers is useful to some people too. Just not students, or those who support them.

And if you are hardcore enough to read the comments to the blog Cath Brown comes up with an interesting ‘survivorship bias’. It isn’t that much of a stretch to apply her comment to grade inflation and ask whether increased non-continuation rates for subjects with high numbers of top grades might factor in the increase as the chaff is whittled out early on.

An unconditional offer doesn’t make it more likely a student will enrol with an institution (see 4b on page 4 and 16-18 on page 10, and chart below).
[This is an interesting finding and may suggest saturation in the market – applicants are aware of the likelihood of receiving an unconditional offer, it may be less flattering or simply sway their decision less. This (in part) flies in the face of the recent media and Government who suggest that an unconditional offer attracts disadvantaged students away from a higher prestige institutions. However, the Government may still have a valid point. Perhaps the disadvantaged student with less careers guidance, who doesn’t have a guide from a family member who attended HE, who is concerned about exam underperformance and keen to improve their life circumstances might be significantly more influenced by an unconditional offer.]

  • Due to the time lag in completing a degree and the recent sharp rise in unconditional and conditional unconditional offers OfS have not yet assessed the impact of these unconditional offers on degree outcome/grade.

Education Spending

Turning our attention to this week’s educational matters the National Audit Office have published a report on the DfE’s responsibilities and spending.

Spending – key points

  • The Department for Education (including the core Department, its executive agencies and its non-departmental bodies) spent £67.1 billion in 2018-19. £56.7 billion was spent via the Education and Skills Funding Agency as resource grants.

Student Loans:

  • The government’s student loan portfolio is expanding rapidly. The face value of all outstanding student loans held by the Department increased from £101.9 billion on 1 April 2018 to £116.7 billion on 31 March 2019.
  • The Department records student loans in terms of their ‘fair value’, which is an estimate based on expected future cash receipts in the financial accounts (how much will be repaid) and is therefore a lower figure than the full outstanding loans. The fair value of student loans increased from £60.6 billion in 2017-18 to £67.9 billion in 2018-19. This change stems from the December 2018 Office for National Statistics decision that, in the UK National Accounts, student loans should be accounted for on a basis more closely aligned with the treatment in the Department’s financial statements. As a result, instead of recognising the face value of the loans until they are written off, the National Accounts will in future write off, on issue, the portion of loans not expected to be repaid.

Support for Children:

  • The number of children placed in residential care by local authorities increased by 9.2% between 2013-14 and 2017-18, the cost increased by 22.5% in real terms. 68% of local authorities reported that they did not have enough residential homes for children aged 14 to 15 years, and 59% for those aged 16 to 17
  • Local authorities are budgeting to spend £4.2 billion on looked-after children in 2018-19, which is £350 million (9.1%) more than they budgeted to spend in 2017-18
  • At January 2019, 1.3 million pupils in England (14.9% of all pupils) were recorded as having SEND. 21% of these pupils had legally enforceable entitlements to specific packages of support, set out in education, health and care plans (EHC plans). The remaining 79% did not have EHC plans, but had been identified as needing additional support at school. The report also mentions the recommendations arising from the review into support for children with SEND, announced in September

Skills Development:

  • The first full academic year after the apprenticeship levy was introduced saw 375,800 apprenticeship starts – 26% lower than in 2015/16, the last full year before the levy. The Department had expected a broad year-on-year increase in starts; it did not project a drop in numbers after introducing the levy.
  • The average cost of training an apprentice on a standard is around double what the government expected. The Department’s projections show that, even if starts remain at current levels, spending could rise to more than £3 billion a year once all apprenticeships are on standards.

The report ends with a ‘things to look out for’ [forthcoming in the future] and this includes:

  • Government response to the Timpson recommendations on school exclusion
  • Government’s response to the recommendations of the Augar Review
  • Roll out of T-levels from 2020-22

IFS Report on Education Spending

Within the DfE report reference is made to the September IFS education spending report, here are the summarised points from the schools, FE and HE sections:

Schools

Despite the funding increases delivered at the recent spending round, there will be no real terms funding growth in per pupil funding from 2009/10 to 2022/23.

  • Total per pupil spending has fallen by 8% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20.
  • Funding cuts have partly been delivered through higher class sizes (particularly in secondary schools)
  • The Government allocated an extra £4.3bn to school budget for 2022/23 in real terms. This represents a 7.4% growth in spending per pupil reversing the cuts of 8% since 2009/10 – so no real terms growth in spending per pupil, which is historically unprecedented.

Further Education & Skills 

  • Between 2010/11 and 2018/19 spending per pupil feel by 12% in 16-18 colleges and 23% in school sixth forms. Following on from larger cuts, FE spending per 16-18 year old is only 13% greater than 30 years earlier in 1989/90. Per pupil funding is; £4,800 in sixth form colleges, £4,900 in school sixth forms and £5,900 per young person in FE colleges.
  • The Government have allocated a real terms one year funding increase of £300m in 2020/21, increasing spending per pupil by 4%. However, fully reversing funding cuts since 2010/11 would cost a further £1.1bn over and above existing plans by 2022/23. This increases to £1.4bn to ensure that spending on T-levels is additional to unchanged level of spending per student.
  • Total spending on adult education has fallen by nearly two thirds since 2003/04 (47% since 09/10) but this is broadly commensurate to falls in learner numbers which are down from 4.4m in 2004/05 to 1.5m in 2017/18.
  • Spending on adult education has become increasingly focussed on apprenticeships (54% of expenditure).

Higher Education

  • Universities receive £27,500 per full time undergraduate student to fund the cost of teaching for the three year course of their study. This has fallen by 5% since 2012.
  • Whilst per student funding is similar today to early 1990s, the near doubling of student numbers has driven a commensurate increase in total resources for teaching undergraduates over that period. The nature of funding has changed significantly from grants to tuition fees.
  • The cost of the current system is about £17bn per cohort, with £9bn coming from graduates and £8bn coming from Government (about £7.4bn through unrepaid student loans).
  • The Augar Review proposals of cutting fees to £7500, reintroducing maintenance grants and changing the terms of repayment (1.2 loan value cap, 40 year repayment period), is broadly cost neutral and would give policy makers greater control of spending on different subjects.
  • Labour policy to abolish tuition fees and bring back maintenance grants would cost the public finances £6bn per full time cohort per year. This is significantly cheaper as a result of the 2017 increase in the repayment threshold on student loans from £21,000 to £25,000. The part time cohort would cost another £1bn, but could increase if the large decline in mature student numbers since 2010 were reversed.

Dods provided this analysis of the HE section of the IFS report:

  • The domination of funding by tuition fees and the lack of controls on student numbers means policymakers have little control over the spending distribution of spending in subject and institutions. Augar would give policymakers greater control, whilst Labour’s proposals would give even more control. Augar’s proposals would reduce repayments amongst the highest earners and increase repayments mainly among middle earners. Labour’s proposals would benefit the highest earning graduates substantially.

Scottish Educational Bursaries and Grants

The Scottish Government announced that the number and value of bursaries and grants awarded to students in Scotland, including to young people with disabilities or from deprived areas, has increased since last year. It has risen 5.3% to £80.3 million and supported students from the most-deprived areas of the country were three times more likely to receive one than those from the least deprived areas. The number of full-time students who received a Disabled Students’ Allowance increased 5.2%, with an average pay out £1,990. There was also an increase in the number of full time UG students in receipt of the non-repayable Care Experienced Bursary (from 545 in 2017-18 to 840 in 2018-19). Moreover, there was a 67% increase in the amount of support provided

Further and Higher Education Minister Richard Lochhead stated:

  • “These annual rises once again underline this Government’s strong levels of financial support to domestic and EU students, regardless of their background. It’s very encouraging to see the level of bursaries and grants rising so significantly. We have seen other increases right across the board, with students from the most deprived areas of Scotland also receiving more per head than those from the least deprived. And with 10% of all our students now coming from the EU, there was also a 0.5% rise in the number of those receiving financial support, with the average award £2,100.”

Ministerial Statement

SoS Education, Gavin Williamson, issued a written ministerial statement update on Education. On HE it covered:

  • Record rates of 18 year olds are going to university. In 2018, one-third of all 18 year olds entered full-time higher education – the highest on record. The proportion of 18 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds entering full-time higher education is up from 13.6% in 2009 to 20.2% in 2018. This is the highest on record.
  • We have removed the cap on student numbers, allowing more people with the talent and potential the opportunity to be successful at university.
  • Through the Higher Education and Research Act we introduced a duty to promote equality of opportunity in access and participation in higher education and we expect to see further progress, particularly among the most selective institutions.
  • All higher education providers must now publish application offer, acceptance, dropout and attainment rates of students by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. This will help hold the sector to account for their record on access and retention of students from lower socio-economic and other backgrounds.
  • Higher Education providers have committed to spend £860 million in 2019/20 on measures to improve access and student success – up significantly from £404 million in 2009. The Office for Students is monitoring how effectively higher education providers spend this money.

Improving higher technical education by establishing new Institutes of Technology – making it easier to upskill and gain highly skilled employment.

  • An Institute of Technology is a legally binding collaboration between further education colleges, higher education institutions and employers.
  • They are being created to specialise in delivering higher technical training at Levels 4 and 5 (above A Level but below degree level), primarily in STEM subjects aligned to local economic priorities.
  • IoTs will deliver a mix of apprenticeship and classroom-based provision for industries such as digital, advanced manufacturing and engineering – industries where there are skills gaps and growing demand – in order to provide employers with the skilled workforce they need.

We are investing up to £290 million capital funding to build an IoT network across the country. The first 12 IoTs are now starting to go live, following a comprehensive competition, and we have recently announced plans to open up to 8 more to enable there to be an IoT in every region of the country.
More people are benefitting from new high-quality apprenticeships. Our reforms have fundamentally changed what apprenticeships involve and the long-term opportunities they provide.

University Technical Colleges

Meanwhile the National Audit Office (NAO) published an investigation into university technical colleges (UTCs).Which embody the Government’s aim for employers and universities to work together, with educational experts, to open new institutions to deliver technical education in specialist areas that meets the needs of local employers and the economy.

In December 2016, the NAO reported that 22 of 47 UTCs were at risk due to financial concerns, caused in part, by the fact that UTCs had fewer students than predicted.  This struggle to attract enough students was confirmed by the NAO again in January 2018.

The financial and recruitment statistics make troubling reading:

  • 58 UTCs have opened but 10 of these subsequently closed. Most became subsumed within academy trusts but one university was gifted one UTC site.
  • The 48 open UTCs were operating at 45% of capacity on average at January 2019, which has implications for their financial viability.
  • At July 2019 there were significant concerns about the finances of 13 UTCs.
  • The ESFA has formally intervened in eight UTCs, of which two subsequently closed.
  • The Department monitors whether students from UTCs that close move to other schools or colleges, but has not retained evidence of where students have been placed
  • The Department spent £792 million on the UTC programme from 2010-11 to 2018-19, the vast majority (£680m, 86%) in capital grants. £28m in transitional revenue aimed at improving financial position of UTCS, £8.8m covering UTC deficits, £9m on closing UTCs

The educational performance paints a more encouraging picture:

  • After GCSEs a higher proportion of UTC students progressed into sustained apprenticeship (9%) and employment (4%) destinations compared to the national average (5% and 3%). However, less progressed to sustained education destinations.
  • After A levels 21% of UTC students moved to a sustained apprenticeship, higher than the national average of 6%. This includes 16% UTC students who undertook advanced/higher or degree-level apprenticeships (compared to national average of 3%).
  • 20% moved to sustained employment, compared with the national average of 22%; and 38% went on to higher education, below the national average of 50%
  • At August 2019, Ofsted rated 52% of UTCs as good or outstanding, compared with 76% of all secondary schools. However, the Department considers that not all its metrics are appropriate for UTCs because of UTCs’ technical focus and age range.

Plans for Improvement

  • The Department is seeking to help UTCs improve their educational and financial performance: An important part of the Department’s approach is to encourage UTCs to join multi-academy trusts, which it considers are well placed to support UTCs to improve. The Department is also open to UTCs applying to align their age range more closely with other secondary schools by taking students who are younger than 14, if there is a need for the additional places in the area. It considers that this will make it easier for UTCs to attract students and thereby improve their financial viability.

HE Registration   

The OfS published the key themes and analysis of the registration process and outcomes 2019-20. Across the full range of registration requirements 65% of HE providers received additional monitoring requirements or conditions. Access and participation for disadvantaged groups was a regular concern. Here we take a closer look on what OfS highlight as strengths and concerns in relation to student protection plans:

Areas of Strength:

  • Some student protection plans were excellent and demonstrated a real engagement with the requirements resulting in plans that had made a comprehensive assessment of risks and were clear on the protection that was available to students.
  • OfS assessment of financial viability and sustainability revealed a large number of providers in good financial health and the vast majority have no additional monitoring in relation to their financial viability and sustainability – financial strength was not isolated to a particular type of provider.
  • Sector-level data suggests there is strong performance in student outcomes and this was reflected in the data of a large number of individual providers.

Areas of Concern:

  • Student protection plans were variable in their quality
  • Very few providers demonstrated a broader consideration of value for money encompassing the value their students may feel they receive from their tuition fees. Few also appeared to have considered how they could present information about value for money in a way that would be accessible to their students.
  • Significant weaknesses in providers’ responses to the ‘fit and proper person’ public interest governance principle. Most relied on declarations from governing body members.
  • There was a lack of convincing evidence about the adequacy and effectiveness of providers’ management and governance arrangements. A large number of providers were unable to evidence regular external input into reviews of their arrangements.
  • Significant numbers of providers had based their financial viability and sustainability on optimistic forecasts of growth in student numbers without convincing evidence of how this growth would be achieved

Susan Lapworth, Director of Competition and Registration, Office for Students said:

  • “Our higher education sector is rightly praised as world-leading. The sector should be proud of its achievements and its continuing ability to change lives for the better and society for good. But the analysis shows – starkly – that universities must improve the work they do to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are supported not only to get into higher education, but to get on, too. Too many providers glossed over the possibility of closure in their student protection plans, or relied on ambitious projections for student recruitment when making financial plans. Others have questions to answer about the quality of their provision, or high drop-out rates. These are not – by any means – insurmountable challenges but providers must now look honestly at areas of weakness and seek to make improvements. We will be closely monitoring providers, focusing our attention on those who present the highest risk to ensure that they are able to give students an enriching experience of higher education which leaves them well placed to find successful careers.”

Research Integrity

Norman Lamb MP (current Chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee) has commented on the revised concordat to strengthen research integrity. He stated:

  • “My Committee welcomes the publication of the updated concordat and are pleased to see that recommendations we made have been included. Tackling the improper use of non-disclosure agreements and establishing independent investigation panels will help to strengthen and improve how universities approach research integrity.
  • However, the impact of this revised concordat will only be fully realised if all organisations in the sector comply with the requirement to publish annual statements on research integrity. We have yet to see a plan or timetable for achieving this goal, as recommended by the Committee and agreed to by UKRI. We hope that this will be forthcoming shortly.
  • We will be closely following the development of the new national research integrity committee and look forward to hearing what role it will play in improving research integrity by upholding the commitments of the Concordat and what powers it will have to tackle those unwilling to comply.”

Other news

Prisoner opportunity: Despite HEPI’s publication last week and plea to get prisoners learning earlier during their incarceration Universities Minister, Christ Skidmore, has turned a deaf ear to the cause as the parliamentary question response below states. However, perhaps this might feature in some parties forthcoming election manifestos:

  • Q – Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent assessment he has made of extending student loan eligibility to people in prison who have more than six years to run on their sentence.
  • A – Chris Skidmore : Prisoners set to be released within 6 years have been eligible for tuition fee loans with the consent of the prison authorities. There are no plans to change this policy.

Higher degrees: Wonkhe report on the Human Capital Estimates analysis released this week. It highlights that there are now more economically active people in the UK with a masters degree or a PhD (4.5m – 10.7% of the population) than without any formal academic qualifications (3.4m). The lifetime earnings premium for someone who has a higher degree over and above an undergraduate or equivalent degree remains between 9-11%. However, women with higher degrees have around 33% lower lifetime earnings than men with similar qualifications. Last week we told you about the HESA research which found a drop in the graduate earnings premium, the ONS analysis also reports a dip from 45% in 2004 to 34% in 2018.

Student Engagement: The Telegraph and the Daily Mail cover Advance HE’s Engagement survey, focusing on the statistic that only 46 per cent of students attend more than 11 hours of lectures per week. The Independent instead focuses on the high level of engagement among Black students.

Health Professions: This PQ is interesting because Hinds (ex-SoS Education/Hampshire) asks it and because of the regional context: Q – Mr Damian Hinds  (East Hampshire): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Answers of 9 September 2019 to Question 286692 and 4 October 2019 to Question 290772 on Health Professions: Hampshire, what estimate he has made of the number of FTE (a) doctors (b) nurses and (c) other staff employed by the NHS in (i) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight STP area, (ii) Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, (iii) Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (iv) Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, (v) Solent NHS Trust, (vi) South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, (vii) Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and (viii) University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust in (A) 2010 and (B) the most recent year for which figures are available.

  • A – Edward Argar NHS Digital publishes Hospital and Community Health Services workforce statistics for England. These include staff working in hospital trusts and clinical commissioning groups, but not staff working in primary care, local authorities or other providers. The data requested is attached. PQ3720 and 721 table (Excel SpreadSheet, 31.5 KB)

Dental content in public health training: Q – Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to include oral health in pre-registration training for all public health professionals, as recommended by the Royal College of Surgeon’s Faculty of Dental Surgery’s report The state of children’s oral health in England, published in August.

A – Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford

  • The independent professional health and care regulators set the outcomes required from undergraduate (and in some cases postgraduate) education and training for registration as a healthcare professional. It is for education training providers to determine the content of training in order to meet these required outcomes.
  • Health Education England has an important role in supporting health and care professionals, including public health professionals, to promote good health, including good oral health and has a number of free to access resources to guide good practice in this area. This includes e-learning, evidence-based toolkits and competency frameworks.

(And another PQ on schools becoming sugar free.)

Medicine: Education 6336: Q – Dr Dan Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans he has to introduce a national exam for all medical students in England upon graduating from medical school.

A – Edward Argar:

  • The Department has no plans to introduce a national exam for medical students in England upon graduating from medical school.
  • The General Medical Council (GMC) is the independent regulator of doctors in the United Kingdom, and sets the standards for undergraduate medical education and training.
  • The GMC has announced that from 2023 it will introduce a Medical Licensing Assessment (MLA) that all UK medical students and non-European Economic Area international applicants must pass before they can join the medical register. The MLA will test the core knowledge, skills and behaviors needed to practise safely in the UK

Dr Registration: Q – Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans he has to bring forward the point of full registration of doctors with the GMC to graduation from medical school. [6337]

  • A – Edward Argar: The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

Joint Replacements: Waiting Lists (6403): Q – Dr Philippa Whitford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the waiting times were for (a) hip replacement and (b) knee replacement surgery in 2018-19 by NHS Foundation Trust.

  • A – Edward Argar: The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

Subscribe!

Sorry last week’s policy update didn’t reach your inbox until late on Tuesday. We hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s round up of the remaining news. There may be some disruption to your regular policy update next week as we celebrate Graduation but we’ll be back in full swing on Friday 15 November dissecting the political declarations and shenanigans for latest insight.

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

Expressions of Interest Close TOMORROW – Postgraduate Researcher Development Steering Group – Call for Members (Academics, PGRs and ECRs)

Help shape and drive postgraduate researcher development at BU.

Join the brand new Postgraduate Researcher Development Steering Group to provide direction to postgraduate researcher development at BU.

Some of the main responsibilities include:

  • Develop and enhance the strategic direction, nature, quality, development and delivery of the University’s provision of researcher development for postgraduate research students (PGRs) which reflect the needs of all PGRs.
  • Guide centrally and faculty provided researcher development provisions promoting complimentary support of both increasing the personalisation of support for PGRs.
  • Evaluate University-wide PGR researcher development provisions, to ensure all programme content is maintained at a high standard and aligns with the university strategic priorities under BU2025.
  • Promote the benefits of facilitation of researcher development to staff and the benefits of engaging with researcher development to PGRs.
  • Enhance the overall PGR student experience at BU.

See the full Terms of Reference for details on the Steering Group if you are interested in becoming a member. There will be 2 meetings per academic year.

Please submit your Expression of Interest, including a half-page as to why you are interested, the knowledge, skills and experience you can bring to the group, via email to Natalie at pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk by midday, Friday 1 November.

Membership available:
PGR Student Champion: 1 per Faculty (open to all PGRs)
Academic Champion: 1 per Faculty (ideally an active PGR supervisor)
Early Career Researcher: 1 representative

Expressions of Interest will be assessed by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Steering Group, we look forward to receiving them.

Postgraduate Researcher Development Steering Group – Call for Members (Academics, PGRs and ECRs)

Do you want to contribute to a University Steering Group?

Last month, approval was provided by the University’s Research Degree Committee for a brand new Postgraduate Researcher Development Steering Group to provide direction to postgraduate researcher development at BU, and I am recruiting members.

There will be 2 meetings per academic year and ad-hoc if required. Some of the main responsibilities include:

  • Develop and enhance the strategic direction, nature, quality, development and delivery of the University’s provision of researcher development for postgraduate research students (PGRs) which reflect the needs of all PGRs.
  • Guide centrally and faculty provided researcher development provisions promoting complimentary support of both increasing the personalisation of support for PGRs.
  • Evaluate University-wide PGR researcher development provisions, to ensure all programme content is maintained at a high standard and aligns with the university strategic priorities under BU2025.
  • Promote the benefits of facilitation of researcher development to staff and the benefits of engaging with researcher development to PGRs.
  • Enhance the overall PGR student experience at BU.

See the full Terms of Reference for details on the Steering Group if you are interested in becoming a member.

Please submit your Expression of Interest, including a half-page as to why you are interested, the knowledge, skills and experience you can bring to the group, via email to Natalie at pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk by midday, Friday 1 November.

Membership available:
PGR Student Champion: 1 per Faculty (open to all PGRs)
Academic Champion: 1 per Faculty (ideally an active PGR supervisor)
Early Career Researcher: 1 representative

Expressions of Interest will be assessed by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Steering Group, we look forward to receiving them.

HE Policy Update for the w/e 18th October 2019

Nationally, of course, this week has been dominated by Brexit and the Queen’s Speech. The biggest HE story has been OfS’ launch of their Value for Money Strategy.  We have missed out Brexit because it is dating too quickly and other sources are available!

NSS – more change to come?

The OfS have announced that they are reviewing the NSS (again).

  • In the next few months, detailed analysis of recent trends will be published: areas for which levels of satisfaction have increased, and where the survey results indicate that more work needs to be done to improve students’ experience. We will also be looking at some of the key themes emerging from the student comment sections, which offer respondents the opportunity to comment on an open-ended question.
  • Like all such surveys, however, the NSS has its limitations. It only surveys final year undergraduate students: those on shorter courses, or in other years, are currently excluded.
  • The survey also has its critics. There have been mixed views about its role in the TEF, with some querying whether NSS provides a proxy for teaching quality, and others disappointed that it doesn’t carry enough weight in the TEF. Some have questioned the design of the survey – for example, its use of a five point ‘Likert’ scale. Others have queried its timing. Students are asked to complete it at a stage in their final year when many will be doing their assessments.
  • ..this review…will include:
    • Plans to pilot an expanded survey for all undergraduates – not just those in their final year, as at present – phased over the next two years. Expanding the NSS in this way will give a voice to all students and will provide a much richer picture of the student academic experience.
    • Comprehensive review and testing of the survey questions (and scales) to ensure they remain fit for purpose, making changes where appropriate.
    • Plans to explore new survey questions around student mental health and wellbeing provision – something we are hearing strongly from students they wish to see.
  • There will be opportunities for you to have your say in the course of a consultation to be launched in spring 2020. More detail on the consultation will follow later this year.

Outcomes for Disabled Students

The OfS have had a busy week. They have published a new Insight Brief on outcomes for disabled students.

  • Disabled students are now a vital and significant part of campus life. However, challenges remain. Disabled students are less likely to continue their degrees, graduate with a good degree, and progress onto a highly skilled job or further study. This Insight brief asks what universities and colleges are doing to rectify these problems. What can the data tell us about the extent of these access and participation gaps? Are teaching and learning practices inclusive enough? Are funding changes exacerbating the difficulties that disabled students face?
  • The OfS is concerned about persistent gaps in access, success and progression for disabled students. We are looking to ensure that universities and colleges close these gaps through our regulation of providers’ access and participation plans and our funding and promotion of effective practice.
  • Teaching and learning in higher education is becoming more inclusive, but these positive developments are uneven. Universities and colleges could go further by, for example, offering alternative formats of course materials as standard, and ensuring more buildings are accessible.
  • Through the Disabled Students’ Commission, we will bring together a range of experts and educators, including a student representative, to highlight the barriers which remain and explore ways to dismantle them.

The brief cites “Effective practice for universities and colleges [taken from the Institute for Employment Studies, ‘Review of support for disabled students in higher education in England’, p5]

To better support disabled students and progress towards a more inclusive environment, universities and colleges need:

  • their senior management to commit to inclusive practice and culture
  • to involve all university staff in encouraging students to disclose an impairment.
  • more comprehensive written policies detailing inclusive support
  • to take a whole institution approach to inclusive support
  • build considerations of inclusivity and accessibility into curriculum design and programme review
  • to offer alternative formats of lectures and course materials as standard practice
  • to build considerations of inclusivity and accessibility into purchasing of services and equipment
  • better sharing of good practice internally and across the sector
  • better advice, guidance and training on digital accessibility for staff.

Queen’s Speech

Her Majesty has read her speech, wearing full robes and crown (last time she was in a suit and hat). You can read the Speech in full and the background briefing which provides a bit more detail and sets out a summary of the 26 bills. Not all the changes are legislation. The contents page contains links (useful because it is 130 pages long).

There is a nice explainer from the Institute for Government.

  • The Queen’s Speech can be voted down. This would be of major political significance, as it would clearly call into question the ability of the government to command the confidence of Parliament. Historically, a defeat on the address has been treated as an implicit loss of confidence in a government as it suggests that there is no majority to be found in the Commons for its programme for government.
  • It is rare for the government to be defeated on the address in the Commons – as governments usually have a majority in the House. But it has happened – most recently in 1924, when Stanley Baldwin’s minority government was defeated. Baldwin then resigned as prime minister, and the opposition went on to form a new government.
  • As no government has been defeated on the address since the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) in 2011, it is unclear what would happen if such a situation were to arise. This is because a defeat on the address would not meet the requirements under the FTPA to trigger an election. But any defeat might encourage the opposition to then table a formal vote of no confidence, under the FTPA, in the government. There would also be intense political pressure on the government.

The PM has already said if the Government is defeated on the Queen’s Speech vote he does not intend to step down.

On HE specifically, the briefing notes say:

  • We are committed to making sure that higher education funding reflects a sustainable model that supports high quality provision, maintaining our world-leading reputation for higher education and delivering value for money for both students and the taxpayer.
  • We want to ensure we deliver better value for students in post-18 education, have more options that offer the right education for each individual, and provide the best access for disadvantaged young people.
  • We want to establish the UK as a global science superpower, building on our existing world-excellence. We will boost public R&D funding, launch a comprehensive UK Space Strategy, introduce a fast-track immigration scheme for top scientists and researchers and develop proposals for a new funding agency.
    • Backing a new approach to funding emerging fields of research and technology, broadly modelled on the US Advanced Research Projects Agency. We will work with industry and academics to finalise this proposal
    • Reducing bureaucracy in research funding to ensure our brilliant scientists are able to spend as much time as possible creating new ideas, not filling in unnecessary forms.
  • The R&D funding plans we will unveil in autumn 2019 will help accelerate our ambition to reach 2.4 per cent of GDP spent on R&D by 2027. This boost in funding will allow us to invest strategically in cutting-edge science, while encouraging the worlds most innovative businesses to invest in the UK.
  • There will be a Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to “Allow the UK to take a lead role in global research to find cures for rare diseases and improve treatments for patients around the world”.

Other relevant highlights:

  • An immigration bill, ending free movement, will lay the foundation for a fair, modern and global immigration system. My Government remains committed to ensuring that resident European citizens, who have built their lives in, and contributed so much to, the United Kingdom, have the right to remain. The bill will include measures that reinforce this commitment [Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill]. 
  • Measures will be brought forward to support and strengthen the National Health Service, its workforce and resources, enabling it to deliver the highest quality care. New laws will be taken forward to help implement the National Health Service’s Long Term Plan in England, and to establish an independent body to investigate serious healthcare incidents [Health Service Safety Investigations Bill].
  • My Government will bring forward proposals to reform adult social care in England to ensure dignity in old age. My Ministers will continue work to reform the Mental Health Act to improve respect for, and care of, those receiving treatment.
  • My Ministers will ensure that all young people have access to an excellent education, unlocking their full potential and preparing them for the world of work. 
  • A white paper will be published to set out my Government’s ambitions for unleashing regional potential in England, and to enable decisions that affect local people to be made at a local level.
  • My Government is committed to establishing the United Kingdom as a world-leader in scientific capability and space technology. Increased investment in science will be complemented by the development of a new funding agency, a more open visa system, and an ambitious national space strategy.
  • My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom.

Plus: criminal justice, longer sentencing, sustainable fiscal strategy allowing investment in economic growth, post-Brexit regimes for fisheries, agriculture and trade, financial services, domestic abuse, divorce, pension regulation, national infrastructure strategy, a Drones bill, railway reform and broadband, environmental protection, animal welfare, defence.

During the parliamentary debates on the Queen’s Speech this week Labour’s Angela Rayner (shadow Education Secretary) called for the restoration of university maintenance grants and the implementation of a system of post qualification admissions. There has been a reinvigorated wave of parliamentary questions surrounding research and outward mobility programmes. And the Royal Society published their analysis of Brexit’s harm to UK science research. Finally, Wonkhe dissect the mention of research funding within the Queen’s speech.

OfS Value for Money Strategy

I think I was expecting something new.  But no.  Read their news story here

According to a 2018 survey commissioned by the OfS, just 38 per cent of students believe their course offers good value for money.

The value for money strategy, published by the OfS today, identifies the ways in which the OfS will deliver better value for money for students and taxpayers – in line with the priorities identified in the 2018 student survey. The strategy also defines the OfS’s regulatory role in these areas and outlines how it will measure its success.

Among the priorities identified are:

  • improving teaching quality – over 90 per cent of students responding to the OfS survey felt that the quality of teaching, assessment and feedback are very important in demonstrating value for money
  • promoting transparency around fees and funding – 88 per cent of respondents said that seeing a breakdown of how fees are spent would be helpful in judging value
  • protecting students as consumers and improving consumer information – 24 per cent said they were not informed or prepared for the level of costs that came with being a student
  • securing positive employment outcomes – 65 per cent of respondents said getting a job and earning more were important factors in judging value for money.

The OfS will continue to survey students and graduates to measure student perceptions of value for money, the outcomes of which will form one measure of its progress in this area. The OfS will also consider measures of student experience and outcomes, including the National Student Survey, the Graduate Outcomes Survey, and data on graduate earnings.

The actual strategy is here but you’ve pretty much got it in the bullets above.

This is their definition of value for money:

  • Students receive value for money when they experience the full benefits of higher education – both during their studies and afterwards – in exchange for the effort, time and money they invest.
  • Taxpayers receive value for money when higher education providers use public money and student fees efficiently and effectively to deliver graduates, from all backgrounds, who contribute to society and the economy.

In the document, they also say:

  • We recognise that value for money means different things to different students. Tracking students’ perceptions of the value for money of their education will allow us to monitor progress without imposing our own definition on students.

So they are going to measure something that is not defined, when they know it means different things to different people at different stages?  And if it doesn’t improve they will hold universities to account for not improving something that is not defined? Is that unreasonable?

To be fair, they are also going to

  • assess value for money for students and taxpayers by analysing data on the benefits that have been delivered – for example positive student outcomes – and comparing this with data on the costs incurred”.

And this:

  • While our focus is on student outcomes, we make sure that providers use any income from taxpayers appropriately in delivering these outcomes. Providers receiving funding from the OfS or UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) must comply with our conditions of registration. This includes demonstrating that they have adequate and effective arrangements in place to manage public money appropriately and in accordance with the principle of value for money – it must be used economically, efficiently and effectively. These requirements apply even if a provider passes funds to another entity to deliver teaching or research. We will issue further guidance for providers about how they can meet these requirements.
  • We collect Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) data from providers in receipt of OfS funding to establish the cost of their various activities18. The data is benchmarked so providers can understand the cost of their activities in comparison with other similar providers. This helps them to determine where they can improve the value for money they offer to students and taxpayers.

How is BEIS getting on?

The National Audit Office has published a Departmental Overview for BEIS, describing what it does, its spending, recent and planned changes, and what to look out for across its main business areas and services. A summary of their overview prepared by Dods is below – it acts a good lookahead for certain projects and the likelihood of targets being met.

Specifically of interest are details on delivering an industrial strategy and investing in science, research and innovation. It recommends keeping an eye on whether the Department is stimulating additional investment from private sector companies in research and development to support the government’s target of spending 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027. This has been a key area of concern, given that the uplift required from Government to reach 2.4% without private sector support would be huge. It is widely expected that reaching 2.4% will rely very heavily on private sector investment. Key developments identified in this area are as follows:

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund

  • The Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund is a key part of the government’s Industrial Strategy. The Fund, which is administered by UKRI, provides investment in projects that seek to address the grand challenges. The Fund is organised in waves.
  • In 2018-19, £325 million was invested across Waves 1 and 2. The Fund is also a key part of the government’s aim for 2.4% of GDP to be spent on research and development by 2027.

Productivity review

  • In May 2018, the Department launched a call for evidence to review the actions that could be most effective in improving the productivity and growth of small and medium-sized businesses. The Department has yet to publish the results of its review.

Things to look out for:

  • How the Department is monitoring the progress of the projects that were awarded funding through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, and the extent to which they help to address the four grand challenges.
  • Whether government support is stimulating additional investment from private sector companies in research and development to support the government’s target of spending 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027.
  • Whether the Department and other government departments are coordinating effectively to deliver the Industrial Strategy, including the actions taken by the Industrial Strategy Council.

The report outlines the 5 objectives of the Department:

  1. Deliver an ambitious industrial strategy; increase UK economic performance and earning power, whilst promoting scientific innovation and local growth.
  2. Maximise investment opportunities; increase investment and employment following Brexit and maintain business and investor confidence amidst deal preparations/ exiting the EU.
  1. Promote competitive markets and responsible business practices; Secure better outcomes for consumers by creating a more competitive environment for businesses and improve corporate governance.
  1. Ensure the UK has a reliable, low-cost and clean energy system; Provide clean, secure and affordable energy supplies for consumers and businesses and support clean growth and promote global action on climate change .
  1. Build a flexible, innovative, collaborative business-facing department; Elevate the Department to an exceptional standard and enable digital, data and technology to deliver services for staff, people and businesses.

Education Statistics

The DfE have released lots of statistics

  • Destinations of KS4 and 16 to 18 KS5 students (2018) remains static with 94% of pupils were in sustained education, employment or apprenticeships in the year after key stage 4, unchanged from 2016/17. Overall, 88% of students (who took mainly level 3 qualifications) went to a sustained education, apprenticeship or employment destination. Students taking qualifications at level 2 and below were less likely to have a sustained destination overall. However, they were more likely to enter apprenticeships and employment.
  • A level and other 16 to 18 results (2018) – A level attainment increased for students at the end of 16-18 study in comparison to 2018.

A schools funding announcement was also made this week.

Other news

Brain retain: An early day motion in Parliament congratulated Glasgow which resume.io have recognised as the top graduate destination.

Commuter Students: HEPI have a blog on commuter students arguing that a student centred model is essential for both residential and commuter students. However, the blog, written by the VC of Manchester Met says three overarching strands of support would compensate commuter students for their lack of residential experience:

  • The first is to ensure that we use data on the journey of individual students to inform the support that we give them. We are investing in a Student Journey Transformation Programme that aims to ensure we have a clear picture of each student and their needs. The approach uses technology in an innovative way to support students and enable staff to identify any potential issues at an early stage.
  • The second dimension is campus design, where even simple things such as lockers can make a difference. Lockers mean commuter students do not have to carry around a day’s worth of materials. This removes a practical barrier to taking part in activities and events. Access to plug sockets means they can charge laptops and phones, supporting them to work on campus.
  • We are also working to provide more areas for students to spend time between timetabled sessions and to build their academic community. If the only options are studying in the library or sitting in a catering outlet where there is an expectation to buy something, there is a greater likelihood that students will drift off campus.
  • Thirdly, clear, sensible timetabling helps students plan their week, including travel, work and family commitments. While we have long provided personalised timetables for each student, we are looking at what more we can do. In one faculty, we have identified programmes with high numbers of students with caring responsibilities and scheduled lectures for a restricted number of days with start and finish times that accommodate these responsibilities. We need to understand the effects of this pilot, especially how well it supports students, before extending it.

Student Carers: Wonkhe have a new blog: Carers need more visibility in HE.

Student Votes: Wonkhe detail a piece by i News reporting that the number of students and young people registered to vote has spiked by around 50 per cent when compared to a similar period before the last general election.

Apprenticeships/Disability: HEPI have a blog on the new apprenticeship system and whether it works for disabled students.

Trust: The OfS blog on how leaders can rebuild public trust.

Lecture alternatives: The Wonkhe blog Is the lecture dead? considers an alternative learning model.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

The Postgraduate Research Society- NOW Launched

The Postgraduate Research Society- NOW Launched

The Post- Graduate Society had a successful official launch on the 23rd of September 2019. This was the first of many educational and interactive events to be organized by the society to enhance postgraduate students experience. The event saw newly enrolled PGRs, MRes and current PGRs at different stages in their research project.

 

The society aims to create a post-graduate community within SUBU and BU for students to belong to a network of highly skilled postgraduate students who will seek to offer help to each other, either for personal and professional growth and development. The Postgraduate Society supported by SUBU and the Doctoral College will also host events and activities tailored for postgraduate students in order to provide both fun and academic engagement in BU.

We received some feedback from PGRs anticipating more events like this in the future. Please click here to let us know what kind of events you will prefer https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/postgraduate-events

So why join us? Here are five reasons

  • Network with fellow PGRs to create a Community Within SUBU and BU
  • Belong to a group of highly skilled PGRs who will help in your Personal and Professional Growth and Development
  • Participate in social and academic events and activities to learn and have fun!
  • Make friends from different disciplines and ensure your voice is heard!
  • Graduate in style knowing that you were part of a community that will always have your back.

To be a part of this community, all you need is to register. Registration is easy. Simply click ‘Join’ at https://www.subu.org.uk/organisation/pgrsoc/ There is a membership fee of £2 per year.

For any questions, please contact us at subupgrsoc@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

Pictures from Doctoral College PGR Induction, September 2019

 

 

 

 

PGR Society