Tagged / BTECs

HE policy update w/e 17th January 2022

COVID-19, international, parliament, PG research, policy, Research communication, Research Concordat, research integrity, Research news, Student Engagement

As the PM tries to focus on policy to reduce the chat about parties, it may be that the levelling up white paper finally sees the light of day fairly soon, and some big OfS consultations are also expected, so hold on to your hats for the next update!  In the meantime, plenty on research priorities.

Parliamentary News

Michelle Donelan gave a ministerial statement on 5 January about reforms to support the government’s skills revolution – ie levelling up by filling skills gaps to boost the economy. Nine more Institutes of Technology were announced (12 already running), T levels announcements were made, and it also covered access to flexible short courses for retraining: More than 20 universities and colleges will offer the courses in subjects where there are skills shortages such as digital, Net Zero, Education, STEM and Healthcare, and offering an alternative to studying a traditional three-year degree. Student finance will be available to students taking the courses, marking the next step in the development of the government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement which, from 2025, will provide individuals with a loan entitlement to be the equivalent of four years of post-18 education they can use flexibly over their lifetime.

The DfE statement contains more detail.

Education Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, also made a statement. It focussed mainly on schools and Covid issues related to compulsory schooling. However, on international HE students Zahawi stated: We continue to welcome international students to the United Kingdom, and universities stand ready to support any students who are required to quarantine on arrival. Overseas students should not worry, because visa concessions remain in place for international students to allow them to study remotely until 6 April this year.

Research

ARIA: The ARIA Bill has passed through Parliament with limited amendments. Plans for recruitment of the ARIA Chair and Chief Executive are at various stages but it is not known if a preferred candidate has yet been selected. ARIA will have a budget of £800 million over the next four financial years. Wonkhe have a blog.

2022 Ministerial Science Plan: Science Minister George Freeman outlined his core missions and priorities for 2022 on Twitter. Here’s the basics:

  • Horizon: push for final sign-off on the UK’s Horizon Europe membership (£80.5bn). As political disputes continue to hold up membership in Brussels the Minister stated he is still working on a “bold Global Britain Plan B” should Horizon membership fall through.
  • Research Ecosystem: implementing the Nurse, Grant and Tickell reviews which address the research landscape, UKRI, and research bureaucracy. All three reviews are expected to be published this year.
  • ARIA: Establishing the £800m Advanced Research and Invention Agency as the UK’s “science satellite” to ensure the UK “stays on the frontline of exploring new ways of doing new science”. The Bill is now awaiting Royal Assent.
  • Science Cabinet: Establishing the new National Science & Technology Council, which Freeman calls the “Science Cabinet”. The Council, which was announced last year, will be chaired by the PM and the chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance. Freeman also committed to establishing an R&D inter-ministerial group to provide a “joined-up cross-Government” approach to R&D policy.
  • Funding: Allocating the £20bn R&D funding promised by 2024-25 at the last spending review to help reach the government’s target of increasing R&D spend to 2.4% of GDP. He also commits to work with the Chancellor, Treasury, and industry to “take forward” the Patient Capital Reviewon supporting business to scale-up to “unlock great UK pension and fund investment” in high-growth companies.
  • Regulation: Freeman also commits to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform– of which he was a member prior to being appointed – which he says will “unlock UK leadership in regulatory innovation for leadership in setting the global standards for fast-emerging new sectors” such as AI and nutraceuticals.
  • Levelling Up: The Minister plans to map and focus on the roughly 30 R&D clusters around the UK as the basis for how science and innovation can support the Government’s level-up ambitions, creating “new jobs, opportunities & companies key to sustainable long term growth.” The Levelling Up White Paper is expected to be published in the first half of this year.
  • Quantum: Developing a ‘UK Quantum Computing Technology and Industrial Strategy’ to “consolidate the UK’s global leadership in the science of advanced computing into commercial leadership in innovation & industry.”
  • Strategies: The Minister committed to implementing the 2021 Life Sciences Visionto “ensure we repeat the successes of our first industrial strategy”, as well as the UK Innovation Strategy to “help create the next high growth sectors”. Plus the UK Space Strategy to develop the £16bn UK space tech sector. Freeman pledges to implement key reforms of the R&D People and Culture Strategy (published by the previous Minister).
  • International: Establishing new Global Britain science fellowships, working with global allies and the National Cyber Security Centre to “ensure research security against hostile industrial and sovereign research espionage and IP theft.”

In response, Hetan Shah, writing for Wonkhe calls for the inclusion of social sciences, arts and humanities in achieving the science minister’s priorities for research and development in 2022.

AI: The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has published the second edition of its AI Barometer, analysing the most pressing opportunities, risks and challenges associated with AI and data in the UK. And the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dtsl) has published information on the development of a standard approach for AI and autonomy in networked multi-sensory systems in security and defence.

Research Integrity: The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee met on 15 December as part of the Reproducibility and Research Integrity inquiry. Dods have summarised the session here.

Parliamentary questions:

Research Bureaucracy: The Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy has published its interim findings focusing on the role funders play within the research system. You can read a summary of the interim findings or the full interim report. The final report is due in Spring 2022.   The report sets out themes and the next steps for the review to consider, rather than recommendations, including:

  • How funders might adopt a risk based approach to assurance
  • Streamlining reporting including across concordats and the possibility of collective resources
  • Simplifying applications and moving admin post-award
  • Triaging applications via an expert panel and simplifying assessment criteria
  • Maybe controversially – capping the number of applications an institution can submit to a scheme
  • Reviewing contracting processes, procurement and change processes
  • Digital platforms – portals and interoperability
  • Looking at how individual universities manage research and building case studies – the implication being that a lot of the bureaucracy is self-imposed within universities

There will be consultation and the next report will have recommendations.

Admissions

Exams: Wonkhe tell us that the Times reports that Minister for Education, Nadhim Zahawi, has insisted that school exams will go ahead this summer.

BTECs: The Nuffield Foundation & Oxford Brookes University have issued a press release Students with BTECs are successful across a range of university outcomes. The headlines are drawn from this report (the 60 second summary from page 3 is useful). The political context for this release is the DfE’s intention to cease some BTECs and reduce the number of others offered as the country moves towards the T level curriculum. The results provide balance to previous reports that suggest BTEC students achieve lower outcomes that A level entrants. Key points from the press release:

  • Students who take A levels are less likely to drop out of university and more likely to graduate with a 2:1 or a first than those with BTECs.

However:

  • The majority of graduating BTEC students gain at least a 2:1.
  • BTECs provide the route into university for 1 in 4 young student entrants from England, and they are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds than their A level peers.
  • Over 80% of students with just BTECs stay at university after their first year and over 60% of graduating BTEC students gain a 2:1 or above.
  • However, students who enter with only BTECs are almost twice as likely (11% vs 6%) to drop out before their second year compared to similar A level students. They are also 1.7 times more likely to repeat their first year and around 1.4 times more likely to graduate below a 2:1.
  • BTEC entrants with ‘average’ GCSE results had a 25% chance of graduating below a 2:1 compared with an 18% chance for A level entrants with the same GCSE grades and similar other characteristics.
  • There are differences in university outcomes between entrants with a combination of A levels and BTECs compared with just A levels, but they are smaller than the differences between those entering with only BTECs and only A levels.
  • Analysis of data from one university providing detailed module scores suggests that those with BTECs perform less well on exam-assessed than coursework-assessed modules.  Since recent reforms, BTECs must have a proportion of external assessment which may prepare BTEC students better for university exams – the research subjects predated these reforms.
  • The type of A levels (e.g. traditional) and whether an A level in the degree subject was held had an impact on degree outcome read more in the report and press release on the above links.

Dr Dilnot (report author) said: Reform of level three qualifications is high on the Government’s agenda, with the publication of a policy document in July 2021 on the defunding of large BTECs in the context of introducing a more clearly two pronged approach to further study and training, with A levels on the one hand and T-levels on the other.  We welcome the planned postponement of the removal of funding for most BTECS and would encourage further consideration of their future. It’s very important to note that although there are differences between outcomes for BTEC and A level students, the overwhelming majority of students entering with BTECs or combinations do not drop out, and the majority of those graduating do so with at least a 2:1.

Dr Wyness (report author) commented: It is clearly important to address the differences in university outcomes between those with A levels and BTECs…But it should be remembered that, without the availability of BTECs, many disadvantaged students might not have attended university at all.

Access & Participation

First in Family – part 1: The Nuffield Foundation & UCL published First in family: higher education choices and labour market outcomes highlighting that women who are the first in their family to graduate from university earn 7% less in their mid-20s compared to female graduates whose parents attended university. They are also less likely to attend an elite institution, 4% more likely to drop out than those with graduate parents and female first in family students often face multiple disadvantages. The report is set against the recent political backdrop whereby the Government is pushing universities to reduce dropout rates and introduce new targets which support disadvantaged students through university and into highly paid, skilled jobs.

On the female multiple disadvantage the report finds the first in family female (FiFF) pay gap is impacted by:

  • Unlike first generation male graduates, FiFF graduates have, on average, lower pre-university educational attainment than their female peers with at least one graduate parent.
  • FiFF are less likely to attend a more selective university;
  • FiFF tend to work in smaller firms, and in jobs that don’t require a degree;
  • FiFF are more likely to become mothers by the age of 25;

Moving forward lead author, Dr Morag Henderson, said: Universities should target first generation students in their recruitment and ensure that there are systems to support them while at university. We recommend that universities target some of their successful mentoring schemes specifically to first in family students to reduce the risk of dropout among this group…And while it is encouraging to hear the government suggesting that university is ‘as much about getting on as it is about getting in’, their new plans to reduce dropout rates and set targets for entry into well-paid jobs among disadvantaged graduates should consider those who are first in their family to attend university.

Other recommendations within the report are:

  • Use Contextual Admissions to make offers to students which consider socioeconomic status, individual characteristics and type of school attended. It remains all the more important that universities are able to identify students who have a high potential to succeed, irrespective of their background.
  • Given that first in family status is an important indicator that could be key in efforts to widen participation at universities: we recommend that University College Admissions Service (UCAS) increase its efforts to improve measurement and validity of the first in family measure.
  • We recommend that early intervention among the potential first in family group is important, where there should be more coordination and resource to raise attainment [and non-cognitive skills] among this group throughout schooling to ensure that students are able to pursue higher education should they choose to.
  • We recommend that efforts are made by graduate employers to support the Widening Participation agenda beyond higher education. By targeting these groups in their graduate training programmes and recording first in family status data in applications through to recruitment, they can ensure a diverse workforce.

First in Family – part 2: Meanwhile HEPI published: New report finds ‘first-in-family’ status flawed as a way of helping disadvantaged students. It states with over two-thirds of students able to be classified as first in family it cannot be a useful indicator for widening participation activities, particularly because it is self-declared and unverifiable. The report argues only a tighter first in family indicator should be considered and only for lower stakes widening participation activities. For higher stakes activities, such as contextual offers at highly selective universities, it should be used only as part of a basket of measures. Overall the paper agrees with the data mentioned in the Nuffield study above and the short version is the authors recommend first in family be used in combination with other measures to target support (such as free school meals). While this HEPI report and the above Nuffield study seem to disagree ultimately they both recommend a granular approach acknowledging multiple deprivations and organisations working together to enhance the validity of the looser measures. So the same messages that have been around for several years.

Drilling down further the HEPI paper also recommends:

  • delivering outreach for the parents of groups that are under-represented in higher education, and:
  • providing student mentors for first-year undergraduates to help them build networks.

Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: This research has changed my thinking on “first-in-family” students. It is a description of majority status that has been masquerading as a description of minority status.

Harriet Coombs, the author of the report, stated: The first-in-family problem is, at root, a fair access one rather than a widening participation one…the bigger problem is not getting more first-in-family students into higher education, but rather getting more first-in-family students into highly selective institutions. Further to this, highly selective universities now need to ensure they retain first-generation students as well as just recruit them.

Student transfers: Parliamentary Question on the background of students changing HE provider; (context: the proportion of higher education students who transfer between higher education institutions in any given year; and the assessment of the socio-economic backgrounds of those students). Edited answer:

  • 9% of students who entered the first year of a full-time first degree in England in the 2018/19 academic year had transferred to a different provider one year after entry.
  • The statistics are disaggregated by student characteristics, including two measures of disadvantage. These show that:
    • 4% of students from Participation of Local Areas (POLAR4) [1] quintile 1 (lowest higher education participation) backgrounds had transferred to a different provider one year after entry, compared to 3.0% for those from quintile 5 (highest higher education participation);
    • 8% of students from Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)[2] quintile 1 (most deprived) backgrounds had transferred to a different provider one year after entry, compared to 2.5% for those from quintile 5 (least deprived).

Rebooting Widening Access: Another offering from HEPI written by NEON Director Professor Graeme Atherton Giving widening access a real reboot argues that if the government really wants to move the widening access agenda forward then it needs to be more radical than was suggested by the Minister for Higher Education in November last year. A ‘real’ reboot of widening access to higher education would:

  • Revise graduate outcomes targets to make them both broader to encompass both other measures of success alongside income and also local/regional as well as institutional.
  • Move away from the POLAR measure as a tool to orientate the work of outreach and access work.
  • Initiate collaboration across the student lifecycle.
  • Make the Office for Students more outward facing.
  • Link outreach to careers work through a change in the admissions system.

Old Vs New Advice: Finally Wonkhe report on The Centre for Global Higher Education’s working paper written by former OfS director of fair access and participation Chris Millward, reflecting on his experience working in higher education access. On Wonk Corner, Jim Dickinson notes sections that shed light on Millward’s views on universities being asked to raise attainment in schools – which he approached with “caution” given questions over how “appropriate” such advice would be for the regulator of higher education.

Degree Apprenticeships

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has reported the responses to their consultation on reforming degree apprenticeships. You can read a summary here. There was support for the planned changes to how degrees are included in apprenticeships. This included further integration of on-the-job and off-the-job training, aligning the end point assessment with the final assessment of the degree, and the alignment of all degrees within apprenticeships with the occupational standards (the employer-defined knowledge, skills and behaviours that must be learned to prove occupational competency) to avoid existing degrees being re-badged as apprenticeships.

Separately this parliamentary question has warm words from the Minister on degree apprenticeships.

International

The Department for Education has updated the Covid-19 guidance for international students before they travel to the UK.

Parliamentary Question: International students are permitted to start a course from overseas through distance learning without a visa.

Wellbeing

Wonkhe report on a National piece which highlights new research from Glasgow University on the wellbeing of Postgraduate Researchers. The research, which surveyed PGRs across 48 UK institutions, found that “almost a quarter of respondents (23 per cent) had considered suicide or self-harm in the past two weeks”.

Wonkhe also have a wellbeing blog – In difficult times communications can enhance or erode student wellbeing. Sunday Blake talks to student welfare officers to learn the lessons of the pandemic for connecting with students.

Sexual Violence

UCU published a new report on eradicating sexual violence in tertiary education. The report calls on employers to do more to tackle sexual violence. UCU found in the last 5 years:

  • 12% of women and 5% of men had directly experienced workplace sexual violence
  • 52% of those who directly experienced sexual violence did not disclose or report it to their employer
  • 70% of those who directly experienced sexual violence experienced it as an ongoing pattern of behaviour rather than a one-off incident
  • Staff on non-permanent contracts were 1.3 times as likely to experience direct sexual violence than those in permanent roles
  • Staff on insecure contracts, those with disabilities, those who are trans & non binary, those in racialised minorities and those with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual are all at significantly greater risk of sexual violence

PQs

Other news

Free speech:

  • Wonkhe report that Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has saidon Twitter that he will consider supporting a new amendment to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, proposed by Jesse Norman, that would require universities to declare all overseas contributions of more than £50,000 to the Office for Students (OfS). The amendment, also supported by education select committee chair Robert Halfon, would see OfS publishing a searchable database of such donations annually and would require institutions to report all applicable contributions made since April 2013. The bill is currently awaiting a date for report stage debate in the House of Commons.
  • A new short Wonkhe piece on students’ self-censoring their viewpoints and commenting on a You Gov survey which polarises opinion between prioritising free speech or preventing hate speech.
  • PQ on Guidance to accompany the Free Speech Bill for HE sector and a consultation will be published in due course (0.24% events cancelled on campus – not necessarily due to free speech issues).

National Security (& research):

  • Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has made an announcement on new laws to strengthen national security coming into effect: The National Security and Investment Act came into force this week, granting the Government powers to scrutinise and intervene in certain acquisitions made by anyone, including businesses and investors, that could harm the UK’s national security, better reflecting the threats we face today.
  • The government now has the power to block deals ranging from research projects for foreign corporations and funding of PhDs to the establishment of joint research centres and the purchase of spinout companies
  • The government will also be able to impose certain conditions on an acquisition or, if necessary, unwind or block it – although it is expected this will happen rarely and the vast majority of deals will require no intervention and be able to proceed without delay, in the knowledge that the government will not revisit a transaction once cleared unless false or misleading information was provided.
  • The new regime is more transparent about the types of deals the government could examine, and requires businesses and investors to notify the government of certain acquisitions across 17 sensitive areas of the economy, including Artificial Intelligence and Civil Nuclear.
  • The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published guidance to help higher education institutions, other research organisations and investors in this area to understand the scope of the NSI Act, which came into force on 4 January 2022.

Appointments:

  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Environment Agency – Sarah Mukherjee and Mark Suthern appointed as Non-executive Directors to the Board from 10 January to 9 January 2026; Natural England – Tony Juniper CBE reappointed as Chair for a second term from 23 April to 22 April 2025.
  • Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: John Edwards appointed as Information Commissioner for five years from 3 January; BBC – Muriel Gray appointed to the Board as Scotland Nation Member from 3 January to 2 January 2026; Charity Commission – Ian Karet’s term as Interim Chair extended from 27 December 2021 to 26 June 2022, whilst the appointment process for a permanent Chair is conducted. Household name Laura Kuenssberg is to stand down as BBC Political Editor after seven years in the job, she will remain in the post until Easter; Deborah Turness appointed as CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs.
  • Government Equalities Office: Equality and Human Rights Commission – Akua Reindorf appointed as a Commissioner and Board Member.
  • Department of Health and Social Care: NHS Business Services Authority – Silla Maizey’s re-appointment as Chair extended from 1 January to 31 March; Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority – Margaret Gilmore’s and Ruth Wilde’s re-appointment as Non-executive Members extended for three months from 1 January; Anne Lampe’s re-appointment as Non-executive Member extended for three months from 1 February

Interest Groups:

  • Beaver Trust – Sandra King appointed as Chief Executive.
  • The Clink Charity – Yvonne Thomas appointed as Chief Executive.
  • Crisis – Matt Downie MBE appointed as Chief Executive.

Student Engagement Tech: Wonkhe report that Jisc and Emerge Education have released a new report on how technology can be used to improve student engagement. The report presents several case studies of technology being used to enhance engagement across the sector and suggests that both digital strategies and working with students should be adopted by institutions. On Wonk Corner Will Awad has some thoughts on what’s next for technological advancements in the sector.

Doctoral recruits: Wonkhe inform that The Natural Environment Research Council has published best practice principles for recruiting doctoral candidates. The aim of the principles are to assist Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) and Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) to improve their diversity, equality and inclusion. The CDTs and DTPs need to be implementing the principles from October 2022 if they have not already begun.

HE reputation: Research Professional – University reputations ‘at risk’ from Office for Students’ focus on compliance. England’s regulator risks accidentally damaging higher education’s reputation by not focusing on positive examples, Universities UK has warned.

Subscribe!

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

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

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

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

Centre for Excellence in Learning, COVID-19, NHS, parliament, policy

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

Ofqual fight back

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

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

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

David Kernohan has written about it for Wonkhe here.

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

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

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

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

In the statement, Ofqual say:

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

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

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

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

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

And they are still defending it:

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

They were challenged on this in the evidence session.

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

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

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

And on small class sizes etc

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

And here is the killer statement:

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

And whose fault is it?

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

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

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

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

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

Autonomy and influence

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

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

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

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

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

Grade inflation

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

Issues with CAGs:

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

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

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

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

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

And on BTECs:

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

And did the algorithm mutate?

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

So what about next year

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

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

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

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

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

In the evidence session, Roger Taylor said:

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

And Julie Swan said:

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

Gavin Williamson’s position

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

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

Research Professional cover it here.

Meanwhile in HE

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

The review will consider:

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

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

Inquiries and Consultations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe!

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

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

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

HE policy update for the w/e 22nd March 2019

EU, Impact, international, Knowledge Transfer, NHS, policy, Research news, Uncategorized

This week we’ve got the government’s international education strategy alongside data that shows the value of international students to the UK.  We’ve got a consultation on dropping BTECs, some less than impressive data on educational attainment, more campaigning on essay mills and of course, our take on the B word.  And SUBU’s Sophie Bradfield explains why there have been posters all over campus with a note about the SUBU elections.

International Students

The Government published their International Education Strategy over last weekend. This publication was announced the Spring Statement by Philip Hammond and is co-authored by the DfE and DFIT. The strategy sets out 5 cross-cutting strategic actions, developed through consultation with the education sector:

  1. Appoint an International Education Champion to spearhead overseas activity.
  2. Ensure Education is GREAT promotes the breadth and diversity of the UK education offer more fully to international audiences.
  3. Continue to provide a welcoming environment for international students and develop an increasingly competitive offer.
  4. Establish a whole-of-government approach by implementing a framework for ministerial engagement with the sector and formalised structures for coordination between government departments both domestically and overseas.
  5. Provide a clearer picture of exports activity by improving the accuracy and coverage of our annually published education exports data.

Other specific actions include, encouraging sector groups to bid into the £5 million GREAT Challenge Fund to promote the entire UK education offer internationally and extending the period of post-study leave for international student visas, considering how the visa process could be improved for applicants and supporting student employment.

These actions are aimed to underpin the following objectives:

  • Drive ambition across the UK education sector: The Government pledge to work in tandem with the education sector, and provide the practical solutions and tools it needs to harness its full international potential.
  • Increase Education Exports to £35bn by 2030: Achieving this ambition will require an average annual growth rate of 4% per year. In order to drive progress against this target, the Government intend to build global market share in international students across the education sectors. They also intend to improve how we capture education exports data in order to monitor our progress against this ambition.
  • Grow the numbers of international higher education students studying in the UK to 600,000 by 2030.

The full Government press release can be viewed here.

  • Education Secretary Damian Hinds said: As we prepare to leave the EU it is more important than ever to reach out to our global partners and maximise the potential of our best assets – that includes our education offer and the international students this attracts.
  • International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox MP said: Our education exports are ripe for growth, and my international economic department stands ready to engage and support UK providers from across the education sector to grow their global activity as we implement this new International Education Strategy.
  • English UK chief executive Sarah Cooper said: “We are excited by the opportunities this bold strategy outlines, both for the promotion of the UK as the premier destination for English language learning, but also the support planned for growing the export of UK ELT quality and expertise to countries across the globe.”
  • Dr Greg Walker, Chief Executive of MillionPlus, said: “Universities are critical export earners for the UK and greatly expand our soft power globally. This new strategy shows welcome recognition and ambition from the government towards strengthening our status as an attractive destination for international students. A better post-study work offer will boost the economy and benefit businesses needing high level skills, while a new target for international student recruitment is also the right step.
  • Professor Dame Janet Beer, President of Universities UK, said: “I strongly welcome the publication of this strategy as a signal of a change in direction. I particularly welcome the ambitious target to grow the number of international students to 600,000 by 2030 which sends a strong message of welcome.

HEPI published a response:

  • The overall trajectory for desired growth is actually lower than that assumed by the last Government target. It is also, at 4% a year, much lower than elsewhere – Australia has been enjoying an annual growth rate of over 17%.
  • We are currently very badly off the trajectory to hit this last target, which shows that setting targets far from guarantees success. As page 5 of the new paper makes clear, instead of hitting the target set in 2015 of £30 billion in education export earnings by 2020, we are only currently on course to be on £23 billion by then.
  • Although the new target is less ambitious than the old one and way below what has been achieved in other countries, we can still only hit the new 2030 target if we perform better in the future than in every recent year.
    • In 2017/18 there were 458,000 overseas students studying at UK universities; 20% of the total student population, 54% of full-time taught postgraduates and 49% of full-time research degree students. 139,000 were from the EU and 319,000 from elsewhere.
    • The top sending countries for overseas students have changed over the last few years. China currently sends the most students to the UK, more than 76,000 in 2017/18; the number of Chinese student in the UK has risen by 43% since 2011/12.
    • There has been a general drop in entrants from the major EU countries since 2011/12; Ireland down by 41%, Germany 18%, Greece 16% and France 11%. Italy was the exception with numbers up by more than half.
    • In recent years, the UK has been the second most popular global destination for international students after the USA. In 2016 the US took 28% of higher education students
    • To hit the new target we would clearly need some new policies even if things like Brexit didn’t threaten current successes. While today’s paper is open about being the start of a new journey, it doesn’t include policies of the scale needed to guarantee success – the section on further education, for example, is particularly unambitious.

The HoC library has published FAQs about international students and EU students in the UK.

  • In 2017/18 there were 458,000 overseas students studying at UK universities; 20% of the total student population, 54% of full-time taught postgraduates and 49% of full-time research degree students. 139,000 were from the EU and 319,000 from elsewhere.
  • The top sending countries for overseas students have changed over the last few years. China currently sends the most students to the UK, more than 76,000 in 2017/18; the number of Chinese student in the UK has risen by 43% since 2011/12.
  • There has been a general drop in entrants from the major EU countries since 2011/12; Ireland down by 41%, Germany 18%, Greece 16% and France 11%. Italy was the exception with numbers up by more than half.
  • In recent years, the UK has been the second most popular global destination for international students after the USA. In 2016 the US took 28% of higher education students

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and Kaplan International Pathways (Kaplan) published new research commissioned from London Economics on the financial contributions of international students who graduate from higher education and stay in the UK to work.

In September 2018, the Migration Advisory Committee failed to recommend the creation of a new post-study work visa, at least until there is “a proper evaluation, by us or others, of what students are doing in the post-study period and when they move onto other work permits.”. The HEPI / Kaplan report shows the tax and National Insurance payments of just one cohort of international students who stay in the UK to work after their studies amounts to £3.2 billion. This is made up of:

  • over £1 billion in income tax;
  • over £700 million in employees’ National Insurance Contributions;
  • over £800 million in employers’ National Insurance Contributions; and
  • nearly £600 million in extra VAT payments.

Graduates from other EU countries who stay here to work contribute £1.2 billion and graduates from the rest of the world contribute £2.0 billion.

The analysis additionally shows international graduates who find employment in the UK typically do so in sectors that suffer from acute skills shortages. Rather than displacing domestic graduates, international graduates are plugging skills shortages.

The study also measures the impact of the Home Office limiting post-study work rights in 2012. This costs the Treasury £150 million each year in foregone receipts – that is, £750 million every five years or just over £1 billion since post-study work was first restricted in this way in 2012.

  • Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, said: “Universities firmly believe the Government’s biggest mistake in higher education has been to discourage international students from coming here. A hostile environment has been in place for nearly a decade. It is a testament to the strengths of our higher education sector that the number of international students has not fallen, but it is an absolute tragedy that we have been unable to keep up with the pace of growth in other countries. The Home Office used to say there is insufficient evidence to show international students bring benefits to the UK. We proved this to be false last year, when we showed international students contribute £20 billion a year net to the UK. But, afterwards, the Migration Advisory Committee claimed there was still a lack of evidence to show international students who stay in the UK to work make a positive contribution. We can now disprove this too. Just one cohort of international students who stay in the UK to work contribute over £3 billion to the UK Exchequer – and it would be even more if policymakers had not reduced post-study work rights in 2012. The hard evidence shows a new approach is overdue.”
  • Linda Cowan, Senior Vice President, Kaplan International Pathways, said: “Restricting post-study work rights for international graduates has hampered efforts to attract students to the UK, with the number arriving here growing more slowly than in other countries. Proposals in the Government’s White Paper to introduce a minimum salary threshold of £30,000 would undoubtedly make us even less competitive. …..we need to reinstate attractive and competitive post-study work rights for all international students. The recommendations in the Migration Advisory Committee report would continue to place the UK behind other countries. We need to go further.”
  • Maike Halterbeck, Associate Director at London Economics, and lead author of the report, said: “A detailed analysis of the most up-to-date labour market data has illustrated the huge economic contribution of international graduates to the UK economy in the first 10 years following graduation. However, the contribution of more than £3 billion hides the fact that in the longer term, this contribution is likely to be many times higher as international graduates make the UK their home.”

HEPI published a response to HEPI’s International Students research from Shadow Higher and Further Education Minister, Gordon Marsden MP

“Today’s report underlines everything Labour and the sector have been saying about the vital contribution international students’ play to our universities’ and the economy. The Home Office have consistently risked damaging our world-class HE sector and international brand through their hostile attitude towards international students. As HEPI have pointed out, the Government’s strategy and targets are meagre and neglect the opportunities for HE at FE Colleges.”

Changes to BTECs and other qualifications

The government is consulting on the future of certain qualifications. The consultation is about “only providing public funding for qualifications that meet key criteria on quality, purpose, necessity and progression” and “not providing public funding for qualifications for 16 to 19 year olds that overlap with T-levels or A-levels”.  It is really interesting – they seem to be very focussed on a twin track approach from 16.

  • Para 42: In the Skills Plan we set out an ambition to provide students with a clear choice between high quality technical and academic options. With this clarity in mind, T Levels have been designed to be the gold standard level 3 technical qualification, with a primary purpose of offering a direct route into skilled employment or into relevant technical options in the form of higher levels of technical study or apprenticeships. We believe this clarity and distinctiveness of role should apply to all qualifications at levels 3 and below, giving all students clear choices in the qualifications they study.
  • Para 49: “The number of students entering university using Applied General qualifications (or similar qualifications that pre-date the introduction of this category of qualifications in performance tables) has increased significantly in recent years, coinciding with the growth of entry to higher education overall. This is especially the case for students from poorer or some black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. Many students entering with Applied General qualifications are lower-achieving in comparison to students who gain a place at university through A Levels, and are more likely to drop out. We want to understand the role of Applied General and other qualifications in supporting progression to successful outcomes and whether, in some cases, students would be better served by taking T Levels, a level 3 apprenticeship or A Levels”
  • Para 62: We want there to be clearer and simpler options for those ready and able to study at level 3 – T Levels and A Levels for those choosing classroom based study, or apprenticeships for those choosing a work-based option.

The Education Secretary Damian Hinds has also issued a press release on the announcement.

  • Education Secretary Damian Hinds said: We have made huge progress to boost the quality of education and training on offer for young people. But we also want to make sure that all options available to students are high-quality and give them the skills they need to get a great job, go on to further education or training, and employers can be confident they can access the workforce they need for the future. We can’t legislate for parity of esteem between academic and technical routes post 16. But we can improve the quality of the options out there and by raising quality, more students and parents will trust these routes.
  • Matthew Fell, CBI Chief UK Policy Director, said: Young people need clear, high-quality and easy to understand options at 16 – whether that’s A-levels, new T-levels, or doing an apprenticeship. Each route is valued by employers, but it can sometimes be difficult to understand the difference between the thousands of qualifications and different grading systems out there. The Government is absolutely right to address this by giving employers a part in shaping the reforms, ensuring qualifications relate to the modern world and give young people the skills they need to succeed.

BU will be preparing a response, working with Academic Services, as this will affect access and opportunities for potential students.

Educational attainment

The Resolution Foundation has published a report on the slowdown in educational attainment growth and its effects. The report argues that while improvements to the country’s human capital stock have been driven by increasingly educated cohorts of young people flowing into the labour market, the pace of growth in young people’s educational attainment has more than halved since the start of the 21st century.

  • Recent decades have been characterised by a marked boost in educational attainment:  the proportion of 22-64 year olds whose education stopped at a GCSE-or-equivalent level has fallen by one-third; the proportion who went on to attain a degree or higher has more than doubled.
  • Attainment growth has been spread across the labour market, as well as across gender and ethnicity: While the wider 25-28 year old degree attainment rate more than doubled from 17 per cent in 1996-98 to 40 per cent in 2016-18, the share of young black women with degrees more than trebled (from 13 per cent to 49 per cent), as did the share of young Indian women with degrees (from 22 to 75 per cent). These patterns mean that the level of variation in attainment that exists between sex and ethnicity groups has fallen.
  • Large attainment gaps persist
  • The pace of educational attainment growth has more than halved since the turn of the century, and this slowdown has been widely spread.
  • This slowdown matters because educational attainment growth can deliver higher living standards – and cannot be dismissed as simply the result of migration or skills saturation
  • Skill shortage roles that are migrant reliant and pay below proposed salary thresholds indicate where further skills demand may emerge post-Brexit: The fact that these 1.4 million migrants work under conditions that would fail to pass proposed migration rules does not imply that they would be lost were the proposed migration policy changes to be implemented, and the possibilities of adjusting to a different migration regime should not be understated.
  • Employers are also suppliers of skills, but work-related training has long been directed away from lower-qualified staff, including those whom employers think lack necessary skills. For instance during 2016-18, 22-64 year olds with Master’s degrees were almost three times as likely to report having recently received work-related training as their counterparts with qualifications below GCSE A*-C-equivalent levels.

Essay mills

The Education Secretary Damian Hinds has called on online platforms to help tackle the use of essay writing services used by students as university.  Damian Hinds has challenged PayPal to stop processing payments for ‘essay mills’ as part of an “accelerated drive to preserve and champion the quality of the UK’s world-leading higher education system”. The Government states that technology giants such as Google and YouTube have responded to these calls and are taking steps to remove hundreds of advertisements for essay writing services and promotional content from their sites.

  • Damian Hinds said: Sadly there have always been some people who opt for the easy way and the internet has seen a black market in essay writing services spring up. However, no matter how easy it is to access these services now, it doesn’t change the fact that this is cheating, and students must understand it is unacceptable.
  • Universities Minister Chris Skidmore said: Developing your knowledge and applying it at a high standard is at the very core of a university education, but these essay writing companies and the students paying for these services are undermining the foundations that our HE system is built upon.

The press release also reaffirms that department will be publishing an Education Technology strategy this spring to help the industry tackle some of the key challenges facing the education sector. This will include encouraging tech companies to identify how anti-cheating software can tackle the growth of essay mills and stay one step ahead of the cheats.

The FT have an article here:

  • The qualification has a cost (fees, living costs, the cost of debt and the academic labour to acquire it), and an expected value in the labour market. If the individual realises he or she can’t perform the labour, they buy it. Their qualification is a kind of forgery that is very difficult to spot — a “prime fakement”.
  • So how many people are cheating? Cuckoo essays are hard to measure, because most of the contracts are privately arranged between companies and individuals. The businesses advertise on social media — YouTube has deleted adverts for these services — and even, in one case, on the London Underground.
  • …Historically, the authorities came down brutally on forgery, even for what now seem like minor instances of coin clipping. The fear was that such practices had the capacity to undermine the entire monetary system. Forgery has a natural inflationary risk, threatening to dilute the value of money, which threatens those who have already hoarded it. When too many prime fakements are exposed, there is a risk that trust in the real thing also disappears. At that point, no one will accept it as collateral any more.

Lifelong learning

The Independent Commission on Lifelong Learning, convened by the Liberal Democrats, have published a report on Personal Education and Skills Accounts. The full report and full list of recommendations can be viewed here.

This report sets out a vision for a culture of all-age learning in England, at the centre of which is a nationally available Personal Education and Skills Account (PESA). The report proposes that PESA would be an account opened at the age of 18 for adults in England, topped up with government funding, to help access learning and training opportunities throughout life. The committee state their belief that PESAs would widen access to adult learning and transform the landscape of post-18 education while putting the further education and skills sectors on a more sustainable financial footing.

  • The government will make three contributions to the accounts, each worth £3,000, when the account holder turns 25, 40 and 55.
  • Account holders and their employers will also be able to make payments into the accounts. This will be incentivised by government offering tax relief and/or match-funding on contributions made by account holders.
  • From the age of 25 onwards, account holders will be able to use money saved in the accounts to pay for education and training courses which are delivered through accredited providers.
  • Accounts will remain open and available to account holders throughout their life.

Association of College’s Chief Executive, David Hughes, who sits on the Commission said: “This is a timely and helpful report as the consensus grows from all parts of Westminster and from business that the time has finally come to rebalance the provision of education and skills to create a truly world class post-18 education system. As our country’s skills gaps widen further, and as the world of work continues to change at such a rapid pace, it is right that people are given more control and agency over their training and learning at all stages of their lives – Personal Education and Skills Accounts have the potential to play an important role in this.”

A Universities UK spokesperson said: “We welcome this independent report which highlights the economic, social and health benefits of continuing in education. It makes an important contribution to the debate on how we can continue to develop the highly skilled workforce our country needs. Anyone with the potential to benefit from doing so should have the opportunity to continue their education, regardless of background, circumstance or age.

Brexit

It’s all about process now.  And process, the order in which things happen and the timing, will determine the outcome – with no deal exit on 29th March still at least technically the default and no deal exit on or before 11th April still (as at the time of writing) the most likely result.

So what happens now?  To take advantage of the EU unconditional offer of an extension to April 12th (the last date for calling EU elections), Parliament doesn’t need to approve the withdrawal agreement but does need to agree to change the current exit date by passing a statutory instrument.   The motion for this is planned for Monday.  Note in the letter to the EU the UK government have agreed to the extension.  The longer extension to 22 May offered by the EU applies if Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement before 29th March.

These are much gentler terms than were predicted.  But it isn’t just kicking the can down the road.  There will have to be a majority in Parliament “for” something this time – i.e. either “for” the withdrawal agreement or “for” the extension of the exit date.  And it all depends on the motions filed by the government and amendments made. But if MV 3 is rejected, we will be in exactly the same position as we are now, for another two weeks.

This could change if there is:

  • an amendment to one of next week’s motions on indicative votes, which is passed, and then
  • one of the indicative votes is passed that requires a long extension (like a renegotiation of the deal to make it softer or a plan to have a second referendum), and then
  • MPs vote for a long extension to implement that.

Right now it looks as if (a) might happen but not (b) or (c).  so we’d be back to no deal unless the mood music changes (partly because of attempts to get (b) and (c) through), so that MV4 finally passes before 12th April – but there is also another way – the PM said she didn’t know what would happen if the withdrawal agreement was rejected again and it would be “up to the House”.  It seems options are being explored on what that might look like. See this BBC article.

Remember the big thing that a week ago was going to get the deal through – Geoffrey Cox was going to change his legal advice and persuade the DUP?  That hasn’t happened and no-one is talking about it anymore.

In an interesting development on Friday morning, Kwasi Kwarteng MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for DExEU) said that he expected that there might be a free vote on some things (but not the meaningful vote).  Free votes really would make a difference to the arithmetic – but they may only get them on the indicative votes.

And those of you wondering why the Speaker’s rule about not bringing the withdrawal agreement back isn’t getting in the way of all this?  Of course the latest EU offer and their own approval of the agreement makes it all different now.

A government motion on extension filed for Monday refers to  the PM’s statement about extension on 15th March– things have changed since then.  Amendments text on twitter:

It’s all very complicated, but essentially the most likely outcome (unless there is a major change over the weekend) still appears to be no deal, either on 29th or, if as expected, the extension is passed, on 12th April.

Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology

We hosted POST at BU a couple of weeks ago, to discuss policy impact, and some good conversations were held on the day and since.  This is a reminder that the POST work plan provides further opportunities for staff to engage with the Parliamentary agenda.  Click on the links to learn more.

Biology and health

In production:

  • Advances in cancer treatment
  • Alternatives to plastic food packaging
  • Causes of obesity
  • Climate change and vector-borne disease
  • Outward medical tourism
 Scheduled:

  • Blockchain technology in the food chain
  • Industry influence on public health policy
  • Researching gambling
Energy and environment

In production:

  • Adaptation and mitigation in agriculture
  • Assessing and restoring soil microbiomes
  • Climate change and fisheries
  • Climate change and wildfire frequency
  • Developments in wind power
  • Environmental gain
  • Food waste
  • Natural hazard risk assessment
 Scheduled:

  • Insect population decline
Physical sciences and ICT

In production:

  • Integrating health and social care
  • Key EU space programmes
  • Online safety education for young people
 Scheduled:

  • Civilian drones
Social sciences

In production:

  • Approaches to reducing violent crime, focusing on early interventions
  • Integrating health and social care
  • Research glossary
 Scheduled:

  • Improving eyewitness testimony

That’s a wrap – Full-time SUBU officer elections 2019

Sophie Bradfield from SUBU brings us her latest update – this time looking at democracy in action in SUBU.

In spring each year, Students’ Unions around the country run elections across-campus for current students to run for and elect their full-time representatives for the next academic year. These representatives are called Full-Time Union Officers (sometimes referred to as Sabbaticals) and they lead the direction of the Students’ Union, representing and championing the collective student voice. Requirements for electing Full-Time Union Officers are set out in the Education Act 1994 as well as the Union Constitution and By-laws and are usually carried out using an online voting system.

Elections for SUBU’s Full-Time Union Officers (FTOs), wrapped up on Thursday at 5pm after a week of creative campaigns from the 26 students running for election, reaching out to fellow students at BU.

There are 5 full-time paid positions and the new officers will take up their positions in June. Each role has a different remit reflecting different areas of the student experience covering: the academic experience, student welfare, extra-curricular activities, sustainability, volunteering, democracy, the student voice and much more. These roles are: President; Vice President Activities; Vice President Community; Vice President Education; and Vice President Welfare & Equal Opportunities. Officers work closely with fellow students, Union and University staff to deliver projects, campaigns and create or enact policies to improve the student experience at BU and nationally across the Higher Education sector.

Student candidates campaign for these positions on a 300 word manifesto (you can read them here), setting out their pledges which they hope to achieve if elected. Elected Full-Time Union Officers work on achieving their manifesto aims which students have voted for, as well as representing the collective student voice, for example at University meetings. FTOs act on student feedback throughout the year and SUBU collects student feedback to shape work through a number of methods, ensuring SUBU is led and driven by students. For example the student representation system collects feedback through a tool called SimOn and SUBU receives around 10,000 individual comments a year (which we also report to relevant services in the University). We also receive student feedback through meetings, committees, forums, surveys and focus groups. 

Full-Time Officers are accountable to the student body that elected them and termly general meetings are held (called Big Student Meetings) for students to hear reports from their elected officers and ask questions. Big Student Meetings are also a time for students to put forward policy ideas and vote on or reject policies and this then becomes mandated work for Officers and the Students’ Union. A quorum of 100 students is required at a General Meeting for the policies passed to be valid. This ensures decisions are made by the collective student voice.

SUBU’s current FTOs will be in place until June. You can watch a livestream of the results for next academic year’s team on the SUBU Bournemouth Facebook from 7pm in Friday.

Consultations

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

Other news

The EU have reached “partial” agreement on Horizon Europe, the 2021-27 replacement for H2020, according to Research Professional.

  • The following day, the League of European Research Universities hailed the EU institutions’ “very impressive” work and said it approved of the content of the programme “on the basis of a first analysis”.  Leru praised the decision to use more ring-fenced funding to increase the involvement of researchers in low-participation countries, rather than programme-wide targets.
  • But Leru’s secretary-general Kurt Deketelaere warned that unresolved issues such as the programme’s rules of association for non-EU countries should be agreed “as soon as possible”.  He cautioned that the agreement will be subject to final approval by a new legislature and administration after the European elections in May. “Let’s hope that the next Parliament and Commission don’t feel the urge to reconsider substantial parts of this partial political agreement,” he said.
  • Markus Beyrer, the director-general of the industry lobby group BusinessEurope, welcomed the agreement but warned that subsequent negotiations on the budget would be “tough”. He and Leru called on the EU to ensure that at least €120 billion is devoted to Horizon Europe, rather than the €83.5bn in 2018 prices proposed by the Commission.  

The Welsh Government has launched a Degree Apprenticeship Scheme, supported by £20m of funding. The university-run scheme will be fully funded by the Welsh Government, with all students’ fees paid for. Courses will be available in key sectors for economic growth identified by the Welsh Government, including IT, Engineering and Advanced Manufacturing.

The House of Commons library has issued a summary of funding for adult further education since 2010 and a summary of funding for 16-19 education since 2010.

Closing the gap, published by The Nuffield Trust, The Health Foundation and The King’s Fund says that the Government should introduce grants for student nurses if they want to reduce the workforce shortfall.

Shakira Martin has a guest blog on HEPI on widening participation

  • “What we need is greater investment in student support, with students able to expect to receive a minimum living income. We need maintenance grants, EMA and nursing bursaries and an apprenticeship minimum wage that’s at the level of a living wage. But it won’t be enough to increase student income alone, because doing so causes multiple generations to face increasingly unmanageable debts. How can we expect to improve social mobility when the money from the debts of the poorest students ends up back in the pockets of those already up at the top of the ladder? That is why we also need to see creative initiatives such as accommodation subsidies introduced for low-income students, private landlords halving rent on accommodation over the summer and discount cards for 50 per cent reductions on train fares and cheaper and better bus services. To make these dreams a reality we need the Government to step up and deliver for students by delivering greater investment in early years education and significant investment in IAG for students.”

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