Tagged / ref2021

April 22, 2020

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

Business Engagement, COVID-19, EU, Funding opportunities, HEIF, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, parliament, policy, Public engagement, Research assessment, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

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

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

Parliamentary News

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

Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said:

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

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

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

Staff changes

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

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

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

Brexit & Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges for the sector

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

Exams, offers and clearing

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

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

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

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

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

Some Parliamentary questions in this area:

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

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

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

A – Michelle Donelan:

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

Financial sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opposition view

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

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

The letter goes on to say:

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

Another perspective

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

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

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

RP write:

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

Knowledge Exchange

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

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

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

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

Research

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

Research funding

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

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

The Research Professional article continues:

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

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

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

Regional Inconsistencies in the Student Experience

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

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

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

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

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

Social Mobility

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

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

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

Wonkhe report:

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

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

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

Recommendations:

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

Graduate Employment

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

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

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

NUS Student Safety Net call

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

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

NUS Recommendations:

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

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

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

Media coverage: TES, BBC, Guardian

And a couple of relevant parliamentary questions:

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

AND, similarly

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

A – Michelle Donelan:

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

Inquiries and Consultations

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

New consultations and inquiries this week:

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

Other news

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

February 24, 2020

Nominate your outputs now for the BU REF Mock exercise 2020

BRIAN, BU Challenges, BU research, open access, Research assessment Pengpeng

The BU REF Mock Exercise 2020 has just been launched on BRIAN.

Please select up to 5 of your research outputs for inclusion in the exercise by 8^th March. Instructions on how to do this would have been disseminated to you via email.

Selected outputs should:

Embody original research. For the purposes of the REF, research is defined as a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared. See Guidance on Submissions – Annex C, p.90;
Have been published after 1 January 2014;
Have been accepted for publication as a minimum and due to be published before 31 December 2020.

In some cases, additional supporting information will be needed to accompany your submission. Supporting information can be supplied either via the relevant textbox in BRIAN or, if preferred, uploaded as an attachment to your output, e.g. Word document or PDF. UOA-specific details of the REF requirements for supporting information are included in the guidance attached. See also Panel Criteria and Working Methods, Annex B, pp.90-92 and the related sections indicated.

For information on the REF2021 Submission process at Bournemouth University, please refer to the REF 2021 Code of Practice.

If you have queries about selecting outputs please feel free to contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk (especially if it is a technical/BRIAN query) or a member of the UOA team who will be happy to help.

January 15, 2020

REF2021: the importance of Open Access compliance

BRIAN, BU Challenges, BU research, Guidance, open access, policy, Publishing, Research assessment Pengpeng

Introduction

The four main HE funding bodies in the UK believe that ‘the outputs of publicly funded research should be freely accessible and widely available.’ The REF2021 Open Access Policy was introduced as a requirement for the next REF and it states that – all journal articles and conference contributions (with ISSN) accepted for publication from 1 April 2016 and published on or before 31 December 2020 must comply with the policy to be eligible for submission to the REF.

What does this mean?

Any non-compliant outputs that do not satisfy the policy requirements will NOT be eligible for the next REF.

What are the policy requirements?

The outputs must be available open access (via the gold or green open access routes), three months after their acceptance date;
The outputs must be discoverable through search engines on the internet, and free to download
The outputs must also be in a format where they allow anyone with internet access to search electronically within the texts, to read and to download them

What does this mean to you at BU?

Once you’ve received an official notification from your publisher that your manuscript has been accepted, you should take action right away!

First of all, you should ensure that the publication record is created in BRIAN – Bournemouth Research Information and Networking, clearly specifying the acceptance date. Once you’ve created a record, following instructions on the screen, click on the BURO deposit page as shown below –

To comply with the REF Open Access Policy, you only need to upload/deposit the final accepted peer-reviewed manuscript (and not the final published version). However, depending on individual publisher copyright and policies, this is not always the case. To verify the publisher copyright policies and to decide which version of your manuscript you should use, you can do so through the SHERPA RoMEO online resource, which is a reliable source of information recommended by Research England.

Some of these deposited manuscripts may also be subjected to a period of embargo before they can be made available. Again, this would depend on the publisher copyright policies, which you can also check out on SHERPA RoMEO.

On the ‘Deposit’ page in BRIAN, you will see this message –

BURO, which stands for Bournemouth University Research Online is the University’s Institutional Repository. All manuscripts uploaded on BRIAN will be deposited in BURO and are available to anyone in the world with internet access (subject to embargo).

BURO is supported by a team of colleagues from the Faculty Library Team. The BURO team is available to support and advise you through the open access compliance process and to ensure that you are compliant with all publisher copyright and policies.

Do remember, this process has to be done within three months of your publication acceptance date! Please see this video for more guidance.

What do embargo periods mean for compliance?

As mentioned above, use SHERPA RoMEO to find out more about deposit policies and embargo periods. As long as your manuscript is deposited within 3 months of the acceptance date, the REF2021 Open Access Policy allows for an embargo period of up to 12 months for the REF Panels A & B and 24 months for the REF Panels C & D.

What if the output doesn’t meet the compliance requirements?

In some circumstances, some outputs cannot meet the open access policy requirements due to deposit, access, technical or other issues (for more information see here). If these circumstances fall under the permitted exceptions in accordance with the REF Open Access policy, these outputs may still be submitted to the REF. If you are unsure, please seek advice and guidance from ref@bournemouth.ac.uk as early as possible.

If you have questions regarding REF2021 or Open Access compliance, please feel free to contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk or if you have questions specific to uploading of your manuscript, please contact BURO@bournemouth.ac.uk.

December 20, 2018

RKEO alternative 12 days ‘to’ Christmas – 11 REFs a piping

BU research Jo Garrad

On the eleventh day to Christmas, my RKEO friend gave to me, 11 REFs a piping.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the exercise for assessing the volume and quality of research in UK HEIs. As with its predecessor (the RAE), the results of the REF are used by HEFCE to determine the annual quality-related research (QR) grant distributed from HEFCE to HEIs in England.

We have a dedicated REF2021 site on the blog, which will bring you all the latest news. You can also find here development sessions available for each of the UoAs that BU intends to submit to. Book your place now!

April 17, 2018

New Impact Officers

BU research, Impact, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team alazar

Three new Impact Officers have joined RKEO, with a fourth currently out for recruitment. Our role is to support academics with the development of their research impact and impact case studies for the REF. We are based in RKEO (M402) and are also available two days a week in our relevant faculties to offer advice and support.

Matt Fancy will be supporting academics in the Faculty of Management (Tuesday and Friday at Dorset House), Brian McNulty in the Faculty of Media & Communication (Tuesday and Thursday in Weymouth House) and Amanda Lazar in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (Monday and Friday in Royal London House). We are currently sharing responsibility for supporting SciTech until the new Officer is in post, with Matt allocated to Archaeology (UoA15), Brian to Computer Science (UoA11) & Geography (UoA14), and Amanda to Psychology (UoA4) & Engineering (UoA12).

We are looking forward to meeting and working with you all over the next three years, so please get in touch with any impact-related enquiries: we’re here to support you!

March 28, 2018

HE policy update for the w/e 29th March 2018

Business Engagement, Funding opportunities, Impact, innovation, international, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Industrial Strategy

The Creative Industries Sector Deal has been announced. You can read the document here.

The press release says:

As part of a Creative Industries Sector Deal, to be announced today by the Digital and Culture Secretary Matt Hancock, Business Secretary Greg Clark and Co-Chair of the CIC, Nicola Mendelsohn, more than £150 million is being jointly invested by government and industry to help cultural and creative businesses across Britain thrive.
A Cultural Development Fund will also be launched for cities and towns to bid for a share of £20 million to invest in creative and cultural initiatives. The power of culture and creative industries to boost economic growth is evident across the country…[NB Bournemouth is identified as high growth]
The Sector Deal aims to double Britain’s share of the global creative immersive content market by 2025, which is expected to be worth over £30 billion by 2025. To seize on the opportunity of this expanding market, government is investing over £33 million in immersive technologies such as virtual reality video games, interactive art shows and augmented reality experiences in tourism.
Britain is already leading the way in developing immersive technologies. PWC has predicted that the UK’s virtual reality industry will grow at a faster rate than any other entertainment and media industry between 2016 to 2021, reaching £801 million in value, and that by 2021 there will be 16 million virtual reality headsets in use in the UK.
Improving the nations skills is at the heart of the government’s modern Industrial Strategy and to ensure the industry has the skilled workers it needs to deliver this, up to £2 million will be made available to kickstart an industry-led skills package, including a creative careers programme which will reach at least 2,000 schools and 600,000 pupils in 2 years. A new London Screen Academy, with places for up to 1000 students, will also open in 2019.

New Quality Code published

After a consultation proposing changes to the UK Quality Code for HE, (you can read BU’s response here) the QAA have published the new, very short Code. There’s some commentary on Wonkhe here. It really is short – in a 7 page document there is only one real page of content – but there is more guidance to come.

HE Review

To inform our BU response to the HE Review all staff and students are invited to consider the issues in this (anonymous) 5-minute survey. Please take a look at the survey questions as we’d like to hear from as many staff and students as possible. You don’t have to answer all the questions! The major review of HE will shape the HE system, including how universities are funded for years to come. The survey will be available to staff and students until Friday 20^th April.

The Department for Education also published a research report by Youthsight on the influence of finance on higher education decision making

Amongst its findings:

University was the only option considered by the majority of applicants (75 per cent), especially those applying to the higher-tariff universities (78 per cent). This was consistent across socio-economic backgrounds. Getting a job and travelling were the main alternatives considered by applicants
Financial factors were not the biggest influence on the final decision to apply to university. The most important factors were the desires to be more employable, to achieve the qualification and to pursue an interest in a subject. This was the case for applicants from both the higher and the lower socio-economic groups.
- Lower socio-economic group applicants placed a higher importance on grants, bursaries and living costs than applicants from higher socio-economic groups, although finance still remained a secondary influence on their decision to apply to university.
- The course offered (82 per cent of applicants), university reputation (58 per cent), and potential for high future earnings (41 per cent) were the most commonly cited major influences on applicants’ choices about where to study.
- Differences in bursaries offered, tuition fees charged and the ability to continue living at home were secondary factors when choosing where to study. These factors accounted for three of the bottom four of eleven factors tested that might influence which university to choose. However, they were more important for lower socio-economic group applicants.
The maintenance loan, repayment threshold and particularly maintenance grants and university assistance were more important to members of the lower socio-economic group than the higher socio-economic group in alleviating cost concerns.

And the government have published the outcomes of their 2014/15 student income and expenditure survey. There is a lot of data and there are lots of interesting charts, including figure 2.6 (the influence of financial support on my decisions), table 3.7 (what support English domiciled students received by mode of study), figure 4.3 (breakdown of total student expenditure (this one excludes the tuition fee but there is also a chart that includes it), figure 4.4 (total expenditure and housing costs).

The data from both these reports will be pored over to support responses to the HE review.

Freedom of speech

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report into free speech in universities. The Committee has also published its own guidance for universities and students:

Press Release: Serious barriers limit free speech in universities
Report (PDF): Freedom of Speech in Universities
Report: Summary
Report: Conclusions and recommendations
Guidance: Free speech: guidance for universities and students organising events

Charity Commission Response: Charity Commission responds to Joint Committee on Human Rights

The Committee don’t identify many actual cases of free speech having been prevented but note a “chilling effect” (it’s hard to prove a negative, of course). The report identifies factors that potentially limit free speech in universities:

regulatory complexity
intolerant attitudes, often incorrectly using the banner of “no-platforming” and “safe-space” policies
incidents of unacceptable intimidating behaviour by protestors intent on preventing free speech and debate
student Unions being overly cautious for fear of breaking the rules
unnecessary bureaucracy imposed on those organising events
fear and confusion over what the Prevent Duty entails
unduly complicated and cautious guidance from the Charity Commission.

Recommendations

That an independent review of the Prevent policy is necessary to assess what impact it is having on students and free speech, after evidence the Committee took demonstrated an adverse effect on events with student faith groups
That the Charity Commission, which regulates student unions as registered charities, review its approach and guidance, and that its actions are proportionate and are adequately explained to student unions and don’t unnecessarily limit free speech
That the Office for Students should ensure university policies proactively secure lawful free speech and are not overly burdensome
That student societies should not stop other student societies from holding their meetings. They have the right to protest but must not seek to stop events entirely
That while there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive discussions, and that the whole of the university cannot be a “safe space.” Universities must be places where open debate can take place so that students can develop their own opinions on unpopular, controversial or provocative ideas
Groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by student unions or universities.

Chair of the Committee, Harriet Harman MP, said:

“Freedom of speech within the law should mean just that – and it is vital in universities. Evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights showed that there is a problem of inhibition of free speech in universities. While media reporting has focussed on students inhibiting free speech – and in our report we urge universities to take action to prevent that – free speech is also inhibited by university bureaucracy and restrictive guidance from the Charity Commission. We want students themselves to know their rights to free speech and that’s why we’ve issued a guide for students today.”

Some particular points to note:

41 The imposition of unreasonable conditions is an interference on free speech rights. We do not, for example, consider it a reasonable condition that, if a speaker gives an assurance that their speech will be lawful, they be required to submit a copy or outline of their speech in advance.
42 In our view, freedom of expression is unduly interfered with:
- when protests become so disruptive that they prevent the speakers from speaking or intimidate those attending;
- if student groups are unable to invite speakers purely because other groups protest and oppose their appearance; and
- if students are deterred from inviting speakers by complicated processes and bureaucratic procedures.
  It is clear that, although not widespread, all these problems do occur and they should not be tolerated.
60 Whilst there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive and confidential discussions in university settings, and whilst the original intention behind safe space policies may have been to ensure that minority or vulnerable groups can feel secure, in practice the concept of safe spaces has proved problematic, often marginalising the views of minority groups. They need to co-exist with and respect free speech. They cannot cover the whole of the university or university life without impinging on rights to free speech under Article 10. When that happens, people are moving from the need to have a “safe space” to seeking to prevent the free speech of those whose views they disagree with. Minority groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by student unions or universities.
91 Universities must strike a balance to ensure they respect both their legal duty to protect free speech and their other legal duties to ensure that speech is lawful, to comply with equalities legislation and to safeguard students. It is clearly easier to achieve this if debate is carried out in a respectful and open way. But the right to free speech goes beyond this, and universities need to give it proper emphasis. Indeed, unless it is clearly understood that those exercising their rights to free speech within the law will not be shut down, there will be no incentive for their opponents to engage them in the debate and therefore to bring the challenge that is needed to develop mutual understanding and maybe even to change attitudes.
93 It is reasonable for there to be some basic processes in place so that student unions and universities know about external speakers. Codes of practice on freedom of speech should facilitate freedom of speech, as was their original purpose, and not unduly restrict it. Universities should not surround requests for external speaker meetings with undue bureaucracy. Nor should unreasonable conditions be imposed by universities or student unions on external speakers, such as a requirement to submit their speeches in advance, if they give an assurance these will be lawful.

Migration Advisory Committee report on EEA and non EEA workers

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its interim update on the impact of EEA and non-EEA workers in UK labour market. This is the first MAC inquiry of two – the second one is the one about students, this was more general and about workers across all sectors.

The update sets out a summary of the views expressed by employers and of the regional issues raised. They add that “these themes seem the best way of summarising the views expressed to us but should not be taken to imply that the MAC endorses a sectoral and/or regional approach to post-Brexit migration policy.” The MAC has also published the responses to their call for evidence, broken down by sector.

Report (PDF): EEA-workers in the UK labour market: Interim Update
Call for Evidence: Responses by Sector
Call for Evidence: Education Sector

The report includes the following findings:

The vast majority of employers do not deliberately seek to fill vacancies with migrant workers. They seek the best available candidate.
Employers often reported skill shortages as one reason for employing EEA migrants.
Many EEA workers are in jobs requiring a high level of skill that take years to acquire. But, some of the claims about necessary skill levels seemed exaggerated.
Within occupations, EEA migrants are better educated than their UK-born counterparts.
The MAC view is that, from the economic perspective this does amount to saying that it is sometimes possible to hire a given quality of worker for lower wages if they are an EEA migrant than if they are UK-born.
To the extent that EEA migrants are paid lower wages than the UK-born this may result in lower prices, benefitting UK consumers. Our final report will also consider these possible impacts.
Many responses argued that a more restrictive migration policy would lead to large numbers of unfilled vacancies. The MAC view is that this is unlikely in anything other than the short-term.
The MAC view is that it is important to be clear about what the consequences of restricting migration would be.

Research bodies update

This week is the launch of UKRI – it is worth looking at their objectives.

.The Council for Innovate UK has been announced. The members are:

Sir Harpal Kumar, who will serve as Senior Independent Member through his role as UK Research and Innovation’s Innovation Champion and work closely with the board
Dr Arnab Basu MBE, Chief Executive, Kromek Group plc
Baroness Brown of Cambridge DBE FREng FRS (Julia King)
Professor Juliet Davenport OBE, Chief Executive, Good Energy
Dr John Fingleton, Chief Executive, Fingleton Associates
Priya Guha, Ecosystem General Manager, RocketSpace UK
Dr Elaine Jones, Vice President, Pfizer Ventures
Professor John Latham, Vice-Chancellor of Coventry University
Sir William Sargent, Chief Executive, Framestore
Stephen Welton, Chief Executive, Business Growth Fund

The REF panels have also been announced – follow this link to see the lists.

Parliamentary Questions

Q Andrew Percy MP

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether his Department is taking steps to ensure that prospective undergraduates understand the potential effect of their choice of course on their prospects post-graduation.

A Sam Gyimah MP The department is working to make destinations and outcomes data more accessible to prospective students, to help them compare opportunities and make informed choices about where and what to study.
On the 12 March 2018, I announced an Open Data Competition. It will use government data on higher education providers so that tech companies and coders can create websites to help prospective students decide where to apply. This competition will build on the government’s Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset, which gives information on employment and salaries after graduation.
Alongside this, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has requested that the Office for Students include LEO data on the Unistats website as soon as possible.

Q Angela Rayner MP To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate his Department has made of the value of plan 1 student loans that will not be repaid.

A: Sam Gyimah MP: It is estimated that the value of the plan 1 student loan book that will not be repaid was £13.1 billion as at 31 March 2017, when future repayments are valued in present terms. The face value of the plan 1 student loan book was £42.8 billion at this time. This information is in the public domain and published on page 155 of the Department for Education’s 2016-17 Annual Report and Accounts which can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfe-consolidated-annual-report-and-accounts-2016-to-2017.

Q Angela Rayner MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the written ministerial statement of 31 October 2017 on government asset sale, HCWS205, what methodology his Department used to decide which loans from the plan 1 loan book would be sold.

A Sam Gyimah MP: The loans sold in December 2017 were a selection of loans from the plan 1 loan book issued by English Local Authorities that entered repayment between 2002 and 2006.
These loans had the longest history of repayments, the longest servicing history and the most accurate data on borrowers’ historic earnings. This information allowed the government to most accurately value these loans for sale.
The government’s objective when issuing loans to students is to allow them to pursue their education regardless of their personal financial situation. Once this objective has been met, however, retaining the loans on the government’s balance sheet serves no policy purpose. These loans could be sold precisely because they have achieved their original policy objective of supporting students to access higher education.
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, a report on the sale arrangements was deposited in the House libraries on 7 December 2017 (deposit reference DEP2017-0778): https://www.parliament.uk/depositedpapers.

Q: Angela Rayner MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the written statement of 6 December 2017 on Government Asset Sake, HCWS317, what assessment he has made of the net fiscal effect of the sale of the student loan book after accounting for reduced income arising from lost repayments.

A: Sam Gyimah MP: The government only sells assets when it can secure value for money for taxpayers from doing so. In assessing the value for money of the sale, the government took into account repayments foregone on the loans sold. In executing the sale, we achieved a price that exceeded the retention value of the loans sold, calculated in line with standard HM Treasury green book methodology.
Selling financial assets, like student loans, where there is no policy reason to retain them, where value for money can be secured and where borrowers are not impacted is sound asset management. The sale ensures government resources are being put to best use and is an important part of our plan to repair public finances.
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, a report on the sale arrangements was deposited in the House libraries on 7 December 2017 (deposit reference DEP2017-0778): https://www.parliament.uk/depositedpapers.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

January 8, 2018

HE policy update for the w/e 5th January 2018

international, policy, Research news jforster

Welcome to the first policy update of 2018! Parliament is in recess until Monday 8^th so there has been less activity this week. Nevertheless, here is your slimline summary of the activity since our last update.

Office for Students

The Office for Students (OfS) officially came into existence this week. The final 6 members of the OfS board were announced

New members:

Simon Levine is the Managing Partner and Co-Global Chief Executive Officer of the global law firm, DLA Piper. A graduate of Cambridge University, he is a Visiting Professor and Lecturer at Imperial College Business School.
Elizabeth Fagan is Senior Vice President, Managing Director of Boots.
Katja Hall is a partner at Chairman Mentors International, previously she was Group Head of External Affairs and Sustainability at HSBC where she was responsible for external communications, stakeholder engagement, social responsibility and community investment.
Monisha Shah is Chair of Rose Bruford College of Theatre and Performance. She is also a serving Trustee of ArtFund, an independent fundraising charity for art. In December 2015, Monisha was invited by the Prime Minister to join the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Ruth Carlson is a current student at Surrey University, where she is a Student Ambassador for civil engineering. She has experience as a course representative, as a former president of the Surrey University Women’s Football Team and has also worked in other institutional and regional representative forums.
Toby Young is the co-founder of the West London Free School, and now serves as the director the New Schools Network. His teaching experience includes working as a teaching fellow at Harvard and a teaching assistant at Cambridge. He is a Fulbright Commissioner.

This appointment has been contentious with both students and academics claiming he is unsuitable (BBC News: Toby Young regrets ‘politically incorrect’ comments). In another BBC article: University job backlash because I’m a Tory the DfE are reported to have spoken of the “vital insights Toby’s experience as the founder of a free school will bring to the role”. Furthermore: “This experience will be vital in encouraging new providers and ensuring more universities are working effectively with schools.”

Mr Young has also been criticised for past derogatory comments about working class students. In response to this complaint Toby claims the number of pupil premium children enrolled at the four schools he has established counters this criticism.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said: “If this organisation was to have any credibility it needed a robust board looking out for students’ interests. Instead we have this announcement sneaked out at New Year with Tory cheerleader Toby Young dressed up as the voice of teachers and no actual representation from staff or students.” [Note – there is student representation as Ruth Carlson has been appointed to the OfS board – see above.]

Twitter has been awash with complaints, including suggestions he is deleting thousands of inappropriate past tweets. LBC have critiqued the DfE for failing to provide a rationale response justifying why the inappropriate tweets were not considered a deterrent factor in Toby’s appointment.

Conservative Minister Margot James has also criticised the choice: “Toby Young is worthy of his appointment but it is a mistake for him to belittle sexist comments by labelling them ‘politically incorrect’, a term frequently used to dismiss unacceptable comments about, and behaviour towards, women and minorities.”

Toby has strong links with the Conservative party who are currently reported as experiencing a generation gap crisis due to the low number of young members they are attracting. Strong student opposition to Toby’s appointment may further damage the Conservatives’ reputation with younger voters further.

Click the link to read Toby Young’s statement: why I am qualified to be on board of new universities regulator

Previously announced members:

Sir Michael Barber (Chair)
Martin Coleman (Deputy Chair)
Nicola Dandridge (CEO)
Chris Millward (DfAP)
Gurpreet Dehal
Kate Lander
Prof Carl Lygo
David Palfreyman
Prof Steve West.

League Tables

League tables often attract a collective groan within HE institutions because positioning is important but the criteria and methodologies change making interpretation difficult. On Thursday the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and the Higher Education Strategic Planners Association published A Guide to UK League Tables in HE. The report is a simple introduction for those who’d like to understand the limitations of league tables without getting bogged down in the complex terms and data.

Sally Turnball (author) said: League tables are both interesting and useful. But, as is the case in much of today’s knowledge society, we need to be able to navigate and understand this information effectively, so that it aids – rather than drives – what we do.

In summary, some difficulties are:

Data is old – doesn’t present an accurate picture of a provider as it is today. This is exacerbated as league tables are used by pupils to make choices when they are 12-18 months away from enrolling – meaning by enrolment the institution was selected based on its performance 4 years ago.
While the league tables collect and compare consistent data across institutions the HE sector is diverse so the data used often focuses on a narrow student population. Making it virtually meaningless for mature, part-time and postgraduate applicants.
League tables use NSS data as a proxy to represent teaching quality – its an easily accessible data source but being opinion based its usefulness is limited because it’s not a robust or impartial evaluation of quality.
Often providers cluster around the same scores so the rankers have to resort to decimal place levels to differentiate and allocate position on the league table – even though the differences are infinitesimal. Furthermore, changing the weighting of some criteria and excluding extreme scores – which is statistically sensible – results in exaggerated differences between provider scores and their resultant ranking position.
Many of the valuable things done by institutions cannot be easily measured and are not incorporated into the rankings.
Page 17 lists the metrics used to calculate the league tables, and pages 18 to 35 set out the problems associated with each metric in simple language.

The report concludes: League tables are not created for higher education providers to use as core management information. They are not based on thorough in-depth analyses of the datasets and they do not take many of the known contextual factors into account – for example, graduate employment data are not adjusted for local employment markets, despite differences in the profile of employment opportunities across the country. Yet league tables bring together a range of different sources of information about higher education providers to give a general overview of factors that prospective students might find useful when considering where to study. They provide information at both subject and institutional levels and they generate media coverage, putting areas of supposedly stronger and weaker provision in the spotlight. League tables are here to stay, and it would be ill-advised to ignore them. However, using them as the sole basis for policymaking or strategic decision-making is equally ill-advised.

Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI said: Universities are judged by their position in the league tables. Rankings determine reputation, prestige and student numbers. That is why university governing bodies hold their vice-chancellors to account for their league table positions. But users of the league tables tend to know little about how the rankings are put together. In other words, they do not know, precisely, what it is they are holding people to account for. The main league tables are not going to disappear any time soon because they provide comparative information and people find them useful. But they are easily and often misunderstood. My hope is that everyone who holds our universities to account will set themselves a new year’s resolution to look under the bonnet of the league tables before using them.

Free Speech

Jo Johnson spoke about free speech at the Jewish Limmud Festival on 26 December: “Our universities…should be places that open minds not close them, where ideas can be freely challenged and prejudices exposed. But in universities in America and increasingly in the United Kingdom, there are countervailing forces of censorship, where groups have sought to stifle those who do not agree with them in every way under the banner of “safe spaces” or “no-platforming”. However well-intentioned, the proliferation of such safe spaces, the rise of no-platforming, the removal of ‘offensive’ books from libraries and the drawing up of ever more extensive lists of banned “trigger” words are undermining the principle of free speech in our universities. Shield young people from controversial opinions, views that challenge their most profoundly held beliefs or simply make them uncomfortable, and you are on the slippery slope that ends up with a society less able to make scientific breakthroughs, to be innovative and to resist injustice.”

Of the OfS Johnson stated: “Promoting freedom of speech within the law will be at the heart of its [OfS’] approach to the regulation of our higher education system. The OfS will go further than its predecessor in promoting freedom of speech. …as a condition of registration with the new regulator, we are proposing that all universities benefitting from public money must demonstrate a clear commitment to free speech in their governance documents. I am pleased to say that this freedom is as important to the OfS’s new chairman, Sir Michael Barber, as it is to me. While he hoped the OfS never has to intervene in a university in relation to freedom of speech, he undertook that, if it does, it will be to widen it rather than restrict it. I’m confident freedom of speech in our universities has a bright future under the OfS. But we will continue to watch the system carefully.”

Finally Johnson reiterated: “And I want to be clear about this: attempts to silence opinions that one disagrees with have no place in the English university system. Academics and students alike must not allow a culture to take hold where silence is preferable to a dissenting voice. Universities cannot afford to be complacent about complying either with their duties to protect freedom of speech, or anything less than vigilant against hate speech (or other unlawful activity) masquerading as the exercise of the right to freedom of speech.”

On the following day Angela Rayner (Labour, Shadow Secretary of State for Education) said: “It is a false choice to suggest that universities are either places of free enquiry or places of safety. They can be both. Denying access to groups and individuals who incite violence and hatred is a perfectly sensible step to keep students safe from harm. The NUS have a ‘no-platform’ policy for a handful of racist, anti-Semitic and extremist organisations, some of which the Government itself has also banned. If Jo Johnson is opposed to that policy, he needs to be clear which of those groups he actually wants on campus.”

International Students

Leader of the Lib Dems, Vince Cable, is optimistic the PM will remove international students from the official immigration figures. He said: “…the Home Office has wildly exaggerated the number of those who overstay. This absurd policy has fuelled concerns over immigration numbers and done serious damage to our universities. We should be encouraging more students to come and spend their money in the UK, instead of needlessly hampering one of Britain’s most successful export industries.”

Theresa May has been vehement in continuing to count students within the net migration targets. Without fresh evidence it seemed unlikely the PM would change her stance, however, Politics Home has speculated May is likely to back down to avoid a vote defeat during the forthcoming Immigration Bill.

Meanwhile, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) continue their work to assess the social and economic impacts of international students studying within the UK. BU are currently preparing their response to the MAC call for evidence. Contact us at Policy if you’d like to contribute this this response.

Institutes of Technology fund

In December the Government announced a £170 million fund to establish Institutes of Technology delivering high level technical skills that meet employer needs. The Institutes of Technology will combine business, education and training providers within technical (particularly STEM) subjects to deliver the specific provision needed by local, regional and national employers. It forms part of the Government’s Industrial Strategy that will directly target skills gaps through upskilling existing and new entrants to the workforce. The first Institutes of Technology are expected to open in 2019.

Justine Greening said: “Institutes of technology will play a vital role driving our skills revolution with business and unlocking the potential of our country’s young people through better technical education. By bridging the country’s skills gaps, these new institutions will drive growth and widen opportunity.” “This Government continues to invest in developing our homegrown talent so British business has the skills it needs and so that young people can get the opportunities they want.”

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 year that was: HEPI review the major happenings of 2017 – a handy and brief refresh if you tuned out during the relentless sector debate and change last year. And Times Higher lists their 25 most popular articles of 2017 – the top spot went to the TEF results.

Research policy news: read our round up of the research news this week. And David Sweeney reflects on the change in mindset required to understand the approach to submissions in REF 2021.

Access to non-religious pastoral carers: Humanists UK published the results of their survey calling for non-religious support workers to be appointed to university chaplaincy and pastoral support teams. The survey sampling is limited in that it was only drawn from their student membership.

Industrial Strategy: The House of Lords has produced a library briefing on the Industrial Strategy and the UK Economy

Artificial Intelligence & Automation: The House of Commons Library has produced a briefing paper on Artificial Intelligence and Automation in the UK. Increasing digital skills, filling employment gaps, and funding for AI research are key issues for Government who seek to grow the AI industry. A sector deal for AI was announced in the Autumn 2017 Budget. This briefing paper considers the impact of AI and automation on the UK workforce, including how working lives may change. There are a broad range of predictions caveated by uncertainties such as the rate of technological development, rate of deployment, and the geographical variations. The paper concludes that the impact is likely to be significant and the Bank of England predicts that 15 million jobs will be influenced by automation over the next 20 years. You may also find the THE article from May 2017 Which countries and universities are leading on AI research interesting.

New(s) Year Resolutions?

Are your colleagues’ new year’s resolutions woefully inadequate? Supplement their diet and exercise plans by encouraging them to subscribe to the exceedingly palatable weekly policy update – simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk to be added to the list!

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

66724 65070

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

March 20, 2017

HE policy update w/e17th March 2017

EU, policy, Research assessment, Research news, Research Training, RKE development framework jforster

Brexit:

Research Professional illustrates the Brexit threats to research positioning and job losses by highlighting the difficulties facing an EU astronomy consortium. The consortium represents seven countries, led by the UK, but will move headquarters to an EU member state from January 2021. The move means the UK will lose the project’s leadership and the 12 UK universities may not continue post-Brexit. Research Professional notes that while access to research infrastructures is available to non-EU states, the EU membership plays a significant role in decisions on where to locate facilities. Gerry Gilmore (the consortium leader, from University of Cambridge) stated:
“The UK will lose substantial scientific leadership and influence in the EU. There is going to be bad news all around. I don’t think people realise how many new jobs and new opportunities have just been destroyed.”
The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill has survived the parliamentary process and received Royal Assent on 16^th March (BBC). This bill allows the Prime Minister to notify the EU of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU. The Lords made two amendments to the Bill – one relating to Parliament having a “meaningful vote” on the final arrangements and one requiring a guarantee for EU citizens to remain in the UK. The bill was approved by the House of Commons, which rejected the Lords bill and then went back to the Lords under what is called “ping-pong”. The Lords voted again on both issues but the House of Lords majority backed down and the bill was passed. The PM is expected to trigger article 50 later in March.
2018/19 EU student and staff guarantees: During oral questions in the Lords Baroness Royall of Blaisdon pressed the government spokesperson (Viscount Younger of Leckie) when announcements would be made regarding fees and access to loans for 2018/19 EU student starters. Leckie gave a side stepping response: “The noble Baroness makes the important point that there are uncertainties arising from Brexit, but the Government have moved rapidly to give assurances to this sector… “We have also provided similar assurances that EU nationals starting courses in 2016-17 and 2017-18 remain eligible for Research Council postgraduate support. As I have said, we will ensure that students starting in 2018-19 have the information well in advance”

International students:

The debate over the inclusion of international students in the long-term migrant numbers continues. Even senior ministers are rebelling – Boris Johnson, Phillip Hammond and Liam Fox have all protested, although Jo Johnson continues to toe the party line backing the PM’s stance to include international students within the original immigration statistics. Liam Fox spoke out this week about the value of overseas campuses.
On Monday the House of Lords defeated the government on the Higher Education and Research Bill (HERB), approving an amendment to prevent international students being counted as long-term migrants. The government have responded that “the proposed amendment would create a situation where we were potentially unable to apply basic visa checks, or impose conditions on a student visa. It would also mean that fresh primary legislation were needed just to make minor, technical changes to immigration rules.” (Wonkhe)
HERB is scheduled to have its third reading in the Lords on 22 March 2017 and then will go back to the Commons. The PM’s stance on international students seems rock solid (Financial Times) and Theresa May is not expected to waiver – the parliamentary ping pong regarding international students will surely make headlines over the coming weeks.
Meanwhile there are worries about student recruitment. Politics Home quotes an Office for National Statistics release stating the number of students coming to the UK dropped by 41,000 in 2016.

Higher Education and Research Bill:

The HE and Research Bill has finished its third reading in the House of Lords (although it will have to go back if the House of Commons makes any changes, as seems likely). The report stage in the Lords is on 22nd March – usually only technical or minor amendments are made at this stage. The current version of the bill as amended by the Lords is here.
The surprise amendment on international students is referred to above.
The government won the final vote on the proposed amendment that would have required UKRI and OfS to jointly revoke research degree awarding powers, the amendment was defeated. Wonkhe report that Lord Mackay made an impassioned speech noting that it was “extraordinary” that the OfS was not required to have any expertise or experience regarding research, and yet had the unilateral power to revoke research degree awarding powers, but to no avail. The Bill continues to say that research degree-awarding powers should be made by the OfS with advice from UKRI.

With long debates, late nights and a large number of amendments, it is fair to say that HERB has received an excellent level of scrutiny within the Lords. Lord Prior of Brampton notes: “Everyone who has contributed [to the Bill debates] can take some credit for having improved it considerably. For me, it is a good example of the value this House can bring to a Bill of this kind.”

HEFCE 2017/18 funding to universities: The grant letter details the overall funding to the sector for 2017/18. It includes doubled funding for the National Collaborative Outreach Programme (£60m pa), an additional £17m increase for mainstream quality-related research, a reduction of £40m for teaching (including a reduction in PGT FTE funding rate), maintaining the disabled students premium at the 2016/17 level, the inclusion of nursing, midwifery and allied health professions (£32m), cuts to the student premium budget for full time UG of £20m (part time UG funding remains static). Institutions will receive individual allocations in April although with a publication embargo in force until May. Capital allocations will be announced in March.

Student Loans Sale: A parliamentary question tabled by Steve McCabe requested publication of the ‘in-depth market testing exercise associated with the same of the student loan book. Jo Johnson has responded: “The Government ran a market testing process with a cross-section of potential investors in the student loan book from the end of September into November 2016. This sought feedback on potential sale structures and key features of the transaction and informed the design of the sale. This was a commercial rather than a public process and was conducted under non-disclosure agreements. We do not intend to publish a report of the details. Protecting the details of the conclusions of market testing will help the ongoing sale process achieve value for money for taxpayers.”

Student Fees: On Thursday 16^th the Petitions Committee released its latest decisions regarding recent petitions with a high number of signatures. This included a petition to government to change the University fees from £9250 back to the £3000 fee. The Committee agreed to wait for the Higher Education and Research Bill to complete its passage through Parliament before deciding whether to schedule a debate – effectively this was a dismissal of the petition.

Research Excellence Framework The responses to the REF2021 consultation were due in by midday on 17^th March.

There has been a lot of focus on one area, the definition of “research active staff” for the returns – there are some interesting views:
HEFCE blog (and BU’s reply) – HEFCE are proposing a negotiated definition for each university, BU is proposing all staff should be returned, including teaching only
Royal Society blog on Research Professional – they say staff shouldn’t be returned at all, it should be institutional
The PVC (Research and Enterprise) from Hertfordshire says on Times Higher Education that the solution is flawed and that clarity is needed

There are many other issues in the REF consultation, including the portability of outputs, which will have important consequences for institutions and their staff. The HEFCE REF consultation on the implementation of the REF 2021 closed on 17 March 2017. You can read BU’s response here.

January 9, 2017

HEFCE consultation on REF2021 – what you need to know

Research assessment Julie Northam

It hardly feels like the dust has settled on the results from the last Research Excellence Framework, yet here we are again – almost half way through another research assessment cycle with HEFCE proposing potential changes to the next exercise. It feels like I’ve been transported back to 2009 when HEFCE were running bibliometrics and impact pilots to inform REF2014. I have to remind myself that it is in fact 2017 and things have moved on. We are now talking about REF2021 (how time flies!) and HEFCE have launched a consultation on how this exercise might work. Whilst citations and impact are still on the agenda for discussion, they are joined by other substantial changes that, if adopted, will transform the shape and potentially outcome of the next exercise.

The proposed changes have been informed by Lord Stern’s independent review of the REF which was published last July. This made 12 recommendations on how the next REF could be strengthened, whilst reducing the bureaucracy and cost of running the exercise (read Jane Forster’s overview of the recommendations – Stern review of the REF: what next?). These recommendations have now been reviewed by the four UK HE funding bodies and, prior to Christmas, HEFCE published proposals to amend the REF to incorporate the recommendations. HEFCE’s proposals are now open for consultation with the sector.

The document itself is fairly lengthy and dense, and over 40 questions are put forward for consideration. The key proposals are:

All research-active staff to be submitted
The decoupling of staff from outputs
Outputs will no longer be portable across institutions
All outputs must be available in open access form (with some exceptions)
Impact will have a broader definition
Institutional environment narratives and case studies to be submitted

There are some excellent summaries available online, many of which provide thoughts on what the proposals could mean in practice. The following summaries are particularly informative and worth reading: HEFCE launches consultation on REF2021, Soft Stern or Hard Stern and Implementing REF2021.

BU will be submitting an institutional response to the consultation before the deadline of 17^th March. As these are significant proposals, all staff will have the opportunity to contribute to the response. As a number of the key questions would benefit from a discipline-level response, UoA teams (UoA leaders, impact champions and output champions) are calling meetings within Faculties to hold discussions related to their own UoA. These will take place over the next month or so. Contact a member of your UoA team for further information. Staff not based in Faculties are also invited to comment on the proposals and can do so via their Director/Head of Professional Service.

The are various REF-focused conferences and events taking place over the next few months, organised by HEFCE, ARMA, etc. Interesting news from these will be posted to the Research Blog. HEFCE are anticipating significant sector-wide engagement with the proposals and have committed to reading all feedback received. It is anticipated that, following the consultation, the initial decisions regarding the shape of REF2021 will be published in summer 2017.

BU Research Blog

Tagged / ref2021

Nominate your outputs now for the BU REF Mock exercise 2020

REF2021: the importance of Open Access compliance

RKEO alternative 12 days ‘to’ Christmas – 11 REFs a piping

New Impact Officers

HE policy update for the w/e 29th March 2018

Industrial Strategy

New Quality Code published

HE Review

Freedom of speech

Migration Advisory Committee report on EEA and non EEA workers

Research bodies update

Parliamentary Questions

Subscribe!

HE policy update for the w/e 5th January 2018

Office for Students

League Tables

Free Speech

International Students

Institutes of Technology fund

Consultations

Other news

New(s) Year Resolutions?

HE policy update w/e17th March 2017

HEFCE consultation on REF2021 – what you need to know

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Tagged / ref2021

Parliamentary News

Staff changes

Brexit & Immigration

Challenges for the sector

Knowledge Exchange

Research

Regional Inconsistencies in the Student Experience

Social Mobility

Graduate Employment

NUS Student Safety Net call

Inquiries and Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Industrial Strategy

New Quality Code published

HE Review

Freedom of speech

Migration Advisory Committee report on EEA and non EEA workers

Research bodies update

Parliamentary Questions

Subscribe!

Office for Students

League Tables

Free Speech

International Students

Institutes of Technology fund

Consultations

Other news

New(s) Year Resolutions?

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics