Tagged / teaching excellence framework

May 13, 2024

HE policy update No 10: 13th May 2024

humanities, international, policy jforster

Research and knowledge exchange

The National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) looked at the ONS data on R&D spending and drew some stark conclusions

According to ONS data released today the UK experienced a 3.4% increase in real terms in government R&D spending in 2022, from £14.98 billion to £15.49 billion. This growth level, however, is significantly less than other OECD nations.
Dr Joe Marshall, Chief Executive of the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) said: “Whilst government spending in R&D has grown from £14.98 billion in 2021 to £15.49 billion in 2022, some 3.4% growth in real terms, we still lag behind the OECD average of a 6% investment growth. This should ring alarm bells. The UK’s global R&D competitiveness will slip if we do not keep up with the growth seen around the world.”
Marshall concluded: “This comes against a backdrop of worrying trends in private investment in research and development. Around the world, private R&D investment rose by an average of 5% in real terms in 2022 across the OECD, with even higher growth in countries such as the US, Japan and South Korea. However, private R&D investment in the UK actually declined by 0.4%. We therefore face an uphill battle to fully capitalise on our R&D potential. By fostering an environment conducive to innovation and collaboration, the UK can position itself as a leader in R&D, driving economic prosperity and societal advancement.”

Education

Admissions

UCAS has announced some changes to the information provided on their system to support students with making their choices. You will recall that UUK issued a Fair Admissions Code a while ago which recommended, among other things, that actual (rather than advertised) entry grades should be published to students. The new UCAS data will include historic entry grades and offer rates.

Teaching Excellence Framework: the post mortem continues

The QAA have analysed the TEF results in what might be read as a guide to getting gold next time.

Degree apprenticeships

The House of Commons Library has published a research briefing: these are always interesting as they provide a survey of the latest data.

Funding: The existing apprenticeship funding system for England has been in place since May 2017. Apprenticeships are generally funded in the following way.

Each apprenticeship standard is associated with a funding band. The upper limit of this band represents the maximum the Government will contribute towards training and assessment costs of the apprenticeship.
Employers and training providers negotiate a price for training and assessment.
Apprenticeship levy funds will be used to pay for the training and assessment for employers paying the levy (up to the upper limit of the funding band).
Employers who do not pay the levy will pay 5% of the cost of training and assessment with the government contributing the remaining 95% (up to the upper limit of the funding band). The Government will fund all of the apprenticeship training costs, up to the funding band maximum, for apprentices who are aged between 16 and 21 years old when they start their apprenticeship.
Training and assessment costs above the upper limit of the funding band will be paid for separately by the employer. Levy paying employers will not be able to use levy funds.
Additional payments may be paid to the employer and training provider depending on the characteristics of the apprentice and the type of apprenticeship.

Apprentices are paid at least the minimum wage for their work and study/training time. This rate depends on the apprentice’s age and whether or not they have completed the first year of their apprenticeship.

Note this bit on page 32 of the briefing:

In 2022, a literature review of all the available evidence of the impact of degree apprenticeships on social mobility and productivity was published and said, “when it comes to social mobility, the results are mixed”. However, it argued that, overall, degree apprenticeships were having “a notable positive impact on social mobility.”60 It suggested reports that would challenge this conclusion were published during the infancy of the degree apprenticeship programme, when employers focussed on upskilling their current workforce, rather than recruiting direct school leavers.
Nevertheless, it also said achieving equity in access to degree apprenticeships in some sectors may remain a challenge for a while, and so recommended the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), with the support of sector organisations, should formulate policies and guidelines for recruitment from under-represented backgrounds, and encourage stronger collaboration between employers and training providers in recruitment and enrolment.

Degree apprenticeships are not really reaching the students from the most deprived backgrounds nor those from non-white ethnic groups. There are slightly more males doing them than HE. Unsurprisingly (given the common perception that they are often taken up by existing employees) the age profile is older.

And what are they studying? Mostly business, administration and law, or health, public services and care.

Office for Students key performance metrics

Did you know that the Office for Students has key performance metrics and that they are not all about how the OfS is doing in meeting its own internally set deadlines or such like. In fact they relate mostly to how the sector is doing in meeting the requirements imposed under the licence regime.

So, for example, key performance measure 1 is the extent of poor student outcomes across the sector: where poor is below the B3 threshold.

Something I haven’t talked about for a while is grade inflation. A hot topic a while ago although things have gone rather quiet, and probably something that will come back up again sooner rather than later. the last analysis was published in May 2022. You’ll remember its interesting use of the term “unexplained”: “The term ‘unexplained’ in this context means that changes in attainment over the time period cannot be statistically accounted for by changes in the characteristics of the graduating cohort, in terms of the explanatory variables included in the statistical modelling. It is not possible to deduce from this analysis what factors not included in the modelling (such as improvements in teaching quality or more diligent students) could also be driving the observed changes in degree attainment.”

As the OfS website says “KPM 3 shows that the proportion of students awarded first class degrees in 2021-22 was 32.5 per cent. This proportion had increased every year between 2010-11 and 2020-21, but in 2021-22 it decreased for the first time from a high of 37.0 per cent in 2020-21.”

In that context it is interesting to look at KPM 7: “the proportions of graduates within broad ethnic groups who achieve first class degrees and compares these to the proportion of all students receiving a first class degree”

KPM 5 is about disadvantaged groups accessing HE. The usual data that is discussed in this context uses percentages and is confusing when overall numbers change. This view gives the absolute numbers and it is sad to see how stable the numbers are for the economically precarious and significantly disadvantaged groups and both these numbers went down in 21-22. Those were pandemic years: maybe when this data is updated for 22-23 there will have been an improvement.

Student experience, wellbeing and finances

Cost of living

HEPI have a new report on cost of living, having calculated a minimum income standard for students and then looking at the implications.

Key findings:

Excluding rent, students need £244 a week to have a minimum acceptable standard of living. Including rent, students need £366 a week.
Adjusting in line with rent prices in different parts of the UK, it is estimated that students need £18,632 a year outside London and £21,774 a year in London to reach MIS.
For a student studying outside London, the maximum government maintenance support, provided to support students to meet their living costs, falls short by £8,405 for English students, £6,482 for Welsh students, £7,232 for Scottish students and £10,496 for Northern Irish students.
For those studying outside of London, the maintenance support in England covers just 55% of the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) developed here. The Welsh maintenance support covers 65%, Scottish support covers 61% and Northern Irish support covers just 44% of MIS.
For students studying in London, the gap is £8,426 if a student is from England, with the loan covering 61% of students’ costs. The gap is £6,604 if they are from Wales (support covers 70% of costs), £10,374 if they are from Scotland (support covers 52%) and £10,922 if they are from Northern Ireland, where support covers just 50% of students’ living costs.
Even a student doing 10 hours a week of paid employment for the whole year and in receipt of the maximum maintenance support will not have enough money to reach MIS. English students must work nearly 19 hours a week at minimum wage, Welsh students more than 14 hours, Scottish students 16 hours and Northern Irish students 23 hours to reach MIS. By contrast, many universities recommend students should work no more than 15 hours during term-time.
The parents of an English student who receives the minimum maintenance support and does no paid employment would have to contribute £13,865 a year for the student to reach MIS. For a Welsh student, the contribution is £6,482; for a Scottish student, it is £10,232; and for a Northern Irish student, it is £13,548.
Additionally, under the current system, parents in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are expected to contribute to their children’s living costs even if they do not themselves have enough money for a minimum acceptable standard of living.

We recommend that:

The maximum level of government support should be increased in all four UK nations to help students reach MIS.
However, government maintenance support should not cover all students’ expected costs. Instead, they might reasonably be expected to do some part-time work (though not so much it interferes with their studies). The suggestion in the report is around 10 hours per week, all year, which is roughly equivalent to working full-time over the summer holiday. Adjustments should be made for students who cannot work, due to high workloads, they have a disability that prevents them from working or other reasons.
Parents should not be expected to contribute to their children’s living costs unless they have a minimum acceptable standard of living. This means the household income threshold at which parents are expected to start paying should be increased. Currently this stands at £25,000 in England, £21,000 in Scotland and £19,203 in Northern Ireland (parents are never expected to contribute in Wales).

Harassment and sexual misconduct consultation

As I was talking about OfS KPIs, I checked the date of the consultation on regulating harassment and sexual misconduct. It closed on 4^th May 2023, so over a year ago. But is it due soon? It may be, as hinted in the next segment.

Protests and free speech

All universities have received a letter in the context of the current student protests asking them to be very careful about protecting students from harassment. Some university leaders were also called to Downing Street to be told to sort out their own campus protests: the same has been happening in the US. This is a very difficult area, with new freedom of speech guidance under consultation. It’s not clear who was called in: “some of the country’s leading universities,” apparently.

There’s also more money to support the University Jewish Chaplaincy Service.

This story from Wonkhe, suggests the consultation response on harassment and sexual misconduct may be out soon: The Office for Students’ powers to prevent harassment will be used to levy sanctions on universities that allow antisemitic reports on campus, according to reports in The Times. A government source has indicated that conditions of registration requiring universities to have robust policies to prevent student harassment will explicitly include Jewish students (in the light of recent protests), and would allow the OfS to investigate claims of antisemitism at individual universities.

NSS changes

The OfS are consulting on changes to the NSS, although really they are consulting on why they shouldn’t make any changes! the consultation is tantalising headed “theme measures, benchmarking and response thresholds,” but questions 2 and 3 are “tell us if you object to our decision not to change benchmarking and response thresholds”. And question 1? Drumroll….it requests comments on merging the current academic support and organisation and management questions into one theme. The themes are not named in this proposal. As a reminder, these sets of questions were slimmed down in last year’s NSS with two being dropped from academic support and the timetabling question being dropped from organisation and management, and no new questions added, so you can see why a tidy mind would want to merge these 4 questions into a single set. And the reason it matters is that last year there were no comparative data sets published because the questions had changed: but this year they will be able to show trends from last year, so the categories (listed as experimental last year) need to be confirmed. ICYMI, the NSS results for this year will be out on 10^th July.

International

Security risks

There was a flurry in the news (Foreign states targeting UK universities, MI5 warns – BBC News) a couple of weeks ago about VCs (from the Russell Group” beng called to Downing Street to discuss threats from foreign states. It follows this in mid-April from the FT

UK university vice-chancellors will be summoned for a briefing from the intelligence agencies on hostile states targeting British academia, as the government proposes a crackdown on security risks facing the sector.
Oliver Dowden, deputy prime minister, on Thursday said the government would examine new curbs to protect sensitive technology developed in UK universities from being transferred to overseas competitors such as China.
Ministers will also consider measures to prevent British institutions becoming too dependent on foreign investment, following a Whitehall review into security threats to UK academia.

There is existing guidance from UUK on sensitive research material.

Post-study work visa

The Migration Advisory Committee is due to provide its rather rapid review of the post-study work visa on 14^th May, which is expected to result in further restrictions ahead of a general election. I will do a specific summary of that when it is published.

In that context, the Centre for Policy Studies has published a report “Taking Back Control” written by former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick MP, former minister Neil O’Brien MP, and CPS Research Director Karl Williams. Most of it is not about HE, but the 36 recommendations, which can apparently be mostly implemented before the election, include:

We should introduce an overall cap on sponsored study routes
We should abolish the Graduate route outright. Foreign students who want to stay in the UK should need to find graduate-level jobs that meet the salary threshold within a six-month grace period at the end of their studies. The MAC is conducting a review into the Graduate route – which it recommended against in the first place – but we should act immediately, ahead of the September 2024 and January 2025 start dates for university courses.
We should make universities accountable for their international students: where there is evidence of sustained abuse (such as very high dropout rates, low attendance and a drop in academic standards) they should be struck off the list of licensed study visa sponsors. We should focus initially on reviewing the 18 satellite campuses of non-London universities in London, which are geared towards international students on Masters courses of dubious quality.
We should substantially revise the International Education Strategy (IES), ending the arbitrary 600,000 a year target for the number of international students. The IES instead needs to focus on quality over quantity, as per the grammar school approach to immigration. This will also move the Education and Business Departments away from constantly calling for more migration while resisting attempts at selectivity and control.
We need a greater diversity of higher education provision – in particular, some local universities, such as the 18 provincial universities with London campuses, should reorient towards educating and training the local or regional population, rather than trying to educate the rest of the world. Reducing the number of international students on poor quality courses might entail some pain for the sector – but we should not shy away from this.

If all this negativity is getting you down, then there is a blog from David Willets on Conservative Home to cheer you up.

…of those who came on a study visa 2008-2012 only 5 per cent were granted settlement within the subsequent ten years.
The current net “migration” figures are heavily influenced by Covid distortions. Not many overseas students came during Covid. After Covid, there was a surge in overseas students as it included some of the backlog that had built up – rising to an exceptional net “migration” by students of 250,000 or more. This net figure is so high because there has not yet been a balancing flow of departures by the students who surged in post-Covid. The ONS estimate that when we return to the usual high levels of so-called “emigration” by students then that “may lead to a negative net migration estimate.” The next Government is very likely to benefit from this reversal of the Covid distortion. It is not a reason for further tightening now.
To make these assessments of net migration more real and robust we should institute a proper system of counting people entering and leaving the country. We would know who came and who left the country. Instead, the figures are based on a survey by officials with a clipboard standing at a few airports and ports and asking a few people as they leave what they have been doing here. So if someone comes in to study and after that does a year’s work and gets questioned when they leave and says they’ve been working then the survey does not show that a student has left but a worker has left…
… There is a competitive market for overseas students in which English-speaking countries dominate because of the attractions of being taught in the global language so we should match the way our competitors treat overseas students. We could follow the US and distinguish between “immigrants” and “temporary migrants.” Australia treats overseas students as “temporary entrants.” In Canada, overseas students are “non-permanent residents” as distinct from “immigrants.” This is not some linguistic trick – it reflects the reality of what voters worry about….
…I accept that overseas students could be used as a potential means of getting controlled skilled migration of the brightest and best by a regime that gave a few of them the right to settle afterward if they achieve exceptional standards. This is roughly the American approach – going to study there has been called “the world’s longest job interview”. But that doesn’t mean we require them all to be the brightest and the best before they even turn up to study. We are selling an education service with some kind of experience of work thrown in to make the proposition more attractive. We then expect overseas students to leave….
…The focus on the brightest and the best also leads to Robert Jenrick’s argument that overseas students are fine if they go to the Russell Group but not to “lesser” universities. This is the deep-seated idea that our prestigious research-intensive universities are “good” universities and the rest are “bad.” It is the influence of the Oxbridge who spent 60 years suppressing the creation of other universities and left us with only one model of what a good university looks like. However universities come in different shapes and sizes. A university can deliver world-class teaching or develop world-class links to business without doing world-class research. The University of Teesside focuses on auto-engineering for the nearby Nissan plant. Universities train our nurses and public health officers. Developing countries want to send some of their students to learn these skills…
…I support sensible measures to tighten up the overseas student regime. That could include much tougher rules on dependents. There could also be tougher regulation of the agents advising overseas students. Above all we need the Home Office to share with universities the granular information they have on overseas students and their visa status so universities know whether they have left the country.

And HEPI, with Kaplan and the NUS have published a report with data from London Economics that once again emphasises the contribution that graduate route visa holders make to the economy.

There were an estimated 66,410 Graduate Route visa holders in the UK in the 2022/23 tax year, split between 56,460 international graduates educated in UK higher education and 9,950 dependants.
For every 10 Graduate Route visa holders, there were under two dependants and this ratio will decline significantly in the future due to the recent tightening of the rules on dependants – this took effect in January 2024 and has already seen a decline of around 80 per …..
The benefits to the UK in higher tax revenues from hosting these Graduate Route visa holders are estimated to have been £588 million in 2022/23 (or £10,410 per main Graduate Route visa holder). These figures entirely exclude the wider and longer term benefits – for example, Graduate Route visa holders may choose to remain in the UK beyond their current visa through the Skilled Worker route.
A comprehensive assessment of the costs to the Exchequer of Graduate Route visa holders in terms of public service provision comes to an estimated £517 million for 2022/23 (or £9,160 per main Graduate Route visa holder).
This means the total net benefit to the UK Exchequer of hosting Graduate Route visa holders in the first full year of the scheme (2022/23) is estimated to be £70 million (or £1,240 per international graduate), disproving claims that the UK loses out financially.
The financial benefits of the Graduate Route visa are on course to increase materially, as the Home Office estimated 173,000 Graduate Route visas would be granted in 2023/24 and slightly more the following year, meaning over 350,000 Graduate Route visa holders could be in the UK by April 2025. This would increase the direct economic benefits by over five times the level in the first full year of the Graduate Route’s operation. Meanwhile, the costs are set to fall significantly as a result of the new rules on dependants.

Wonkhe has an article on how we got to where we are now and a view on job prospects and how they impact choices, and another piece on what might come next.

The first article points out some interesting historical contextual points:

Expansion was supposed to be all about STEM: but in the end most of the growth in international students has been in business and management and social care
The big expansion was supposed to take 10 years but it happened almost overnight

HE sector sustainability and change

Fees for foundation years

Finally, after a very long wait, the detail of the new foundation year fee caps has been published. The document obviously has to define what the new limits apply to, which is in itself interesting.

Provision can be considered a foundation year if it meets all of criteria 1 to 5:

It is an additional year of study (120 credits under the LLE) and is integrated at the start of an undergraduate course in a way which extends the overall length of the course. (A foundation year can be studied full-time, part-time or in an accelerated format, but should always be equivalent to 1-year – (or 120 credits and 1,200 notional learning hours) of full-time study. )
It is integrated with an undergraduate course, such that a student does not typically enrol for the foundation year alone, but for an entire undergraduate course.
It enables students who meet the progression requirements to proceed directly to an integrated undergraduate course.
It is not a standalone course, and does not typically result in a standalone, recognised qualification.
It is designed to equip a student with the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in an integrated undergraduate course. A foundation year may include modules such as study skills, academic research or functional numeracy, alongside modules that are directly related to the content of a student’s chosen undergraduate course.
It may be undertaken at an institution (which may or may not be a registered higher education provider) that is different from the registered HE provider to which the student applied and with which the student has enrolled, through a franchising arrangement.

So, with that cleared up, what is the new limit?

Fees for foundation years that start from 1 August 2025 will be capped at either £5,760 or the maximum fee limit for the 2025/26 academic year (currently £9,250).
The lower fee cap of £5,760 will apply to classroom-based foundation years from 1 August 2025 (subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary amending legislation). The term “classroom-based” refers to subjects currently in OfS Price Group D (at the time of this publication)
Some undergraduate courses are interdisciplinary, including taught content that spans more than one subject area. These courses can be assigned more than one HECoS subject code at the point of registration with the SLC. For these courses, the lower fee cap should be applied to the foundation year if more than 50% of the HECoS subject codes it is registered with are lower-fee subjects (listed in this guidance).

The subjects are listed here. It’s a long and detailed list by HECoS code.

April 22, 2024

HE policy update No 9: 19th April 2024

EU, international, parliament, policy, Research news, UKRI jforster

Catching up after the Easter break, an EDI focus this week, by coincidence, a look at educational gain and the value of apprenticeships, the underwhelming strategic priorities funding announcement and some politics in the form of an EU proposal on freedom of movement, freedom of speech (again) and an odd UKVI proposal on remote delivery for international students.

New Universities minister

As we creep towards the general election which is likely to be in the autumn but must be before the end of January 2025, MPs are thinking about alternative careers. One of those is Robert Halfon, who has stepped down as Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education) having decided not to stand for election again. He was replaced by Luke Hall.

The minister’s responsibilities include:

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

Research and knowledge exchange: UKRI diversity data

UKRI has published diversity data for 2021-22.

Some findings are not very surprising, i.e. that PIs and CoI applicants tend to be older than others: but the awards data shows that awards are more variable when reviewed by age. The disability data shows only small differences, with very small numbers of applicants declaring a disability.

The ethnicity data shows some challenges: For PIs applying to UKRI in 2021 to 2022, White applicants had a significantly higher award rate than both Asian and Black applicants. Asian CI applicants also had a significantly lower award rate than White CI applicants in 2021 to 2022.

As does the gender data, in terms of applicants, but here the award data is more positive: For fellows applying to UKRI in 2021 to 2022, female applicants had a significantly higher award rate than their male counterparts.

The report also looks at intersectional data.

Educational Gain

In the Teaching Excellence Framework the least defined element was in the student outcomes section, relating to educational gain: the Office for Students asked providers to set out what ‘educational gains’ they intend their students to achieve, how they support students to achieve them, and what evidence they have that students are succeeding in achieving these. Educational gains go beyond the measures of continuation, completion and progression also used in the TEF, and extend into areas such as knowledge, skills, personal development and work readiness.

The OfS has published an analysis of the submissions of the 51 providers that received a Gold rating for student outcomes in TEF 2023

The following conclusions are drawn:

Students’ educational gains are core to providers’ missions and stated values. They benefit both individual students and communities more broadly.
Articulations of educational gains can include but are not limited to a set of core graduate skills and attributes, and these remain dynamic in the context of rapid changes in society, technology and the workplace.
- [page 12] It is evident from across the range of submissions that providers with excellent outcomes do articulate an indicative set of expected graduate skills and personal attributes, either in prose or graphical form, but they do not limit their discussion of gains to a particular set of comprehensive attributes. The discussion is typically widened to highlight additional gains made by students as they select from the wide menu of opportunities made available to them by the provider, its departments and its stakeholders. Changing global, national and regional landscapes mean that any characterisation of graduate attributes, or comprehensive gains, must remain dynamic.
Educational gains are broader than learning gains. They include additional benefits, such as building new networks and personal, cultural and careers-related opportunities.
The focus on educational gains can be on those that are comprehensive (gains shared by all); targeted (for example, at a specific demographic group); and personalised (curated for individual students). These are not mutually exclusive.
The knowledge, skills and attributes developed through core academic and professionally orientated programmes of study remain central. These include both disciplinary and interdisciplinary gains.
Curriculum design, pedagogic teaching approaches and resources are all of central importance in maximising students’ learning outcomes.
Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities, including connecting with alumni, employers and civic society, provide a rich menu of opportunities for students to extend their educational gains.
Students and student groups are differently situated with respect to their opportunities to achieve gains, and providers are committed to offering support in a range of areas, including finances and mental health and wellbeing.
Measuring educational gains is complex. Where a clearly defined set of gains is foregrounded, such as a particular set of skills, appropriate metrics can be selected that act as proxies for those gains. However, students’ actual gains will be broader.
- [page 30] Recognising that it is not feasible to undertake a comprehensive measurement of all gains made by students, providers with outstanding student outcomes set out some illustrative measures of, or proxies for, the range of gains made. These include, for example:
  - Assessing students’ learning outcomes on their programmes of study. These outcomes include subject-specific and interdisciplinary knowledge and skills as well as wider transferable skills.
  - The OfS datasets showing students’ continuation, completion and progression rates.
  - Measuring engagement with co-curricular and extra-curricular activities.
  - Student portfolios and career-focused surveys, through which students track their own development.
  - Student surveys, paying particular attention to questions that ask students to assess their own gains.
  - Learner analytics, whereby data from across one or more platforms is used to track student engagement, progress and achievements.
- Measuring the distance travelled by students is highly complex. In some but not all contexts it can be estimated through proxy measures.
- Students can have a proactive role in articulating, curating, tracking and measuring their own educational gains, both within and beyond the curriculum.
- A provider’s stakeholders, including employers and their representatives, can make a meaningful contribution to both articulating and measuring educational gains.

The report includes a set of helpful prompts for discussion,

Disabled Students Allowance and reasonable adjustments

According to Wonkhe, the government is proposing to abolish a central funding allowance that allows disabled students to access specialist nonmedical support. The article explains these very complex arrangements.

And TASO has a report out on transition support and mapping reasonable adjustments. Wonkhe has an article on that too.

Remote delivery for international students

Wonkhe reported that UKVI has shared a draft “remote delivery” policy with higher education providers for consultation.

So, doing the rounds of the sector at the moment is a draft policy, applying to undergraduate and postgraduate taught courses, as follows:
- Remote delivery of between one and 20 per cent of a course is permitted without additional justification by any provider in good standing;
- For remote delivery of between 21 and 40 per cent (“mainly face-to-face”) providers may be permitted (on a course-by-course basis) by application;
- Courses with online provision greater than 40 per cent cannot be offered under the student route.
This immediately prompts a number of questions. First up, what is “remote delivery” for these purposes? Well:
- timetabled delivery of learning where there is no need for the student to attend the premises of the student sponsor or partner institution which would otherwise take place live in-person at the sponsor or partner institution site.

Apprenticeships

The QAA have issued a report: DEGREE APPRENTICESHIP: VOICES FROM THE FRONTLINE Impact, Policy and Good Practice Guide 2024.

This follows the government data on degree apprenticeship outcomes that I referred to in the last update. This is a summary of the findings.

Impact of the Levy: Employers value the apprenticeship levy as a critical driver for investing in skills and training. The apprenticeship levy is considered crucial for programme sustainability (99% agree). Without it, most employers (68%) would discontinue degree apprenticeships.

Productivity and Business Growth

Performance Enhancement: Nearly all employers (99%) state that degree apprenticeships positively influence their organisation’s performance.
Strategic Alignment: An overwhelming majority (95%) believe that degree apprenticeships contribute to achieving their strategic goals, indicating alignment with the overall organisational direction.
Future Growth: An overwhelming 93% of employers state that degree apprenticeships play a pivotal role in fostering the future growth of their organisations.
Talent Attraction: A substantial majority (89%) view degree apprenticeships as an effective means to attract new talent, stating that these programmes tap into a pool of motivated candidates eager to learn and contribute.
Employee Engagement: Nearly all employers (92%) observe that degree apprenticeships lead to more engaged employees.
Staff Retention: A significant majority (89%) credit degree apprenticeships with improving staff retention.
Diversity: Encouragingly, 84% of respondents recognise that degree apprenticeships contribute to diversifying their workforce.

Industry-academia Collaboration

A significant majority (77%) of employers and apprentices (66%) report that their degree apprenticeship assessments are contextualised for their work environments.
44% of employers have someone in their organisation contributing to the teaching sessions of the apprentices, e.g., as guest lecturers in university. This is highly encouraging as it is over and above the statutory/ regulatory requirements.

Quality of Delivery

82% of apprentices report that it is facilitating their career progression.
Overall satisfaction with teaching quality is high (80%).
Over two-thirds of apprentices believe that their course has been helpful in giving them the knowledge, skills, and behaviours they need to excel at their work. Nearly 80% of apprentices state that they are able to bring their academic knowledge and skills into their workplace.
Additional academic support for apprentices is deemed important by almost all (97%) training providers, and 55% of providers offer dedicated additional academic support for apprentices which is over and above the academic support offered to their non-apprenticeship learners.
At least 55% of the academic respondents use different teaching methods for their degree apprentices and never co-teach degree apprentices alongside non-apprentices.
Bespoke course systems for apprenticeships are prevalent (95%), but only 44% of training providers offer dedicated training for line managers to ensure they fully understand the academic requirements of degree apprenticeship programmes.
Sharing good practices across programmes is actively encouraged by 84% of training providers, but external collaboration remains limited (43%).

Areas of Improvement

Only 5% of apprentices received support for degree apprenticeship applications from schools and colleges.
Work-life balance management varies, with 60% of apprentices feeling they manage it well and 69% finding employer support helpful.
Off-the-job needs are not always fully met: 30% of apprentices perceive insufficient off-the-job time and 30% feel employers lack understanding of these requirements.
Training providers identified several key areas for improvement, including a clearer understanding of the course requirements, flexible learning models to accommodate diverse needs, increased programme size to improve cost-effectiveness, and closer alignment of curriculum with industry demands.
More needs to be done to integrate degree apprentices within the university environment – Only 19% of apprentices feel highly integrated within the student body of their training provider with over 22% not feeling integrated at all.

Other Success Factors

The two pivotal success factors identified by apprentices are support from employers and support from training providers.
Work-based academic tutors are the keystone of successful degree apprenticeship delivery. Nearly all training providers (99%) believe it is important for lecturers and work-based academic tutors to work as an integrated team.
A significant majority (92%) of training providers undertake peer-observations for teaching staff in their institution and have found peer-observations useful. This indicates that degree apprenticeships have sharpened the focus on the quality of teaching in universities.
96% of training providers have dedicated apprenticeship departments, while 94% have teams dedicated to supporting teaching practice and pedagogy. However, only 53% have training for delivering degree apprenticeships as a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) opportunity within their institutions.

International: Freedom of movement for young people

This from Research Professional this week:

Could this be the beginning of a Brexit compromise? The European Commission has proposed talks with the British government on freeing up cross-border movement for young people, including lowering tuition fees to domestic levels for EU students studying in the UK. If the talks go ahead—and succeed—they could prove transformative not only for young people across Europe but for universities.
The proposal, put to the bloc’s member states yesterday, is for EU and UK citizens aged between 18 and 30 to be able to stay for “a reasonable timeframe (e.g. four years)” in the destination country for various activities, including studying, training and working. UK nationals would only be able to stay in the member state that admitted them, and the Commission is keen to point out that they would not enjoy the same freedom of movement as EU citizens. But there would be no quota for the number of young people able to take advantage of the proposal.
They would also be treated equally to nationals when it comes to tuition fees for higher education, working conditions and health and safety in the workplace, although an annex to the main document says this should not extend to study and maintenance grants and loans. While the idea is that the UK healthcare surcharge would be waived, details of rights to bring over family members would need to be worked out.
…The Commission said that Brexit had “particularly affected the opportunities for young people to…benefit from youth, cultural, educational, research and training exchange”, adding that it was now seeking “to address in an innovative way the main barriers to mobility”. Interestingly, it says that in 2023, the UK approached “several (but not all)” member states, intending to negotiate bilateral arrangements on youth mobility modelled on the UK’s youth mobility visa scheme. This scheme allows 18-to-35-year-olds from certain countries to live and work in the UK for up to two years if they have at least £2,530 in savings and enough money to pay the health surcharge and the £298 application fee.
This is not something the EU approves of, since it dislikes EU members being treated differently from one another and the move “does not address the main barriers to mobility experienced by young people” since Brexit, such as tuition fees and the inability to take part in internships as part of an EU study programme. An EU-level approach to relations with the UK was one of the key considerations of the 2018 European Council guidelines on future relations between the two.

So far so interesting: note that it is clear that the number of EU students coming to the UK has collapsed since Brexit when UK student loans were no longer available for EU students. It is not clear that this would increase numbers to where they formerly were, as although the tuition fees would be capped at the UK cost, they would not be eligible, under this proposal, for loans. There is a small market for EU students in the UK at international fee levels, the one at UK fee levels may be only slightly larger, with living and accommodation costs on top.

Anyway, it may too politically sensitive this side of a general election, see this in the FT.

But it received a cool response from the opposition UK Labour party, which is leading in the polls ahead of an election expected this year. A Labour official said the party saw youth mobility schemes as “synonymous with freedom of movement”, noting it had ruled out a return to free movement as one of its Brexit red lines. A spokesperson told the Financial Times that “Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme”, but added it would look to improve UK-EU relations in other ways.
…A UK government spokesperson said: “We have successful youth mobility schemes with 13 countries, including Australia and New Zealand, and remain open to agreeing them with our international partners, including EU member states.”

Financial sustainability

The Office for Students (OfS) has received guidance from the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education on the Higher Education Strategic Priorities Grant for the 2024-25 financial year.

It remains my priority that students pursue HE studies that enable them to progress into employment, thereby benefitting them as well as the wider economy. It is important to provide students with different high-quality pathways in HE, notably through higher technical qualifications (HTQs), and degree apprenticeships. These are important alternatives to three-year degrees and provide valuable opportunities to progress up the ladder of opportunity.

Details are set out in Annex 2 (page 7)

High cost courses

The OfS must ensure that the total budget to be allocated to Providers for High-Cost subject: price groups A to C1.1 is increased by at least £18,000,000 (eighteen million pounds) [from last year].
The OfS must allocate funding of at least £16,700,000 (sixteen million seven hundred thousand pounds) to Providers for High-Cost subject funding for price group C1.2. [unchanged from last year]
The OfS must ensure that the postgraduate taught supplement is only allocated in respect of subjects in price group A, B and C1.1, and that the budget to be allocated to Providers for the postgraduate taught supplement funding is reduced by £5,000,000 (five million pounds) [from last year].
The OfS must ensure that the intensive postgraduate provision is only allocated in respect of subjects in price groups A, B and C1.1, and that the budget to be allocated to Providers for the intensive postgraduate provision is reduced by £10,000,000 (ten million pounds) [from last year].
Subject to sufficient bids being received that meet the requirements, the OfS must allocate at least £24,000,000 (twenty-four million pounds) of funding to Providers for Degree Apprenticeships.
The OfS must allocate to Providers no less than £16,000,000 (sixteen million pounds) for Level 4 and 5 funding

Student Access and Success [There’s a Wonkhe article on this aspect of the funding here.]

When determining the amount to be allocated to Providers, the OfS must ensure that the total budget for the Student Premiums is increased by at least £5,000,000 (five million pounds) [from last year].
When determining the amount to be allocated to Providers, the OfS must ensure that the budget for the Premium for student transitions and Mental Health [is no more than last year]
When determining the amount to be allocated to Providers the OfS must ensure that the budget for Uni Connect funding is reduced by £10,000,000 (ten million pounds) [from last year]

Other things

The OfS must ensure that the budget for the additional medical school places for the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan 2024 expansion and for the medical degree apprenticeship pilot initiative is no less than £2,000,000 (two million pounds). [to increase the maximum limits for the home students by 205 medical training places starting in 2024-25 academic year and to fund the 200 medical degree apprenticeship pilot programme that will start in 2024]
The OfS should continue to fund world leading specialist providers up to a limit of £58.1m for FY24/25. The OfS should continue to encourage them, through regulatory expectations in relation to equality of opportunity, to promote the prospects for disadvantaged students at these providers. [Wonkhe point out that this is a £100k increase on last year]

Wonkhe covered the story here.

There’s a £2m uplift on the strategic priorities grant – that’s up 0.14 per cent on last year, and so a huge real terms cut (of £53m, if you take February’s CPI).
In the attached strings, the famous “magic money twig” (what’s supposed to be funding for universities to support students at risk of not completing but gets wheeled out as both a mental health and hardship fund by ministers at every opportunity) is “up” £5m – although given DfE allocated an extra £10m this year, that’s really a £5m cut.
Not a word on the increasingly obvious financial problems that the sector is in, obviously – and seemingly obliviously.

Future funding: The Higher Education Policy Institute published a new report entitled How Should Undergraduate Degrees be Funded?

Abolishing tuition fees would cost the public purse £10.5 billion per cohort and sees only a tiny rise in the percentage of potential students who would be likely to apply to university.
The most popular proposed alternative model with potential students is the graduate levy – where employers pay a small percentage of graduate salaries to fund higher education.
Potential students are already carefully considering the cost implications of living in different university towns when making their application choices.
Half of potential students say they won’t apply to university if fees rise with inflation.

Freedom of speech

There is a new OfS consultation on their Freedom of Speech guidance. The deadline is 26^th May: Consultation on proposed regulatory advice and other matters relating to freedom of speech (officeforstudents.org.uk)

The proposed guidance is designed to help providers and others to navigate their free speech duties although it does not remove the requirement for them to make their own judgements about compliance with those duties. The proposed guidance will also provide transparency about the issues that the OfS may consider when making decisions about free speech matters.

The draft guidance itself is here: Regulatory advice 24 Guidance related to freedom of speech (officeforstudents.org.uk). It gives a whole lot of examples which make very interesting reading. The consultation also covers changes to the regulatory framework to reflect the new law.

The Act will amend section 73 of HERA to empower the OfS:

to recover, from a registered provider, a constituent institution or a relevant students’ union, the OfS’s costs in relation to making a decision that a complaint under the OfS free speech complaints against that body is justified or partly justified. We have recently consulted on our approach to making decisions about free speech complaints.
to recover its costs in relation to the process that results in the imposition of a monetary penalty on a relevant students’ union in relation to a breach of any of its free speech duties. We have recently consulted on our approach to imposing a monetary penalty on relevant students’ unions.

October 2, 2023

HE policy update for the w/e 29th September 23

Doctoral College, EU, HE-BCI, HEIF, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, parliament, PG research, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

It was a funny old week. TEF and KEF results popped out with little fanfare, OfS announced a degree apprenticeship push and are getting on with the sexual misconduct survey (finally). We’ve got to hope the Government keep their receipts safe if they wish to claim the Horizon Europe guarantee refund – through a voucher discount for the next scheme (which we may or may not join). UKRI’s PGR new deal scheme gets a pasting and Minister Halfon sneers at the criticism that the Lords Committee dished out to the OfS. It’s a parliamentary recess for conferences so you can expect more politics and less policy in the news for the next couple of weeks!

Teaching Excellence Framework

The new TEF results were announced on Thursday for 228 providers, the remaining 23% (53 providers) are pending appeal. More detail will be provided in November when the provider submissions, panel statements, and student submissions are published (along with the outcome of the appeals). Once this is released we’ll have a fuller national picture of how institutions have engaged with TEF across the nation.

You can search the results here.

If you’re not familiar with TEF it’s changed a lot since BU received the previous silver award – since then there were lots of experiments and interim exercises. Wonkhe have an explainer: TEF now contains two “mini TEFs” – one covering student experience (the NSS metrics plus evidence from submissions) and the other covering student outcomes (continuation, completion, progression, plus evidence from the submissions. You get an award for each, which are then combined into your main TEF award

73 universities and colleges were awarded Gold for at least one aspect. Of the Gold ratings awarded:

Ten are for what the OfS has categorised as “low entry tariff” providers. A further seven low tariff providers have been awarded Gold for one of the two aspects.
Seven are for what the OfS has categorised as “medium entry tariff” providers. A further five have been awarded Gold for one of the two aspects.
Ten are for what the OfS has categorised “high entry tariff” providers. A further eight have been awarded Gold for one of the two aspects.
Nine are for specialist providers in creative arts subjects.
Three are for specialist providers in other subjects. A further three have been awarded Gold for one of the two aspects.

It is interesting to see how little the new “requires improvement” award was used in practice – no-one received an overall RI rating and only a few had one aspect rated as requiring improvement. Which is good, of course.

Prior to the announcement Wonkhe questioned: But what – if anything – does TEF mean in a world of dwindling resources and acute student hardship? The 2015 Conservative manifesto that sparked the exercise was speaking to a different world, and it seems highly unlikely that anyone in power will use these results as a spur to praise the excellence and diversity in the sector.

What does it all really mean – we don’t know until we can read the submissions and the panel assessments.

Blogs:

OfS blog announcing the results
The story of TEF is a long, confusing, and salutary one. David Kernohan assesses how we got here and where we are going.
Ten reasons why TEF signals are downright dangerous for prospective students
And this (on Wonkhe) from Chris Husbands who chaired the TEF: Celebrating excellence in higher education with TEF 2023.
An article about challenges with the metrics from Norland College
What use is TEF to applicants

KEF

Research England published the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF 3) results on Wednesday. If you’re unfamiliar with the KEF the best explainer is on the Research England website. KEF is a series of dashboards which summarise an institution’s performance on seven areas of knowledge exchange (or ‘perspectives’) – public and community engagement, research partnerships, working with business, working with the public and third sector, CPD and grad start-ups, local growth and regeneration, IP and commercialisation. If you scroll down to table 1 (on the webpage) you’ll see what activities are measured to provide the KEF judgement for each of the perspectives listed above. The data for the KEF is pulled from the Higher Education Business and Community Interaction survey.

For the KEF, institutions are grouped into “clusters” and results are compared across the cluster, with every institution being given a rating for each perspective based on which quartile it falls into in its cluster. Confused? Well yes, it is confusing!

For more coverage delve into:

NCUB blog: What can the KEF tell us about university KE performance and improvement?
Wonkhe blog analysing the KEF 2023 results across providers and clusters.
Some good (if rather chatty) coverage from Research Professional (suitable for novices to KEF) in At KEF’s door. It begins:
- some of our readers may be old enough to remember when former universities and science minister Jo Johnson told the Universities UK annual conference that the KEF was “a challenge” that all universities “did not need to rise to”. The fact that the architect of the KEF did not expect all universities to take part in it has not prevented the entire sector from having a go …with the KEF: the large research-intensives of the Russell Group have their own group of death, and the specialist arts providers play among themselves….It’s all in a good cause, we are told, because obviously the Royal College of Music should not be compared with the University of Oxford when it comes to industrial research collaborations. Over the years, the KEF has developed a basket of metrics to allow meaningful comparison, to encourage institutional improvement.
- …[this] third instalment…leaves us wondering if anyone is enjoying this apart from the people who produced it.
- …Is the KEF driving improvement in knowledge exchange across the board or has it created another battleground for institutions to compete against one another? At the moment, Research England is sitting on the fence on that one.
UKRI article: KEF3 gives insights on emerging trends in performance improvement

Research

Horizon Europe voucher refund. Following intervention from the Lords last week Science|Business have broken the news that the financial guarantee mechanism will only be implemented if the UK participates in the Framework Programme 10 Horizon successor programme (FP10). Underperformance against contributions in Horizon will be ‘refunded’ in the form of a voucher against FP10 participation. The guarantee assures the UK if they pay over 16% more in Horizon costs than they receive credit back through the voucher. Martin Smith, Head of the policy lab at the Wellcome Trust said the rollover clause is good news, because it lays the groundwork for the UK to take part in future framework programmes. “It’s setting up an expectation that participation is a long-term thing, which is great”. Full details here.

Wonkhe blog: With Horizon association secured, Maëlle Gibbons-Patoure takes us through the challenges, joys and practicalities of working with the world’s largest funding framework.

Quick News

Lump sums: The EU are planning to change Horizon Europe funds to pay by a lump sum method. This is when grants are paid by predefined amounts once they’re judged to have achieved milestones and outputs in the project, rather than being reimbursed for costs retrospectively. It’s believed to reduce funding errors and cut administrative burden and auditing as it doesn’t require detailed recording and demonstration of costs. However, it’s a controversial method and universities have stated their opposition to the change. The EU hope to use the lump sum method for 50% of Horizon grants. More information here.
R&D Manifesto: Research professional engaged with the Liberal Democrats who have said it is “too early” to comment on their R&D and higher education policies in the run-up to the next general election, and have a run through on the party’s past promises on R&D and higher education.
State Aid:The EU is creating a forum to help it pick innovation areas and technologies that should benefit from collaborative state aid (Research Professional).
AI safety: DSIT published the introduction to the much trailed AI Safety Summit 2023 (1 November). It covers the scope and objectives of the summit, Frontier AI and stakeholder and public engagement. Sitting behind the below basic chart is a narrative explaining the key risks of misuse and loss of control. Full detail here. The Guardian has a related article: No 10 worried AI could be used to create advanced weapons that escape human control.

Consultations: REF 2028 planning continues to move forward. There are currently two consultations open for contributions – our tracker outlines who to contact if you wish to contribute to BU’s responses. Wonkhe have two blogs on the topic:
- REF 2028 needs very careful design, argues Anton Muscatelli– based around what can be genuinely and rigorously measured across institutions.
- As Research England commits to further engagement on REF 2028 James Coe takes a look at the debates to come on the people, culture and environment element.
Business links: Research Professional – the performance of very large universities with a major research focus has dropped slightly when it comes to linking with businesses, according to a major assessment.
PGR New Deal: Wonkhe criticise UKRI’s new deal for PGRs, excerpts:
- If I thought the Office for Students’ work on student voice and engagement was weak, I wasn’t quite prepared for UKRI’s “New Deal” for PGRs…The trifecta of a pretty weak set of rights to start with, institutions that are trying to squeeze every last drop and effort and value from dwindling funding, and an environment in which PGRs think any attempt to enforce the rights that are there will result in perceived reputational damage when trying to build a career means that we really do need to work out how their “voice” can engender protection and change…As such, the “New Deal” for PGRs…is a real let down.
- …The “baseline” of support it’s thinking of establishing – over everything from supervision standards to mental health – ought to have a real relationship with quality frameworks from OfS and QAA, and government-backed work like the University Mental Health charter. That neither the Quality Code, OfS’ B Conditions nor Student Minds are mentioned doesn’t fill me with hope that PGRs will be properly considered
- …A genuine sector collaboration on the issue – drawing in providers, funders, regulators, the unions and actual PGR students – is long, long overdue. Read the short blog in full here.

Try this blog for a rundown on what the new deal includes or read the official version by UKRI.
Meanwhile the Russell Group issued a statement welcoming the new deal for PGRs.

PGR stipends: UKRI to review stipend payments to improve support for postgraduate researchers.
Spinouts (part 1): Wonkhe – Investment group Parkwalk has releaseda report on equity investment in UK university spinouts, finding that the total amount invested fell from £2.7bn in 2021 to £2.3bn in 2022, and “looks set to fall again in 2023.” However, the figure for 2022 was significantly higher than that of 2020 (£1.5bn) and all preceding years, and the number of spinouts over the last three years has been largely unchanged. Life sciences continues to be the main area for spinouts, though the report also highlights the growing importance of artificial intelligence-related companies. It’s also suggested that since 2021 there has been a decline in the proportion of investments exclusively from UK investors – historically around 80 per cent, but in the last two years at 64 per cent – with an increase in the share of UK-foreign co-investment deals. The Financial Times covers the report.
Spinouts (part 2): Wonkhe – The government should introduce standardised agreements with universities regarding the equity shares they take from spinouts, the Social Market Foundation has argued in a new report – the think tank suggests five to ten per cent in companies founded by staff, and no share in student-founded firms. The report also suggests identifying regional hubs for high value industries, and scaling up the local universities with increased investment and research funding. The Times covers the report.

Lifelong Learning Entitlement

The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) became law last week, closely followed by the DfE publishing the modelling assumptions behind the LLE financial planning. It assumes learner numbers for modular programmes will start small.

Wonkhe say: There are also some very generous assumptions about costs incurred by providers and the modelling on which the Department for Education is basing the business case contains assumptions about staff time that many in the sector will find generous to the point of fantasy. There’s plenty of time for that to change because the LLE is only in the planning stages, it will be implemented from 2025 onwards. Blogs:

The current government has passed two big pieces of HE legislation this year – but implementation is another question. Michael Salmon examines how a change in ruling party could complicate things.
On Wonk Corner, David Kernohan gets disturbed by the assumptions the LLE is based on.

Regulatory

Cracking quality: Research Professional report on the announcement in the Sunday Times that Rishi Sunak is planning yet another “crackdown” on low-quality university courses as part of his pre-election reset of Conservative policies. However, they anticipate it to be more bark than bite: The last time the government rattled a sabre over low-quality university courses, the attack was all but abandoned by lunchtime as ministers struggled in media interviews to name a course or university that would be subject to restrictions. We can expect a line or two about Mickey Mouse degrees in Sunak’s conference speech in Manchester next week, but little more in the way of action from a regulator licking its wounds following the Lords select committee report that criticised the Office for Students as too close to government.

Of course, the government already announced how it was tackling low quality courses earlier in September – through the regulatory system.

In favour: Universities Minister Robert Halfon responded to a comment in the Financial Times defending the university sector and trotting out a reminder of his pet projects (degree apprenticeships, lifelong learning entitlement, cracking down on low quality courses). What was most interesting in the response was Halfon’s dismissive mention of the Lords inquiry which heavily criticised the OfS. Halfon states: while I recognise there is always more to be done to reduce regulatory burdens, the Office for Students is an essential part of our mission to drive up the quality of higher education by holding universities to account, championing students’ interests and improving social justice. It’s a strong indication that the Government’s response to the Lords formal report won’t call for significant change or rebuke the regulator publicly.

Sexual Misconduct: The OfS launched a pilot survey aiming to identify how widespread sexual misconduct in HE is. They’ve commissioned independent research by IFF Research who will work with the 13 HEIs that put themselves forward for the pilot. All students at the HEIs will be invited to complete the survey and answer questions about their experiences of sexual misconduct, how these experiences have affected their lives and studies, and their experiences of using the reporting mechanisms in their university. Note, this is the fieldwork element of the pilot survey announced in January 2023 (here).

Wonkhe highlight a warning for the sector regarding what the pilot may find: this pilot survey should offer some insight into the scale of the issue facing institutions and what kind of support students might need…At a Wonkhe event last week, academic and founding member of The 1752 Group Anna Bull warned that the sector should prepare for the discovery that the scale of sexual misconduct is higher than anticipated – smaller-scale prevalence surveys have indicated that around one in five students in any given year may be affected, and up to two-thirds of students during their time enrolled in higher education. These students are predominantly, though not exclusively, women – and perpetrators are typically other students at the same institution. Replication of these findings could change the picture considerably for how institutions seek to tackle the problem, encourage reporting, support survivors, and handle alleged incidents.

Blogs on the topic:

Wonkhe: Office for Students (OfS) compliance and student protection manager Nike Gustave introduces OfS’s pilot survey to address data gaps in prevalence of sexual misconduct in English higher education.
Wonkhe: Anna Bull and Hayley Turner-Mcintyre explain that to tackle sexual misconduct on campus, we need data on who, where, and what.
Research Professional: Pilot to gauge scale of problem in English universities

Degree Apprenticeships: The OfS have earmarked £40 million (awarded through competitive bidding) for HEIs to expand their Level 6 degree apprenticeship programmes.

Apprenticeship levy: There’s a parliamentary question on the total amount of unspent apprenticeship levy and the funds returned to the Treasury.

Cooperation: the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education has signed a memorandum of understanding with Ofqual agreeing to work together and share information in order to meet their respective responsibilities in the HE sector.

Student News

Turing: Parliamentary Question revealing the DfE cannot currently calculate the actual average cost to the public purse per participant supported by the Turing Scheme in each academic year. And that data on the international mobilities delivered in the first year of the Turing Scheme (2021/22) is coming soon.
Accommodation: Wonkhe – Cushman and Wakefield’s annual student accommodation report highlights the brewing “student accommodation crisis” – with average private sector rents outside of London now at 77% of the maximum available maintenance loan. Fewer than one in ten spaces are now affordable for the average student, with university cities including Durham and Exeter offering even less affordable housing. Overall average rental costs have risen by more than 8% this academic year – driven by a growth in demand, rising operational and development costs, high inflation, and fewer new spaces available. The Guardian has the story.
Student support: Wonkhe have a neat blog looking at student support across the four nations and which students/parents get the best deal for their household income. HEPI also published a paper earlier this month on how different institutions are approaching student support with cost of living.
Loan forgiveness: It feels as though one organisation or another calls (or writes about) the need for student loan forgiveness for nursing (and often other allied health disciplines) every week. This week it’s the BBC’s turn covering calls for the loans to be written off once the student has completed 10 years of NHS service, although much of the article focuses on non-completion of training. The research behind the BBC’s article comes from a Nuffield Trust report: Waste not, want not. Nuffield state the estimated cost would be somewhere in the region of £230 million for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals per cohort in England. A similar scheme, or early-career loan repayment holidays for doctors and dentists in eligible NHS roles, should also be seriously considered. We believe this would represent a very sound investment.
Meanwhile the Royal College of Midwives highlight a report which finds that midwifery degree apprentices improved accessibility and retention within the workforce. There were lower drop outs (almost 0%) than through a traditional degree route (13%) – likely influenced by the majority of apprentices already holding positions in the maternity support workforce. And the programme was also found to support diversity, both in terms of supporting mature apprentices and those with caring responsibilities, and those from non-white backgrounds.

Admissions

A Levels: The Times reported that Rishi Sunak plans to replace A levels with a British baccalaureate qualification incorporating more subjects including compulsory English and his manifesto committee of maths to age 18. The extension of compulsory maths already has an expert advisory group looking into it. Dods report that the DfE have not denied Rishi’s proposals are being explored but that they had already reformed post-16 education (T levels and apprenticeship changes) and that the baccalaureate policy was a personal mission for Rishi, not the DfE.

Sector response to the possibility of replacing A levels has been dismissive. The concept faces many barriers because it would require significant infrastructure change for the educational curriculum, the overcoming of the maths teacher shortage, and the policy has to convince not only the DfE but also the electorate in the upcoming general election. Even if adopted it may polarise education in the nations further as Wales and Northern Ireland may choose to retain their current systems.

Here’s a comment from Research Professional on the baccalaureate:

Just as with the seven recycling bins, all of this can be filed in the category of never going to happen. Even if Sunak were to win a general election, the teacher shortage would make such a curriculum impossible.
Universities have not been consulted on replacing A-levels and there are no details on the changes that would need to be made to both GCSEs and higher education admissions to make any of this possible. Given how long it would take for these wholesale reforms of English education, it is almost as if Sunak himself has no real expectations of any of it happening.

What is interesting is the timing of this announcement. We’ve entered conference season and the political parties and party leadership need to be seen to make bold changes for the future demonstrating both their worth and that of their party – positioning it well in the electorate’s eyes for the forthcoming general election.

The party conferences are staggered so we’ll provide coverage across the next few policy updates.

Finally, Lord Willets weighs in on the A level debate in this Conservative Home blog: Why Sunak is right about A-levels and what should be done next.

Quick news

Recruitment caps: Wonkhe blog – Northumbria SU’s Tom Wellesley is concerned that the government’s plansfor recruitment caps on “low-quality” courses will restrict opportunities for prospective students.
New UCAS Chief: Dr Jo Saxton steps down as Chief Regulatory of Ofqual (in Dec 2023) to become the Chief Executive of UCAS (in Jan 2024 – replacing Clare Marchant). Recruitment for her Ofqual replacement has begun. Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said: I am hugely grateful to Jo for guiding Ofqual through the challenges that followed the pandemic, ultimately overseeing a smooth return to exams and normal grading. Jo’s knowledge and experience have been invaluable as we’ve navigated the past 2 years and returned to the exam arrangements that best serve young people. I look forward to continuing to work with Jo in her new role at UCAS, supporting students to progress onto university, degree apprenticeships and the world of work.

Access & Participation

Parliamentary Question: Care leavers’ access to HE.

TASO published: Student mental health in 2023 – Who is struggling and how the situation is changing. It highlights more and more students are experiencing (or reporting) mental health difficulties and looks at how gender, LGBTQ+, ethnicity and student background factors interact with poor mental health. It also highlights mental health as the leading reason to withdraw from university. If you don’t fancy reading all 32 pages check out the conclusion starting on page 27 or read Research Professional’s analysis of the TASO paper which also delves into university resources and the Government’s attention to student mental health to provide a rounded picture.

International Recruitment

The Big Issue reports on international recruiters: £500 million is being spent by UK universities on a murky and unregulated industry. Education agents, who are paid a commission for each international student they enlist, are involved in 50% of international student admissions in the UK. In some countries such as China, this number reaches 70%. Twenty years ago the figure was just 10%. So who are they, and why are they now so widespread? The article is timely given Lord Jo Johnson’s call for international recruiters to be regulated and for HE providers to diversify their international portfolio to reduce financial risk and alleviate security concerns about the influence of overseas nations.

Parliamentary Question: identifying non-UK universities with graduates eligible for a High Potential Individual visa.
Parliamentary Question: student visas are not part of trade deals.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email the contact listed against the item you’re interested in (or policy@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Other news

Skills shortages: The DfE published the 2022 employer skills survey demonstrating that 10% of employers have a skill shortage related vacancy. Skills shortages as a proportion of all vacancies rose from 22% in 2017 to 36% in 2022. 15% of employers stated they had an employee (or employees) who lacked the skills for the job and overall 5.7% of the workforce have a skills gap (up from 4.4% in 2017).

Subscribe!

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

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

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

October 18, 2022

HE policy update w/e 18th October 2022

parliament, policy, Research news, Uncategorized jforster

With apologies for the short break in the policy updates, we are back! Thanks to those of you who were missing our updates and reached out to us. We were just a bit busy. We hope you enjoy this summary – of course the national political situation may change but the HE policy wagon rumbles on, with very little change. The money situation is getting worse, association to Horizon looks less and less likely and there is a continuation of anti-HE rhetoric (different people, same record). We don’t even get our own Minister in the Truss government (Andrea Jenkyns is Minister for Skills, which includes HE).

We were not expecting a major shift in policy for HE, regardless of who won the Tory leadership election, and the same is probably still true now, although of course the financial pressures on the government would suggest that as well as tuition fees staying frozen and little movement on maintenance or hardship support for students, research funding will also be under pressure.

Outstanding government policy decisions include:

Outcomes of the DfE consultation on lifelong learning: read more: policy update 3^rd March 2022 and 3rd May 2022
Outcome of the DfE consultation on student number controls: read more: policy update 3^rd March 2022
Outcomes of the DfE consultation on minimum eligibility requirements: read more: policy update 3^rd March 2022
What happens to the slightly odd stuff on advertising? DfE guidance on advertising came out on 1^st July with some frankly bizarre requirements to reference out of date subject level data in all marketing material and advertisements

Parliamentary News

As we write Liz Truss is still PM and Jeremy Hunt is Chancellor. Kit Malthouse is Education Minister. Jacob Rees-Mogg is Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. After the PM’s appointment the reshuffle took rather a long time, interrupted of course by the period of national mourning, and then it took even longer to confirm the portfolios of some of the unaligned junior ministerial appointments. Some of these responsibilities and titles are different from what went before.

Andrea Jenkyns replaced Michelle Donelan (who is now in DCMS having taken over from Nadine Dorries) but there is some subtlety implied by the changes to the job title. Michelle was Minister for Higher and Further Education. Andrea is Minister for Skills with a remit as follows:

strategy for post-16 education
T Levels
qualifications reviews (levels 3 and below)
higher technical education (levels 4 and 5)
apprenticeships and traineeships
funding for education and training for 16 to 19 year olds
further education workforce and funding
Institutes of Technology
local skills improvement plans and Local Skills Improvement Fund
adult education, including basic skills, the National Skills Fund and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund
higher education quality
student experience and widening participation in higher education
student finance and the Lifelong Loan Entitlement (including the Student Loans Company)
international education strategy and the Turing Scheme

Minister for Science and Investment: Nusrat Ghani has been appointed as the Minister of State for Science and Investment Security within BEIS. Nusrat’s responsibilities are:

science and research (domestic and international)
Horizon Europe membership (or perhaps we should say Plan B arrangements)
innovation strategy / science superpower
critical minerals and critical mineral supply chains
maritime and shipbuilding
life sciences (including vaccine production)
space strategy (excluding OneWeb)
technology, strategy and security
artificial intelligence (including the Office for AI)
fusion
R&D people and culture strategy
research approvals

Supporting the Secretary of State on:

investment security
investment pipeline and opportunities
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA)

Wonkhe have a blog on Nusrat and what we might expect. Here’s a snippet:

If you’ve not yet spotted anything else in Nusrat Ghani’s background to suggest any previous interest in science it is unlikely that you are alone. Her discussions of science and research in the House of Commons have been limited to support for businesses in her constituency, and – as we shall see – lockdown scepticism. She was a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, but focused largely on her former transport role and her work on extremism.
Fundamentally, there are ministers appointed for their domain expertise and ministers appointed for their loyalty to the party – it is hard not to see Nusrat Ghani as an example of the latter… it is a little bit of a worry.

Jackie Doyle-Price has been appointed as the Minister for Industry. Jackie’s responsibilities as Minister for Industry include advanced manufacturing, infrastructure and materials, industrial decarbonisation, professional and business services, retail and consumer goods, economic shocks, supply chains, levelling up / regional growth and skills

Nus Ghani had her first outing as sciences minister when she was questioned by the Commons Science and Technology Committee on the government’s R&D policy this week.

The Minister re-committed to the current spending allocations of £22bn for R&D.
The Minister also said the Nurse Review would report in the Autumn, with civil servants adding that Nurse had spent the summer engaging with stakeholders, and that the report was in the refinement stages.

The Committee sessions also examined the usefulness of R&D tax credits in promoting growth for the UK economy and heard how Horizon Europe negotiations were impacting the academic and business research sectors.

Local MPs

Local MP Michael Tomlinson has been appointed as Solicitor General. This means he will be supporting the Attorney General. The Attorney and Solicitor General provide legal advice to government, and answer questions about their work in Parliament. They do not provide legal advice to members of the public or businesses. One area which often receives publicity is the area of unduly lenient sentences. This is where people feel that a criminal has received a sentence that is too low for their crime. The Solicitor General or Attorney General will examine the case, and may refer it back to the Court of Appeal for review. Michael was sworn in as HM Solicitor General for England and Wales on 29th September and will be subsequently appointed King’s Counsel (KC).
Local MP Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) has lost the Conservative Party whip following controversy at the Conservative Party conference. Conor now sits as an independent MP and no longer holds his ministerial position as Minister of State for Trade Policy (Greg Hands MP was appointed to the trade role).
Local MP Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) had the Conservative Party whip removed when he missed the Parliamentary vote of confidence in Boris Johnson in July 2022 because he was overseas. Johnson won the vote, although of course he later resigned. Tobias has now been reinstated (14^th October 2022).

Research

They’re at it again (R&D targets)

Remember when the way the debt associated with the student loan book was reclassified within Government’s accounts? While the methodology of the amount being spent didn’t change it made the student loan figures look like an astronomical outlay and Ministers have been vocal about how university isn’t for everyone (and there are other routes instead) ever since. Well they’ve done it again. A reclassification in how the R&D spend is calculated has led to the Government meeting their original target overnight. Wonkhe explain the change here. The short version is the way the Office for National Statistics account for tax credits and the underreporting of small firms involvement in R&D has resulted in an uplift or scaling up of the estimates but in ‘now’ time rather than retrospectively accounting for their R&D further down the road.

Did I lose you at tax credits? If so Wonkhe put it simply:

Meeting the 2.4 per cent target because we are now measuring it better doesn’t feel like a win: it feels like the target was wrong. That’s no-one’s fault. But we should now revise the target to keep it stretching. The poor productivity performance of the UK remains, and measuring R&D differently doesn’t change that. So we still need to aim for higher R&D spending (and investment in general).

The new approach is not without its critics (the Wonkhe article was written by Josh Martin, an economic advisor at the Bank of England and on secondment from the UK Office for National Statistics) so we can expect further methodological tweaks over time, not least because there are concerns about tax fraud within the new definition. On the surface the ‘achievement’ of the target is a win for Government who will already be thinking about how their performance will reflect on them for the next general election.

Levelling Up

When Theresa May gave way to Boris Johnson as PM the focus on the Industrial Strategy morphed into Boris’ levelling up agenda. Now, with Liz Truss at the helm, the constant burble is whether levelling up will remain or slide into obscurity. Of course, these labels are only the coat hooks on which the Government hangs their plans to tackle the same underlying problems within the country, but they are more than just labels they determine the focus of funding to tackle these problems. With this in mind there’s a new Wonkhe blog that is of interest: Engaging with a Truss government on research – The Johnson-era arguments around “levelling up” are now uncertain. James Coe asks how we make the case for research to the current crop of Conservatives. Here’s a snippet:

Essentially, the task for universities will be to demonstrate that their work drives economic growth aside from the distributional benefits of doing so. This is particularly important when there are suggestions that research funding could be subject to spending cuts. This would hamper growth, but the government know this. It is a political calculation that as research is not widely understood it will attract less public backlash if cut.
So, to make the case for research as an engine of growth. The central concern of universities in this era should be on promoting the importance of research as an economic good which needs properly funding as it faces dual threats of public funding cuts, and a home secretary who has expressed scepticism about some international students. For example, in the clamour to demonstrate the levelling up benefits of research there has been less discussion of core research funding. The R&D Roadmap committed to exploring the possibility of full economic cost of research but there has been little progress or pressure on this front.
Any pivot should be about the continual explanation of how research touches the real economy. Research is of course about the breakthroughs but it is also the relentless pursuit of the brilliantly banal. It’s the partnerships with business which bring efficiencies, the marketers, advertisers, and illustrators, and its engineers, chemists, and all those whose work is at the face of business. It’s the parts which might never make the front of a prospectus but make the economy tick over. It’s difficult to expect government to intuitively understand how research is an economic good unless it’s made tangible.

You can read more here. Be sure to read the readers’ comments to the article!

Horizon Europe/Plan B

HEPI (the Higher Education Policy Institute) published a new policy note on the Horizon Europe program and proposed Plan B alternative. The report states that full association with Horizon Europe remains preferable but provides a checklist for making Plan B work, including:

incentivising the participation of less well-resourced UK universities in European research and innovation, for example through staff exchange schemes;
allowing greater freedom for individual researchers to devise their own research topics;
co-funding schemes between the UK Government and the private sector for applied research projects;
minimising bureaucracy with short and simple applications; and
guaranteeing EU-based entities’ eligibility for UK funding, at least in specific areas, to help pave the way for regaining full association.

You can read the full recommendations here.

Quick Research News

You can read oral research and development parliamentary questions here.
Greg Clark has been elected uncontested to the position of chair of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, for the second time. Earlier in his career Greg was the Secretary of State for BEIS and most recently the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (from July 2022).
The Government has confirmed it will establish a “new” National Science and Technology Council, based in the Cabinet Office, with the Chancellor in the chair. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Nadhim Zahawi, will serve as deputy chair. The NSTC will “double down its efforts to create a UK science and technology system that will be a sustained engine for future economic growth, prosperity and security.” It will “deliver a plan to harness science and technology to support economic growth and the UK’s position on the geopolitical stage, sending a clear signal to the sector about the government’s priorities in this area.” You may recall that the previous NSTC was dissolved only a few weeks ago, however, lobbying from the sector led Truss to sanction the establishment of a ‘new’ NSTC. The dissolution of the original NSTC (which was one of Boris’ babies and only ever convened three times) was seen by some as a clear message that the UK as a Science Superpower wasn’t high on Liz’s agenda. Although the official line was that the Truss administration was keen to reduce the number of PM-chair subcommittees. Here is THE’s coverage of the story: Science friction.
The AI Standards Hub, led by the Alan Turing Institute, launched a bid to facilitate collaboration and improve how AI is used across the economy in sectors such as healthcare, transport and finance. The Hub will work to ensure that industry, regulatory, civil society and academic researchers are equipped with the tools and knowledge necessary to contribute to the development of standards and so they can make informed use of published standards.
HEPI have published a collection of pieces from 12 authors covering The past, present and future of research assessment
Just a blip: China’s retreat from international collaboration in scientific research will prove to be temporary, according to the head of one of the country’s largest funders. (THE)
Over in America – Helping hand: The Biden administration is expanding its push to help less-competitive institutions share in federal research funding, opening an office to help guide their students and scientists through its grant application processes. (THE)

Parliamentary Question – EU Grants & Loans (unable to take up)

Q – Chi Onwurah: …the number of UK-based scientists who have been informed by the European Research Council that their grant can no longer be taken up in the UK, since 1 January 2022, (b) the number of such grantees who have decided to re-locate, and (c) the total value of European Research Council grants awarded to UK-based scientists since January 2022 that can no longer be taken up in the UK.
A – Nusrat Ghani: The Government launched the UK Horizon Europe guarantee in November 2021 to make sure successful UK applicants to Horizon Europe, including ERC winners, can access funding from UKRI, instead of the EU. The guarantee is working as planned and take up is strong.

According to the EU’s publicly available data, 132 UK-based researchers have won awards from the ERC 2021 calls. The EU does not make information public on additional awards for UK applicants who are promoted from the reserve list. As of 30/09, 152 grant offer letters with a value of £235m have been issued by UKRI to UK ERC winners and the promoted reserve list. The application window remains open for any outstanding winners to apply. Everyone taking up the guarantee will carry out their research in the UK as planned. There is no information available on whether UK winners choose to relocate in order to access ERC or other available funding globally.

Labour policy on education

In case you are wondering what might happen if there were to be a general election and a change of government, we remind you that the latest date for an election is January 2025. Labour have been a bit reticent on detailed policy ahead of a manifesto process but here are some hints:

Labour announces landmark shift in skills to drive growth and equip our country for the future:
- Turn the Tories’ failed Apprenticeships Levy into a ‘Growth and Skills Levy’ enabling firms to spend up to 50% of their levy contributions, including current underspend, on non-apprenticeship training – including modular courses and functional skills courses to tackle key skills gaps. By reserving 50% of the Growth and Skills Levy for apprenticeships, we will protect existing apprenticeship provision
- Better align skills policy with regional economic policy and local labour markets by devolving combining and various adult education skills funding streams to current and future combined authorities
- Establish a new expert body, Skills England, to oversee the national effort to meet the skills needs of the coming decade across all regions, and ensure we can deliver our Climate Investment Pledge.
Labour ‘very close’ to unveiling ‘sustainable’ HE funding plan – THE “There has been speculation that Labour will opt for a graduate tax – and Mr Western’s comments seemed to leave the door open to that policy.”
Higher education policymaking in Opposition: What should Labour do now? HEPI blog by Nick Hillman

Students

Student Loans & withdrawals

The latest student loan spend is that £2.6 billion had been paid to UK students at the end of September. More details here.

The Student Loans Company has published new figures showing a 23% increase in the number of students withdrawing from university courses, NUS Vice President Higher Education, Chloe Field, said: These figures are shocking, but not surprising given the cost of living crisis which is pushing students to the brink. We’ve warned that student dropouts could increase as university becomes less affordable, and it could get even worse this year.

Cost of Living MillionPlus released new analysis on the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on HE students.

The analysis of the 2022 Student Academic Experience Survey identifies the more than 300,000 undergraduates that will be hardest hit financially in the coming academic year.
These students are more likely to belong to groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Black and mature students are the two groups most at-risk of immediate financial hardship.
Additionally, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, those from areas with lower rates of participation in higher education and students who live-at-home or commute to campus are also more likely to be at-risk.
Given the close links between thoughts of quitting, mental health problems and financial difficulties, universities face significant rates of attrition in the coming months. This places successful widening participation policies at significant risk.

MillionPlus calls on the Government for increased maintenance funding for students (ideally grants not loans), the better inclusion of students in the wider cost of living assistance programmes announced in September 2022 and ensuring energy discount payments are passed on to student tenants where fixed energy costs are included in rental charges. In their recommendations to the OfS they ask for an immediate increase in hardship funds for universities to target at students most at need.

Mental Health The OfS also published mental health reports:

Here are the key points from the Mental Health Challenge Competition (MHCC) evaluation:
The MHCC sought to deliver a ‘step change in mental health outcomes for all students’. The evaluation states that the programme achieved this in three key areas:

It led to strengthened strategic partnerships between universities, colleges and local partners and NHS services
Services for students became better connected and more accessible
There was an improved range of preventative and proactive mental health support available to students.

The report sets out a series of recommendations for the sector and regulator including co-creating mental health initiatives with students:

Next steps for the Sector:

Work around student transitions from FE to HE would benefit from a national approach to avoid a ‘postcode’ lottery emerging.
Greater collaboration between HE providers is encouraged – to maximise opportunities for shared learning.
The MHCC piloted several new models of student support that go beyond traditional university counselling services. Providers are urged to explore these approaches and adopt models which may help to address challenges faced within their own setting.
Further work is needed still to drive forward early intervention. We encourage the sector to continue to develop and test innovative approaches that support preventative efforts in student mental health.

Standards and excellence

Minimum Student Outcomes The OfS announced the latest student outcome minimum expectations. The new thresholds tackle continuation, completion, and post-graduate destinations.

For full-time students studying for a first degree, the thresholds are for:

80% of students to continue their studies
75% of students to complete their course
60% of students to go on to further study, professional work, or other positive outcomes, within 15 months of graduating.

Different thresholds have been set for courses depending on their mode and level of study, which take into account the differences in outcomes for students who study full- and part-time, and those on undergraduate and postgraduate courses. The OfS have stated they will also consider performance in individual subjects, to ensure pockets of poor performance can be identified and addressed.

Institutions performing below these thresholds would face investigation and if performance is not adequately explained by a provider’s context, the OfS has the power to intervene and impose sanctions for a breach of its conditions of registration.

Susan Lapworth, Chief Executive of the OfS, said:

‘Many universities and colleges deliver successful outcomes for their students and our new thresholds should not trouble them. But too many students, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, are recruited onto courses with weak outcomes which do not improve their life chances. We can now intervene where outcomes for students are low, and where universities and colleges cannot credibly explain why.
We recognise that students choose higher education for a variety of reasons. Many are focused on improving their career prospects and it is right that we’re prepared to tackle courses with low numbers of students going into professional work. Our new approach also takes into account other positive outcomes, for example, further study, or graduates building their own business or a portfolio career.
Most higher education students in England are on courses with outcomes above our thresholds, often significantly so. These courses put students in a good position to continue their successes after graduation. But today’s decision provides a clear incentive for universities and colleges to take credible action to improve the outcomes of courses which may be cause for concern.

Teaching Excellence Framework The data, guidance and timeline for TEF 2023 has now been finalised. Submissions are due in by 24^th January. Results will be published “from” September 2023. A reminder that this process is mandatory. The guidance is here. You can find all the data here. A reminder that it is available split by student characteristic and subject. The press release says:

All universities and colleges regulated by the OfS must meet minimum requirements on the quality of their courses and on student outcomes. TEF recognises increasing degrees of excellence above these minimum expectations and universities and colleges can receive one of three ratings: ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’, or ‘Bronze’. Where there is an absence of excellence above the minimum requirements, the outcome will be ‘Requires improvement’.
TEF outcomes will last for four years. They are assessed by a panel of experts in learning and teaching, including academic and student members. Panels make an assessment based on evidence submitted by each university or college, an optional student submission and a set of indicators produced by the OfS. Guidance is also published today to help inform the student submissions. The TEF panel considers the following, for the mix of student and courses at each university and college: students’ academic experience and assessment; resources, support and student engagement; positive outcomes; and educational gains.

Also note the NSS consultation that was rushed through by the OfS with a short deadline over the summer. ICYMI, question 27 will be abolished in England, with working changes and some new questions on hot topics such as freedom of speech and mental health provision.

Harassment and sexual misconduct The OfS also announced they plan to consult on a proposed harassment and sexual misconduct condition of registration in the new year. OfS stated they have begun work to develop a pilot ‘prevalence survey’ to understand the scale and nature of sexual misconduct affecting HE students in England. Subject to the outcomes of the consultation the new condition may be in effect by the start of the 2023/24 academic year.

OfS consultation on changes to the approach to Access and Participation plans. This closes on 10^th November.

International

At the Conservative Party conference Suella Braverman, Home Secretary, made unwelcoming comments about international students and suggested that some are bringing large numbers of dependents with them insinuating this was a backdoor route to increased immigration.

In response to Braverman’s comments THE wrote: Those barbs, some suggest, may have been playing to the crowd when Tory spirits were at a low ebb, but others worry that this rhetoric could set the tone for a year or two where ministers see HE as a punching bag, rather than a crucial means for solving the deep economic problems that the country now faces.

The Russell Group issued a comment on the contribution of international students to the UK:

The fact that our universities attract people from around the world is an asset and should be seen as a UK success story. It’s why the Government’s ambition was to host 600k a year by 2030 and why it celebrated hitting that target years ahead of schedule.
International students help ensure our campuses provide a vibrant and diverse environment for young people to learn in and generate funds that are re-invested in our universities and benefit the wider UK economy.
The global market for international students is highly competitive. The recent strong growth in applicants from India and Nigeria, prioritised in the UK’s International Education Strategy show efforts to attract students from across the world, like the graduate route, are beginning to pay dividends. It would be a mistake to undo this good work and reverse course now.
Indeed, international students make up over two thirds of UK education exports and will be critical to meeting the Government’s export strategy to increase education exports to £35 billion by 2030.

The Times covered Braverman’s speech: Ministers may cap number of children foreign students can bring to UK stating that Zahawi and Braverman were discussing a plan to tackle ‘bad migration’ and that Ministers are understood to be looking at ways to tighten the rules.

Responding to the article, Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern tweeted:

Only postgrads get to bring dependents- but that’s because [they] tend to be older and therefore more likely to have spouse and children. Odd that growth-obsessed govt would want to turn them away when they contribute so much to the economy.

Dods report that Zahawi told Sky News on Sunday that the Government wanted to “bear down on bad migration”, citing international students as an area of concern. “International students are . . . a really positive thing for our universities, for our communities,” he said, before adding: “But if you look at the number of dependents that come with international students, you’d expect most international students may bring one dependent, or if they are doing a PhD they might bring their wife and maybe a child. There are some people who are coming to study in the UK who are bringing five, six more people with them. Is that right? No.”

The Government are appearing slightly out of touch with the populace on this matter. An interesting report on migration came out this week. The Ipsos/British Future immigration attitudes tracker Tracking attitudes to immigration in 2022 found that British people are supportive of immigration.

Attitudes to immigration today remain among the most positive since the tracker began. This might be seen as surprising during this period of political and economic turbulence. Almost half of the population believes that migration has had a positive impact on Britain, while less than a third believes it to be negative.
…at a time of high immigration for work and study, most of the public are relatively relaxed about the impact of immigration. Support for reducing immigration is at its lowest level in seven years. Many would welcome more migration to fill skills and labour gaps in particular areas, for example in the care sector and the NHS. Yet there is also a curious paradox. While the British public has changed its mind significantly on immigration, they are largely unaware that this has happened.
Control continues to be more important than numbers: People continually see it as more important that migration is controlled, whether or not numbers are reduced, than that the UK pursues a policy based on deterrence that keeps numbers low. Significantly more people (40%) see it is as important that the UK government has control over who can or can’t come into the UK, whether or not that means numbers are significantly reduced, than the 27% of the public who prioritise deterring people from coming to the UK to keep numbers low

Dods have the “final” say on the topic (this week): As the new Cabinet debates a choice over whether relaxing some immigration restrictions could help the economy to grow, while other Cabinet voices prioritise cutting overall numbers, the research finds that Prime Minister Liz Truss has ‘pragmatic permission’ for a balanced approach to immigration.

Of course, the characters involved may not be in their roles all data much longer. But a more relaxed approach to immigration may be one of the pro-growth policies that survives the wreckage of Trussonomics.

International Education: London Higher published a new report calling for the establishment of a dedicated International Education Champion for London.

Free Speech

Free speech is back on the central agenda of Government as the HE Freedom of Speech Bill resumes its journey through Parliament. It is scheduled for Committee Stage within the Lords from 31 October. Committee Stage is when the parliamentarians get into the full nitty gritty of the Bill and may even call witnesses to further consideration as to the Bill’s provisions. If we cast our minds back to when Michelle Donelan was universities minister she had to backtrack slightly during the Bill’s progression due to cross-party criticisms (particularly from the Lords) and she agreed to bring the Bill back into play with elements redrafted. We’ll be keeping a close eye on the passage of the Bill as it goes through under the stewardship of Kit Malthouse and Andrea Jenkyns.

Student and Public Opinion Kings College London published The state of free speech in UK universities: what students and the public think stating there is strong agreement among students that free speech, robust debate and academic freedom are protected in their universities. Here are the key points (although the report is worth a browse as there are good charts and illustrations available):

65% of students now say free speech and robust debate are well protected at their institution, while 15% disagree with this view. And 73% report that debates and discussions in their university are civil, respecting the rights and dignity of others, with 10% disagreeing. Both sets of figures are largely unchanged from 2019.
80% of students also now say they’re free to express their views at their university, while 88% said the same three years ago. This is higher than the 70% of the general public who say they feel free to express their views in UK society.
The proportion of students who believe that academics are free to express their views at their university has declined slightly, but Kings state it still represents a strong majority, at 70% in 2022 compared with 77% in 2019, with 14% of students disagreeing.
75% of students say they are free from discrimination, harm or hatred – virtually the same as in 2019 (78%).
Universities are also seen to be doing (increasingly) well in handling protests: 55% of students say their university manages student protests fairly – up from 48% in 2019. And only 12% now disagree with this view (32% say they don’t know).

However, growing minorities of students feel freedoms are under threat in their institutions: 34% of students say free speech is very or fairly threatened in their university – up from 23% in 2019. Similarly, 32% of students now feel academic freedom is threatened at their institution, compared with 20% who felt this way three years ago.

Despite these increases, a majority of students still feel these liberties are not at risk: 59% still think free speech is either not very threatened or not threatened at all. And students are more likely to think free speech is under threat in UK society as a whole (53%) more than it is at their university (34%).

No platforming – in 2019, 37% of students said that students avoided inviting controversial speakers to their university because of the difficulties involved in getting those events agreed – this has now risen to 48%.

Perceptions of a “chilling effect” on speech are increasing – interestingly for both conservative and left-wing views

Half (50%) of students now feel that those with conservative views are reluctant to express them at their university, compared with 37% who said the same in 2019. This perception has grown in particular among students who say they’d vote for the Conservative party, rising from 59% to 68% over the last three years.
It is a similar story when it comes to left-wing views, with the proportion of students who say people are reluctant to express such opinions at their university more than doubling, from 14% in 2019 to 36% in 2022.

Quiet No-platforming HEPI published a new report on free speech: New study finds ‘quiet’ no-platforming to be a bigger problem than actual no-platforming i.e. the pre-emptive cancelling of events for fear of attracting controversy, tackling the matter from the perspective of student societies, student self-censorship and the speakers they do or don’t invite. The report argues this is a more pervasive problem than no-platforming in its traditional form. Aside from its content which is of interest to the continued free speech debate considering the author’s allegiance (LSE graduate, LSE received media attention for their speaker events) and the sponsorship of the report by the University of Buckingham (read the foreword, it puts the sponsorship into context) helps set the tone for the piece. It’s a long read so for those not able to wade through the author intended to leave you with this thought:

The Government should work with universities to bring about a cultural shift in the way speaker events are handled and received. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is an encouraging start, but the risk of legal action may make students more cautious rather than more adventurous with the speakers they invite. Streamlining the Bill and supporting students will allow the Government to hold universities accountable and encourage students to hold genuinely bold and thought-provoking events.

Here is THE’s story covering the HEPI report: Not-so-free speech: The Westminster government’s controversial university free speech bill might actually increase early cancellation of hostile speakers, according to a study from the Higher Education Policy Institute.

The Russell Group’s response to the HEPI paper is also worth noting: Exposing students to new ideas and perspectives is a vital part of the university experience so this report is right to highlight the risk of unintended consequences if we get legislation wrong. If university staff or student groups are too worried about legal risks or unnecessary red tape to host a speaker then the government’s free speech bill risks doing exactly what it is trying to prevent.

Free Speech & Decolonisation: Civitas published Free speech and decolonisation in British universities.

Conservative Party Conference

BU’s Nathaniel Hobby, PR and Corporate Communications Manager, attended the Conservative party conference and kindly shares his experience of the front line with colleagues.

The best way to describe conversation around HE at the Conservative Party Conference: Polarising. On the one hand, Skills Minister Andrea Jenkyns MP was quick to praise universities, using her time on the main stage to say, “we have to be proud of our universities” and their international reputation. A fringe event from the Tony Blair Institute, with an all-star HE cast of Phillip Augar and David Willets, argued for a 70% target for school-leavers into HE, and plenty of MPs (Anna Firth, Tom Hunt and more) took their opportunity on fringe panels to talk about the important role of universities in their own towns.

However, it was hard to be wholly positive, and there was plenty to concern the HE sector too. Away from the main stage, Andrea Jenkyns was much less effusive, using her speech to The Bruges Group to say, “The current system would rather our young people get a degree in Harry Potter studies, than in construction” and accusing British universities of feeding “a diet of critical race theory, anti-British history and social Marxism”.

Jonathan Simons at Public First was quick to denounce this as ‘uninformed at best’ and many at the conference did not take kindly to her words. In further worrying news, Home Secretary Suella Braverman seemed to take aim at the ‘very high number’ of international students and the dependents they bring with them and “propping up frankly substandard courses in inadequate institutions”. It was hard not to be a little concerned about the view that some central figures in the party have when it comes to universities.

Jenkyns still has HE within her brief (despite the confusion), but the focus on ‘skills’ will be central, and Jenkyns clearly outlined that Britain shouldn’t rely on academia, but that a suite of tertiary education, including degree apprenticeships, T-levels, FE and business-delivered courses could feature.

In more welcome news, a Science Minister was appointed – Nus Ghani taking on the brief and there were many calls for the Party to honour their commitment of 2.4% GDP to be spent on R&D to keep up with other countries.

Overall, the theme of the conference was ‘growth’ and, despite the sheer number of events focussed on levelling-up, the mood music seems to suggest that this terminology might be dialled-down in favour of growth under the Truss-administration. With the education strand, the key theme was ’place‘– and what universities can do in their own contexts to pursue growth and become leaders, conveners, skills providers and mobilisers in their own communities – the Civic agenda isn’t going away any time soon!

Other news

Parting shot: THE article Universities need long-term plans and consistent support, not governments that “lurch from hurricane to tropical storm” with policies and “anti-intellectual rhetoric” that sow divisions and spread uncertainty, the outgoing vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford has said.
It’s not often Sarah recommends reading a speech but this piece from a few weeks ago from Nick Hillman (Director of HEPI) on How higher education changed during the Queen’s reign (and, astoundingly, which issues are the same as in 1952) is worth your time. It’s delightfully packed with little snippets and facts that you’ll feel better for knowing. For example in 1952 student mental health, international students, graduate outcomes/preparedness for employment, HE funding from the public purse, and – my mind is blown – even the call for universities to intervene with schools were all issues just as today. Also, one for the pub quiz, Freshers/Welcome week first started in 1952. Try to make it to halfway, and if you’re keen you can finish the piece to spot how Nick cleverly argues for some key HE securities such as no caps on recruitment, expansion and the final paragraph reminds us how well UK HE compares to our European counterparts. Something to remember when you’re feeling jaded from the media anti-HE tirade.

Subscribe!

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

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

August 11, 2022

HE policy update 11th August 2022

COVID-19, NHS, parliament, policy, Student Engagement, Uncategorized jforster

This is part 1 of your bumper summer catch up – with a focus on the general political situation and on education – we will come back to you with a mega update on research next week!

Parliamentary News

ICYMI: New ministerial briefs

James Cleverly, Secretary of State for Education
Brendan Clarke-Smith, Minister for Children and Families
Will Quince, Minister for School Standards
Andrea Jenkyns, Minister for Skills, Further and Higher Education
Baroness Barran, Lords Minister/Minister for the School System
Chair – Commons Science and Technology Committee: With Greg Clark appointed as the Secretary of State (SoS) for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities he had to leave his role as Chair of the Commons Science and Technology Committee. This means a new Chair will be elected after the summer recess, although if the new PM appoints a different Secretary of State Greg may return to Chair the Committee again. The rumour is he doesn’t expect to retain the SoS post once the new PM takes over.

Labour frontbench: Labour have made some shadow Cabinet changes:

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) has been appointed Shadow Minister for Veterans and Defence People. She retains her shadow CO role to reflect the fact that the government veterans position is also cross-departmental.
Hopkins takes over from Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) who has been appointed Shadow Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure.
Peacock replaces Chris Elmore (Ogmore) who has been appointed to the new post of Parliamentary Lead for the Labour Party Chair. He also continues as an Opposition Whip.

Profiling the new ministers

Andrea Jenkyns MP is (currently) the Minister for HE having replaced Michelle Donelan in the post resignation reshuffle. Previously Ms Jenkyns was a member of the Health committee (2015-17) and two EU focussed select committees (her son is nicknamed Brexit!). Jenkyns entered employment after leaving school and achieved her diploma in economics from the Open University and a BA in international relations and politics (graduated 2014) from Lincoln University later in life. Before politics she worked as an international business development manager(15 years), a councillor for Lincolnshire County Council, a music tutor in three secondary schools (she sings soprano and has a huge vocal range – that should liven up Cabinet!), and worked as a musical theatre director.

Jenkyns is a charity fundraiser and supporter of the charity Antibiotic Research UK. She is a trustee and voluntary regional representative for the charity MRSA Action UK. She has also become a reviewer for the National Institute for Health Research.

When elected to parliament her campaign priorities were the development of brownfield sites, delivering excellent local health services and growing the local economy. She is against repealing the hunting ban. Jenkyns has stated that the death of her father at a local hospital in 2011, from the hospital superbug MRSA, motivated her to stand as an MP, to ensure compassionate care is a priority. In November 2015 she launched a campaign to promote good hand hygiene in schools and hospitals.

Jenkyns received notoriety when she presented her middle finger to the crowd gathered outside of Downing Street calling for Boris’ resignation. She described the crowd as a “baying mob” and said she was standing up for herself.

James Cleverly also went into work after leaving school (he attended a selective school). He joined the army (left due to injury) and still volunteers with the TA. James studied at Thames Valley University graduating with a degree in hospitality and management. Swiftly followed by a move into magazine and digital publishing where he set up his own company.

Cleverly’s political career began as a London Assembly member, he was a board member of the London Development Agency, and unsuccessfully ran for Parliament in 2005. He was finally elected in 2015 and emphasised local business alongside road and internet connectivity. He put forward a Private Members’ Bill in 2015 to give further powers to the Health and Safety Executive (it didn’t succeed – but they rarely do). He was a founding member of Conservatives for Britain (a group calling for fundamental change with the UK’s relationship with the EU), voted to leave the EU and became the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union in April 2019. He was appointed Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party in January 2018. He was then appointed as Minister of State for Middle East and North Africa in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development in February 2020. North America was added to his responsibilities in December 2021. And he became Minister of State for Europe and North America in February 2022. He has been a member of the APPG Showing Racism the Read Card since 2017. His political interests are stated as local business, technology, trade out of poverty and international trade.

He’s married to his university girlfriend and recognises the importance of family values. He’s President of Bromley District Scouts. He gave a daring interview in November 2015 in which he admitted to trying cannabis at university, and watching online pornography. He also said he would like to become leader of the party. When Theresa May stepped down he announced his candidacy in the leadership content but withdrew a week later as he recognised he was unlikely to make the final cut.

PM Candidates

YouGov released a poll of the leadership race showing Truss currently leads Sunak by 69% to 31% among Tory members. Here are the latest pledges from the prime ministerial candidates relating to education and young people.

Liz Truss:

Would lift ban on new grammar schools and replace failing schools with them
Pledged to expand high-performing academies and replace failing ones with new free schools and grammars
Would focus on literacy and numeracy – stick to the current government target for 90% of primary children to reach the expected standard in literacy and numeracy – as well and post-pandemic catch-up
Wants to give working parents access to childcare around the school day and extend the range of providers who accept government childcare entitlements
Would also follow through on government plans to change staff-to-child ratios for early years providers
All A Level students with three A*s would be automatically offered interview at Oxford or Cambridge. (Wonkhe have a great blog on the topic highlighting that it isn’t the social mobility improvement Liz believes, and really highlights her lack of awareness.)
Would look to introduce post-qualification admissions (PQAs) for university entry – purported to be considering moving the start of the university academic year to January, to accommodate PQA reform
Pledged to move subsidies from poor quality degree courses to vocational training
Would create designated “Investment Zones” to drive innovation

Rishi Sunak:

Would create a new British Baccalaureate that would require all 16-year-olds to study core subjects, including maths and English, beyond GCSE up to age 18
Would reverse ban on new grammar schools and support expansion
Would ask Ofsted to assess the quality of sports and PE in school at every inspection
Also pledged to open up school sport facilities over summer holidays
Suggested he would reform the curriculum to focus on workplace skills, as well as science, maths and technology
Pledged to improve professional development for teachers, as well as introduce AI and technology to the classroom to reduce teachers’ workloads
Committed to the plan to open 75 new free schools, as announced by the government in June
Would give school trusts an “accountability holiday” for two years after taking on underperforming schools
Plans to stop organisations such as Stonewall from delivering sex and relationships education (SRE)
Pledged to put SRE on to a statutory footing, providing schools with guidance on what is acceptable, and giving parents the ability to request to see teaching materials, including from external groups (it’s understood this would be done via an amendment to the Schools Bill)
Would ban all 30 Confucius Institutes in the UK and force universities to disclose foreign funding partnerships of more than £50,000
Would “strengthen networks of technical institutions and their links with industry, as well as giving them powers to award degrees”
Would create a “Russell Group of world-class technical colleges” to improve prestige of vocational training (this idea is akin to that within the Northern Research Group pledge card, which Sunak signed)
Wants to “clamp down” on some university degrees that don’t lead to good outcomes – assessing their quality through drop-out rates, graduate jobs, and salary thresholds
Would expedite the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, currently sitting with the Lords

Lord Hague, the former Conservative leader, has weighed into the leadership race with suggestions on how the PM hopefuls could increase the science and technology prowess of the UK, including the creation of a secretary of state for science and technology.

Voting will close on 2 September. The new PM is still scheduled to be revealed on 5 September.

Overall – we would not expect a major change of direction in relation to HE. The ferocity of the culture wars will perhaps depend on who the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Universities are in a reshuffled government, but Liz Truss looks likely to maintain the current direction if she wins. Her espousal of PQAs, after the DfE consultation was ditched by Nadhim Zahawi earlier this year, will cause sighs across the sector, but at least the DfE have an oven ready set of consultation responses they can use to inform the next step.

OFS consultations

Consultation outcomes – the outcomes of the three outstanding OfS consultations(which closed in March) have been published – although there is a lot of detail still to come – and we have a new one (with a very tight deadline)

NSS consultation: Following earlier consultations on changes to the NSS, the OfS have just launched another, closing on 1^st September.

This has been slightly challenging area for the OfS, with government ministers making bold statements about how the NSS causes “dumbing down” and demanding it be dropped as a metric for regulatory purposes and the TEF – and the OfS resisting on the basis that it provides useful context and informs action on student experience at universities.

The latest consultation, issued on 28^th July with a 1^st September deadline (what sort of response do they expect?) includes some options for change to the questionnaire, and proposed removing question 27 completely for England (which addresses the dumbing down point). They ran a pilot of some of these questions this year and have published a review of the pilot which informed this consultation.

Main changes

The NSS currently opens in January and runs until the end of April. We are proposing to shorten the survey window by delaying the launch of the survey to mid-February
We propose establishing a four-year review cycle for the NSS to ensure the survey can reflect changes in practice and continue to meet the needs of the UK funders and regulators, students and providers. To date, the survey has been reviewed on an ad hoc basis with the last major review conducted in 2015
The questionnaire currently uses the Likert scale, which measures student agreement or disagreement with particular statements. 22. We propose to change the questionnaire to more direct questions for 2023 – which would change how questions are asked – to offer students the opportunity to rate different aspects of their experience on a scale designed specifically for a particular question

Some examples are given in the consultation but they have not made final proposals for all of the questions, and are still thinking about the scales in some cases – see Annex D of the consultation.

In addition to the changes to existing questions, there are some new proposed questions.

They are proposing to remove the summative question [question 27] for England. A version of the summative question would remain for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The consultation says:

There were significant concerns about the wording of the current question. In particular, the term ‘satisfaction’ was regarded as unhelpful as it detracted from the wider findings of the survey and was seen as too consumerist in nature. There were also concerns about the use of the summative question by the media in England when reporting on the outcomes of the NSS each year. The current question 27 on overall satisfaction is the most commonly used metric in league tables, and its removal might make the results less susceptible to ranking. Phase one of the review found that the question was unhelpful for the survey as a whole. Most questions ask students to rate their experience of different aspects of their academic experience, and no other question asks about satisfaction. Yet critics often derogatively dub the NSS as a ‘satisfaction survey’. There was no consensus on what should replace it

There are proposed questions on freedom of expression and a provider’s mental wellbeing provision.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this consultation is although we don’t expect an outcry in favour of question 27 and given the timing of this (and the OfS approach to consultations (see below), they are likely to finalise their views on the outstanding questions and plough ahead. Wonkhe have two blogs: one reviewing the proposals, (pithy summary of an interesting blog: “poor show”) and one looking at what else could be considered. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in Autumn 2022. The OfS anticipate implementing any changes in the 2023 NSS. If you wish to comment on an aspect of the consultation please contact Jane.

Teaching Excellence Framework

The final decisions have now been made about the TEF timetable. Guidance will be published in late September; the submission window will open at that time and will close in mid-January. Outcomes will be published in September 2023. The outcomes are here. Few changes have been made to the proposals, there is a bit of clarification on the new “educational gain” aspect (which is largely being left to providers to define), to make apprenticeships an optional element in the assessment, to make the provider submission 25 instead of 20 pages, and to clarify the requirements for student submissions. They have not yet made a decision about how much of the data will be published.

Of our 15 proposals most respondents agreed with 11 of them. Views on one proposal were split and a majority disagreed with three proposals
Disagreement was most strongly expressed in relation to:
- proposals 3 and 4 which relate to the categories in the rating scheme (Gold, Silver and Bronze)[ Approximately two thirds of respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagree with this proposal], [no change was made]
- the use of ‘Requires improvement’ where there is an absence of excellence[ Almost three-quarters of respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagreed with this proposal], [no change was made]
- proposal 15 which relates to the timeline for implementation [almost nine in ten of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing]

After the publication of a set of new licence conditions earlier this year, which re already in force, the last one, B3, has now been finalised and will come into force on 3^rd October. B3 is the condition that applies minimum thresholds for continuation, completion and progression into highly skilled employment. These thresholds are absolute, not benchmarked, and will be applied across a range of splits – notably level (including postgraduate) and subject. Some outcome measures were used before in the TEF, split by characteristic – but that was for undergraduate only and at an institutional level, not split by subject, so this is a major change.

Licence condition B3

The B3 proposals were fairly controversial, as is illustrated by the response that the OfS got:

Around three-quarters of respondents disagreed with the proposed timing of implementation, almost two thirds disagreed with the approach to constructing the student outcomes indicators and almost half disagreed with the approach to setting numerical thresholds

But they are going ahead anyway, with only minor changes.

They have decided to adopt the cohort tracking methodology for constructing the completion outcome measure – two options were proposed in the consultation.
The final numerical thresholds will be published in September, and will be no higher than those proposed in the consultation.
More information about publication of the B3 data and the TEF data will be available in September.

You can read the final condition B3 here. For reference, these were the original proposed thresholds (and as noted above, the final ones to be confirmed in September will not be higher than those originally proposed).

The third consultation was about constructing the indicators for both of the above and the outcomes are here.

In a blog, the Director of Quality says:

Our revised condition of registration (condition B3) means that students from all backgrounds can achieve positive outcomes and are protected from performance that is below our minimum expectations, whatever, wherever and however they study. At the same time, through the TEF, we want to incentivise universities and colleges to achieve excellence in teaching, learning and their outcomes – above and beyond our minimum expectations and in a way that recognises the full diversity of higher education courses and many ways students study.
We’ve carefully considered more than 600 responses to our phase three consultations. We’ve made some changes as a result of those responses, but we remain committed to the policy agenda we set out in January….
…Some responses to our consultation asked whether positive outcomes for students should be defined more broadly when students may gain wide-ranging benefits from their studies. We recognise that higher education produces wider value than we have captured in our indicators. This might be a reason to look at additional measures in the future, but it shouldn’t prevent us from measuring and regulating the things we already know matter to students: continuing through to the end of their course and progressing successfully into the next stage of their career or studies. We must be able to protect students from courses which don’t deliver these benefits.

In a blog for Wonkhe, David Kernohan and Jim Dickinson give their perspectives, including this one, which highlights the key contradiction at the heart of all this:

For some time now, OfS has been saying that opportunities for study are not meaningful if students are able to choose or continue on “low quality courses delivering weak outcomes” because the regulatory system has endorsed such performance. But does that mean working over time to improve the quality and outcomes, or killing off those courses – especially if they’re a component of your partnership portfolio? Minister for skills, further and higher education Andrea Jenkyns says “Following on from the first wave of OfS inspections, this consultation response is an important next step to halting dead-end courses.” But the OfS documentation says that it recognises that providers may choose to close courses rather than take steps to improve student outcomes, and if it suspects that’s been happening it will “interrogate whether a provider had taken action to improve its performance” and sought to “evade regulatory action by closing courses with weak performance”. How about if we sleep a little bit longer and forget all this nonsense?

One (cynical) way to read it, in today’s politicised environment – closing a course to avoid regulatory interference is BAD – being made to close it by the regulator is GOOD (for the regulator and the government).

The Russell Group aren’t best pleased with the outcomes. Sarah Stevens, Director of Policy at the Russell Group said:

We support the OfS’s efforts to set challenging baselines that will ensure all students are entitled to a minimum quality of provision. However, this needs to be delivered in a proportionate and risk-based manner so low-risk providers can get on with the job of providing students with a high-quality experience. In particular, we are concerned that plans to change the way courses are prioritised for investigation each year will increase the burden on low-risk providers, and hope the OfS can move to a more consistent and transparent approach.
The plans to take into account absolute values and the increased weighting of the provider submission when assessing a provider’s performance will help ensure TEF awards are more robust. However, the TEF remains a significantly burdensome activity and we are concerned that the implementation timeline does not give the sector enough time to fully engage with the changes announced. With the TEF submission period beginning in September, it’s also vital that the OfS publish detailed guidance to providers as soon as possible.

Quality of HE courses: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

Q – James Grundy (Leigh) (Con): What progress he has made on improving the quality of higher education courses.
A – The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan): For the first time, universities will be subject to stringent minimum thresholds for student outcomes on completion rates and graduate jobs. Boots-on-the-ground inspections have begun, and through our transparency drive to give students all the information that they need and a focus on participation and outcomes, we are driving out the pockets of poor quality in our world-leading higher education sector.

Mini horizon scan

A proper horizon scan, which we would usually do at this time of year, may seem a little bit challenging when the last few years have shown that the priorities and convictions of those in the Secretary of State and Minister for Universities role have had a huge impact on direction: Jo Johnson of course was behind the creation of OfS, the TEF and the new regulatory regime, but to give some more examples, Gavin Williamson ramped up the focus on “poor quality courses” (and tried hard on PQA). Damien Hinds started the campaign that eventually stopped conditional unconditional offers. We can thank Michele Donelan for ramping up the culture wars, and leading the charge on free speech.

But a lot of fairly major change is already in hand, things are fairly well developed and therefore unlikely to change. There may be differences in emphasis and nuance, and additional priorities (PQA for Liz Truss) but we would not expect major shifts in approach to any of the current hot topics.

Of course, there will be a general election at some point – the latest this can be is 24^th January 2025 although after the fixed term legislation was repealed the PM can seek an earlier election. Given the cost of living crisis alone, a newly installed PM this autumn is unlikely to find that appealing, as they will want to make some sort of impression before going back to the people.

Levelling up	A flagship Johnson policy. Linked to the access and participation work referenced below. The Skills and Post-16 Education Act became law in April. It will be for the new leader and their team to implement this including the local skills improvement plans (chapter 1 of the new act), changes to technical education including continuing the implementation of T-levels (and closing some BTECs), and changes to implement the lifelong learning proposals (see below). See more in the skills section below on local skills improvement plans.	Levelling up as a headline may not be the branding of choice for a new leader but the policies are likely to stay in place, certainly as regards skills and technical education
Lifelong learning	The Skills and Post-16 Education Act makes provision for modular learning. LLE was the subject of a DfE consultation which closed in May, and the outcome will presumably be finalised by the new ministerial team. Read more: policy update 3^rd March 2022 and 3rd May 2022	As noted, this is the big flagship HE policy for the Johnson government and his successor is unlikely to change tack on this.
Student number controls	This was part of the big release of material in March responding finally to the Augar review. It is now expected (and Michelle Donelan confirmed, although that might change) that controls will be applied on a university and subject basis to restrict numbers on certain courses that do not meet B£ or other licence conditions. We await the outcome of this part of the (DfE, not OfS) consultation, which will presumably be in the in-tray of the new universities minister. Read more: policy update 3^rd March 2022	This is unlikely to change under a new team, although there may need to be more work on how it will be implemented in practice.
Minimum eligibility requirements	Another part of the Augar response in March, intended to limit access to HE (and control costs}. They consulted on a requirement for a pass (grade 4) in GCSE in English and Maths, or the equivalent of 2 E grades at A level. These would not apply to mature students (over 25), part-time students, those with a level 4 or 5 qualification or students with an integrated foundation year or Access to HE qualification. If they apply the GCSE requirement it would not apply to someone who has subsequently achieved A levels at CCC or equivalent. Read more: policy update 3^rd March 2022	This is unlikely to change under a new team, although there may need to be more work on how it will be implemented in practice – especially if it requires changes to student loan legislation.
Access and Participation	Big focus from the OfS now on universities having an impact on school level attainment and supporting disadvantaged students. The Director for Fair Access and Participation has been clear about the direction: · strategic partnerships with schools to raise attainment · improving the quality of provision for underrepresented students · developing non-traditional pathways and modes of study Read more: policy updates on 4^th April and 14^th February	OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team.
Regulation – quality and outcomes	As above, being delivered this year with little change from the original proposals. Will lead to regulatory intervention based on student outcomes that are below the absolute levels set and these metrics will be applied to PGT and PGR students as well as UG. Apart from B3, discussed above, the other B conditions introduced earlier this year have a lot of detail about course content and delivery – where there are concern about outcomes, there are complaints or other reasons for the OfS to look this can include investigating whether course content is “up to date”, for example. Linked to this, the OfS announced in the early summer that they would be looking at online delivery in some universities after Michelle Donelan roundly criticised the speed (or lack of it) at which (some) universities had returned to full on campus learning last year.	OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team. Note the points about grade inflation below. If online learning is still a story in the new academic year, expect more government and OfS pressure.
Grade inflation	One of Gavin Williamson’s earlier themes which he stopped talking about, but which is now back with a vengeance as a topic for university bashing. UUK have gone early with a sector commitment to reduce by 2023 the proportion of students achieving firsts and 2:1s to pre-pandemic levels, and a renewed commitment to publishing degree outcomes statements. The OfS have been making strong statements about “unexplained” grade inflation for some time but have now started to clarify what they might do about it, new condition B4 has a direct reference to the ongoing credibility of awards and so the OfS now have a clearer mandate to intervene in what has always been seen as a question of institutional autonomy. Read more: 5th July policy update	OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team. The OfS will be looking to ramp up intervention in this area and will be examining this year’s degree outcomes statements closely.
TEF	As above, being delivered this year with little change from the original proposals. Includes a focus on subject level performance and performance across split characteristics and includes a new “requires improvement” rating – and getting that caps fees at £6000.	OfS agenda: not expecting any change with a change of leader or ministerial team.
NSS	Following earlier consultations on changes to the NSS, the OfS have just launched another. See above for more information.
Student information and marketing, admissions	One of Michelle Donelan’s signature policies. There has been discussion of marketing practices before, storied about university marketing budgets etc but the focus was mostly on conditional unconditional offers. MD went further with the DfE guidance on advertising that came out on 1^st July with some frankly bizarre requirements to reference out of date subject level data in all marketing material and advertisements. Read more: 5th July policy update This PQ suggests the government are sticking with it for now: Encouraging universities to advertise (1) subject drop-out, and (2) employment, rates for courses This followed the Fair Admissions Code that was published in the Spring by UUK which outlaws conditional unconditional offers, and talks about incentives and information alongside more general principles. This was opt in – and most have. Read more: 10^th March policy update	May be less of a priority for a new Minister. The DFE guidance is bizarre, voluntary and possibly unworkable – and it seems very strange for the DfE to issue such guidance which should really come from the OfS. It smacks of political campaigning rather than serious regulation and we await the next steps on this with interest. Fair admissions, though, will remain on the agenda, though the Director of Fair Access, and the OfS.
PQA	This was a Gavin Williamson policy. As noted above, Liz Truss wants to reopen this after Nadhim Zahawi shelved Gavin Williamson’s efforts. The range of potential outcomes from the DfE consultation are presumably sitting on a shelf somewhere. The responses to the consultation were: Two-thirds of respondents (324/489, 66%) were in favour of change to a PQA system in principle, but many respondents were concerned by practical implications of how it could operate, and 60% respondents felt that the models of PQA would be either worse than, or no better than, current arrangements. There were a variety of different models favoured but no consensus as to what change should look like.	If Liz Truss wins she will have a lot on her agenda, but we can expect the new ministerial team to at least brush off the recommendations and have another look.
Free Speech	A key bit of the Michelle Donelan manifesto for future promotion. As noted below, the OfS data doesn’t demonstrate a significant issue but that does not stop the rhetoric. The higher Education (Freedom of Speech) bill is now at committee stage in the Lords, having made it through the Commons. Expect lively debate, amendments and eventual ping pong as the HE informed members of the Lords contest the whole premise of the bill as well as the detail. Read more: 5th July policy update	Under a Liz Truss government this is very unlikely to be significantly watered down. Rishi Sunak has demonstrated less appetite for the culture wars so much would depend on the ministerial team. Expected to pass (eventually) and but practical impact may be low (as the sector have long argued this is a solution looking for a problem)

Skills, skills, skills…

Occupational skills needs: The DfE published independent research examining changing skills needs within certain occupations in the next 5-10 years:

managers
science and technology
skilled trades
health

Technical and digital skills

The key skills that are, and will continue to be, required are the knowledge and effective use of relevant technologies
Digital literacy is already an essential (if basic) requirement, while understanding and use of data will only increase in importance in future
Some specific technical skills are (and will be) needed in health and skilled trades (e.g., ability to adapt clinical skills to developments in health and care, knowledge of the technical or scientific basis of work, understanding of relevant standards and legislation)
Expected changes in the selected occupations and emerging skills point to: (i) skills needs in using specific new hardware and software; (ii) data science skills; (iii) the need to apply, or adapt, skills to future-related goals such as combatting climate change
Participants suggested that the promotion of multiple routes into these professions, along with clear definitions of skills and qualifications and the funding of continuous professional development, should be improved.

Communication and people skills

People and communication skills are and will likely remain critical in future with the ability to work in a team being key in addressing complex needs in coordinated way
The ability to provide long-term vision, exploit opportunities and manage risks was identified as most important for managers and health professions while awareness of equality, diversity and inclusion emerged strongly across examined occupations, both with a view to current and future skills needs
Areas of change and adaptation focused on skills required for modern ways of working as well as communicating and working collaboratively to address climate change, improve sustainability and meet expectations for increased efforts on equality, diversity and inclusion
Teamwork skills were also highlighted as a key area for intervention with current teaching and training not seen to impart these skills sufficiently at present.
It was also noted that policy intervention on culture change was key to generating the necessary people and communication skills for the above goals but also a long-term process requiring open minds from all stakeholders.

Local Skills Dashboard: The DfE also launched the prototype of its local skills dashboard showing a subset of employment and skills statistics at Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) level to support local skills planning and deliver (including LSIPs). The statistics include:

employment rates and employment distribution by occupation
online job vacancy units
further education aim achievement volumes and achievements by sector subject area

The dashboard has been produced to support the aims of the new Unit for Future Skills, which was a key pledge within the Levelling Up White Paper earlier this year.

Local Skills Improvement Plans: And we’re not done yet – the DfE also published statutory guidance for the development and review of local skills improvement plans (LSIPs). It sets out the process for developing and reviewing an LSIP and the duties placed upon relevant providers once there is an approved LSIP in place.

LSIPs set out the key priorities and changes needed in a local area to make post-16 technical education or training more responsive and closely aligned to local labour market needs;
an LSIP will provide an agreed set of actionable priorities that employers, providers and stakeholders in a local area can get behind to drive change;
the agreed priorities will be informed by evidence of unmet and future skills needs and meaningful engagement between employers and providers;
an LSIP should not attempt to cover the entirety of provision within an area but focus on the key changes and priorities that can gain traction and maximise impact;
the priorities should look up to three years ahead. It is expected that the LSIP process will be repeated around every three years with interim reviews;
duties in respect to LSIPs have been placed upon specific providers that deliver English-funded post-16 technical education or training. These duties apply to Sixth Form Colleges where they deliver post-16 technical education for example T-Levels and BTECs; 3 and
the LSIP should describe how skills, capabilities and expertise required in relation to jobs that directly contribute to or indirectly support Net Zero targets, adaptation to Climate Change or meet other environmental goals have been considered.

Parliamentary questions

Measuring the effectiveness of institutes of technology.
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Government’s T-Level programme.
[Tobias Ellwood]: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department is taking to help improve post-18 education options for young people in the Bournemouth East constituency.

HE Bursaries (temporary!): Education Secretary James Cleverly has announced new bursaries to support learners taking part in the flexible short courses trials.

Learners who could struggle with study-related costs…can now apply for up to £2.5 million worth of targeted bursary funding to help them access new higher education ‘short courses’… 22 universities and colleges across England will be offering over 100 short courses to students from this September as part of a 3-year trial.
These courses that could be as short as 6 weeks – or as long as a year if studied part-time – in subjects vital for economic growth including STEM, healthcare and education.
To support this flexible study, learners can now apply for tuition fee loans created especially for the short coursesto support them for the duration of their study and administered by the Student Loans Company.
Alongside this, bursary grants will be available for learners who need extra financial support to pay for additional costs associated with study… This includes the costs of learning materials such as books, childcare fees and learning support for disabled students.
The bursary is for the time-limited trial only, as broader decisions on the lifelong learning maintenance support are still subject to government policy decisions.

Degrees not required: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) calls on employers to think strategically about their workforce requirements in new report. New CIPD research highlights that the majority of employers (57%) still mainly look for degrees or post-graduate qualifications when recruiting staff. While a degree is a requirement for certain occupations and roles, the CIPD is warning that too often employers base hiring decisions on whether someone has a degree or not, regardless of its relevance. By doing this, the CIPD says employers could be missing out on key talent, exacerbating skills gaps and reducing employment opportunities for people.

It is calling for employers to ensure that employers are thinking carefully about whether a degree is required for roles when hiring, and to invest in a range of vocational training options to upskill existing staff. The call comes at a time when the UK is facing a tight labour market and firms are struggling to find the skills they need in job candidates and in their own workforces.

Free Speech

The OfS published data on the number of speakers or events that were rejected by English universities and other higher education providers in 2020-21. The data is published alongside sector-wide information on the data universities and colleges return to the OfS as part of their compliance with the Prevent duty.

The data shows that 19,407 events were held by universities and colleges with external speakers in 2020-21, with 193 speaker requests or events rejected. A further 632 events were approved subject to mitigations. In previous years:

53 events or speaker requests were rejected in 2017-18
141 were rejected in 2018-19
94 were rejected in 2019-20.

Commenting on the data, Susan Lapworth, interim chief executive at the OfS, said:

This data shows that more than 99% of events and speaker requests were approved in 2020-21 and suggests that – in general – universities and colleges remain places where debate and the sharing of ideas can thrive.
However, it is the case that the number and proportion of rejections sharply increased in 2020-21, with almost 200 speakers or events rejected. We would be concerned if those cases suggest that lawful views are being stifled.

Parliamentary questions

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will address concerns about the possible influence of overseas money in English higher education (HE), without reducing the ability of our world class universities to work with global partners.

International Donors: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

Q – Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Do the Government share my concern at the injection of vast quantities of communist cash from countries such as China and Vietnam into our universities—Oxbridge colleges in particular? Will they set up a taskforce to examine the problem and make recommendations?
A – Michelle Donelan: We have recently added a further clause to our Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to ensure that there is more transparency when it comes to the donations that our universities receive.

Quality Changes

The QAA made a surprise announcement that they would cease to be the Designated Quality Body in England from 31 March 2023.

Wonkhe report: In a move that sent shockwaves last week, the agency has chosen to “demit” statutory responsibilities in order to comply with international quality standards, thus remaining eligible for work in other UK nations and overseas. Though there will be no immediate impact on students or (for the most part) providers, the announcement embarrasses the Office for Students – the quality work it has been asking QAA to do deviates from those international standards by not involving student reviewers and not meeting transparency requirements.

More details in the blog – What does QAA walking away from being the designated quality body mean for universities? David Kernohan tries to make sense of it all.

Student Loans

The DfE and Student Loans Company announced that student loan interest rates will be reduced to 6.3% from September 2022 for those on Plan 2 and Plan 3 loans.

In June (in light of a potential 12% interest rate due to inflation) the Government used predicted market rates to cap interest rates to a maximum of 7.3%. The actual market figure is now 6.3%, so the cap has been reduced further to reflect this. The current maximum interest rate is 4.5%.

As we all know, these changes don’t affect actual payments, only the rate at which the amount owned will accrue. As a consequence, press stories that this reduces the burden on graduates are nonsense, given that the majority will not repay in full.

You can read all the detail here.

Student Loans: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

Q – Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP): The number of graduates owing more than £100,000 in student loans has gone up by more than 3,000% in a single year, with over 6,500 graduates now having six-figure balances. Next year, with inflation, things could be even worse. Will the Secretary of State detail what urgent action he is considering to tackle the huge levels of graduate debt?

A – The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan): As the hon. Member will know only too well, we responded to the Augar report in full a few months ago. We tried to get the right balance in who pays, between the graduate and the taxpayer, so that we have a fair system in which no student will pay back more in real terms than they borrowed. This Government are focused on outcomes, making sure that degrees pay and deliver graduate jobs.

Homelessness, accommodation, mental health, cost of living and community

HEPI published a new report arguing that universities should do more to track and prevent homelessness among their students and could play a wider role in support efforts to end all forms of homelessness. The report sets out 10 steps that universities can take to address homelessness.

Report author, Greg Hurst, said:

Widening access to higher education means broadening the composition of a university’s student body and, therefore, admitting more students whose past experiences and circumstances mean they face a higher risk of homelessness.
As we experience a surge in inflation to beyond 9 per cent, this is likely to mean that from the autumn more students struggle to pay higher food and energy costs alongside their rent. Many universities could and should ask themselves if they are doing enough to prevent homelessness among their current and recent students.

FE News reports on a new NUS survey related to the cost of living hike.

A third of students are living on less than £50 a month after paying rent and bills
Student survey finds over half are cutting back on food with more than one in ten accessing food banks
42% being forced to travel less or can’t make it to campus
41% are neglecting their health as a means to save money e.g. dental appointments
1 in 5 not able to buy toiletries and 1 in 10 unable to buy sanitary products when needed.

To bridge the financial gap – 83% of students have sought financial support by other means:
- a third are using credit cards
- 24% have turned to buy now, pay later credit schemes
- 12% have taken out bank loans
- 53% of students have turned to their families and friends for financial support and 40% have reached out to them for loans
- a third say the cost-of-living crisis has impacted those who support them.
Mental wellbeing: 92% of students reporting a negative impact on their mental health, and 31% reporting this to be a ‘major’ impact due to the financial struggles.
Apprentices were similarly affected by cost of living concerns and cutting back on their spending

A range of student focussed Wonkhe blogs:

Dramatic changes to renters’ rights in England could radically reshape student accommodation provision in most towns and cities. Jim Dickinson gets out his tiny violin (Wonkhe blog).
Are universities taking the coming cost of living crisis seriously enough? Meg Price and Jess Lister call for more than the usual pass the policy parcel.
Is it best to have students living with those that are just like them, or better to expose them to diversity? Emily Owen weighs up the choice between bonding and bridging social capital.
Just six in ten students feel part of a community on campus. Livia Scott considers how we might rebuild the relationship between staff and students.
Universities are required to help students register to vote. Paul Greatrix wonders if this is still a priority.

Parliamentary Questions:

The potential impact on the mental health of students of the 11 per cent real-terms reduction to the student maintenance support loan by 2022-23
How much on a per student basis universities will receive through the new funding commitment of £3 million provided for student mental health.
Impact of terminating the BTEC qualification in Health and Social Care on the numbers of students applying for courses to qualify as nurses; and what percentage of students starting nursing courses in each of the last three years have achieved this qualification.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure that international student visas are issued in time for the start of the upcoming university term.
What steps Government are taking to ascertain the level of satisfaction amongst students with the performance of the Office for Students
PMQs 20 July – Cost of living – Geraint Davies (Lab/Co-op, Swansea West) asked if he would help people who were facing an increase in rent and costs, particularly students. Johnson said that they were ensuring students didn’t pay back more than they had borrowed, and were making sure there was a strong labour market for them to enter when they graduated.
Help to prevent spiking incidents at universities
If the suicide prevention strategy will examine a potential link between neurodiversity and suicide; and what steps he plans to take to help prevents suicides linked to neurodiversity
Student mental health
Potential increase to student loans in line with the rate of inflation
Overseas university students resident in the UK who have not paid full fees in each of the last three years (answer: it’s up to the universities)

Student Mental Health: Oral questions from Monday 4 July

Q – What steps his Department is taking to help support students with their mental health.
A- The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan): I have been relentlessly focused on this area, allocating £15 million to student mental health services to support the transition from school to university via the Office for Students. I have worked with the Office for Students to deliver and to keep student space and with the Department of Health and Social Care. I held a summit just last week with the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), investing £3 million in bridging the gaps between NHS and university services

Admissions

HE success: Wonkhe blog – the OfS uses student and applicant characteristics to build models of likely success in higher education. With Associations Between Characteristics quintiles coming to Office for Students regulation, David Kernohan sets out to explain the confusing world of the ABCs.

Results Day: The Sutton Trust published new research on A Levels and university access this academic year finding that:

In 2021/22 over a third (34%) of students who applied for university this year have missed 11 or more days of school or college over the last academic year for covid related reasons, with 21% missing more than 20 days.
72% of teachers think the attainment gap between poorer pupils and their classmates will widen at their school.
Almost half (45%) of teachers involved with exams this year do not think the mitigations in place have gone far enough to account for pandemic related disruption. This figure was higher for those working at state schools (46%) than in independent schools (38%). The research shows concerns about grades among university applicants have increased since 2021.
62% of this year’s applicants felt they had fallen behind their studies compared to where they would have been without the disruption of the pandemic. This figure was higher for students in state (64%) than in private schools (51%).
Most A level teachers (80%) were able to cover the vast majority, 90% or more, of the content released in advanced information topics for most subjects. No teachers reported that they covered less than half of the content. A similar proportion (75%) had been able to cover 90% or more of the full syllabus. (But at what cost for students who require a slower pace, e.g. due to SEN?)
Most A level students applying to university felt the advanced information was helpful (76%). But only 52% thought the arrangements for exams this year had fairly taken into account the impact of the pandemic on students’ learning.
Most teachers (57%) agreed with Ofqual’s approach to grade boundaries this year, but a sizeable minority (29%) felt the approach was too strict. This proportion was higher in state (30%) than in private schools (23%).

Concerns for the future

64% of applicants said they were worried about their grades, 8 percentage points higher than said the same last year. Just over 1 in 4 (27%) are very worried this year.
Students from working class backgrounds were 8 percentage points more likely to be concerned about their grades, at 70%, compared to 62% of those from middle class backgrounds.
60% of applicants were worried about getting a place at their first choice university. 71% of working class applicants expressed concern about getting a place, 13 percentage points more than those from middle class backgrounds, at 58%.

Recommendations:

Applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds who have narrowly missed their offer grades should be given additional consideration in admissions and hiring decisions. Universities, employers, colleges and other training providers should consider that young people taking exams this year, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have faced considerable disruption over the last few years, and that the exam system has not taken into account individual learning loss within the pandemic.
Schools, colleges, training providers and universities should put adequate support in place for results day. Results day this year is likely to be particularly challenging, with many young people potentially needing to adjust plans if they have not met their offers. Schools, colleges, training providers and universities should work together to ensure adequate support is in place for young people having to make quick decisions on their next steps.
Universities should identify key gaps in learning at an early stage in the first term, and provide support if necessary. Students going onto higher education this year will still require additional help and support. Plans should be put in place to support students develop in key areas necessary to succeed in their course.
Universities should provide additional wellbeing supports for the incoming cohort. We are still learning the extent of the impacts on young people, and they are likely to have additional need of support for their wellbeing and mental health as they transition to life in higher education.
Government should fund additional catch-up support for school and college students. A renewed catch-up plan, with a scale of funding at a level to meet the need caused by the crisis should be put in place by government for future year groups, including those in 16-19 education. This should include extending the pupil premium to students in post-16 education.
Ofqual should review the mitigations put in place this year and consider adapting them for 2023, taking into account the views of teachers and young people who have been through the system this year. Next year’s exam students will have had longer back in school and college, but will still have faced considerable disruption due to the pandemic which should be taken into account in the exam process next year. Ofqual should carefully review this year’s approach and use learnings to inform any mitigations in place next year, including re-examining current plans to reduce grade inflation to pre-pandemic levels next year.

Parliamentary Questions:

Whether the Government are taking steps to inform parents of students that overall exam grades awarded for GCSEs, AS levels and A levels in summer 2022 are expected to be lower than those awarded in summer 2021.
Similar question on the 2022 exam results reflecting a mid-way point against recent years.
Establishing a Takaful-based funding structure for financial support for students in higher and further education
(a) clearance, (b) career, (c) other next steps and (d) emotional support for students receiving GCSE and A Level results in summer 2022 in the event that they do not get the grades they were hoping for.

Scotland: Despite the return to exams a record 60.1% of Scottish students gained a place at their firm choice university, up from the pre-pandemic level of 57.5% in 2019. This figure will rise as more confirmation decisions are made. You can see more of the detail in the UCAS statistical release. Scotland are also reporting continued success in widening access, with a chunk towards closing the gender progression gap for young people in Scotland (19 and under). In 2019, 50% more females progressed to higher education than males; on release day that has narrowed to 39% (from 47% last year).

Participation of young students from the most disadvantaged areas (SIMD40) was also up from pre-pandemic levels, with 23.9% of all acceptances from SIMD40 areas compared to 23.4 last year and 22.4% in 2019.

The overall number of Scottish students accepted is 30,490, up from 28,750 in 2019.
Of those accepted, 29,630 will be studying in Scotland – an increase of 1,740 on 2019.
The number of students accepted on to nursing courses is 2,960 – up by 450 compared to 2019.

Is free tuition in Scotland really capping places for Scottish university applicants? On Wonk Corner Jim takes a critical look at a report from Reform Scotland that calls for tuition fees..

Access & Participation

Summer Schools: TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE, the ‘what-works’ centre) published Summer Schools in the time of Covid-19 – interim findings of the impact on widening participation. (Also see the analysis conducted by the Behavioural Research Team here.) It assesses the impact of summer schools on disadvantaged students and finds that the programmes are not reaching those most in need. They concluded that summer schools designed to reduce equality gaps in access to higher education are largely attended by students already destined for university. However, the findings also indicate that attending a summer school may have a positive effect on disadvantaged or underrepresented students’ confidence in their ability to apply to, and succeed at, university, their perception of barriers to entry, and fitting in. This suggests that attendees are likely to start higher education in a better position than those who don’t attend.

In response to the findings, TASO recommends HE providers:

Collaborate with schools and colleges to better target and support disadvantaged and underrepresented young people to enrol in higher education.
Increase efforts to reach a wider range of young people through summer schools, or develop alternative programmes that effectively support those who are presently less likely to attend higher education.
Review attainment-raising activities for school age children, in line with recommendations in TASO’s recent rapid evidence review.
Continue to effectively evaluate programmes and generate more causal evidence to understand the impact of outreach activities by following TASO guidance.

Colleagues within this field won’t be surprised by the recommendations which are clearly in line with TASO objectives. The final summer schools report will be published in 2023/24, and will focus on behavioural findings, including attainment and enrolment in higher education. TASO is running a second evaluation of face-to-face summer schools being delivered between June and August 2022 to compare the effects of online versus traditional delivery.

Free School Meals: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published analysis of free school meal recipients’ earnings, in comparison with their better-off peers. It finds that people who grew up in low-income households have lower average earnings at age 30, even when matching educational level and secondary school attainment.

Half of FSM students earned just £17,000 or less at age 30.
There is a persistent earnings gap between those who received free school meals in childhood and other students. Part of this overall gap in lower earnings is because of people from income-deprived backgrounds being much less likely to go on to higher education. The size of that overall earnings gap widens between the ages of 18 and 30 years, particularly around university graduation age. But even among those with the same qualification level and similar attainment in secondary school, disadvantaged pupils went on to earn less than their peers.
Researchers have explored explanations for the gap: education, experience in the workplace, ethnicity, gender and other possible factors. The earnings gap between free school meals recipients and non-recipients in state-funded schools can be mostly accounted for by these characteristics. However, students who went to independent privately funded schools (who are not eligible for free school meals) typically out earned most other students with a similar qualification level and key stage 4 (KS4) attainment by age 30. A free school meals student with similar characteristics would still earn around 20% less on average than an independent school student.
Of independent school students, the top 10% earned £71,000 or more but the top 1% earned upwards of £180,000. By contrast, of state school students not on free school meals, individuals would need to earn over £85,000 a year to be in the top 1%. Their earnings were at least double the salary of 90% of individuals in this group. The top 1% of free school meals students earned around £63,000. By contrast, 50% of people who were on free school meals earned £17,000 or less aged 30 years.
At age 18 years, there are only small differences in earnings between this cohort of free school meals recipients, non-recipients and independent school students. Between the ages of 18 and 30 years, the earnings gap widens between the three groups. There is a notable difference in earnings from around age 22 years, which is a common age to graduate university and take up employment.
48% of those eligible for free school meals during their KS4 year completed a qualification above GCSE level. That compares with 71% of state-educated students who were not eligible for free school meals, and 96% of students at independent school who went on to complete a higher qualification than GCSE level.
At all levels of qualification, those eligible for free school meals were earning less at age 30 years than their peers who had the same highest level of qualification.
At age 30 years, independent school pupils have the highest earnings in almost every group of people with the same highest level of qualification. For example, of everyone who left school after GCSEs, individuals who went to independent school have the highest earnings, likewise for bachelor’s degree and those with no qualifications.
The earnings gap is largest for those with level 6 qualifications (which includes degree level).
Educational KS4 attainment does not close the earnings gap: How well individuals do at each level of education can also affect their earnings later in life, but this alone does not close the earnings gap between students of different backgrounds.
Those with higher KS4 attainment (GCSE level) had higher earnings in all groups, that is, for students on free school meals, state-educated students not on free school meals and independent school students.
As the gap in earnings widens over time between these groups, particularly at a typical university leaving age of 22 years, educational attainment at KS4 does not account for differences in future earnings.
An independent school student who was in the bottom 20% nationally for GCSE attainment earned an average of around £22,000 at age 30 years. An individual who was from an income-deprived background and on free school meals would typically have to be in the top 40% nationally for KS4 attainment to have similar earnings aged 30 years.

Care Experienced: Hear from care experienced student, Anas Dayeh, on why he has chosen to run for the National Labour Students Committee.

WP Statistics: The DfE published the 2022 Widening participation in HE statistics. They include estimates of state-funded pupils’ progression to higher education (HE) by age 19 according to their personal characteristics (at age 15) with all the measures you’d expect including FSM, care and SEN. The publication also includes:

geographic breakdowns to enable comparisons of HE progression rates between local authorities and regions
estimated percentages of A level and equivalent students at age 17, by school or college type, who progressed to HE by age 19
progression by POLAR disadvantage and Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework rating
breakdowns for high tariff HE providers

Steven Haines, Director of Public Affairs at youth charity Impetus said:

We’re encouraged to see a historic rate of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds progressing to university and a decrease in the access gap after many years of it growing.
However, even with more people entering higher education than ever, the gap remains stubbornly large. It is not enough to rely on Higher Education expansion to close this gap – we need concerted efforts to ensure young people from all backgrounds get the support they need to access and succeed. This means high-quality tutoring, comprehensive contextual offers, and support to overcome additional barriers such as a sense of belonging.

Parliamentary Questions:

What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of increasing the number of university applicants from deprived areas.
The contribution of STEM careers to social mobility and (b) the adequacy of the Social Mobility Commission’s new Social Mobility Index to (i) assess and (ii) improve diversity in STEM careers.
Members of the Social Mobility Commission’s Policy and Evidence Advisory Panel (previously the Government did not name them).
Assessment of the impact of budget cuts on access to Higher Education arts courses on (1) the UK’s economy, and (2) those from (a) lower socio-economic, and (b) minority, backgrounds

Gypsies, Roma and Travellers participating in HE

HEPI published Gypsies, Roma and Travellers: The ethnic minorities most excluded from UK education. Key points:

Gypsy, Roma and Travellers of Irish heritage have the widest attainment gap in measures of pupils achieving a good level of development in early years education;
Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils have some of the lowest rates of attendance and the highest rates of permanent exclusion from schools;
in 2020/21, 9.1% of Gypsy / Roma pupils and 21.1% of Irish Traveller pupils achieved a grade 5 or above in GCSE English and Mathematics, compared to a national average in England of 51.9%;
young people from Gypsy / Roma and Irish Traveller communities are the least likely ethnic groupings to enter higher education by the age of 19 – just 6.3% of Gypsy / Roma and 3.8% of Irish Travellers access higher education by the age of 19 compared to around 40% of all young people;
Gypsy and Irish Travellers are the UK’s ‘least liked’ group, with 44.6% of people holding negative views against them – 18.7 percentage points higher than Muslims; and
Irish Travellers face a ‘mental health crisis’, with one-in-10 deaths caused by suicide.

Policy recommendations include:

Better data collection: clear and consistent data collection of students and staff who identify as Gypsy, Roma, Traveller, Showman and Boaters at education institutions.
Recognising Gypsy, Roma and Traveller histories: marking Holocaust Memorial Day (January), International Roma Remembrance Day (April) and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller participation History Month (June).
More tailored funding: £60 million Government funding to work with community groups to improve outcomes.

Dr Laura Brassington, said: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals still face exclusion from education. It is tragic that so many avoid identifying by their ethnicity for fear of racial prejudice. It is scarcely believable they still face so many barriers when accessing mainstream education. Education institutions could commit to change this situation by doing more to recognise the challenges and signing the Pledge to tackle them, while policymakers should improve data collection and find the modest sum of money that could make a huge difference.

Undergraduate data skills

The Office for Students (OfS) has published the final report of the National Data Skills pilot programme, which in partnership with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

The pilot programme was funded as part of an extension to the artificial intelligence and data science postgraduate conversion course programme, which has shown an increase in diversity for groups who are underrepresented in the AI and data science industries, and to fill the skills gap in technology.

Recommendations

DCMS should work with key stakeholders to develop and agree appropriate terminology and definitions for data skills and data literacy, including the extent to which these should be considered ‘foundational’ in the context of HE provision.
The sector should undertake further strategic consultation with industry to establish the types of data skills that employers are seeking from graduates, to ensure that curricula and other data skills learning is as fit-for-purpose as realistically possible.
The sector should consider a focused programme of work to develop a range of materials demonstrating the value of data skills to those working in a wide range of early careers, so that more students appreciate their potential future value.
Providers need to undertake longer-term, substantive evaluation of different approaches to data skills teaching, building on the pilot projects in this study, in order to obtain a more robust evidence base about the effectiveness of approaches.
The sector should consider the potential value of a national programme to upskill noncognate HE teaching staff to build their confidence in delivering data skills teaching, highlight best practice in teaching students with mixed abilities and prior experiences, and share practice and resources

Other news

PQ on Nurse training places (universities)
PQ on Strategic priorities grant – London weighting
PQ on what steps they are taking to ensure sufficient funding for arts and humanities subjects in higher education in the (1) short, and (2) long, term; and what assessment they have made of (a) the potential shortfall in funding after the cessation of funding from the European Research Council ceases, and (b) general pressures on funding for arts and humanities subjects in higher education.

Allied health returnees: New university courses launched to help allied health professionals return to practice. The short, distance-learning courses are aimed at AHPs including art, drama and music therapists; chiropodists and podiatrists; occupational therapists; dietitians; orthoptists; paramedics; physiotherapists; operating department practitioners; prosthetists and orthotists; diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers; and speech language therapists.

It is hoped the initiative can be extended to support other professions including biomedical scientists, clinical scientists, hearing aid dispensers and practicing psychologists.

Funding of up to £800 is also available to help students with out-of-pocket expenses. More information is available here:- https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/allied-health-professions/return-practice-allied-health-professionals-healthcare-scientists-practising-psychologists/supporting-your-study

Welsh Student Social Workers: Student led campaign increases financial support for social work students in Wales. Starting from September 2022, the bursary for both undergraduates and postgraduates in Wales will be increased by over 50%

Professional Services: What about professional services staff? Richard Watermeyer, Tom Crick and Cathryn Knight take steps to amplify the voices of a “massive minority” of colleagues on their experiences during the pandemic.

Level 3 courses: The Department for Education has published a report on the findings from an independent evaluation of the level 3 free courses for jobs offer and the impact it has had on adult learners and providers.

Recognising qualifications: UK and India signed an agreement officially recognising each other’s higher education qualifications. The agreement is expected to attract more international students to the UK – with each student estimated to be worth more than £100,000 to the economy This is the first of three elements of the UK-India Enhanced Trade Partnership agreed by the Prime Minister in 2021.

Bust: Wonkhe notes that five years into the life of the Office for Students, we are still no clearer about what happens to insolvent providers.

Subscribe!

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

Did you know? Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

April 4, 2022

HE policy update for the w/e 4th April 2022

COVID-19, international, parliament, PG research, policy, Research news jforster

The Government has announced the current Parliamentary session will be prorogued in April (date not confirmed yet) (you’ll remember that process from “that” prorogation). A new session will commence with a State Opening of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech on Tuesday 10 May. This means that legislation that is currently incomplete will either be dropped or will need to be allotted parliamentary time for a carry over motion debate (not quite as easy as it sounds). For HE this means the future of the controversial HE Freedom of Speech Bill is less certain although Wonkhe reported that it is likely to be carried over.

Meanwhile the Government has a plethora of consultations and white and green papers out. We can expect expectations for these to feature in the Queen’s Speech. For HE we will be watching for the legislative and regulatory changes required to implement the lifelong loan entitlement and the response to Augar (see our 3^rd March update for more info. Consultations on many aspects of these things close on 6^th May, so we won’t get definitive announcements on the detail that is being consulted on, and the Queen’s speech itself is very high level and so are the policy statements that come out with it.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill

The Skills Bill is one they are trying to get through before prorogation. The Skills Bill parliamentary ping pong continues with MPs rejecting the Lords amendment relating to the changeover from BTECs and T levels. The Lords attempted to delay the defunding of BTECs and force a public consultation but MPs overturned it through their majority in the Commons. Compromises were also made on vocational careers advice provided by schools.

The outcome and more details of all the Skills Bill amendment are available in this Dods summary. The Commons Library also have a useful publication highlighting the changes as the Bill has progressed through the legislative system, shorter version here.

Next: the Bill will pong back to the Lords on Thursday 7 April. The Lords will consider the MPs’ rejection of Lord Blunkett’s BTEC amendment, which attempted to attach conditions to the defunding of BTEC/level 3 technical qualifications. Potential options:

The Lords will accept the rejection and will not push for the amendment to added again (at this point, the Bill would have completed its passage and will be sent for Royal Assent)
The Government will bring forward a compromise amendment, and the Lords will vote on this (if it passes, it will have to go back to the Commons where it would be agreed)
Lord Blunkett will move to disagree with the Commons’ decision on his amendment and re-introduce it again in its current form (this is the least likely option, but it would then ping back to the Commons).

Compromise is the usual solution when there is a hard stop like this.

Levelling Up

Citizenship within Levelling up policy: The Lords Liaison Committee published a follow-up report examining the Government’s progress in implementing the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement’s 2018 report. While the (new) report focuses on citizenship, including the educational delivery of citizenship, it is worth looking past this because the Lords highlighting the importance of citizenship within the Government’s current flagship levelling up policy. In brief, the Lords criticised:

Poor progress in improving Governmental coordination of citizenship and civic engagement policy since 2018. The Lords recommended a Minister with responsibility for Citizenship and Civic Engagement be appointed immediately within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) or the Cabinet Office. The new Minister to be given latitude and authority to facilitate integrated policymaking across the Government departments including a permanent seat on the Domestic and Economic (Levelling Up) Cabinet Committee.
The Lords are also concerned that as cabinet committee meeting are not available for public scrutiny that the Levelling Up Cabinet Committee may not be meeting or gaining traction. The related Inter-Ministerial Group leading on similar Citizenship content has not met since 2019: the Committee saw good intent in relation to the Inter-Ministerial Group for Safe and Integrated Communities and yet that group did not meet for three consecutive years. They’ve called for evidence of the scale of the work expected to be undertaken by the Domestic and Economic (Levelling Up) Cabinet Committee.
Also the Levelling Up Cabinet Committee is criticised for the lack of cross-departmental members particularly from the Cabinet Office and the DfE.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who was the Chair of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement commented:

Things have gone backwards rather than forwards with citizenship education in the UK since our last report. This is despite the government’s clear commitment to levelling up across the country and an Elections Bill where great stress is being placed on the importance of engagement with our voting system…
We were promised a cross-department Minister, we didn’t get one. We were told that Ofsted should treat citizenship education is a core part of the curriculum, the evidence shows they don’t. The government had a chance to put things right in its Schools White Paper. It appears that they have missed the opportunity to do so. There is just one mention of citizenship in the Schools White Paper, and it is mentioned in the context of volunteering. We urge the Government to think again. Otherwise, they risk damaging democracy for generations to come.

Also on levelling up – Wonkhe report: Speaking to Chris Skidmore at a ResPublica event yesterday, Secretary of State for Levelling Up Michael Gove expressed his view that the number of students in higher education should be further extended, and drew links between recruitment and research and development in the creation of local high quality jobs. On the future development of the sector he saw a mixture of national missions and provider aspirations driving future developments. A twitter thread describes the key points of the discussion, and a recording is available.

Research

Dods have this on the research side of the Spring Statement:

In his Spring Statement to the House, the Chancellor also unveiled a new ‘tax plan’, part of which outlines what his focus will be for the Autumn Budget later this year. This included:

Considering whether the current tax system, including the operation of the Apprenticeship Levy, is doing enough to incentivise businesses to invest in right kind of training.
Reforming R&D tax credits to be more effective, expanding the reliefs to include data, cloud computing and pure maths, and considering whether to make the R&D spending credit more generous.
He said he would also cut the tax rates on business investment in Autumn, and would consult with employers and businesses in the run-up to the Budget.

On R&D tax reliefs, the Chancellor announced these would be reformed in the Autumn Budget 2021, following a consultation launched in the Spring Budget earlier that year.

“The government set out in the Tax Administration and Maintenance Command Paper that R&D tax reliefs would be reformed to include some cloud and data costs and refocus support on R&D carried out in the UK. The government has listened to stakeholders and can confirm that from April 2023, all cloud computing costs associated with R&D, including storage, will qualify for relief. The government remains committed to refocus support towards innovation in the UK, ensuring that the UK more effectively captures the benefits of R&D funded by the reliefs. The government recognises that there are some cases where it is necessary for the R&D to take place overseas. The government will, therefore, legislate so that expenditure on overseas R&D activities can still qualify where there are:
material factors such as geography, environment, population or other conditions that are not present in the UK and are required for the research – for example, deep ocean research
regulatory or other legal requirements that activities must take place outside of the UK – for example, clinical trials
To support the growing volume of R&D underpinned by mathematical advances, the definition of R&D for tax reliefs will be expanded by clarifying that pure mathematics is a qualifying cost. Where required, legislation will be published in draft before being included in a future Finance Bill to come into effect in April 2023.”

Delivering a UK science and technology strategy: The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee heard evidence from NERC, the Medical Research Council and ESRC at the session on delivering a science and technology strategy. They covered funding and the relative responsibilities of the research councils and other delivery organisations. All the key points that you’d expect were touched upon such as 2.4% R&D funding, Horizon, interdisciplinary research promotion, research morale and opinion of UKRI, academic/industry interaction, and how the research councils will interact with Government departments and budgetary implications. Summary here. Your policy team was also happy to hear that incorporating more academic research into government policymaking was addressed and it was suggested that UKRI could do more to coordinate the work with research councils to this end. BU researchers who are interested in sharing their work with policy makers or interested in influencing policy making are encouraged to sign up to our regular influence digest which highlights opportunities, sector policy news and shares top tips to increase influencing success.

Russia research | Ukraine support package: The Government announced a £3m support package to support Ukrainian researchers at risk and the suspension of publicly funded research and innovation collaborations with Russian Universities and companies of strategic benefit to the Russian state. Research Minister George Freeman stated:

All payments for projects delivered through UK public research funds with a Russian dimension have been paused. I have commissioned an assessment, on top of the existing and strong due diligence processes of UK public research funders, to isolate and freeze activities which benefit the Russian regime.
We will not fund any new collaborative projects with Russia through our research and innovation organisations.
We have suspended existing government to government dialogue through our science and innovation network team in Russia including their collaborative science projects.
Where the UK is a member of multilateral organisations, we are working at pace with partners to respond appropriately – holding Russia to account for its actions while diminishing and isolating its influence.
We are standing up a £3 million package of support for Ukrainian researchers at risk. We stand with Ukraine, its democratically elected government and its brave people at this awful time.

Wonkhe tell us more on the Ukrainian package: The British Academy, UK National Academies, and the Council for At-Risk Academics have announced the Researchers at Risk Fellowship Programme – a new fellowship scheme for Ukrainian researchers who are fleeing the conflict or are already in the UK and unable to return. £3m is being contributed by the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, and £0.5m from the Nuffield Foundation. The funding will provide visas, a salary, research costs, and living costs to successful applicants, and will be open to all postdoctoral or those with equivalent experience in all disciplines. Participatory institutions will need to identify six months’ worth of accommodation for recipients and their dependants.

A parliamentary question asking if universities should take action against academics who promote pro-Putin propaganda (set within the backdrop of the Government’s steer on HE upholding free speech) is met with a beautifully fence sitting answer: Alongside our allies, we are united in support for Ukraine. Universities, as independent and autonomous organisations, should decide whether to investigate such incidences.

Quick news:

Wonkhe – The Economic and Social Research Council, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, have announcedcollaborative UK-Japan projects which have been awarded funding to support international efforts to manage the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
George Freeman (Science, Research and Innovation Minister) provided a written ministerial statement on the Intellectual Property Office performance targets and transformation projects.

Parliamentary Questions

What steps BEIS have taken to develop the UK R&D Roadmap into the forthcoming R&D Plan
Steps to support scientific research consortia as a future funding model for domestic R&D.

Blogs:

Wonkhe – Alliances for research challenges – ARCs – can help expand access to research funding. Cat Ball from the Scottish Funding Council explains more.
Wonkhe – Patricia Jackman and Rebecca Sanderson argue that universitiesmust help early career and doctoral researchers to thrive.
Wonkhe – Where doctoral supervisions happencan have an effect on how well they work. Doug Specht shares his research findings.

Financial sustainability of the HE sector in England and the Spring Statement

The Public Accounts Committee published the oral evidence from the latest Financial sustainability of the HE sector in England session. The DfE and OfS were called as witnesses. A shorter summary is here. The session covered grade inflation, international students, financial support/Augar, risk modelling, student satisfaction and outcomes, regulation, value for money, student protection plans, minimum entry requirements, and the new loan terms.

In the Spring Statement the Chancellor said that there would be a review of the apprenticeship levy.

Regarding levy reform, last month the CBI challenged the Government to pursue more ambitious growth with new policies – one of which was to replace the Apprenticeship Levy with a new Skills Challenge Fund, to “incentivise more flexible training to meet skill shortages and rewards firms who invest beyond their apprenticeship levy levels”. Leaders across the sector have raised Levy reform for some time, and today’s announcement could represent a step towards this.

David Kernohan for Wonkhe finds graduates paying for many of the more eye-catching measures.
Jim Dickinson considers the cost of living crisis for students, and what the sector can do to alleviate its impacts.
Amid Spring Statement debates on student maintenance, Kathryn Cribbin argues that financing doctoral study is a flawed system.

PQs:

The potential impact of a redistribution of student numbers between providers as a result of higher A-Level grades awarded in 2020 and 2021 on (a) students’ experiences and (b) providers’ finances.
Steps to (a) support and (b) offer redress to university students whose face-to-face teaching has been replaced by online and pre-recorded lectures since the lifting of covid-19 restrictions.
Supporting students who have been disrupted by industrial action called by unions representing university staff.
Student drug use
No new steps planned to support students with the rising cost of living
Impact of proposed student loan repayment changes on industry areas with staffing shortages such as nursing or teaching
Online teaching is as expensive as in-person learning.

Education Committee: Universities

The Education Committee ran a session questioning witnesses on the HE sector. Topics included outcomes for disadvantaged students, anti-Semitism and free speech. The NUS was criticised by Committee Chair Robert Halfon as they did not provide a witness for the session. A summary of the committee session is available here provided by Dods and good coverage by Wonkhe is available in: Is OfS asleep or woke at the wheel?

Here are the key discussion points from the session (which at times felt like an echo chamber):

92% of the British public believe antisemitism is a problem in universities.
The witnesses presented a number of points to evidence that universities are not upholding free speech.
The Committee criticised the OfS for not intervening enough to tackle antisemitism in universities including noting that the rapper Lowkey had been asked to attend the NUS conference, a rapper he said had made antisemitic statements. The committee then went on to criticise the University of Nottingham for revoking the honorary degree award to Tony Sewell following a report on UK institutional racism. Highlighting once again the difficulty of drawing the unclear free speech/antisemitism line with different actors believing it should be drawn in different places.
While headline figures suggest more disadvantaged pupils are going to university the number of part time students has dropped. Disadvantaged pupils remain less likely to access the higher tariff institutions, more likely to drop out and less likely to have good employment outcomes. Concern was express that the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged is not narrowing.
On disadvantaged students witness McKellar (VP at UUK) said disadvantaged students started form a legacy of poorer education, and often had to do part-time work, because they lacked social capital. There was a need for universities to create Access and Participation Plans (APPs) which supported disadvantaged students. He said in general these plans had worked better in other areas, such as closing the BAME attainment gap.
Witness Humphries (Chair, University Alliance) said the availability of more scholarships and support – including grants as low as £500 – would help. She also pointed to the role of peer mentoring and better careers guidance.
Dandridge (OfS) stated tackling disadvantage was a core priority as in addition to APPs the OfS looks at post-university progression, as poor progression after university could be a breach of a regulatory condition. Dandridge also stated disadvantaged participation was creeping up but measures not happening fast enough.
Careers and the role of research and knowledge exchange with employers were discussed.
Old chestnuts such as students not repaying their loans and is attending university really of value to society or enabling social mobility were trotted out. As were courses that were poor value for money (due to strike action, poor mental health support, high costs of tuition and lack of in-person teaching). Pensions were mentioned.
Blended learning was discussed with an overall positive tone.
BAME students drop out / lower degree classification and staff representation in senior roles were raised. Diversity at Board level was raised. McKellar (UUK) called for quotas for both academic staff numbers and senior representation of BAME staff. Dandridge (OfS) highlighted the UKRI programme on black progression into research careers.
On the Government’s implementation of the Augar review Clare Merchant (Chief Executive, UCAS) said recent UCAS analysis on GCSE English and Maths levels suggested that those on free school meals, some BAME communities, and those in certain disadvantaged areas, were less likely to obtain the requisite levels at GCSE. Other concerns about the impact of minimum entry requirements and possible student number caps and their disproportionately disadvantaging effect compounding existing disadvantage were raised by other witnesses.

Related to the above points made during the Education Committee are comments that Emma Hardy (previous Shadow Minister for FE & HE Education) made at an accountability meeting and again at the Treasury Committee Spring Statement session. Wonkhe report: At the Treasury Committee Emma Hardy highlighted the regressive nature of changes to student loans, and the impact of these changes on the national accounts. Rishi Sunak described the reforms as “sensible”, and emphasised that nobody will pay more back in real terms than what they borrowed. Hardy noted that this change would only affect higher earners, with lower earning graduates likely to pay more than under the current system. Sunak rejected Hardy’s characterisation of the changes as “a tax on low earners” despite the evidence presented from Office for Budgetary Responsibility and Department for Education figures. You can watch the committee session on parliamentlive.tv.

There’s also a very short Wonkhe explainer, snippet:

Hardy’s argument is that this has a place based effect – graduates earning around the average wage in Hull will pay a lot more than they currently do, graduates earning around the average wage in London will pay less than currently. The opposite – in other words – of “levelling up”.
There’s a tendency in expert commentary to see this as a niche issue affecting only a small part of the population – but with participation rates rising (and set to rise further if we take into account both demographic bulging and the LLE opening the loan system to more people) there is a sizable marginal tax rate impact for a large part of a generation.

Graduate Jobs

The Institute of Student Employers has released their 2022 Student Development report which compiles trends following a survey of the Institute’s employer membership base. It’s sat behind a paywall so here is Wonkhe’s synopsis:

Every year Institute of Student Employers (ISE) surveys its member employers to get their view of graduate skills – in this year’s Student Development Survey reportwe get the picture of the impact of the pandemic, as well as an update on larger trends in graduate employment, with data drawn from 107 employers. ISE analysis concludes “there is a renewed focus on the soft skills required for a post-Covid workplace.”
A third of respondents say their skills needs have changed as a result of Covid-19 – focusing on independence, resilience/growth mindset, adaptability, and confidence. 65 per cent of employers expect their new hires to be able to work remotely, up from 45 per cent in 2021. There is also greater expectation that graduates will arrive with technical skills such as coding and data analysis – or be able to acquire these skills. Expert insight from University of Leeds academic Helen Hughes suggests that early career hires may struggle to access development opportunities and secure visibility of their work if there is more hybrid and remote working.
There is a long term downward trend in retention of graduate hires three years post-graduation – down to 72 per cent from 79 per cent in 2011, suggesting that employers may need to work harder to retain early career staff in the post-Covid workplace. 61 per cent reported demand for mental health support has increased during the pandemic and 89 per cent report providing mental health support and counselling particularly for early career hires.

There’s also a blog written by Nicola Thomas of ISE: Never have the skills required to thrive in the workplace shifted so dramatically in a two year period as in the last two years.

Access & Participation

We wrote about UUK’s new Fair Admissions Code of Practice recently – as of 1^st April there is a long list of universities who have signed up to it.

The OfS issued some data on their participation performance measures.

As you have seen in our recent commentary on the B3 licence condition consultation and TEF plans, continuation is a key metric for the OfS. They note from this data that there is a difference of 3.7% for continuation between the most and least represented groups. These splits will feature in the regulatory and the TEF data and so we can expect scrutiny of this – the Ofs target is “To eliminate the unexplained gap in non-continuation between most and least represented groups by 2024-25, and to eliminate the absolute gap by 2030-31”.

Wonkhe report on the black attainment (degree classification) gap:

The gap between the proportion of black undergraduate qualifiers and the proportion of white qualifiers in England achieving a first class degree has almost doubled in a decade, widening to almost 20 percentage points in 2020-21…..Its headline measure on “good honours” attainment, which combines first class and upper second class honours, saw further improvement as a continuation of a long term trend – but masks the significant differential when only considering firsts.

Similar issues apply to the degree outcomes for disabled students.

As well as updating the KPM analysis, OfS has updated its Access and Participation Dashboard with figures for 2020-21, updated sector-level information on student’s qualifications on entry to higher education and their subject of study, and published a report that summarises the key gaps in access, continuation and attainment at a sector level for different student characteristics.

Blogs

The gap between the proportion of black and white undergraduates achieving a first has grown again. David Kernohan gets across the latest set of Office for Students access and participation data.
In light of persistent awarding gaps, the National Student Survey and the Teaching Excellence Framework should confront race head on, says Caryn Franklin.
Brief encounters of the evaluation kind – Julian Crockford disentangles demands for access and participation work to prove its impact and efficacy.

Parliamentary Questions

Effect of the proposal not to provide university students loans if prospective students have failed GCSE Maths and English, on the ability of young people from low-income households to attend university.
What steps the DfE (a) is taking and (b) plans to take to increase access to specialist higher education facilities for people with special educational needs and disabilities.

OfS

It is Ministerial letter time. After the flurries of letters from Gavin Williamson, things had gone a bit quiet, but a letter appeared on 31^st March 2022, offering guidance on strategic priorities. It replaces the previous guidance up to February 2021, but notably the guidance on teaching grant (strategic priorities grant) stays in place. The priorities as set out will not surprise you. Although the encouragement to the OfS to carry out in person inspections of 10-15 institutions is interesting and the instructions on how the new B3 enforcement regime will be carried out.

We are clear that HE has an important role to play in delivering the government’s moral, economic and social vision for levelling up: supporting strong regional and economic growth, developing partnerships with Further Education colleges and local employers to improve the skills base nationally, and working with schools to drive up attainment
We welcome the OfS’s ongoing engagement on the development of the LLE to date and would like this engagement to continue in 2022-23. Together we need to ensure that the LLE is supported by an appropriate regulatory regime, fully equipped to support radically different, flexible arrangements, measuring quality using metrics that are meaningful in the new system and which interact positively with our admissions regime
Cold spots…We would like the OfS to explore ways of encouraging the expansion of HE provision into new areas, while ensuring that high quality provision is maintained
We would like the OfS to work with officials to help to grow the uptake of high-quality technical education and degree apprenticeships including, where possible, through the use of access and participation targets, information and guidance, as well as supporting the raising of the profile of IoTs.
… it is our clear and firm expectation that the OfS will use the new outcome thresholds to identify providers with unacceptable levels of performance and challenge them. In the event that they cannot convincingly explain and justify their student outcomes data, then this should provide the basis for generating robust regulatory investigation and action. In cases where low and unacceptable quality is confirmed, action should include, where appropriate, financial penalties and ultimately the suspension or removal of the provider from the register (and with it, access to student finance)
our priorities for investigation are:
- larger providers with university title which are below proposed numerical thresholds either for the whole provider, or multiple subject areas; and
- a set of investigations focused on a major subject grouping with large numbers of students and high variation in outcomes, such as Computer Science or Law, with the intention to drive up the quality of those courses across the sector as a whole; and
- providers where OfS has long-standing concerns about quality which are confirmed or strengthened by numerical data on student outcomes
Our expectation is that the OfS should … implement a visible and effective inspections regime against the other B (Quality) conditions of registration, that will involve on-site inspection of 10-15 providers next year, that will root out pockets of poor provision and will result in regulatory action where appropriate. Through this activity, we would expect the OfS to focus on the following priorities:
- that online learning should be used to complement and enhance a student’s learning experience, not to detract from it;
- the provision of sufficient contact hours, particularly where this has been flagged by intelligence from students; and
- the importance of maintaining rigour in assessment, including appropriate technical proficiency in English necessary to secure a good outcome for all or some students.
…., we want to offer our support for the OfS proposals for a refreshed Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and, in particular, welcome the proposed introduction of the new ‘Requires Improvement’ category
On APP: we would like the OfS to work at pace to publish guidance this spring, calling for providers to bring forward variations to their current A&P plans where these do not currently meet the new expectations. We would like to see these approved this autumn, to take effect from September 2023. Where providers with substandard plans fail to bring forward variations voluntarily, the OfS should not hesitate in calling on those providers to submit a new plan for approval.
We endorse the OfS’s proposal to move to a four-year A&P plan cycle, with a full rewrite of new A&P plans at the end of 2023, to come into effect by September 2024
We would also like to see providers incorporate data on completion rates and entry into professional employment, or further study, in all their advertising of subjects and courses from the start of the next admissions cycle
Anti-Semitism, freedom of Speech bill
We welcome the OfS’s publication of the statement of expectations on sexual harassment and misconduct last Spring …. in our view, the OfS should include this in a condition of registration as soon as possible.
we would like the OfS to work with officials and sector stakeholders to consider how we can ensure that the student interest is placed at the centre of fair and transparent admissions practices, and that the sector avoids practices where students may feel pressured into making decisions, including through the use of ‘conditional unconditional’ offers

And on funding – a separate letter also came out on grant funding. Research Professional have a summary:

…the ministers set out how funding will be distributed next year after it pledged £750 million over three years last month to support “high-quality teaching and facilities” such as engineering and nursing.
The strategic priorities grant will rise by 5 per cent to £1,397m in 2022-23 from £1,330 million in 2021-22. Of the £56m rise, £32m is for strategically important subjects, particularly those connected to health.
Capital funding will be £450m between 2022-23 and 2024-25, compared with £150m in 2021-22. There will be up to £4m across the 2022-23 financial year to support Ukrainian nationals and Ukrainian-domiciled students affected by the war, and universities will have £5m to set aside for “emerging priorities”.
However, the student outreach programme Uni Connect will lose £10m next year after losing £20m this year, and student hardship funds will go without the £5m pandemic-related boost they received last year.

More detail from RP here. And you can find the letter itself here. Some interesting points:

we want to further accelerate the growth of degree apprenticeships and encourage Higher Education Providers to expand their existing offers, or develop new ones, where they are best placed to do so. We will explore options with the OfS for supporting this important provision with up to £8m of funding for this goal
To encourage greater provision of level 4 and 5 qualifications we are providing £8m in the 2022-23 financial year to be allocated to providers with eligible learners on level 4 and 5 qualifications, through formula funding
we will explore options with the OfS for using an additional £10m of funding in the 2022-23 financial year to increase the amount of skills provision at levels 4 to 6 available in preparation for the launch of the LLE from 2025.
Mental Health: We have listened to students and the HE sector and would like the OfS to distribute funding, at a similar level to that disbursed last year, to give additional support for transitions from school/college to university, and through targeting funding to support partnership working with NHS services to provide pathways of care for students
No additional student hardship funding for 2022/23
Capital funding: We would like the OfS to continue allocating the majority of funds to providers through a competitive bidding process, to continue to target funds at specific projects and activities supporting high-quality, skills-based education but to do so using a multi-year approach.

In the meantime the OfS had published their 2022-2025 strategy focusing on quality and standards, and on equality of opportunity. The strategy aims for:

students to receive a high quality academic experience that improves their knowledge and skills, with increasing numbers receiving excellent provision
rigorous assessment and for qualifications to be credible and comparable
a focus on free speech
using incentivisation, regulation and providing a focus so that the subjects graduates study contribute usefully to the economy/industry and the levelling up agenda
student access, success and progression is not limited by their background, location or characteristics
a diverse range of courses and providers are available for students to choose from; provision is flexible and innovative and access to people at all life stages
harassment and sexual misconduct are responded to effectively if they occur
the environment supports student mental health and wellbeing to enable success in HE
HE providers are financially viable, sustainable and have effective governance
the promised academic experience is delivered to students and consumer protection is applied
minimising the OfS regulatory burden – action to meet the OfS goals and regulatory objectives

A summary is available here. Full content here.

Details of the latest appointments to the OfS board are here.

PQs:

Ensuring the Office for Students has a full set of key performance indicators against which its performance can be measured.
Ensuring that the Office for Students has an integrated model to assess the potential impact of ongoing, multiple and systemic risks to the financial sustainability of higher education providers
What threshold would have to be reached in order to trigger an intervention by his Department in the event of a higher education provider exiting the market

Education Policies: White and Green

Education: Schools White Paper: The Schools White Paper – Opportunity for All: strong schools with great teachers for your child. Dods summary here (see first 6 pages).
Key aspects of the paper are:

Strong teaching (including aspects on teacher training, recruitment and the retention of teachers delivering key subjects in deprived areas through enhanced pay).
High standards for the curriculum (English and Maths are key foci, increasing average GCSE grade from 4.5 to 5 by 2030), behaviour and attendance (minimum 32.5 hours in school by 2023). Every school to have access to funded training for a senior mental health lead to deliver a whole school approach to health and wellbeing. New plans for sport, music and cultural education. New modern foreign language network hubs and professional development. More students to take the EBACC.
Targeted support for children who are behind in English and maths via a new parent pledge, guidance on the catch up (again with parent communications so parents stay informed) but without labelling and over testing; tutoring expected to be funded out of school core budgets including pupil premium.
All schools to be in a ‘strong’ multi-academy trust (MAT) by 2030 with new intervention powers to address MATs that are not strong. (There’s a new consultation on it here.) Plus transparency measures for parents to understand their top slicing of school budgets. Exceptionally schools may be able to move MATs. Local Authorities will receive ‘backstop powers’ to force trusts to admit children, and to object to schools’ published admissions numbers. Lots more on MATs in the summary.
A nice section in the summary page 5-6 which highlights the ‘re-announcements’ i.e. the aspects the Government have already released information or funding on. So if you are wondering if some aspects are new money or new interventions the ‘re-announcements’ detail what isn’t new but makes sense to sit under the White Paper umbrella.

SEN Green Paper: Nadhim Zahawi launched the green paper Special Education Needs and Disability Review through a debate in Parliament on Tuesday. Dods summarise the content here or there is a short Government press release: Ambitious reform for children and young people with SEND.

Other news

NUS: The NUS have elected new leadership. Wonkhe – NUS has announced that Shaima Dallali – currently President of City, University of London Students’ Union – was elected UK President for a two year term starting in July. Chloe Field – from Liverpool Guild of Students – was elected Vice President for Higher Education. Jewish News reports on concerns over Dallali’s “historic tweets” (since deleted), and her apology for them.

HE Data Reduction: Yes, you’ve heard it all before. Here’s the news from Wonkhe: Higher and further education minister Michelle Donelan has announced that she will chair a HE Data Reduction Taskforce. The new taskforce will meet every six weeks to “streamline and simplify reporting requirements” on higher education institutions. We understand that representatives from HESA, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the Student Loans Company, OfS, Ofsted, Ofqual, UCAS, and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education – along with experts from the wider sector – will have a particular focus on instances of duplication in data requirements. The Task Force will produce interim recommendations within three months, and a final report after six months.

This announcement comes following a written parliamentary question from Shadow HE minister last week asking Michelle Donelan what steps have been taken to ensure that higher education providers have a good understanding of (a) the reasons for which the Office for Students collects the data it does and (b) how it uses that data.

Turing mobility scheme: PIE news has a good quick read:

Improvements proposed for UK Turing scheme. Excerpt: while the new outward mobility program is being praised for the short mobility opportunities it presents and its weighting towards disadvantaged students, improvements could create a more efficient program, they have suggested.
UUKi is calling for the current 12-month project cycle to be shifted to a multi-year funding model.
“We think [that] would better support, not only the Global Britain agenda and the widening participation goals, but students to apply for actual funding so they can have funding confirmed earlier on,” said UUKi head of Global Mobility Policy Charley Robinson.

More here. And the second year of the Turing Scheme bids has opened.

Graduate shaped learning: Wonkhe – Miriam Firth explains why incorporating graduates’ working experiences into teaching is essential to helping students develop.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

March 21, 2022

HE policy update for the w/e 18th March 2022

EU, innovation, international, NHS, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

A wide ranging update for you this week!

Parliamentary News

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is due to deliver his spring statement. Wonkhe predict: tough times are coming for a sector that almost certainly won’t feature in any list of political priorities. For students, thanks to the way these things have been historically calculated, inflation-linked rises to student maintenance will literally come too little, too late – eating into the buffer that funds participation in student life beyond the bare minimum…For universities in England, the announced fee cap freeze, coupled with rising inflation and energy costs, is a serious problem – and there’s little prospect of funding rising in line with inflation in the devolved nations. As providers grow student numbers just to stand still, students and staff will find worsening pay and conditions, and that resources are spread more thinly.

Of course, Wonkhe also have a blog: If the numbers don’t add up, something has to give. With inflation rocketing, cuts are coming. Jim Dickinson reviews the protection for students when the money isn’t there for promises to be met.

Ukraine: HE & FE Minister Michelle Donelan has called upon the HE taskforce to address the issues arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill: The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill has entered ‘ping pong’ meaning it is at the final stages of its legislative journey. The Lords and Commons bat the Bill back and forth between the two houses as they thrash out the final amendments of details within the Bill. The next sessions will take place on 24 and 28 March so we will see the final form of the Bill shortly.

Research

R&D Allocations: The Government has confirmed the allocations of the 2022-25 £39.8bn research and development budget. Stated aims are to deliver the Innovation Strategy and increase total R&D investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. Key points taken from the Government’s news story:

R&D spending set to increase by £5bn to £20bn per annum by 2024-2025 – a 33% increase in spending over the current parliament by 2024-2025.
A significant proportion of the budget has been allocated to UKRI (£25bn across the next 3 years, reaching over £8.8bn in 2024-2025). This includes an increase in funding for core Innovate UK programmes by 66% to £1.1bn in 2024-2025.
Full funding for EU programmes is included. £6.8bn allocated to support the UK’s association with Horizon Europe, Euratom Research & Training, and Fusion for Energy (if the UK is unable to associate to Horizon Europe, the funding allocated to Horizon association will go to UK government R&D programmes, including those to support new international partnerships).
BEIS programmes will receive over £11.5bn over the next 3 years, of which £475m is earmarked for the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), £49m is allocated to the Government Office for Science (GOS), and £628m will go toward the Nuclear Decommission Authority (NDA).

In the Levelling Up White Paper, the Government committed to increasing public R&D investment outside the greater South East by at least a third over the Spending Review period, and for these regions to receive at least 55% of BEIS domestic R&D budget by 2024-2025. Also the £100 investment in three new Innovation Accelerators (as we mentioned last week) through the pilots in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, and the Glasgow City-Region.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng stated: For too long, R&D spending in the UK has trailed behind our neighbours – and in this country, science and business have existed in separate spheres. I am adamant that this must change. Now is the moment to unleash British science, technology and innovation to rise to the challenges of the 21st century…My department’s £39.8 billion R&D budget – the largest ever R&D budget committed so far – will be deployed and specifically targeted to strengthen Britain’s comparative advantages, supporting the best ideas to become the best commercial innovations, and securing the UK’s position as a science superpower.

On Horizon Europe the Russell Group commented: We are…reassured by the confirmation that any funding required for association to Horizon Europe or an alternative will come from a separate ringfenced budget rather than the central allocation to UKRI and the national academies, which will help protect critical funding for the UK’s research base and provide researchers and academics with the long term stability they need.

UKRI Strategy: UKRI published their first five-year strategy. It outlines how UKRI will support the UK’s world class research and innovation system, fuel an innovation-led economy and society, and drive up prosperity across the UK. The strategy sets out how UKRI will invest in people, places and ideas and break down barriers between disciplines and sectors to tackle current and future challenges – all supporting the Government’s ambitions for the UK as a global leader in research and innovation. UKRI has proposed four principles for change:

Diversity– we will support the diverse people, places and ideas needed for a creative and dynamic system
Connectivity –we will build connectivity and break down silos across the system, nationally and globally
Resilience –we will increase the agility and responsiveness of the system
Engagement –we will help to embed research and innovation in our society and economy.

Aspiring to:

People and careers –making the UK the top destination for talented people and teams
Places –securing the UK’s position as a globally leading research and innovation nation with outstanding institutions, infrastructures, sectors, and clusters across the breadth of the UK
Ideas –advancing the frontiers of human knowledge and innovation by enabling the UK to seize opportunities from emerging research trends, multidisciplinary approaches and new concepts and markets
Innovation –delivering the government’s vision for the UK as an innovation nation, through concerted action of Innovate UK and wider UKRI
Impacts –focusing the UK’s world class science and innovation to target global and national challenges, create and exploit tomorrow’s technologies, and build the high-growth business sectors of the future
Underpinned by a strong organisation – making UKRI the most efficient, effective, and agile organisation it can be.

Delivery will be outlined through strategic delivery plans for each of UKRI’s constituent councils and published later this year.

UKRI Chief Executive Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser said: Throughout the pandemic, we have seen the transformative power of the UK’s exceptional research and innovation system to navigate an uncertain and fast-changing world. As we emerge from the pandemic, we have a unique opportunity to empower our economy and our society, putting research and innovation at their heart. UKRI’s strategy sets out our five-year vision for how we will catalyse this transformation, investing in people, places, and ideas and connecting them up to turn the challenges of the 21st century into opportunities for all.

Quick News:

Science and Technology Strategy: The Lords Science and Technology Committee ran a session on delivering a UK science and technology strategy. It focused on the role of the new Cabinet Office group, its purpose and its long-term goals, as well as science diplomacy, engagement and national strategies going forwards. The committee also heard of approaches to international science diplomacy. A summary of the main content in the session is available here. And Wonkhe provide an even shorter synopsis: The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee heard evidence on the introduction of a UK science and technology strategy, including from Andrew McCosh, director of the Office for Science and Technology Strategy. McCosh said that funding routes will not be changed for research academics where they are working well, but that the new office will support improvements. In response, Lord Krebs wondered why the government is creating further bureaucratic structures. McCosh also noted that the new National Science and Technology Council will provide a governmental steer in direction to UKRI, but it will remain UKRI’s responsibility to allocate research funding. You can watchthe full session on Parliament TV.
Diversity in STEM: The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee heard evidence for its inquiry into Diversity and Inclusion in STEM. Summary here. The session covered: funding and representation, Resume for Research, UKRI and representation, UKRI improvements, short term contracts, diversification, and the idea of a Universal Basic Research Income.
Horizon Europe funding guarantee – extended: The Government and UKRI also announced an extension to the financial safety net support provided to Horizon Europe applicants(originally launched in November 2021). It ensures that eligible successful UK applicants for grant awards will continue to be guaranteed funding for awards expected to be signed by the end of December 2022, while efforts continue to associate to Horizon Europe. The funding will be delivered by UKRI and details of the scope and terms of the extension to the guarantee will be made available on their website. You can read the Minister’s announcement letter here. The Minister, George Freeman, commented: Since becoming Science Minister last year, my priority has been supporting the UK’s world-class researchers, which is why we have been so determined in our efforts to associate to Horizon Europe. Whilst it is disappointing that our association is still held up by the EU, our plans to develop ambitious alternative measures are well underway and I’m pleased Horizon Europe applicants in the UK will still be able to access funding through our guarantee, meaning that researchers will be well-supported whatever the outcome.

Blogs:

Wonkhe – Universities are committed to improving research culture, but the work needs to be sustained.
Research Professional: War in Ukraine severs research links

Parliamentary Questions:

The Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund seeks to leverage £300 million of gross private sector manufacturing investment by March 2025.
UK Official Development Assistance received by Belarus in 2020-21 including R&D

Student experience and outcomes

The OfS have launched a review of blended learning in universities. It doesn’t say how they will conduct the review – or which universities they will be reviewing.

While most students have now returned to in-person teaching, many universities continue to deliver some elements of their courses (for example, lectures for large groups of students) online. There are no guidelines in place which prevent or restrict any kind of in-person teaching.
The review will consider how some universities are delivering blended learning. A report in summer 2022 will set out where approaches represent high quality teaching and learning, as well as approaches that are likely to fall short of the OfS’s requirements.
Professor Susan Orr has been appointed lead reviewer. Professor Orr is currently Pro Vice Chancellor: Learning and Teaching at York St John University and is the incoming Pro Vice Chancellor: Education at De Montfort University. A panel of expert academic reviewers will be appointed to work with Professor Orr to examine the way different universities and colleges are delivering blended learning.
Commenting, Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said:
- ‘With the end of government coronavirus restrictions, students are back on campus and able to enjoy in-person teaching. There are clear benefits to in-person learning and where students have been promised face-to-face teaching it should be provided. This return to relative normality is important, and comes after an enormously challenging two years for students and staff. It remains very important that universities and colleges are clear with their students and their applicants about how courses will be delivered. If universities decide that certain elements are to remain online, this should be made explicit. Whether online or face to face, the quality must be good, and feedback from students taken into account.
- ‘Our review of blended learning will examine the approaches universities and colleges are taking. There are many ways for blended courses to be successfully delivered and it will be important to harness the lessons learned by the shift to online learning during the pandemic. We are, however, concerned to ensure that quality is maintained, and through this review we want to gain a deeper understanding of whether – and why – universities and colleges propose to keep certain elements online.
- ‘A report following the review will describe the approaches being taken by universities and colleges and give examples where blended approaches are high quality, as well as those that may not meet our regulatory requirements, providing additional information for universities and colleges, as well as students and applicants.’

On Wonkhe, David Kernohan has a take:

Running it through – in order of unlikeliness – there are three things that Orr could conclude:

Blended learning is great, and the complaints are largely without foundation
Blended learning is in routine use at a marked detriment to the student experience in order to save universities money.
There is a mixed picture on blended learning – there is a lot of great practice but some provision lags behind, and a mixture of enhancement and enforcement needs to be deployed to drive up quality.

None of these endpoints benefit either the Office for Students or the government.

In that context, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) has published the latest provider-level statistics of higher education students not continuing into the 2020 to 2021 academic year.

For full-time first degree entrants, we see higher rates among mature students than young students.
Non-continuation rates among young, and mature, full-time first degree students have observed a further decrease in the percentage of 2019/20 entrants not continuing in HE following the small decrease observed for 2018/19 entrants.
With regards to other undergraduate entrants, the non-continuation rate for young, full-time students in the UK has seen a general decrease over the last few years, while for mature entrants there have been fluctuations in the rate.
Non-continuation rates two years after entry for part-time first degree entrants are slightly higher among those aged 30 and under than for those aged over 30.
Between 2012/13 and 2018/19 the proportion of full-time first degree students expected to qualify with a degree from the HE provider at which they started in the UK was showing a slight decline. In 2019/20 the proportion expected to qualify has increased again.

The Student Loans Company (SLC) has published the latest statistics on early-in-year student withdrawal notifications provided by HE providers for the purpose of student finance from 2018/19 to 2021/22 (Feb 2022).

Research Professional cover the stories.

OfS consultations on regulatory graduate outcomes and the TEF

We wrote about these three very significant consultations in our update on 21^st January, and they closed this week. As you will recall, this includes the consultation about calculating metrics, which is linked to the consultation on new licence condition B3 (the one with the minimum levels of outcomes).

The UUK responses talk about proportionality. On B3, they raise concerns about outcomes being seen as the only measure of quality, and about how the new rules will be applied, in selecting universities to look at more closely, and specifically by looking at context. They ask in particular that universities should not face an intervention where they are within their benchmark and that value add, student voice and geographical context should be considered alongside the actual metrics.

Jim Dickinson points out, though:

It’s one of the many moments where you can’t quite work out whether UUK knows that the key decision has already been taken here or if it genuinely thinks it will change OfS’ mind – it certainly paints a picture of the sector being stuck on the left-hand side of the Kubler-Ross grief curve.
Either way, we can pretty much guarantee that in a couple of months an OfS response will tell the sector that it’s wrong in principle, and anyway hasn’t read the proposals – which to be fair when taken in their totality along with the rest of the B conditions, do measure quality both quantitatively (via outcomes) and qualitatively (through proposals the sector isn’t too keen on ether, with a kind of be careful what you wish for vibe).
… It’s the threat of monitoring – with the odd provider made an example of – that should be causing people to both work on improving outcomes where the red lights are, and having “contextual” action plans ready that show that work off if OfS phones you up in September.

There was a separate consultation on the TEF (and the metrics one is related to this too).

On the TEF, UUK disagree with the name of the fourth category “requires improvement”. As we have said in many TEF consultation responses, they disagree with “gold, silver and bronze” too and would like to redefine them. They don’t think subcontracted provision should be included and they strongly disagree with the proposed timeline, asking for a Spring submission.

On Wonkhe: OfS’ proposals on quality outcomes are mostly rational on paper – but the regulator needs to win the confidence of the sector, argues GuildHE deputy chief executive Alex Bols.
Also on Wonkhe: Jim Dickinson takes a look through the responses and considers what the sector is saying.

International student experience

The OfS has published an insight brief on international students. It acknowledges that information about international students is incomplete and announces a call for evidence to “identify effective practice in ensuring that international students can integrate and receive a fulfilling experience in the UK”. Using the data that they do have, the brief talks about numbers and fees as a proportion of total income.

The brief talks about NSS feedback (international students are generally more positive than home students) and the issues faced by international students, particularly when travel was restricted in the pandemic.

The OfS are concerned, however, that they don’t have enough data about international students, and for that reason they have launched a call for evidence on international student experience. They are looking for responses on initiatives linked to three themes. They will filter the submissions to identify case studies to feature in a report.

The themes they have identified are:

work to prevent and address harassment and sexual misconduct
how responding to the coronavirus pandemic has shaped practice in supporting international students to adapt to and integrate with UK higher education
work to ensure the accessibility and effectiveness of wellbeing and support services (such as student services, mental health provision, etc.).

While responding on those themes, institutions can also consider the relationship of their evidence to the following:

advancing equality of opportunity for students with one or more protected characteristic
partnership with international students
intervention that may also benefit home (UK-domiciled) students.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

In April last year Dr Tony Sewell published the findings of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. The Commission’s findings were criticised and equalities campaigners accused the group of cherry-picking data and pushing propaganda, while the United Nations described it as attempt to normalise white supremacy. Dr Sewell, who lead the inquiry in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations, has recently had his honorary degree from the University of Nottingham withdrawn amidst the controversy. This week the Government published its response to the report and findings of the Commission through the policy paper: Inclusive Britain: government response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities.

The Guardian report under the header: Denial of structural racism – Ministers will drop the term black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME), more closely scrutinise police stop and search, and draft a model history curriculum to teach Britain’s “complex” past in response to the Sewell report on racial disparities. Launched as a response to the Black Lives Matter protests, the report caused controversy when it was published last year for broadly rejecting the idea of institutional racism in the UK. In the government’s response, called Inclusive Britain, ministers acknowledge racism exists but stress the importance of other factors. Taiwo Owatemi, Labour’s shadow equalities minister, said the report still “agrees with the original report’s denial of structural racism. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have once again failed to deliver meaningful action.” The report sets out a long list of policies, some new and others already in place.

Relevant key action points follow below. There is nothing new in the HE elements.

Educational success for all communities

Action 29: To drive up levels of attainment for under-performing ethnic groups, the Department for Education (DfE) will carry out a programme of analysis in early 2022 to understand pupil attainment and investigate whether there are any specific findings and implications for different ethnic groups to tackle disparities.
Action 30: The DfE and the Race Disparity Unit (RDU) will investigate the strategies used by the multi-academy trusts who are most successful at bridging achievement gaps for different ethnic groups and raising overall life chances. The lessons learnt will be published in 2022 and will help drive up standards for all pupils.
Action 31: The DfE will investigate the publication of additional data on the academic performance of ethnic groups alongside other critical factors relating to social mobility and progress at school level, in post-18 education and employment after education by the end of 2022.
Action 32: The schools white paper in spring 2022 will look at ways we can target interventions in areas and schools of entrenched underperformance.

Targeted funding: Action 34: To maximise the benefits of the pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils, DfE amended the pupil premium conditions of grant for the 2021-2022 academic year to require all schools to use their funding on evidence-based approaches. To the extent possible, DfE will investigate the scale of these benefits.

Higher education

Action 43: To empower pupils to make more informed choices about their studies, the DfE will ensure that Higher Education Institutions support disadvantaged students before they apply for university places.
Action 44: The DfE will work with UCAS and other sector groups to make available both advertised and actual entry requirements for courses, including historic entry grades so that disadvantaged students have the information they need to apply to university on a fair playing field.
Action 45: Higher education providers will help schools drive up standards so that disadvantaged students obtain better qualifications, have more options, and can choose an ambitious path that is right for them.
Action 46: Higher education providers will revise and resubmit their Access and Participation plans with a new focus on delivering real social mobility, ensuring students are able to make the right choices, accessing and succeeding on high quality courses, which are valued by employers and lead to good graduate employment.
Action 47: To improve careers guidance for all pupils in state-funded secondary education, the DfE will extend the current statutory duty on schools to secure independent careers guidance to pupils throughout their secondary education.
Action 52: The government is consulting on means to incentivise high quality provision and ensure all students enter pathways on which they can excel and achieve the best possible outcomes, including exploring the case for low-level minimum eligibility requirements to access higher education student finance and the possible case for proportionate student number controls.
Action 53: To help disadvantaged students to choose the right courses for them and to boost their employment prospects, the Social Mobility Commission will seek to improve the information available to students about the labour market value of qualifications and, where possible, the impact of those qualifications on social mobility.

Innovation: Action 56: To equip entrepreneurs from underrepresented backgrounds with the skills they need to build successful businesses, BEIS is supporting HSBC to develop and launch its pilot for a competition-based, entrepreneur support programme in spring 2022. The programme, which will be run in partnership with UK universities, will equip entrepreneurs with the skills they need for years to come.

Apprenticeships: Action 48: To increase the numbers of young ethnic minorities in apprenticeships, the DfE is, since November 2021, working with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and partner bodies and employers to engage directly with young people across the country to promote apprenticeships. This will use a range of mechanisms to attract more ethnic minority starts identified in the Commission’s report, such as events in schools with strong minority representation, relatable role models, employer testimonies, data on potential earnings and career progression. It will also explore the impact of factors that influence a young persons’ career choices.

Alternative provision (AP)

Action 37: The DfE will launch a £30 million, 3-year programme to set up new SAFE (Support, Attend, Fulfil and Exceed) taskforces led by mainstream schools to deliver evidence-based interventions for those most at risk of becoming involved in serious violent crime. These will run in 10 serious violence hotspots from early 2022 targeted at young people at risk of dropping out of school: reducing truancy, improving behaviour and reducing the risk of NEET (those not in education, employment or training).
Action 38: DfE will invest £15 million in a 2 year-programme to pilot the impact of co-locating full-time specialists in Alternative Provision in the top 22 serious violence hotspots.

Teaching an inclusive curriculum

Action 57: To help pupils understand the intertwined nature of British and global history, and their own place within it, the DfE will work with history curriculum experts, historians and school leaders to develop a Model History curriculum by 2024 that will stand as an exemplar for a knowledge-rich, coherent approach to the teaching of history. The Model History Curriculumwill support high-quality teaching and help teachers and schools to develop their own school curriculum fully using the flexibility and freedom of the history national curriculum and the breadth and depth of content it includes. The development of model, knowledge-rich curriculums continues the path of reform the government started in 2010.
Action 58: The DfE will actively seek out and signpost to schools suggested high-quality resources to support teaching all-year round on black history in readiness for Black History Month October 2022. This will help support schools to share the multiple, nuanced stories of the contributions made by different groups that have made this country the one it is today.

Further Education: Action 63: The DfE will encourage governing bodies to be more reflective of the school communities they serve and will recommend that schools collect and publish board diversity data at a local level. The DfE will also update the Further Education Governance Guide in spring 2022 to include how to remove barriers to representation, widen the pool of potential volunteers and promote inclusivity.

The Government did not accept the Commission’s Recommendation 18 to develop a digital solution to signpost and refer children and young people at risk of, or already experiencing criminal exploitation, to local organisations who can provide support.

Access & Participation

Wonkhe report on new research from Disabled Students UK: 41 per cent of disabled students believe that their course accessibility improved through the pandemic. However, 50 per cent of respondents report that their course both improved and worsened in different ways. The report recommendations include taking an anticipatory approach to issues, better equipping staff, reducing administration for disabled students, and cultivating compassionate approaches. The Independent has the story.

Academic quality

HEPI published a new policy note, written by the Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency for HE exploring what quality means in UK HE today.

There’s a nice explanation of the quality continuum:

In many sectors, the notion of quality control is straightforward. Quality control tests a sample of the output against a specification. The required standard is set by identifying measures for outputs, and then testing everything else against those measures. In this way, it is easy to demonstrate how quality requirements are being fulfilled (typically within an acceptable tolerance).
No matter the sector, quality control is only part of the picture. To be really efficient, one needs to provide confidence in the cycle of production; to reassure that there are systems and processes in place to ensure that the output consistently meets, if not exceeds, the quality benchmarks that have been set. This is where quality assurance comes in. Quality assurance acts prospectively to provide confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled. Assurance relates to how a process is performed or a product is made. Control is the retrospective, post-production inspection aspect of quality – it focuses on the product or output itself. Arguably, without the underpinning processes, outcomes cannot be guaranteed – they are achieved (or not) by luck. In our sector, assurance gives us the confidence that a provider understands (and self-reviews) how it is producing its outcomes.
But in higher education, we are not simply producing identical products for customers. QAA’s definition of academic quality refers to both how and how well higher education providers support students to succeed through learning, teaching and assessment. This is because higher education is not a product, as classically defined. It is an intrinsically co-creative, experiential process. Students and teachers collaborate to progress and reach their potential and, ideally, the learning from that collaboration is mutual as we constantly rethink what we thought we knew. That is why there is an additional dimension to higher education quality. It is not just about checking we are still doing the same thing effectively, it is also about quality enhancement – that drive continuously to improve the processes, both incrementally and transformationally.

PQs

Student Loans: the modelled overall reduction in future costs to taxpayers from student loans…are wholly attributable to the two-year tuition fee freeze and changes to student loan repayment terms, as set out on page 13 of the higher education policy statement & reform consultation, and do not incorporate other elements of the reform package. The savings do include the changes to the Plan 2 repayment threshold for 2022/23 financial year, announced on 28 January 2022, prior to the announcement of the whole reform package.
Levelling Up White Paper: which NHS-university partnerships will receive the £30 million in additional funding; and what the criteria is for the allocation of that funding.

Other news

Young Welsh Priorities: The Welsh Youth Parliament chose its areas of focus for the Sixth Senedd.: mental health and wellbeing, climate and the environment, and education and the school curriculum.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

February 17, 2022

HE policy update for the w/e 17th February 2022

EU, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

As it is Parliamentary recess, we thought we would do a general policy round up this week

Fees, funding and finance

We’ve updated our separate paper on fees, funding and finance for BU readers while we wait for the final response to the Augar review.

Research and knowledge exchange

Post-Brexit there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether we will be able to join Horizon Europe and what happens if we don’t. Science Minister George Freeman has started talking about Plan B domestic funding (£6 billion) to replace it, although that doesn’t deal with issue about collaboration on EU projects.

Linked to productivity and regional economic success, there is a big focus on the “right sort” of research. We will continue to see a focus on industry led rather than university led projects and a downturn in funding for humanities and social sciences research, with priority given to projects that lead directly to improvements in productivity and economic gain, as well as medical or health benefits – rather than “pure” or theoretical research. The other focus is on “place” – linking research and funding to local and regional needs.

The government are pressing ahead with the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA). The Bill is awaiting Royal Assent in February 2022. The first CEO has been appointed and he has come from DARPA, the US agency on which ARIA was partially modelled.
The KEF outcomes and REF outcomes (due in April 2022) will inform this agenda. This explains how to use the KEF dashboards. You can view the dashboards for individual institutions here and compare two providers here. UKRI have consulted on changes to the KEF for the future. In May 2021 UKRI launched a review of the REF to plan for the future.
The House of Commons Library have a useful review of Research and Development funding policy from November 2021.
The R&D roadmap announced in July 2020 repeats the commitment to R&D investment of 2.4% by 2027 and public investment will be £22bn by 20204/25.
There was a consultation and the outcomes were published on 21^st January 2020: “In the coming months, we have committed to publishing a new places strategy for R&Dand we are working across government and with the devolved administrations to develop this”.
However, since then there has been a lot of concern about what would be included in this target – whether some of it would be paid to the EU for associate membership of Horizon Europe, and there have been cuts in the development budget with an impact on research (UKRI stated most of its aid-funded research projects are unlikely to be funded beyond 31 July as a result of the Government slashing its overseas aid development budget (from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income (BNI) The full UKRI ODA letter is here).
Research Professional report that quality related (QR) funding will be cut by £60 million. This is in addition to the cuts to the research relating to the aid budget and the uncertainties surrounding how Horizon association will be funded. See this RP article for far more detail on the various cuts, changes and uncertainties to research related funding streams
The Government launched an independent review into UK research bureaucracy led by Professor Adam Tickell, Vice Chancellor, University of Sussex. The last time bureaucracy came up was when they attacked EU research bidding processes as part of the Brexit discussions, announced they were dropping impact statements in UK bidding and then quietly admitted they were just moving them to another bit of the form. It is unclear what new bee they have in their bonnet but anyone applying for the government restructuring funding announced in the summer of 2020 may need to demonstrate the leanness of their professional services functions and internal processes, or at least show that they are willing to tackle them once restructured. The interim report was published in January 2022 and identified some themes for future work – more is due this Spring.

Education:

We don’t yet have a letter to the OfS from the Secretary of State, Nadhim Zahawi setting out his priorities – in contrast to his predecessor, who wrote many such letters. We do have a letter about access and participation from November 2021, announcing the new Director of Fair Access and Participation and directing a change in approach. He has also engaged in the ongoing discussions about antisemitism on campus.

The Universities Minister has taken a much higher profile role now that she is a member of cabinet, writing directly to universities, and even phoning them, apparently. According to a speech at a UCAS event in February 2022, her priorities include quality, fair access and transparency. She is actively campaigning on a range of issues including mental health support, the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of bullying and harassment, advertising in HE and the use of personal statements in admissions. And unconditional offers. Just a side note on admissions – speaking to UCAS and not mentioning the DfE consultation on post qualifications admissions really does suggest that it has been kicked into the very long grass. This was Gavin Williamson’s thing…and once again the complexity of the change required seems to have stopped it progressing.

Access and Participation

In his November 2021 letter, Nadhim Zahawi said:

The current system for Access and Participation in HE has had some successes. The proportion of children receiving FSM progressing to higher education by age 19 has increased from 19.8% in 2010/11 to 26.6% in 2019/20; similarly, the proportion of state school entrants to Oxbridge has increased from 59% to 66% between 2015/16 to 2019/20. We want this progress to continue. But the gap between the most and least advantaged students remains stubbornly open. White British young males who received free school meals are amongst the least likely to enter higher education, with just 12.6% progressing to higher education by age 19 by 2019/20. We also see persistent gaps in the attainment of students from different ethnic groups within higher education, with the number of Black students achieving 1st or a 2:1 being 18.3 percentage points lower than for White students. It also cannot be right that some notional gains in access have resulted from recruiting students from underrepresented groups onto courses where more than 50% of students do not get positive outcomes from their degree.
We would like to see the whole higher education sector stepping up and taking a greater role in continuing to raise aspirations and standards in education – and we would like to refocus the A&P regime to better support this.

And

we welcome a fresh focus from the OfS on the outcomes achieved by disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in higher education. Providers should not be incentivised, nor rewarded, for recruiting disadvantaged students onto courses where too many students drop out or that do not offer good graduate outcomes.
Within this A&P refresh, where courses exist on which significant numbers of students who start drop out or do not progress to graduate jobs or further study, the OfS should expect such providers to set clear, measurable targets to improve the outcomes of such courses, hold them to account for meeting those targets, in a similar manner to how the OfS expects to see access targets in high tariff providers.

The OfS has shared more than a hint of what is to come under the new Director for Fair Access and Participation (read more here).

Quality and standards

The big thing in 2022. We did a detailed review of all of the current proposals in our policy update on 21^st January 2022. It’s all there – absolute numbers for baseline standards on student outcomes metrics (continuation, completion and progression to highly skilled employment or further study), to be published split by subject and a wide range of other criteria including student characteristics, to support the access and participation agenda noted above. But also a whole load of other licence conditions about keeping courses up to date and coherent, to ensure that they develop relevant skills, that students are supported to achieve high quality outcomes, that students are engaged with course development and that courses are properly resourced.

Building on these “baselines”, we also have a new TEF! With a new category of “requires improvement”, still using the NSS, and with a new “aspect” of educational gain. While not a subject level TEF, again, all the data will be published using similar splits to the regulatory data referred to above (including subject and student characteristics) and the way that the ratings are awarded means that problems in subject areas or for particular groups of students could pull down institutional ratings. The 20 page submission will be expected in mid-November 2022.

And the OfS are still reviewing the NSS.

Skills agenda

This is still a thing, although the white paper that is supposed to define how it will be implemented is still not available so no-one really knows what it all means. We hear a lot about the lifelong loan entitlement and modular learning. The Skills Bill itself is at report stage in the House of Commons in February 2022, having been though all stages in the Lords.

We were hoping for more information in the Levelling-Up white paper. We covered this extensively on 7^th February 2022. As we said, more than a third of the 300 pages is data analysis, and even in the policy sections there’s a lot of waffle and reviewing of previous initiatives to justify the new approach – 12 big “missions for 2030”. A lot of the policy stuff is in the “things we are already doing or have announced before” box. There is very little in here for Dorset either. And there are thin pickings in terms of HE policy.

One thing that is in the bill – a clause aimed at outlawing essay mills.

Financial sustainability

After a big focus on this through the pandemic, worries seem to have subsided. The last report is from the OfS in June 2021:

The sector is forecasting a decline in financial performance and strength in 2020-21, relative to 2019-20, followed by an expected slow recovery from 2021-22.
Higher education providers have generally responded to the challenging circumstances brought about by the pandemic through sensible and prudent financial management, including good control of costs and the effective management of cashflow to protect sustainability. There is evidence of prudent management of liquidity, building contingency to accommodate the financial pressure expected from coronavirus. This has been achieved through the generally effective management of cash outflow, including restraint on capital expenditure, where this has been possible.
The sector in aggregate experienced stronger student recruitment in 2020-21 than many predicted at the height of the pandemic. 2020-21 saw overall strong demand from UK students, and overseas students held up well, albeit at lower levels than were forecast before the pandemic.
Despite this, an overall decrease in income in 2020-21 will reduce the financial operating performance. Net operating cashflow, necessary to support longer term sustainability, fell from 8.4 per cent of total income in 2019-20 to 4.2 per cent in 2020-21. This appears to be manageable in the short term, but at this level will not support sustainability in the longer term.
Some higher education providers have applied borrowing instruments, including through some of the government-backed loan schemes, as contingency to safeguard operational cashflows in the event of financial risks. Many of these borrowing instruments remain in place, but are not drawn down and are not forecast to be drawn down.
Despite the overall satisfactory findings of our analysis at this time, significant uncertainty remains, and the impact of the pandemic globally could change quickly. Issues that could affect income include restrictions on the movement of students domestically and internationally, higher numbers of students dropping out, and reduced income from accommodation and commercial activities that rely on open buildings and facilities.
While the aggregate position is reasonably positive, relative to the risks that have been managed recently, there continues to be significant variability between the financial performance of individual providers, and we expect this will continue as providers adapt to the post-pandemic operating environment. However, we consider that, at this time, the likelihood of multiple providers exiting the sector in a disorderly way because of financial failure is low.
Overall, the sector is forecasting continued income growth in the next four years, supported primarily by expectations of strong domestic and international student recruitment. Domestic and international student numbers are projected to increase by 12.3 and 29.5 per cent respectively between 2020-21 and 2024-25, with associated rises of 14.4 and 46.6 per cent for the related income. UCAS data on applications for the 2021 cycle at the January equal consideration deadline indicates increased demand from UK and non-EU students to study at English providers. The forecast growth in fee income from domestic students is based on a broad assumption that there is no material change to level of government funding of teaching, be that through tuition fee loans or OfS grant funding.
Net liquidity (net cash holdings) is forecast to be lowest in 2020-21 and 2021-22 as providers manage the financial implications from coronavirus. However, in aggregate, net liquidity remains at reasonable levels and we also know that the banking sector has often provided short-term finance facilities to providers as contingency, in the rare circumstances when this is needed. All tariff groups forecast steady growth in net liquidity from 2022-23, underpinned by expectations of strong student recruitment.
While the sector is hopeful of a post-coronavirus recovery in financial performance from 2021-22, there are a number of potentially significant financial challenges to overcome in the forecast period. Examples could include: extended operational restrictions from new variants of coronavirus, which could affect student recruitment; the implications of global economic recovery for spending, business interaction and the employment market; and the need to secure the financial sustainability of pension schemes.

Free speech

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill has made fairly slow progress, at the report stage in the House of Commons as at February 2022, with the whole Lords process still to go. The culture wars rage around this. Was xx no platformed or simply not invited? Did a protest mean someone was “cancelled” or was it a legitimate protest? Does it depend on the subject matter and whether those opining agree or disagree with the position of those protesting? Where is the line between legal, but controversial, speech, and speech that breaks the (existing) law. Which speakers will be protected for their controversial, but legal speech, and which won’t because, although legal, their speech was in some other way deemed to be unacceptable. Hmm. There’s a neat summary from February 2022 here.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

January 24, 2022

HE policy update for the w/e 21st January 2022

policy, Student Engagement jforster

There so much regulatory stuff to talk about, so we are focussing on that this week. There will be a more normal update next week.

Moving the goalposts – the OfS proposals for regulating absolute baselines

This is the biggy – the one with the absolute student outcomes metrics. The 60% metric that was all over the news is for FT first degree undergraduates using the “progression” metric – further study or professional or managerial employment. But there are continuation and completion baselines too, and they vary dramatically for PG students and a whole bunch of other categories.

These become binding licence conditions, and breaches of them lead to serious regulatory consequences. Serious breaches could lead to losing degree awarding powers, or not being allowed a TEF rating (and having fees capped at £7500 as a result). There are lots of lesser actions, including specific licence conditions requiring action to address things, as well.

And the data will be published. All of it. Including a lot of split data. Potentially 48 indicators, all with spits by age, disability, sex, ethnicity, IMD, etc etc…and SUBJECT. You will recall that there is no subject level TEF. While that is true, the regulatory baseline data, and the TEF data, will be presented by subject because the OfS want to be able to identify “pockets of poor provision”. Having these pockets could cause a regulatory problem, and drag a provider down in the TEF. The data will include taught students, registered students, and “taught and registered”. So any partner students would count towards our data as well as the partner’s data. It will be based on 4 years of data.

And how will this all work? There will be an initial review of the first lot of data – this autumn – and then an annual cycle. There will be intervention letters for those with problems in October 2022. The data already exists, so no need to wait. They are consulting on how to prioritise the challenges – not everyone with a breach in a small pocket will get one. They will look at context – a bit, but note:

We do not consider that a provider’s mission or strategy is relevant to our consideration of whether it is delivering positive outcomes for students
We do not consider that the level of funding a provider receives is relevant to whether it should meet the minimum requirements set by the OfS
We do not agree that lower entry tariffs should be a reason for performance below our minimum requirements
We do not consider that a provider with New DAPs should be exempt from satisfying minimum regulatory requirements
We do not consider that a provider’s resources are relevant to whether it should be expected to meet the OfS’s minimum requirements
We do not consider that a provider’s reputation is relevant to our consideration of whether it is achieving positive outcomes for students

Worried about regulatory burden – too bad. They think it is proportionate. And they aren’t telling us to change our internal monitoring to look at all this. But we might want to – and it has the potential to be very onerous indeed.

Supporting documents:

detailed guide to how the numerical thresholds have been set
analysis of responses on the phase 1 consultation from November 2020 that relate to regulation of student outcomes

Wonkhe have coverage in an article by Jim Dickinson which is worth reading.

Teaching Excellence Framework – it’s ALIVE

The TEF had become a zombie – the walking dead scheme where awards were still in force (because apart from anything else they are required as a licence condition) but shhh, providers aren’t allowed to talk about them because they are so out of date as to be potentially seriously misleading. And the OfS has been talking about a new TEF for a very, very long time. And finally, linked very closely to the new absolute baselines but with some exciting new bits as well, here it is. Hold on to your hats, it is going to be a busy summer and autumn, especially as we won’t get the guidance until June! They were already given feedback about timing in their consultation events and this is therefore probably the best we are going to get. Submissions by mid-November 2022.

So it’s back, bigger and better. Still called the TEF (not the TESOF). Still gold, silver and bronze. There is a new category of “requires improvement” for those who don’t get one- they are asking for input on how to communicate that one. As noted above, institutional level only, although we get (and have to address) all the subject level data. There is an institutional submission that will be 20 pages, and a separate student one of 10 pages. It will happen every 4 years, dropping the annual cycle we had before, when you could try again for a higher grade. The data will be published annually though.

It will still use NSS, as well as the three outcomes measures referred to above (professional employment or further study, completion and continuation).

The “aspects” of measurement are new: student experience (academic experience and assessment, and resources, support and student engagement) and student outcomes (positive outcomes, as above, plus a whole new one – educational gains). So far so familiar, but the educational gains is fascinating. No data for this one – “these features should relate to a provider’s articulation of the gains it intends its students to achieve; its approach to supporting these educational gains; and evidence of the gains achieved”.

And the much challenged benchmarking is different (can’t say yet if it is better) and there are no “flags”. Just a very complex graphical representation. One thing that veterans of the last process will be pleased to hear is that providers will receive the initial conclusion and evidence and have 28 days to make representations.

Supporting documents:

Materiality and high benchmark values to use in interpretation – not yet published

Wonkhe cover this one too, in an article by David Kernohan: Frankly, it’s better than it has been in the past, but still probably not as good as it could have been. It’s certainly better than the B3 proposals.

Research Professional also have an article and it featured in the 8am Playbook too.

And last, but definitely by no means least

All of these things need data. There is a separate 195 page consultation on how the data for the B3 conditions and the TEF will be calculated. Along with all of you, we look forward to working out the detailed implications of all of that. Consultation on constructing student outcome and experience indicators for use in OfS regulation (with a video)

Comparison of completion methods
Technical documents
- Description and methodology
- Core algorithms
- Subject code mappings
- Instructions for rebuilding the datasets
- Description of statistical methods
Data dashboards (illustrative and using fictional data)

If nothing else, please have a look at the dashboards. They show the new world in glorious technicolour.

Other changes – the proposed licence conditions you might have missed

There was a previous consultation over the summer (closed at the end of September) that set out the other new proposed B conditions. This one had an ambitious implementation timeline which has not stuck. What it said was “we intend to make a decision on whether to impose the conditions in Annexes A, B and C and revise the regulatory framework, as set out in these proposals, in autumn 2021. The new ongoing conditions would come into effect for registered providers on the date of publication of that decision“. Assuming that they don’t make any changes to what was proposed (and they don’t make many, usually), this lot could be imposed imminently. Or, the delay may be because they are revising it substantially. Either way, a bit of notice would be helpful. Not because we aren’t doing this stuff, but because we need to make sure we have the monitoring and audit trails in place to prove it if we are asked. Which we could be, either as part of a review linked to the outcomes data, or because other OfS monitoring suggests that there may be an issue with some of these.

Yesterday’s announcements referred to the fact that this previous consultation had happened, but said nothing about next steps on that. So maybe it will all come together in June. Or we might get the first lot earlier. So what are they? You need to know, because if implemented as proposed, they are very wide ranging.

B1 …. the provider must ensure that the students registered on each higher education course receive a high quality academic experience.

B1.3 For the purposes of this condition, a high quality academic experience includes but is not limited to ensuring all of the following: – that each higher education course:

a. is up-to-date;
provides educational challenge;
is coherent;
is effectively delivered; and
as appropriate to the subject matter of the course, requires students to develop relevant skills.

Those highlighted definitions are worth looking at. There is a lot more about these in the guidance which is summarised in the attachment. One question is how the OfS will assess all these things – see below. And of course there are lots of other questions – if the rumoured next steps on Augar are true, which is a push to modular learning to support the lifetime learning objective, how does that fit with “coherence”. And just note – students and courses include PGR programmes of study.

“up-to-date” means representative of current thinking and practices in the subject matter to which the HE course relates…

“educational challenge” means a challenge that is no less than the minimum level of rigour and difficulty reasonably expected of the HE course, in the context of the subject matter of the course [this seems circular to me!]

“coherent” means a HE course which ensures:

there is an appropriate balance between breadth and depth of content;
subjects and skills are taught in an appropriate order and, where necessary, build on each other throughout the course; and

iii. key concepts are introduced at the appropriate point in the course content.

“effectively delivered”, ….means the manner in which it is taught, supervised and assessed (both in person and remotely) including, but not limited to, ensuring:

an appropriate balance between lectures, seminars, group work and practical study, as relevant to the content of the course; and
an appropriate balance between directed and independent study or research, as relevant to the level of the course.

“relevant skills” means:

knowledge and understanding relevant to the subject matter and level …; and
other skills relevant to the subject matter and level …including, but not limited to, cognitive skills, practical skills, transferable skills and professional competences.

B2. ….the provider must ensure: ..each cohort of students registered on each HE course receives resources and support and effective engagement with each cohort of students, in both cases to ensure:

a high quality academic experience for those students; and
those students succeeding in and beyond higher education; and

“resources” includes but is not limited to:

the staff team … being collectively sufficient in number, appropriately qualified and deployed effectively to deliver in practice; and
physical and digital learning resources that are adequate and deployed effectively to meet the needs of the cohort of students.

“support” means the effective deployment of assistance, as appropriate to the content of the HE course and the cohort of students, including but not limited to:

academic support relating to the content of the HE course;
support needed to underpin successful physical and digital learning and teaching;
support relating to avoiding academic misconduct; and
careers support, but for the avoidance of doubt, does not include other categories of non-academic support.

“engagement” means routinely building into the course delivery opportunities for students to contribute to the future development of the HE course in a way that maintains the academic rigour of that course….

Other new conditions: As the summary document sets out, there are conditions on assessment, the credibility of awards, and lots more, including the requirement to keep copies of assessed work so that the credibility and reliability of awards can be assessed by the OfS if it needs to be.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

June 18, 2021

HE policy update for the w/e 18th June 2021

COVID-19, EU, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

We’re still in the mid-June lull before the July storm we mentioned last week, however, the Skills and Post-16 Bill was debated at length in the Lords with disgruntlement over the lack of substance and missing details. Lord Storey’s Essay Mills Bill has a twin introduced by Chris Skidmore in the Commons. TEF awards have been extended, but are so out of date for some (most) institutions that the OfS has told the HE sector to stop promoting their awards. And Horizon Europe opened for business alongside Committee concern that the Government’s Horizon commitment is more mothballs than moolah.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill

We have a summary of the Second Reading debate within Parliament on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill here. It was a long (6 hour) session so look out for the bold type in the summary where we highlight the most interesting points. In brief influential points were made in relation to:

Questions about the role of local skills plans within the Bill and their interaction with a wider range of training providers other than FE colleges
Loan funding (and funding cuts) being part of the reason for the decline in adult learning
The Bill shouldn’t separate creative subjects and the humanities from technical subjects and the sciences.
Caution about how modular learning connects together in practice.
Careers advice and support including regular face to face support. It was also noted that careers hubs were included in the White Paper but do not feature in the Bill.
Calls for the lifetime skills guarantee to be made law with automatic funding rights.
Calls to limit apprenticeship funding for those aged over 25 to a quarter of the total pot.
Criticism that while the Bill was aspirational, the Government have not provided detail on the funding, nor long term commitments.

Wonkhe contemplate the discussion in this blog: Peers wanted to discuss policy, but had to debate a skeletal bill. The blog highlights some important points:

David Willetts [former Universities minister] referred to an “artificial conflict” between vocational and academic sectors, noting that there were many universities that have more than 70 per cent of their students studying work-linked courses that met standards and requirements set by professional bodies and employers.
Jo Johnson [former Universities minister]… cautioned against the likely attempts to limit access to creative courses – which would “starve the supply of talent” to a range of economically and socially important employment sectors because of a preference for other sectors that offered higher salaries.
…Tellingly, Johnson described the Treasury habit of assessing educational value by loan repayment rates as “reductive”, but few expected him to take aim at a “bewildering” range of regulatory bodies with responsibilities in post-16 education. Having given life to the beleaguered Office for Students, he seemed surprisingly keen to bring about a single – joined up – regulator.
On the crucial ‘local’ aspect: What’s curious (especially post-Covid when we are all statistical and administrative geography nerds…) is that “local” will be self-defined – the vision seems to be that groups will spontaneously form and apply to the Secretary of State for approval. The expectation is that bodies active in that local area (mayoral authorities, councils, LEPs…) would be involved.

Wonkhe summarise the overall feel of the outcome well: It is clear that we shall see a number of amendments at committee – Mike Watson noted these might include bringing other stakeholders into the “employer centred” LSIP process, and limiting some of the powers given to central government to control what is taught and where. Aims were welcomed, detail was sought.

Wonkhe also commented that pushback can be expected at further stages of the parliamentary process on the sheer scale of powers over provision centralised around the Secretary of State. They also tell us that Politics.co.uk has an opinion piece arguing that inconsistencies and exceptions in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill could grant space for extremists to thrive.

The debate triggered several media pieces on highlighting the Government’s key messaging around the Bill. A Prospects opinion piece is anti-HE expansion, pro-apprenticeship, and argues that successful arts graduates have failed as they could have earned more studying something else. The article continues along the current Government party line:

the rapid expansion of creative courses in recent decades is one of the main reasons why more than three-quarters of students will now never fully pay back their student loans, leaving the Treasury with an expected write off of taxpayer liabilities worth £28.8bn in 2049-50, according to current forecasts.
Of course, higher earnings are not the only reason why people study and creative arts courses offer society much more than just an economic dividend. This is particularly true in a place like Falmouth… that produced some of the best British artists of the last century. But it did so well before it converted to university status and sextupled the size of its student body compared to 1990s levels. The mistake is to think that artistic endeavour, or a whole other panoply of vocational pursuits, are best served through university expansion and funded by debt.

One wonders if the same arguments about value for money will be made once degree apprenticeships attract the same debt as a standard undergraduate degree.

THE also covered this angle in Local people: In the UK, Conservative MPs’ backing for new universities in their areas, despite Tory criticism of expansion at national level, has been seen as affirming that higher education must stress its local economic impact if it wants to build a “common dialogue” with the governing party.

Funding: Last Friday Gavin Williamson announced funding aimed for adults to access more, high-quality alternatives to university degrees under new measures to boost the nation’s skills and job prospects. He confirmed £18 million new Growth Funding for FE & HE – providers bid for funding for equipment and to develop business links leading to skills training in certain sectors.

Tied in with the announcement are the previously announced £10 million for Institutes of Technology and £2 million of modular training aimed at future skills gaps. Overall the three funds try to jump start higher technical skills training for adults. Some of the sector rhetoric around the announcements talk of diverting students away from degrees and into higher technical provision, however, Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, suggests the Government needs to focus on the capable adults that did not progress beyond level 3.

UUK said: Expanding higher technical courses is a positive move which will increase choice for learners of all ages and help employers meet their skills needs as the nation looks to rebuild from the impact of COVID-19. Universities have been involved with developing these qualifications and many universities are ready to scale up their alternatives to the traditional three-year degree. UUK is working closely with government, employers and local partners to help make these qualifications a success.

Engineering Recommendations for local agenda: The Institution of Engineering and Technology have published Addressing the STEM skills shortage challenge exploring the ways local authorities can help train and equip people with the skills their region needs.

Their recommendations which are most relevant to HE are:

UK Government should work more closely with the higher education sector and training providers to ensure funding is allocated on the quality of courses available, not the quantity of students on each course.
Local authorities should initiate discussions between academic institutions and industry to ensure the right skills and training are available for adoption of new technologies as they emerge.
Local authorities should take a lead in encouraging a diverse mix of people into the profession through locally targeted schemes.
Professional engineering institutions (PEIs) and industry bodies should work with local government to ensure there’s a wider and updated provision of careers advice, particularly around engineering. This should include information on the variety of routes into engineering, such as vocational study.

Parliamentary Question: STEM skills shortages

Research and knowledge exchange

Business value and performance: At the end of last week HESA published data showing how HEIs interacted with business and the wider community in 2019/20. Including:

business and community services
social, community and cultural engagement
intellectual property, start-ups and spin offs
regeneration and development
strategies, approaches and infrastructures

You can see how BU performed compared nationally and within the south west region.

And this week the National centre for Universities and Business found that universities’ interaction and engagement with business and external partners grew despite the pandemic (Aug 2019 to Jul 2020).

UK university income from interactions rose compared to the previous year, totalling £5.2 billion
3067 patents were granted – up by 14.6% from 2018-19
16505 licenses were granted – up by 29.8% from 2018-19
174 newly registered spinouts – up by 4.2% from 2018-19

However, University income from knowledge exchange activities with businesses fell compared to the previous year to £909m

Dr Joe Marshall, Chief Executive of NCUB, said:

The new HE-BCI survey results released today show that despite the challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, universities’ have put significant effort into supporting and maintaining their partnerships with their communities and businesses. They have also continued to boost their research commercialisation activities. Across a range of indicators, universities have ramped up activity and engagement in a clear sign of their centrality in combatting the crisis and leading recovery.
Though the survey results showcase the resilience shown by universities and their important contribution to the economy and society, there are still challenges ahead. Universities did report declines in their interaction with both large businesses and SME’s in 2019-20, almost certainly driven by the pandemic. This is concerning, as university-business interaction is key to economy recovery, to keeping the UK competitive in global markets and to meeting decarbonisation and health-related goals. Experience from the 2008 recession shows that nations that invest in R&D are able to boost productivity, improve livelihoods, and drive forward economic recovery. To help build back better, now is the time for Government, businesses and universities to invest in, not away from, collaboration, research and innovation.

Quick News

KEF: UKRI presented at a recent Universities Policy Engagement Network event on KEF: What next? If you missed the event you can view the slide deck here.

Horizon Europe applications opened. Meanwhile the Commons European Scrutiny Committee has highlighted a £14 billion gap in funding for the UK’s contribution to the Horizon Europe research funding programme. Questions had been raised by the Committee to Amanda Solloway…[who] estimates…the up-front cost of the pan-European fund to the Treasury to be £15bn over the seven-year programme. The programme will then invest the majority of this back into UK science projects. However, the report found that just £1bn of this has so far been committed following correspondence with Ms Solloway.

At the G7 the UK and America agreed to strengthen collaboration in science and technology through a new partnerships and a new era of strategic cooperation in the field:

The partnership will explore a number of areas for cooperation including research, innovation and commercialisation; defence, security, law enforcement and intelligence; and making sure technology is used as a force for good around the world. Officials from both countries will work to develop the partnership over the course of the next year.
It aims to strengthen cooperation in areas such as the resilience and security of critical supply chains, battery technologies, and emerging technologies including artificial intelligence (AI) and to improve the accessibility and flow of data to support economic growth, public safety and scientific and technological progress.
It will see the countries work towards a new statement of intent to help realise the full potential of quantum technologies, which use the properties of quantum physics to dramatically improve the functionality and performance of devices, develop proposals on future technology such as 6G and strengthen collaboration on digital technical standards.
The two nations have also committed to continue to broaden collaboration on science and technology to help facilitate world-class research and influence the rules, norms and standards governing technology and the digital economy.

Former universities minister, Chris Skidmore, writes for conservative home: To keep up with our G7 colleagues, we must increase our spending on innovation and research. The success of “Global Britain” now depends on matching countries that have transformed their economies towards innovation and research. I would now go further— and suggest if we wish to keep up with our G7 colleagues, the forthcoming Innovation Strategy should set a definite timetable for three per cent, and beyond to 3.5 per cent of GDP being spent on R&D. To fail to achieve this in contrast to the other major world economies be setting ourselves up to fail.

Cutting the aid budget is still news. Polling company Savanta ComRes reveal public perception showing support for the cuts.

Click into this link to view the chart more easily.

Parliamentary Questions

Not much more detail on the £20 million for ECRs
Artificial Intelligence intellectual property

Admissions

Research Professional’s Sunday reading discusses tracking the CAG cohort. The CAG cohort are the subgroup of home undergraduate applicants for 2020 entry who only secured places at their firm choice institutions after the algorithmic adjustment (which originally had them missing their grades) was removed.

…tracking the CAG cohort might help inform future debates about merit and fair admissions. We believe that the CAG cohort provides a unique opportunity to test the robustness of algorithmically adjusted grades versus those determined through centre assessments and, consequently, to provide insights into higher education’s admissions practices and decisions.
institutions are well positioned to monitor the CAG cohort relative to the ‘mainstream’ cohort, to enable a better understanding of the extent to which A-level grades—both the initial algorithmically adjusted and subsequent CAG-only ones—are proving to be a good predictor of students’ ability to succeed and thrive in their ‘firm choice’ institution.
We should also gain insights into the impact that these late admissions decisions had on applicants’ emotional connection to the institutions to which they had applied, visited and perhaps prepared to attend and, ultimately, how this might have affected their sense of belonging. And we will develop a better understanding of what additional support—if any—has been or will be required for this cohort to succeed.
As always—and particularly during the pandemic and beyond—a multitude of factors will contribute to the student experience, retention and success, but might it be possible to isolate the impact of factors associated with entry grades and context? While the complexities involved may mean that any conclusions are tentative and nuanced, tracking the experience and outcomes of the CAG cohort has the potential to inform the evolution of fair admissions to higher education.
Should the prospect of a minimum tariff entry standard re-emerge…then there is an even greater imperative to assure ourselves, our applicants and the wider public that, in the light of emerging evidence, these well-established practices remain fit for purpose.

Contract Cheating – Essay Mills

You’ll be aware that Lord Storey continues his crusade to ban essay mills in his latest Private Member’s Bill on the Lords. His Bill is scheduled for a second reading (a debate) next week. Chris Skidmore (former universities minister) has introduced his own private members bill on the topic. It has raised the profile of the issue but the Bill is last in a very long queue for parliamentary time (and PMBs in the either the Lords or the Commons rarely make it into law).

The volume of PMBs on this topic over the years is interesting as they have provided several opportunities for the Government to support the ban on essay mills. Moreover, the Higher Education and Research Act was an ideal opportunity to change the law incorporating it within the wider changes for the HE sector and legislative amendments were proposed to this effect. However the Government repeatedly stated they’d prefer a non-legislative route (tasking QAA and NUS to tackle it including providing guidance). Given the Government’s focus on quality of teaching and education and on value for money it is a little surprising they don’t seem willing to take a stronger stance. The House of Lords Library have produced a briefing note on essay mills to inform the debate. It is an excellent paper and contains the history and key points in short form. Give it a read if you want to understand or catch up on this topic.

We remind you in this context of a Paul Greatrix blog from March for Wonkhe on banning essay mills – it’s time to act and has interesting content on how the legal ban in Australia has worked. It is a good quick read, and the comments to the article are a must.

Times Higher Education has an article – Monopoly fears: The UK’s competition regulator is to investigate Turnitin’s proposal to buy out its last major rival in global academic integrity services.

Access & Participation

Outreach: NEON published The outlook for outreach stating that from 2022-23 the total invested in activities to support those from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter HE will fall unless there is continued funding provided for the national Uni-Connect programme. They also highlight few HE institution’s APP contain specific targets for certain underrepresented groups and comments on the lack of collaboration between providers for shared targets. The NEON press release contains a short summary.

Social disadvantage impact on educational outcomes: The Centre for Progressive Policy published Re-examination Expanding educational opportunities for every child stating it maps the ways in which social disadvantage affects educational outcomes among children and young people, impacting their progression through the education system and ultimately their employment prospects.

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are nearly twice as likely to fail to achieve a level 4 in their maths and/or English GCSE compared to students from non-disadvantaged backgrounds.
38% of those from non-disadvantaged backgrounds continue into higher education (HE), while only 25% of those from disadvantaged backgrounds will do the same.
58% of students with low prior attainment at GCSE will continue into a further education (FE) college or other FE provider, where funding fell by 24.5% between 2010/11 and 2018/19.

You can read more and explore further charts here.

Mental Health

UCAS published the student mental health report Starting the Conversation stating there is still more work to do to smash the myths and stigma around mental health, and to highlight the support available to students in higher education.

250% increase in the number of applicants who report their mental health condition to UCAS. (3.7% of all UK applicants declared a mental health condition in their application to study in 2020 – up from 0.7% in 2011.)
Despite the above increase UCAS estimates that over 70,000 students may enter HE every year with a mental health condition, but 49% do not disclose this.
UCAS suggests a common reason students do not disclose is due to a lack of understanding about what the data will be used for, and the belief it will impact on their chances of receiving a university offer.
UCAS are keen to promote positive disclosure and highlight OfS information which finds students with mental health conditions tend to have lower rates of continuation, attainment, and progression into skilled work or further study.
Women are 2.2 times more likely to declare a mental health condition than men.
Alongside engineering, medicine and dentistry courses have the lowest declaration rates with only 1.4% of accepted applicants sharing an existing mental health condition.
Some LGBT+ students are around six times more likely to share a mental health condition, and care experienced students are almost three times as likely. UCAS state this underlines the value of recognising how mental health intersects with other characteristics and support needs.
One in five students research support specifically for an existing mental health condition before they apply, and more than one in four look at the provision of general mental health and wellbeing service.

UCAS sets out next steps in fostering an environment of positive disclosure in the report.

A joined-up, cross-sector communications campaign to unify messaging – to promote the benefits of declaring a mental health condition, create a culture of positive disclosure, align terminology, and address lingering misconceptions and knowledge gaps.
Targeted action in subject areas with low declaration rates to reassure students that sharing a mental health condition will not affect their chances of receiving an offer. Particular emphasis should be given to medicine and dentistry courses so students feel confident that sharing this information will not have implications for their fitness to practise requirements.
Continued implementation of the Stepchange framework and the University Mental Health Charter in universities and colleges, with UCAS to develop good practice in collaboration with Universities UK and HELOA to support this work.
Student mental health to be a key consideration in discussions around admissions reform – UCAS’ proposed variation of the post-qualification offer model would allow for the early transfer of information, give the student time to develop a trusting relationship with the university or college, and start the conversation about support ahead of transition.

Work UCAS is undertaking:

Reviewing how UCAS collects information about a student’s mental and/or physical health conditions and other support needs, including ongoing collaboration with sector bodies and expert organisations.
Implementing additional fields in the applications (e.g. caring responsibilities, estrangement) to facilitate a greater understanding of students’ support needs, and how these may intersect with mental health.
Improving fluidity in the UCAS application to allow students to share information at any point during their application journey.
Enabling students to select multiple impairments and conditions so they can provide universities and colleges with more accurate and meaningful information about their support needs.
UCAS to undertake further research in 2022 to understand the experiences of students who follow different routes for sharing information regarding their mental health

Rosie Tressler, CEO of Student Minds, said:

Once you’re at university or college, asking for help with your mental health needs to feel as simple as saying you’re trying to find the right book in the library. We know that universities and colleges are working towards comprehensive whole-institution approaches to mental health, which will support and enable disclosure of health conditions at any and every stage of the student journey.
The more our future students see how ingrained a mental health and wellbeing strategy is within and across an institution, the more confident they will feel that they are entering an inclusive environment that celebrates difference as a strength.
I’m encouraged that our sector is heading in the direction in which this is the reality for all. This long-term investment is crucial especially as we know that many challenges will have been exacerbated by and will outlast the pandemic. For any student that is looking for support through this difficult period, we encourage you to visit our Student Space, where you can find out about the services at your institution, access guidance and a range of services.

Wonkhe have blogs on the topic:

The gap between those suffering from mental health problems and those declaring it is still too large, says Clare Marchant.
David Kernohan talks a lot of sense in What should we take from new figures on student mental health? He tackles the criticism levelled at the sector about why university students wellbeing ratings are below that of the wider population:
…So, if you took a sample of young (largely female) humans who are not (yet) educated to degree level; and then put them in rented accommodation where they felt lonely and isolated, and then ensured they had limited earning and spending power – you would expect to find a lot of people with depressive symptoms. And you do.
I make this point at length to emphasise that higher education itself is unlikely to be the problem – the demographics and living conditions of those studying in higher education are all massive risk factors. And this is why it is essential we get students to share underlying problems…as soon as possible – ideally at the application stage.

Mental health is also touched upon in the ONS recent data below.

Covid

2021/22 students: Many Covid questions about the 2021/22 academic year remain unanswered however Research Professional meander through the key points in So close, far away tackling what the start of term may look like, whether students will be vaccinated, the chaos that might ensue relating to students received the second jab in a different location, the start of term migration, and speculating what the Government may have in mind.

After the PM bungled his response to a question on student vaccination at the big press conference on Monday (asked about students getting two jabs in time for next term, he didn’t seem to have any idea, despite having just announced that all over 18s will have had one jab by 19^th July, which would seem to be a good start, and was the response in fact provided by Sir Patrick Vallance). Anyway, 18 year olds can now book that first jab. And the PM, perhaps stung by accusations that he is ignoring the young, has taken to youtube (radical) instead. Wonkhe’s Jim Dickinson has a take here:

MPs protesting about Covid restrictions: A familiar set of Dorset MPs are amongst those continuing to rebel against the latest Covid restrictions. Conservative Home note that [at 49] “That’s the biggest Covid rebellion since December 2, when 53 Tory backbenchers opposed the tiering plan. The number of those who would vote against a further extension would almost certainly rise.”

Research Professional delve a little deeper in university finances amongst the turbulence of the pandemic: Till debt do us part.

The Office for National Statistics published the latest experimental statistics from the Student Covid-19 Insights Survey (the impact of coronavirus on HE students) for the period 24 May to 2 June 2021.

29% of students said they had engaged with mental health and well-being services since the start of the Autumn 2020 term; among the most frequently specified services used were GP or primary care (47%), online university services (40%), and NHS or Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme (29%).
The most frequently specified mental health and well-being services students would use in the future, in the first instance, were GP or primary care (25%) and online university services (10%).
61% of students who were in HE prior to the outbreak of the pandemic reported that the lack of face-to-face learning had a major or moderate impact on the quality of their course; 52% said that the pandemic had a major or significant impact on their academic performance.
Most students (81%) said that they were living at the same address as they were at the start of the Autumn 2020 term; this has statistically significantly decreased since early May 2021 (86%).
There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of students reporting that they had at least one COVID-19 test (even without symptoms) in the previous seven days (38%) compared with April 2021 (30%).
The proportion of students who have already received at least one vaccine dose (33%) also significantly increased compared with April 2021 (28%).
Average life satisfaction scores among students continued to increase at 5.9 (out of 10) in late May 2021, following the improvements seen in April 2021 (5.8); average scores remained significantly lower than the adult population in Great Britain (7.1).

TEF

Last week the OfS announced a pause to the TEF while they consult and consider changes. Current TEF awards have been extended (again) and universities were told to remove TEF references from their marketing and campus promotions after September 2021 (a late decision as many universities have already published their future student material). Given that people (including us) have been pointing out that something would need to be done about the TEF awards expiring this summer, this late notice announcement is disappointing.

Here is what we wrote on this blog on 27^th November 2020.

So what is the situation with the TEF? The current awards were all extended to 2021. The OfS announced in January 2020 that they would not run a TEF exercise this year. But what is going to happen when those existing awards run out at the end of this academic year? It’s all a far cry from September 2019 when the Secretary of State was encouraging the OfS to get on with things and run an extra TEF in 2020
… Will there be a gap? Or will the existing awards be extended again – at which time the year two awards given in Spring 2017 based on data from the three previous years start to seem a bit long in the tooth.

Concerns about timing remain. The OfS haven’t launched the consultation on it yet – and the recent OfS blog said that we should not expect this until November. Even with an institutional only process (no subject level), in order to get results before summer 2022, the time for the new exercise will be very short if the framework is only settled in the new year. Anyone involved in writing their previous submissions will be anxiously recalling the challenging December/January 2017/18 and not looking forward to the repeat. Or another extension is on the cards.

If you are wondering what the new TEF might look like, the 27^th November blog set out our ideas pre the release of the Peace review, and we summarised the Pearce review and the government response, and possible next steps in our blog on 21^st January 2021.

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:

AGCAS consultation/survey on Raising The Standard Of Work Experience Opportunities (also covers placements). Questions here.
DCMS call for evidence into the Safety of journalists. Consultation document

Other news

Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, spoke at the at the British Council’s Going Global Conference galloping through the Government’s current policies and international student matters in short order. The speech itself is unremarkable.

STEM diversity: Dods tell us new findings from an external evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) and data science postgraduate conversion courses funded by the Office for Students (OfS) shows a high proportion of enrolments from women, black and disabled students.

The data shows that nearly half (46%) of the total UK students are women, compared with 27% on computing postgraduate taught masters courses previously 23% are black students (12%) and 20% are disabled (16%). This is much higher than the tech workforce as a whole.

£13.5 million funding was allocated to the programme, consisting of £3.5 million to assist with course costs and £10 million to deliver 1,000 scholarships worth £10,000 each, aimed at women, black students and disabled students, among other groups considered to be underrepresented in higher education.

The programme aims to enrol at least 2,500 students by autumn 2023. At the end of the first year, the programme is over halfway to achieving that target with 1,315 students enrolled on courses. Of the 170 scholarship students who were from the UK, nearly three quarters (74%) were women, a quarter (25%) were disabled and 40% were black.

Antisemitism: UUK published Tackling antisemitism: practical guidance for universities. The guidance makes recommendations on actions universities can take to tackle antisemitism. The briefing suggests there is limited understanding of antisemitism and that is can be under reported alongside issues with complaints processes. It also explores online harassment and provides four case studies.

Nursing & Health professions: A parliamentary question on Clinical knowledge and skills training (nurses and health professionals).

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

June 10, 2021

HE policy update for the w/e 12th June 2021

COVID-19, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

It might not feel it in the wider world, but it’s the June calm before the July storm in HE policy. The culture wars are getting silly, the data is showing the challenges for levelling up, and there are yet more suggestions for how to spend more while spending less. Plus two Cabinet Ministers with varying popularity ratings will be seeking new seats at the next election if constituency boundary changes go through. Is that how Gavin and Matt will get their marching orders?

Research

Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, has named Sir Andrew Mackenzie, Chairman of Shell energy as the preferred candidate for UKRI Chair scheduled to take over during the summer. The Commons Science and Technology committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing to consider Mackenzie’s suitability. Research Professional supply the analysis and responses to Mackenzie’s likely appointment.

The parliamentary protest against the ODA cuts continued in an emergency debate. The attempts we reported last week to get the cuts reversed using an amendment to the ARIA bill failed when the speaker, as predicted, said the amendment didn’t relate closely enough to the core subject matter of the Bill. However, the issue will continue to run.

Meanwhile, the UK’s association to Horizon is reported to be under threat: Dods tell us that The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the UK could threaten to pull out of the EU’s €100bn flagship research programme after Brussels was accused on Friday of holding up access in an “act of political vengeance.” ….senior Government sources have claimed that the EU is “purposely going slow” on formalising the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe. This is a side issue as tensions rise in the government’s “sausage war” with Brussels over the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Quick News

QAA published Learning From The Experience Of Postgraduate Research Students And Their Supervisors During Covid-19 . It makes recommendations on students logging the changes made due to the pandemic, talks about the regularity and use of online induction, support and wellbeing strategies, regular listening sessions with PhD students and regularly reviewing policies and processes rather than falling back on how it has always been done.
Research Bureaucracy: A parliamentary question on the intention for a public consultation as part of the review of research bureaucracy. Amanda Solloway responded: The Review of Research Bureaucracy has been engaging broadly across the research sector. The intention is to launch a call for evidence to build on this initial engagement.

Quality

The OfS has given us some more information about timing of the many initiatives that they are working on.

In July, … we will consult on a set of revised quality and standards conditions (revisions to Conditions B1, B2, B4 and B5 in our regulatory framework) that relate to students’ academic experience, the resources and support they need to succeed, rigorous assessment practices, and reliable standards.
… probably in November – we will consult in more detail on a revised approach to regulating student outcomes (Condition B3). … this further consultation will set out our proposed approach to setting minimum numerical baselines, how we will assess providers in relation to those baselines, and how we will take each provider’s context into account.
The TEF… in July we will publish an update on the development of our proposals … We will then consult on a proposed new framework for TEF at the same time as the consultation on student outcomes. The two consultations will draw on a shared set of proposed indicators, …

And there is more:

we are also looking at assessment practices across the sector in more detail.. We know that universities are looking at various ways of reducing the unexplained gap in outcomes for some groups of students, but that should never result in a reduction in the academic rigour required for successful completion of a higher education course. We expect to announce further work in this area over the next few weeks
Later in the year we will also look again at numbers and patterns of classifications awarded to students on undergraduate degree courses. …. we remain concerned about the longer-term trend of increases in classifications, and we plan further investigation to identify the factors that may explain the currently ‘unexplained’ increases [Note: unexplained in OfS-speak means not explained by previous achievement, so could for example, be explained as actually being better outcomes?]
… over the next month we’ll be setting out our approach to combating the malign effects of essay mills

Also on TEF: We are writing later today to providers with TEF awards due to expire this summer, to confirm that their awards will be extended until 2023, and those without an award will be invited to apply for a provisional award to cover the period before the next TEF exercise.

And on essay mills – Lord Storey’s Higher Education Cheating Services Prohibition Bill has been scheduled for its second reading (a debate) on 25 June in the House of Lords.

That TEF letter:

As extended TEF awards will become increasingly out of date, we consider that they should no longer be promoted or used to inform student choice once the 2021 student application cycle is complete. We are therefore advising providers not to use their TEF awards in marketing or promotional materials from September 2021.
TEF awards will be removed from the Discover Uni website in September and UCAS also intends to remove them from its course pages, at our request. We will continue to publish the extended awards on the OfS website, which we will update in September to explain their historical nature. Revised TEF branding guidelines will be available on the OfS website on 22 June, but you may wish to start making arrangements now to remove TEF awards from your marketing materials.

Fees and funding

Interest rates – The Department for Education have published a written ministerial statement by Michelle Donelan confirming a temporary reduction in the maximum student loan interest rate. It’s complicated, it lasts for a short period, and will have a very small effect (e.g. on anyone paying a tapered rate).

As a reminder, while you are studying interest accrues at the maximum rate (5.6% at the moment), for post 2012 English students, the current interest rates are here. the headline is 5.6% but it’s 2.6% for those earning under £27,295, for example.

Here are the main points of the announcement:

…In accordance with the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, where the Government considers that the student loan interest rate is higher than the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured loans, we will take steps to reduce the maximum student loan interest rate.
…. two separate caps will be implemented, one for the period 1 July to 31 August and one for the period 1 to 30 September.
The maximum Post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the Postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 5.3% between 1 July and 31 August. [e. reduced from the 5.6% noted above]
The maximum Post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the Postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 2% between 1 September and 30 September.
From 1 October 2021, the Post-2012 undergraduate and Postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will revert to the standard rate +3%.
Further caps may be put in place should the prevailing market rate continue to be below student loan interest rates.

Future options

HEPI have published some modelling by London Economics on changes to student loans that could reduce the cost to the government and/or fund some new initiatives. We have written about various rumours and ideas for changes to the fee structure over the last few weeks. Much of this talk was about what universities receive. The other side of the coin is how it is funded, ie by students, or rather, graduates.

One group of people challenge interest rates e.g. the nominal interest rate is too high compared to real debt, most people never pay it all back, making a substantial part of it “monopoly money”, the optics are bad (the full rate is very high, and interest is accrued at the full rate while you are at university and tapered afterwards). Others support raising the interest rate as more progressive than other possible changes (because only the graduates who are better paid will repay it).
Others focus on the thresholds, noting that in a sweeping and hugely expensive gesture Theresa May increased the cost to the government by raising it and it has continued to rise since. Recent suggestions in this area include the LE analysis released by student unions last week suggesting that reducing the threshold might pay for a cash grant to students affected by COVID. Others call for it to fall.
Lengthening the repayment term to 40 from 30 years was one of the Augar ideas said to be under consideration by the government and another option considered in the students union analysis.

HEPI’s policy note No easy answers: English student finance and the spending review looks at modelling for three options – removing real interest charges, increasing the repayment period and reducing the repayment threshold. They start by noting an important fact which has a major impact on all the arguments in this area:

“Repayments vary substantially by gender – due to the graduate gender pay gap – with male former students repaying just under £35,000 on average while female former students repay just over £13,000. This indicates that an increase in repayments will often affect women proportionately more.”

Highlights:

Removing the real rate of interest: .. Abolishing the real rate of interest… would have an annual cost of £1.2 billion. The impact would be regressive, helping only the best-paid graduates. .. It would also benefit men, whose repayments would fall by an average of £6,400, more than women, whose repayments would fall by £1,300.
Extending the repayment period from 30 years to 35 years: … Extending the repayment period would have no impact on graduates with the lowest incomes, who would continue to repay nothing, nor on graduates with the highest incomes, who would continue to repay their entire loan balance before even the original 30 years had elapsed. However, it would affect those in between. … we have modelled the more modest change of an increase to 35 years. This offers a saving of just under £1 billion and reduces the RAB charge by around four percentage points to 50%. [there is not much more said about that middle group – but there is on Wonkhe]
Reducing the repayment threshold to match the repayment threshold for pre-2012 student loans (from £26,575 to £19,390): … would reduce the cost of one cohort of students by almost £3.8 billion, split by £2.2 billion less on tuition fee loan write offs and £1.6 billion less on maintenance loan write offs. This would have the impact of reducing the loan write off (the RAB charge) from 54% to 33%, … It would also reduce the proportion of former students who do not repay their entire loan from close to nine-in-ten (88%) people to three-quarters (76%), as well as reduce the proportion who never repay a penny by more than half from 33% to 16%. Both male and female graduates would repay an average of around £10,000 more.

Which just goes to show how complicated it is. Reducing the threshold – on the face of it not a popular solution – may be the fairest (of these options) in the long term. Jim Dickinson for Wonkhe last week noted another counter-intuitive angle from the earlier LE work, that increasing interest rates after graduation (removing the taper) would be more progressive than increasing the term of the loan or reducing the threshold. This week Jim comments on the HEPI report for Wonkhe and addresses that middle group who are impacted by the extension of the repayment term by looking back at the students’ union work:

“when those students’ unions asked LE to model a 36 year term a few weeks back, the resource transfer from graduates in the future to now would make middle-income male graduates £3,000 worse off, with higher-earning female graduates up to £11,000 worse off. In this scenario there’s a significant detrimental impact on the “typical” graduate and a relatively minimal impact on the highest earning male graduates”

Until we see what the government has in mind, this is a debate that will run and run.

The Student Loans Company published new statistics on loan outlays, repayments of loans and borrower activity on Thursday.

Foundation Years

Michelle Donelan responds to a parliamentary question about foundation years (which the current Government has previously criticised):

We recognise that foundation years can play an important role in enabling students with lower prior attainment, potentially from disadvantaged backgrounds, to access high tariff provision. We also recognise their role in allowing students to switch subjects. Some universities are already using high-quality foundation years in ways which provide good value for these students, and we are pleased to support such universities.
We are committed to ensuring that all foundation years continue to provide good value for money and provide a distinct benefit to students.
We plan to consult on further reforms to the higher education system, including the treatment of foundation years, in summer 2021, before setting out a full response to the report and final conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review.

The subtext to her response seems to be that the Government intend to only support (fund?) foundation years for in very limited circumstances.

Mature Students

The OfS published their May insight brief: Improving opportunity and choice for mature students. It has some interesting insights.

Graduate outcomes

The Government have today published the latest graduate, postgraduate and non-graduate employment rates and earnings for England.

Graduates and postgraduates continue to have higher employment rates than non-graduates. However, employment rates for working-age graduates, postgraduates and non-graduates alike were slightly lower in 2020 compared to 2019.
In 2020, the employment rate for working-age graduates – those aged 16 to 64 – was 86.4%, down 1.1 percentage points from 2019 (87.5%). For working-age postgraduates the employment rate was 88.2%, for non-graduates it was 71.3%; these data represent falls of 0.5 and 0.7 percentage points from 2019, respectively.
66% of working-age graduates were in high-skilled employment, compared with 78.4% of postgraduates and 24.5% of non-graduates. The graduate rate increased 0.4 percentage points in 2019. The rate for non-graduates was 0.6 percentage points lower than in 2019 while for postgraduates it was 0.5 percentage points down on the previous year.
The median salary for working-age graduates was £35,000 in 2020. This was £9,500 more than non-graduates (£25,500) but £7,000 less than postgraduates (£42,000).

At the end of May the DfE analysed Post-16 education and labour market activities, pathways and outcomes (LEO) considering the effects of socioeconomic, demographic and education factors.

The real point is that pathways are diverse. Given that the government seems to imply that, for HE at least, courses “always” lead to employment in a related field, the data is fascinating. The key recommendation is do more analysis, especially on intersectional issues.

For the 3.6 million individuals taking their GCSEs between 2002 and 2007 there are over 262,000 different pathways. Of these, almost 168,000 pathways are unique, i.e. each only observed for a single individual. Whilst the complexity of pathways is perhaps not surprising, clear and robust evidence on their sheer diversity did not previously exist.
Figure 1 shows the 50 most common education and labour market pathways of all those in the sample, representing just under a third (31%) of all individuals

Individuals from certain ethnic groups, who have a special education need, have poorer GCSE attainment (at KS4), are from a lower socioeconomic background or attended a state-funded (non-selective) school have worse labour market outcomes than those from more “advantaged” comparator sub-groups.
Higher levels of education lead to better labour market outcomes, for all sub-groups examined and at all levels of qualification…:
- Higher proportions of individuals completing a degree are in employment, having higher average earnings than those without a degree and with lower proportions claiming out of work benefits.
- Similarly, for those without a degree, individuals achieving a level 3 qualification are more likely to be employed, earn more when employed and are less likely to claim out of work benefits than those achieving level 2 or below as their highest qualification level.

Outreach: UUK have published a new collection of case studies showcasing outreach style interventions with Year 13s who will transition to HE in the autumn to help bridge the pandemic’s disruption to their recent schooling.

Constituency boundaries

After the last attempt to review constituency boundaries, which would have reduced the number of MPs at Westminster from 650 to 600 was abandoned, another review was planned, and the new proposals have now gone live. As the HoC Library research briefing just out says:

The 2013 Review was abandoned in January 2013 before final recommendations were produced. The 2018 Review was completed by all four Commissions and their reports were handed to the Government but was not implemented.
In March 2020, the Government announced that it no longer favoured the reduction in the number of seats in the House of Commons to 600. Instead it would introduce a new bill to fix the number at 650. One reason given is that following the UK’s exit from the European Union, MPs will have greater workloads.
In 2020, Parliament agreed the new legislation. This fixed the number of seats at 650 and cancelled the 2018 Review.
Other changes included allowing for reviews every eight years, instead of five, and moving public hearings to later in the consultation process. The most controversial change was to how a review is implemented – it is now automatic (see more below).
Some changes from 2011 were kept. The seats for the four nations of the UK are still allocated by calculating the proportion of the electorate in each. For example, England has 84% of registered voters so it was allocated 84% (543) of the seats for the 2023 Review.
The 5% rule remains the primary rule….

The proposals for England are open for consultation until 2^nd August 2021. Last time there were sweeping changes to local boundaries, including merging Christchurch into Bournemouth East and leaving Sir Christopher Chope with no seat, and making consequential changes to Bournemouth West. This time, as you can see (red is new, blue is existing) the BCP changes are much less significant, with the real changes confined to Mid Dorset and North Poole. These changes to MDNP are not dissimilar to the ones proposed last time, extending the constituency across a large swathe of Dorset north and West of Wimborne and including the whole of Wareham. As such, they are likely to be less controversial locally (our local MPs were not impressed last time) but a quick look on twitter suggests that they will be contested in other parts of the country. There will be more English MPs and fewer in Scotland, Wales and the North. It is already being called gerrymandering.

You can explore the interactive map by postcode or region here.

The process will be long – and will be implemented at the next General Election after they are adopted, expected to be towards the end of 2023. As the government in the Queen’s Speech announced that they intend to revoke the Fixed Term Parliaments Act we can’t be sure when the next election will be.

The FT cover the article here (BU staff can use their BU email address to access the FT online), reflecting views on the impact on the changes:

Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde university, said the electoral impact of the 2023 boundary review would be limited as a result of population and political shifts over the past decade, with cities expanding and towns shrinking.
Lord Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and polling expert, said the net benefit to the Tories would be between five to 10 seats in total.
Several high-profile MPs — including defence secretary Ben Wallace, whose Wyre and Preston North constituency is subsumed into the surrounding area — are expected to lose their seats. The seats of Matt Hancock, health secretary, and Gavin Williamson, education secretary, are also set to disappear.

Equality and Diversity – student data

The Office for Students has issued Equality, diversity and student characteristics data – Students at English higher education providers between 2010-11 and 2019-20. There is an updated dashboard to illustrate the data.

International

Parliamentary Question: Graduate entrepreneurs (international): increasing the number of graduate entrepreneurs by amending legislation to (a) encourage and (b) allow international students to be self-employed.

Response: Students can switch into the Graduate or Start-up routes once they have completed their studies; self-employment is permitted under each of these routes. The Graduate route, which launches on 1 July, enables students who successfully complete an eligible qualification to stay and work or look for work for two years (three for PhD students), including self-employment. Those on the Graduate route who establish an innovative, viable and scalable business will be able to switch into the Innovator route subject to securing the required endorsement from a relevant endorsing body. Students can also switch into the Start-up route. The Start-up route is reserved for early-stage, high-potential entrepreneurs starting an innovative, viable and scalable business in the UK for the first time. The restrictions on employment whilst studying on the Student route are designed to ensure their primary purpose for being in the UK is to study as indicated, rather than to work.

Asia Spotlight: Last week’s Times Higher Education (THE) update focussed on learning across Asia. You can find many of the articles the emailed update covered on the main THE site. You’ll need to register with your BU email address to view the full articles. You can access it from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?authtype=ip,shib&custid=s7547708&direct=true&db=edspub&AN=edp67121&site=eds-live&scope=site or contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

Chinese research collaborations: Dods and The Telegraph covered new research from the Tory bankbencher China Research Group (CRG) on research and funding partnerships between UK HEIs and China. Details and the research data here. The CRG finds that 20 UK HEIs have collectively accepted more than £40m in funding from Huawei and selected state-owned Chinese companies in recent years.

Culture wars

The culture war has become even more ridiculous this week. Some sections of the press and various ministers find something to be irate about (usually on the basis of incomplete information) and social media goes mad; various unrelated individuals receive horrific abuse on social media and another myth becomes part of the tapestry of anti-university rhetoric to be cited regularly whenever there is an opportunity.

This week it was the decision of the graduate common room (the MCR, or middle common room) at Magdalen College Oxford, who decided to take down a photo of the Queen. It turns out that this is not really comparable to the removal of the Rhodes statue at Oriel, which would, whatever you think about the statue or its connotations, be a big physical change to a historic building.

Declaring an interest and speaking as a Magdalen alumna (although I think I have only been in the MCR twice), Jane supports the view of the Magdalen College President, as set out in this twitter thread. Plus, really, storms in teacups or what. The main lesson for this seems to be not to put pictures on your walls. You might offend someone putting them up, and you are bound to offend someone if you later take them down.

Of course, the protest isn’t really about the photo, it is about the reasons allegedly given. Those offended by discussions about safe spaces and decolonisation have been triggered. That is an issue that the Secretary of State and the Universities Minister feel strongly about.

The other culture war example this week has been about historic (racist and sexist) statements by a cricket player, who is now probably wondering whether he should be pleased that he is being defended by the PM. Free speech is good…but only if it is the right sort, made in the right circumstances? Ministers have been careful in their choice of words. GW said the students’ decision was “absurd”. Michelle Donelan, commenting on the decision of some staff to withdraw voluntary labour because of the decision not to remove the Rhodes statue, said it was “ridiculous”. Have they moved consciously from harsh criticism of the sector to ridicule? Or is it a coincidence? We live in strange times, and we’re all conspiracy theorists now.

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:

DCMS Safety of journalists: call for evidence closes 11:45pm on 14 July 2021
Racial and ethnic stereotyping in advertising – Advertising Standards Authority consultation on establishing whether and, if so, to what extent racial and ethnic stereotypes, when featured in ads, may contribute to real world harms, for example, unequal outcomes for different racial and ethnic groups. Link: Advertising Standards Authority closes: 30 June 2021
The Intellectual Property Office has opened a consultation on the UK’s future regime for the exhaustion of intellectual property rights which will underpin the UK’s system of parallel trade. Closes: 31 August 2021, link: Intellectual Property Office

Other news

Graduate Outcomes: Wonkhe analyse a new report from HESA adds to the recent growth in literature about “good jobs” by proposing a Graduate Outcomes based measure of the “design and nature” of the jobs graduates in employment do… brings an important new perspective to the current debate about graduate jobs. David Kernohan finds it more than “decent”.

Diversity: Research Professional report that the proportion of staff at the Office for Students from an ethnic minority background has reached 10 per cent, a 1 percentage point increase on last year but still “considerably lower” than the student population

Net Zero: The Campaign for Learning published Racing to Net Zero The role of post-16 education and skills. It considers how post-16 education and skills policy can support the UK in reaching the net zero targets and beyond. Points raised in developing a post-16 education and skills response include:

The need to differentiate between green jobs and green skills within existing jobs. The post-16 education and skills system will need to respond to both.
Upskilling and reskilling to meet the transition to Net Zero is not the sole domain of Level 4-8 Higher Education. Upskilling and reskilling at Level 3 and below will also be required to meet the needs of green jobs and green skills for existing jobs.
The government cannot rely solely on apprenticeships for upskilling and reskilling at Level 3 and Level 2 for green jobs. As apprenticeships are employer employer-driven, levy payers may wish to fund non-green jobs through apprenticeships.
The need for data on the proportion of green gig jobs as a share of green jobs that will be created. Green gig jobs with insecure income may not be as attractive to young people and adults. Insecure incomes may also prevent young people and adults from upskilling and reskilling if they need to put earning before learning.
The need to follow the lead of providers developing strategies to embed education for sustainable development in Level 2 to Level 6 qualification and academic and vocational courses (including T levels and Higher Technical Qualifications).
Understanding the role of whole institution strategies for transitioning to Net Zero. Institutions in the post-16 sector are already implementing strategies that cover decarbonising estates, incorporating education for sustainable development in teaching and learning, and providing a voice for learners of all ages to initiate change to reduce global warming.

STEM girls: Teach First published STEMinism: One year on. The paper marks the first anniversary of the publication of their report Missing Elements, in which they set out why it’s a problem that so few girls and women choose STEM routes, as well as some of the measures that could help schools increase the diversity of take-up.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

February 11, 2021

HE Policy Update for the w/e 11th Feb 2021

COVID-19, EU, humanities, innovation, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Lots to talk about this week as we look in some detail at the Education’s Secretary’s latest guidance to the OfS and what it means and doesn’t mean.

We’re taking a break next week but will be back with a round-up of the essential news the following week.

HE Strategic Priorities – Williamson’s letter to OfS

The Secretary of State wrote to the OfS on 8^th Feb 2021 with a new set of strategic priorities.

Interestingly, he also said “apart from my guidance letters on 14 September 2020, 14 December 2020, 19 January 2021 and 2 February 2021 which related to delivery of particular time critical issues, this letter replaces all previous guidance.” So what are the priorities now, and the context for them? and what is no longer a priority? We quote chunks of the text from Williamson’s letter for colleagues to scan through because the tone of the wording is quite insightful. We cover those other 4 letters below as well as what is now “off the table”.

Williamson states: my strong view that the OfS should focus on driving up quality, being risk based, minimising bureaucracy, and ensuring that it delivers on equality of opportunity in higher education…this letter replaces all previous guidance [apart from the 4 other letters he mentions which he states relate to delivery of time critical issues of course]..…The OfS will, of course, still need to deliver its functions under HERA and its operational responsibilities, but the replacement of the majority of previous guidance will, I hope, provide clarity on my priorities and allow the OfS to focus its energy and resources on these. Bottom line – this is an instruction to the OfS to crack on (and crack down on) the sector to ensure progress is made on his top issues.

But before we get to what they are, this made us try and guess what the biggest “problems” are for the SoS:

A student (particularly one from a WP background) who takes a degree in a creative subject at a “lower quality” university and goes on to pursue a career in creative arts which is relatively low paid compared to the average earnings of students studying that subject.
A student (particularly one from a WP background) who studies anything and then struggles to find a “graduate level” job, but particularly if it is a humanities, or media course at a “lower quality” university.
A student who doesn’t complete their degree.

Why might these be a problem? In each case the answer is the same: they should never have gone to university at all, and specifically the one they chose. They should never have incurred loans they probably won’t repay; they should have studied, say, plumbing, on an FE course, because:

there is no social mobility – these students have not improved their relative financial position;
there is no benefit to the taxpayer – as they have not increased their earnings, they will not make higher tax contributions and are unlikely to repay their student loans – so the subsidy was not value for money;
there is no alignment in terms of the UK’s productivity or strategic priorities – given their choice of courses these students are not contributing to the “build back better” vision for the future which is all about STEM, and they are not contributing either to public service and the nation as nurses, teachers or social workers or working in social care (although they might be, but it doesn’t count for this purpose because their first degree wasn’t in those things);
the students who fail to complete must have done so because the course was poor quality or there was insufficient support.

Of course this all ignores the fact that many students can’t or don’t leave their local region for employment, that there may be challenging local economic circumstances, and that the jobs and average salaries of their contemporaries at other “better quality” universities may also be influenced by the social capital, school experience, and non-WP background of the majority of their students which makes it easier for them to become lawyers, bankers, captains of industry, politicians (although a minute ago we were only counting careers directly linked to the first degree subject). Of course the SoS wants these issues to be considered (he mentions socio-economic status and geographical inequality) but only to the extent that more students affected by those issues should go to high tariff institutions. Because then they will presumably get the same outcomes as every one else who goes there. Won’t they?

And it ignores the fact that those who dropped out may have done so because of financial pressures, or caring responsibilities, or mental health issues or a whole range of other reasons.

So if those are the problems, and the reasons for them, here are some possible answers. Then we’ll look at the SoS’s priorities. You’ll be amazed how aligned they are.

outcomes are what count, so define quality by looking at outcomes metrics, and cut funding or close down those that don’t meet your baseline (already in hand but worth reinforcing);
link funding to strategically important subjects (that’s only hinted at here, but there has been more before and is more to come);
students should really only study arts or creative subjects at prestigious specialist institutions and only study humanities at high tariff institutions (linked to outcomes, see above), and so it might make sense to stop some universities from offering those courses or find another way to reduce the government subsidy for them (there are several ways of doing that and some feature below);
ration places at university so that the system costs less but try and level the playing field for applicants including finding a way to ensure that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get into high tariff universities (where they will surely get better outcomes….yes, that is here too).

Of course there is more, on pet political issues like free speech, and reducing bureaucracy. There is more on mental health and helping students to complain. And there is a lot on getting the OfS to support the big skills agenda (i.e. technical education, lifelong learning etc.).

You can read the Wonkhe take on it here. And Wonkhe also have a blog by Susanna Kalitowski of the University Alliance which sets out another view, considering the conflict between quality = outcomes and flexible learning.

So here we go.

Quality and Standards: The biggie.

One of my highest priorities and an important manifesto commitment is to drive up quality and standards in higher education, which is a fundamental part of our levelling up agenda. This is in addition to the work outlined above on the quality of online learning…. would like the OfS to progress rapidly to ensure that a robust enhanced regulatory regime can be operational as soon as possible.
I fully support the OfS desire to ensure that decisions on regulatory intervention and registration can be made in relation to minimum absolute standards of quality which apply across the whole of higher education provision. I firmly believe that every student, regardless of their background, has a right to expect a minimum standard of education that is likely to improve their prospects in life…I note that these standards are likely to take account of, though not be confined to, quantitative measures, including measures relating to student outcomes.

And he means business:

The OfS should not hesitate to use the full range of its powers and sanctions where quality of provision is not high enough: the OfS should not limit itself to putting in place conditions of registration requiring improvement plans for providers who do not demonstrate high quality and robust outcomes, but should move immediately to more robust measures, including monetary penalties, the revocation of degree awarding powers in subjects of concem, suspending aspects of a provider’s registration or, ultimately, deregistration. It is also my view that the OfS should not be registering providers without rigorous quality and a commitment to robust graduate outcomes, which should be closely monitored once registered.

And related to quality:

TEF: He asks the OfS to interpret the Government response to the Independent Review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework. Sub text: sort it out and make it do/measure what the Government want it to do.
Student complaints: the phrasing suggest that OfS may be expected to play more of a role in students’ complaints. Using the OIA as the complaint ombudsman has been both a blessing and curse for the Government during the pandemic. Blessing because they can offload it to a different body, and curse because it left them without an arrow to shoot the sector with. Williamson asks the OfS to continue to monitor this closely, and to take swift action where it is clear that quality and academic standards have dropped. I would like the OfS to communicate the findings from their monitoring work and ensure students are aware of the notification process that they can follow to raise any issues.
Death knell for NSS: Minister Donelan also asked the OfS in her 14 September letter to carry out a radical review of the National Student Survey (NSS). I can confirm that this remains a high priority, in order to address the downwards pressure that student surveys of this sort may exert on standards. I would like the OfS to take the time it needs to ensure this review is genuinely radical, consider carefully whether there could be a replacement that does not depend on a universal annual sample, and ensure that a replacement does not contribute to the reduction in rigour and standards. It is my strong view that the NSS should play at most a minimal role in baseline quality regulation. It’s interesting to juxtapose this with the paragraph above – don’t ask students about their experience or use that feedback in a quality framework or the TEF – but do encourage them to complain and take action on their complaints.

Fairness and admissions (lumped together, which is telling – concerns about admissions are all in this document about fairness, except minimum entry standards, which are about quality.)

2021: to ensure that admissions this year run as smoothly as possible and students’ interests are fully taken into account.
PQA: Central to my plans to improve equality of opportunity is…post qualification admissions…we believe it has the potential to contribute towards improved student outcomes in the longer-term. He asks the OfS to support the Department’s work to develop the evidence base and implementation. And makes the main intent behind the change clear: We want to ensure that any move to post qualification admissions genuinely improves the prospects of disadvantaged students and, in particular, facilitates greater numbers of them accessing the most selective universities.
Supporting WP while controlling numbers: It is very important that the OfS’ work on access and participation focuses on delivering real social mobility: ensuring students are able to make the right choices, accessing and succeeding on high quality courses which are valued by employers and lead to good graduate employment. Encouraging more and more students onto courses which do not provide good graduate outcomes does not provide real social mobility and serves only to entrench inequality
I would like the OfS to continue to consider broader factors, including socio-economic status and geographical inequality, which are likely to impact on access and participation in higher education. This should include a focus on white boys on free school meals who are currently the least likely group to progress to higher education
I would like the OfS to encourage universities to do much more to work with schools in a way which meaningfully raises the attainment of disadvantaged children. Theresa May’s agenda still hasn’t gone away, policy recycling at its best. What does this mean? It’s interesting though, when funding for UniConnect has just been cut (see GW’s letter of 19 January 2021)
I would like to remind the OfS that it has a statutory duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The OfS must be a champion for the importance of academic and technical excellence in all aspects of the student lifecycle, from selection to graduation. [Again a reminder that there are other routes than HE and Ministers want to see technical education rise in prominence.]

Funding:

I would therefore like you to make arrangements to change the name of the Teaching Grant to the Strategic Priorities Grant…[this of course builds on the earlier letter in which he “slashed” the teaching grant allocation for media courses and archaeology (see our 21^st Jan 21 policy update here)].
- Remember the interim response to Augar also said that the upcoming consultation on further reforms will include consideration of minimum entry requirements, which it is expected would restrict the availability of government funding for students who do not meet the requirements. This proposal was mentioned in Augar as a possible step to take to address concerns about low value courses. It was widely condemned as a cap on ambition and a regressive step against social mobility when it was first discussed in December 2018. But it also is a way of rationing the government subsidy.

Skills agenda, lifelong learning: The OfS also has to work on the Lifelong Loan Entitlement and reforms to occupationally focused higher technical qualifications.

I would like the OfS to work with DfE and other stakeholders to consider how to support the accumulation and transfer of credit and to develop a regulatory system that is fully equipped to support radically different, flexible arrangements, measuring quality using metrics that are meaningful in the new system and interact positively with our admissions regime. Delivering our vision will require action from providers to adapt to this new model and providers will need to work towards delivering greater flexibility in the courses they offer. Alongside that work by providers, the OfS should ensure that it, too, is considering how all aspects of its regulatory approach will need to adapt to and support this new model. e. adopt it or else.
[Note there is an interesting HEPI blog from 5^th February on this: “ Although flexibility is important in the support of learning, a shift in approach will need real care to manage step off to ensure it becomes step off with purpose, at an appropriate time for the learner and as an integral part of the lifelong learning journey”.]
[Also note an interesting blog on BTECs by Graeme Atherton of NEON on Wonkhe]

Mental Health: OfS to continue to support initiatives in relation to mental health in the short and long term. This should be through distributing funding to providers in line with my January guidance, and developing and funding challenge competitions to enable providers to develop innovative practice in mental health support. This funding should target mental health support for students transitioning from school/college to university and prioritising the most disadvantaged learners.

Sector stability: OfS to continue to monitor the financial sustainability of the sector – It is important that the OfS maintains a close understanding and oversight of financial issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and shares information where appropriate so that the OfS and Government can work together to provide timely support for providers through the Restructuring Regime and ensure effective protection of students..

All this whilst reducing the regulatory burden:

…providers delivering high quality provision and strong outcomes for students should not be adversely affected by additional unnecessary bureaucracy or reporting in relation to quality: I would like the OfS to take a risk-based approach to quality assessment and regulation, focusing its efforts on lower quality providers. [Remember quality measures are going to be linked to absolute measures of outcomes]
In Minister Donelan’s guidance letter to the OfS on 14 September 2020, she set out a number of areas where she expected the OfS to reduce the bureaucratic burden on providers. Those areas included enhanced monitoring, termly data collections under data futures, random sampling, student transfer arrangements, estates and non-academic staff data and a review of TRAC and the OfS’ transparency condition… In addition to reducing bureaucracy in the areas outlined in Minister Donelan’s letter, I would like the OfS look across everything that it does to identify further opportunities to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and reporting requirements for providers.
Tut tut: In my view, to date, the OfS has not been sufficiently risk-based. A risk-based approach to regulation should consider the overall regulatory burden faced by providers, including data gathering, reporting and monitoring, not just the application of conditions of registration. It is my view that there are further opportunities for the OfS to ensure that providers with consistently strong performance face minimal regulatory burden. I would like the OfS to implement a markedly more risk-based model of regulation, with significant, meaningful and observable reductions in the regulatory burden upon high quality providers within the next 12 months. [Remember quality measures are going to be linked to absolute measures of outcomes]

Free speech & Academic Freedom:

We knew free speech would get a mention however its tone is critical of the OfS. While I welcome your powerful speech, Sir Michael, on 20 January on this subject, to date there has been little regulatory action taken by the OfS in relation to potential breaches of the registration conditions relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom, despite a significant number of concerning incidents reported since the full suite of its regulatory powers came into force. This is interesting because sector press states that there are few real incidents where free speech has been curtailed and previous universities ministers have been unable to evidence their claims that there is a problem. Yet the Education Secretary states that OfS is aware of a significant number of incidents.
Furthermore, Williamson states: I intend to publish a policy paper on free speech and academic freedom in the near future and I would like the OfS to continue to work closely with the Department to deliver this shared agenda and ensure our work is closely aligned. I would also like it to take more active and visible action to challenge concerning incidents that are reported to it or which it becomes aware of, as well as to share information with providers about best practice for protecting free speech beyond the minimum legal requirements. So Williamson wants the OfS, already known for its bark, poor comms and reputation within the HE sector, to develop far more bite. So far there has been no mention of caning wayward VC’s.
…university administrators and heads of faculty should not, whether for ideological reasons or to conform to the perceived desires of students, pressure or force teaching staff to drop authors or texts that add rigour and stretch to a course. The OfS should robustly challenge providers that have implemented such policies and clearly support individual academics whose academic freedom is being diminished.

Antisemitism: Williamson is determined to champion a specific definition of anti-Semitism. In 2020 he gave universities until Christmas to conform and adopt the definition with the threat of action taken against those that didn’t. This stops short of that, but assumes a match between non-adopters with higher levels of incidents and suggests financial penalties.

Following my letter to the sector on 9 October 2020 on anti-Semitism and adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism across the HE sector, we have seen positive progress, with at least 31 additional institutions adopting the definition.
I would like the OfS to undertake a scoping exercise to identify providers which are reluctant to adopt the definition and consider introducing mandatory reporting of anti-Semitic incident numbers by providers. This would ensure a robust evidence base, which the OfS could then use to effectively regulate in this area. If anti-Semitic incidents do occur at a provider, the OfS should consider if it is relevant in a particular case whether the provider has adopted the definition when considering what sanctions, including monetary penalties, would be appropriate to apply.
Of course, there are several ways to adopt the definition, including subsuming it within a wider, more comprehensive, policy. It could result in protracted semantic debates as the OfS and a university argue whether decisions were made within the spirit of the definition.

International recruitment:

When the sector starts to move past the difficult circumstances created by COVID-19, a key focus of UK higher education providers will understandably be how to sustainably and responsibly recover international student recruitment, given the importance of this group to the financial health of the sector. The Government has updated its International Education Strategy to support that objective, restating its commitment to the IES’ original ambition to increase international higher education student numbers to at least 600,000 by 2030. [see more on this later]
In addition, we are doing our utmost to raise awareness within the sector that, where there are international opportunities, there are also risks, including overdependence on income from a single source and security-related issues. At the request of the Minister for Universities, Universities UK produced important guidelines and recommendations to help providers manage risks in internationalisation. I would like the OfS to monitor the adoption of these recommendations by providers and continue to support the sector to manage these risks to the reputation, integrity and sustainability of individual institutions, as well as to the sector as a whole.

Those other letters:

14 September 2020 – this was a long one
- set out £10m of additional teaching grant funding for high cost subjects to accommodate additional students as a result of the admissions issues in 2020
- asked the OfS to reduce its enhanced monitoring because of the burden on providers and suggested using specific licence conditions instead – and asked for a report within 3 months
- supported reduced requirements for data futures and ending random sampling, stopping the collection of non academic and estates data in HESES, reviewing TRAC and ending TRAC (T), and reviewing the transparency data
- requested the “radical, root and branch review” of the NSS by the end of 2020 and “It is my strong view that the NSS should not be carried out in again in the same format as it was last year.” [oops, it has been]
- instructed that no further action be taken on student transfer arrangements. That is fine, but of course the relevant issues all come back up again in the context of credit transfer and lifelong learning. This was originally in an earlier letter in September 2019.
- Asking the OfS to review its own efficiency and save registration fees by 10% in 2 years.
14 December 2020 – this one was about £20m in hardship funding
19 January 2021 – this was about the teaching grant – including reducing it for some subjects, removing the London weighting, cutting UniConnect etc.
Parliamentary question in which Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, defends the decision to remove the London weighting in the HE teaching grant: …it is right for government to re-allocate public money where it is most needed. Universities should not receive additional investment for teaching simply because of where they are located: excellent provision can be delivered across the country. London already has, on average, the highest percentage of good or outstanding schools, the highest progression to HE, and more HE providers than in any other region in England. This government is firmly committed to the levelling up agenda and this reform will invest more money directly into high quality institutions in the Midlands and the North.
2 February 2021 – this one was bout the £50m hardship funding

What he didn’t mention in any of these letters and so is off the table?

Accelerated degrees- from an earlier letter in September 2019
Student protection plans – this was in the letter in February 2019 (from Damien Hinds, not GW) “I would like the OfS to continue to focus on student protection and consumer rights. In particular, to evaluate and report publicly on the strength of student protection plans and advice available on students’ consumer rights.”
Student contracts – from an earlier letter in September 2019. You will recall the proposal was for template student contracts with initial recommendations to the government by Feb 2020.
Contract cheating and essay mills – this featured in the letter of 7^th June 2019 (from Damien Hinds, not GW) which asked the OfS to work with the sector and take firm and robust action
Grade inflation –
VC pay
The September 2019 letter also asked the OfS to make “public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students, including those studying wholly outside the UK, such as it does for domestic students”

Research

Place Strategy: In September 2020 the Council for Science and Technology wrote to the Prime Minister to explore how science and technology can contribute to addressing regional disparities and promote equality of opportunity. The Government have published both the letter and the PM’s response here.

The letter proposes 6 recommendations focused on 4 areas:

Leveraging research and development funding for regional growth by scaling up collaborative funding opportunities to foster and enhance partnerships, within and between regions, where there are research and innovation synergies with the potential to contribute to local growth.
Further incentivising the contribution of research, innovation and technology centres to regional growth in funding agreements and in organisational strategies.
Enhancing the availability of information on local innovation strengths and needs, for local and national decision makers to inform effective investment strategies and to evaluate outcomes.
Supporting wider measures needed for research and development investment to act as a driver for local growth, including measures to support skills and to support local leadership and decision-making.

The PM’s response welcomes the Council’s recommendations (which sit well with current Government policy) and mentions BEIS development of the UK Research and Development Place Strategy:

The Place Strategy will set out how the Government can build on existing initiatives (such as the Strength in Places Fund) to support research and innovation excellence, and build new centres of high-value economic activity outside of the South East… We also need to get the local governance and delivery structures right so that responsibility and accountability sit at the right level for delivering local growth priorities.
And: BEIS and UKRI will continue to engage widely with industry, the scientific community, and civic organisations from across the country to help develop a strategy that supports the priorities of areas and communities across the UK. The new Ministerial R&D Place Advisory Group, which had its inaugural meeting last month, will propose, challenge and test potential policy options.

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: The National Audit Office has published a report on UK Research and Innovation’s management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund examining the Fund has been set up in a way likely to optimise value for money. By January 2021 the Fund was supporting 1,613 projects, contributing to one of the 24 approved challenges. To date, UKRI has spent around £1.2 billion of the Fund’s eight-year budget of £3 billion.

The report examines:

the establishment of the Fund, in particular whether it has attracted sufficient good-quality bids, whether the selection processes have been efficient and whether the budget is managed effectively (Parts One and Two); and
the approach to monitoring and evaluating the Fund’s performance, as well as its performance to date (Part Three).

The report finds that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) have worked well to generate interest from industry and academia in the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (the Fund). However, more needs to be done to reduce the time taken to consider requests for support, so applicants are not deterred from bidding for funding and projects are not delayed.

Over the period, government has enhanced its engagement with industry to seek out challenges which might benefit most from taxpayer support.
UKRI’s own assessment shows that the Fund’s key components – challenges and projects – are broadly performing well. To sustain this position, the Department and HM Treasury, working with UKRI, need to place more emphasis on the outcomes and impact its funding secures at the Fund level. The increasing number of challenges supported by the Fund, each with their own objectives, and range of different objectives at Fund level risk obscuring priorities and will make the assessment of value for money in the longer term more difficult

R&D Roadmap: Catapults: The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report asserting that the Government’s ambitions for research and development are not supported by a detailed plan or sufficient investment in innovation. It details how the Government needs to provide more detail about how it will deliver its R&D Roadmap, including how it will attract substantial private sector investment to meet its target of 2.4% of GDP by 2027. It states the UK’s research and innovation system has the necessary components to be successful, but there is insufficient collaboration between organisations and insufficient scale to deliver the required levels innovation and commercial success.

Commenting on the Catapult Network it states it is an integral part of the UK’s innovation system. And that the Government should expand the Catapult Network to support technologies in which the UK excels and that can bring substantial economic benefits – including to assist in the levelling up agenda.
Changes are needed to remove barriers that limit the Catapults’ effectiveness: universities, Catapults and industry need to be encouraged (and permitted) to interact more deeply; and rules governing innovation funding should be reformed, to allow greater flexibility for Catapults and their partners.

The Committee set out a range of recommendations for the Government, UKRI and Innovate UK to help deliver the UK’s R&D ambitions, including the changes to enable the Catapults to more effectively achieve their objectives:

A clear plan for how public sector resources and private investment can be made to match the scale of ambition in the R&D Roadmap.
Prioritisation of scaling up the Catapult Network.
Assurance of long-term continuity for the Catapults—including longer-term certainty over funding and a commitment that reviews will be limited to once every five years, to match the five-year funding cycle.
Enabling Catapults and universities to work together more easily on innovation projects, and fostering closer links between industry and universities to assist researchers to work at the interface between the two.
Allowing Catapults to bid for Research Council funds where there are clear advantages in terms of both research and innovation; more flexibility in permitting public sector bodies to have a larger share of collaborative R&D funding; and supporting translational research and transformative innovation more effectively, including by reducing risks to industry.
Supporting the levelling up agenda by developing a more strategic approach across policies for innovation and regional development—such as broadening access to the Strength in Places Fund.

Quick News

UKRI has advertised for a new Chair of UKRI. Given the recent spate of appointments where the Government has been criticised for lack of impartiality this, by Research Professional, raised a chuckle this week: The way public appointments have gone under this government, you may be forgiven for wondering if the post might go to the spouse of a Conservative MP who once owned a chemistry set. It will be up to the assessment panel to come up with a shortlist from the applications.
The Times dug up an article on research degrees from the depths of their archives. It’s a short and light read. The similarity to a current theme is surprising – that of other nations squeezing out ‘natives’ by taking up their university places: British universities since the war have had much ado to find room for native-born students, but it is to be hoped that they will make all efforts to attract the graduate research students for whom the new degree was instituted.
Healthcare knowledge provider the BMJ, and technology provider Jisc, have agreed a publish and read pilot as part of their commitment to help promote knowledge and speed up discoveries to improve healthcare across the UK. It grants Jisc members full read access to the BMJ’s standard collection (28 specialist journals) and offers researchers at the member institutions the opportunity to publish funded articles on an open access basis in the standard collection journals. Under the agreement, research funded by UKRI, Wellcome, and key medical charities in the UK can be published open access, to help to make the research more accessible and sustainable.
The Government has set up a new independent body, the UK Cyber Security Council to boost career opportunities and professional standards for the UK’s cyber security sector. Funded by DCMS the organisation will provide a single governing voice for the industry to establish the knowledge, skills and experience required for a range of cyber security jobs, bringing it in line with other professions such as law, medicine and engineering. The council was developed following a 2018 consultation on Developing the UK cyber security profession which showed strong support for the government’s proposals to define objectives for the profession to achieve and to create a new, independent UK Cyber Security Council to coordinate delivery. Digital Infrastructure Minister Matt Warman said: The fact we are launching an independent professional body for cyber security shows just how vital this area has become – it makes a huge contribution to our thriving digital economy by safeguarding our critical national infrastructure, commerce and other online spaces. The UK Cyber Security Council will ensure anyone interested in an exciting career tackling online threats has access to world-class training and guidance. It will also champion diversity and inclusion, driving up standards while helping the nation to build back better and safer.

Admissions

2021 Admissions juggle: Research Professional has a good romp through the exam related admissions issues for 2021. Here are some excerpts but there is more content in the blog (e.g. on over recruitment).

Setting aside for a moment the challenges involved in running an appeals process based on evaluating a teacher assessment without recourse to an externally validated examination, this raises an issue: If students achieve their results directly and the university hasn’t had confirmation through the awarding bodies and Ucas of what those results are, how long will it be before those students are on the phone, email or turning up on campus to request confirmation of a place? And what does the university do? Take each student’s word for it? Ask for validation from their school? Wait for the results to eventually arrive through Ucas?
As things stand, we risk receiving Welsh, English, Northern Irish and international A-levels on different days (and several weeks apart), with BTEC and other vocational awards also somewhere in the mix. While we typically get international qualifications over a span of several weeks (from late June through to mid-August), the relatively small numbers are manageable. But to receive the main bulk of the results in a haphazard fashion raises important questions about the fairness and transparency of admissions decisions.
The danger is an outcome in which the fastest nation to get its results out will gain a significant advantage in securing places. It is notable that in the many discussions about a post-qualification admissions process, one of the prerequisites for an effective system will be an alignment of UK results; without having a common date for receipt of results this year, we run the risk of having a fragmented and unfair admissions process.
No-one underestimates the challenges we face in this admissions cycle to run a system that is fair to applicants and also ensures that students avoid considerable uncertainty and stress in a situation over which they have no agency.

Student Numbers Cap: Towards the end of last week Research Professional also asked if the student numbers cap should have remained in place for the 2020/21 intake.

The data show a 13 per cent rise overall in numbers of students recruited by high-tariff universities—way more than the 5 per cent (plus forecasts) rise that would have been allowed under the proposed number controls, even allowing for generous forecasting. Some research-intensive institutions accepted a third more UK and EU students than they had the previous year, while other institutions saw recruitment slump by more than 15 per cent.
Several non-Russell Group institutions also grew their recruitment significantly: at Leeds Trinity University, Buckinghamshire New University, Liverpool Hope University, the University of Buckingham and Soas, University of London, increases in UK and EU student numbers topped 20 per cent. More than 50 universities increased their UK and EU intake by more than the magic 5 per cent.
There were no high-tariff institutions among those that saw major falls. And while overall recruitment was up nearly 30,000, for more than 30 institutions it was down—for some substantially.
…The original idea for introducing student number controls last year was to protect post-1992 institutions from exactly this kind of trouble. The controls were dropped not because the danger had entirely gone away—as the Ucas figures show, it hadn’t—but because the government had made such a mess over A-levels that it had little choice.
…needs are likely to be substantial in September as students arrive at university without normal levels of learning and social interaction and, in some cases, traumatised by an exceptionally tough year.
That will put pressure on some high-tariff institutions whose welfare systems are likely to creak under the strain of larger-than-planned-for numbers of students with multiple issues.
But there will also be different kinds of pressures on those institutions that would normally be dealing with a proportion of these students but have missed out because of the knock-on effects of the pandemic. It will be ironic if both groups end up struggling to cope because of government-sanctioned grade inflation.

You can read the full blog here.

Harassment

You may recall that about this time last year the OfS launched a consultation on preventing and addressing harassment and sexual misconduct. This was paused during the pandemic and won’t be reopened. Instead the OfS are considering this matter alongside their wider work to review and reset our regulatory requirements. They intend to

Publish a statement of expectations relating to providers’ systems, policies and processes to prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct by Spring 2021. The statement will set out the OfS’ expectations and give universities and colleges the opportunity to review and renew their systems, policies and processes before the beginning of the next academic year.
Right now the OfS are engaging with student and sector representative bodies and other stakeholders…to understand specifically how the events of this past year may affect the proposed statement of expectations. e. the additional challenges faced by some students because of the pandemic, including online harassment and domestic abuse.

Turing – Student Mobility

The Turing website is live. Research Professional cover the basics:

Applications for bids to Turing will open in “the spring”, which in Whitehall speak can run as late as the end of June, although the website promises a March announcement with a window of six weeks for submissions and results known in July. The call will include “higher education projects”, with funding available for “placements during the period from September 2021 to August 2022”.
Any student at “an officially recognised higher education provider registered in the UK”—which we assume means registered with the Office for Students—can participate in the scheme, regardless of nationality. The students will be able to attend a non-UK university as well as “any public or private organisation active in the labour market or in the fields of education and training”.
This includes businesses, public bodies, research institutes, foundations, non-governmental organisations and “a social partner or other representative of working life, including chambers of commerce, craft and professional associations and trade unions”. Beyond that, details of the scheme are relatively scant, with visitors to the website encouraged to sign up for email alerts
We do know that “successful applications will receive funding towards delivering placements and exchanges” and “the rates provided will be broadly in line with what has been on offer under Erasmus+”. Placements can be of any length between 4 weeks and 12 months. Further guidance on specific elements of funding and a list of destination country groupings for cost of living will be published shortly, the website says.
Destinations with a high cost of living will attract a £136-a-week or £380-a-month maintenance grant. Countries with a medium or lower cost of living will be funded at the rate of £120 a week or £335 a month.
Students who can demonstrate a disadvantaged background will be funded at a higher rate of £490 a month for expensive destinations and £445 a month for less expensive ones. There will also be tariffs for travel based on distance, ranging from £20 a head for projects less than 100 kilometres away to £1,360 for those taking place over 12,000km away.
…Some £315 a head for the first 100 participants will be made available for the administration of projects, with that declining sharply to £180 for the 101st student. It would seem that each individual exchange project should be applied for annually, in contrast to Erasmus+ in which partnerships are rolled over from year to year.
Turing is being described as an “outward student mobility scheme”…What Turing does not seem to do is fund exchange students to come in the opposite direction, which makes it a hard sell to prospective international partners while also reducing diversity in UK classrooms.

More details are expected in March.

Wonkhe have a Turing blog: For Janet Beer, it is time to accept the opportunities and flexibility that the new Turing scheme can offer.

International

International Education Strategy

The DfE published the 2021 update to the International Education Strategy including measures to boost international study and global opportunities. Press release here. It includes attracting more overseas students, boosting access to global student exchanges for thousands of people, and supporting international education partnerships. reaffirms the Government’s commitment to increase the amount generated from education exports, such as fees and income from overseas students and English language teaching abroad, to £35bn a year, and sustainably recruit at least 600,000 international students to the UK by 2030. For research and development, the strategy confirmed that the UK will participate in Horizon Europe, as part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) with the EU, subject to finalisation of the programme regulations. The Turing social mobility scheme is also mentioned (more on Turing here). Lastly the Secretary of State’s recent guidance letter also warns institutions to balance recruitment with thought for national security and not to develop an overreliance on recruiting from particular groups or countries.

The Strategy update proposes several areas to help increase the value of education exports and international student numbers:

The International Education Champion: this update sets out the priority countries and regions in which the International Education Champion, Sir Steve Smith, will focus his activity. Sir Steve’s immediate priorities are India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Nigeria. His role will focus on growing export opportunities in these countries. Other important regional markets for the International Education Champion will include: Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Europe, China and Hong Kong. The government will also work with Sir Steve and the British Council to identify and resolve barriers which prevent the recognition of online and blended (a combination of offline and online) learning internationally
Building lasting global partnerships: there is an important role for the government to facilitate partnerships across the world, including in the Champion’s priority countries, but also beyond these. This includes Europe, the Indo-Pacific region, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. Our new Turing scheme will also help ensure we improve mobility between UK students and all regions of the world
Enhancing the international student experience from application to employment: the government will work with sector bodies such as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA), the Office for Students (OfS), Universities UK International (UUKi) and the Confederation of British Industry on areas such as:
- the student application process for international students
- graduate outcomes and employability
- the academic experience of international students
- alternative student finance
A new international teaching qualification, ‘International Qualified Teacher Status’ (iQTS): the UK government propose to work with teacher training providers to establish a new teaching qualification that will provide an opportunity for teachers around the world to train to world respected domestic standards. There’s a consultation on it here.
Increase export opportunities for UK chartered professional bodies and UK special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) providers: DIT will support UK chartered professional bodies and SEND providers to find opportunities to increase their education exports

Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan stated: In these unprecedented times, having a proactive global education agenda is more important than ever so we can build back better from the pandemic. Our world-class education is a vital part of our economy and society, and we want to support universities, schools, colleges and all aspects of the education sector to thrive across the globe…I am also pleased to launch initiatives to enhance the experience of international students at our universities, from the moment they apply, to the first steps of their careers.

Vivienne Stern, Director of Universities UK International, said: I am very supportive of the International Education Strategy, which represents the next step in a joint effort by Government and the education sector to build on the international success of our education system and our attractiveness to international students. This approach has delivered real benefits already, including the introduction of the graduate route, and improvements to the visa system. Despite a very difficult year, interest in UK study has grown as a result…We look forward to continuing to be partners, working with our members, Government and others across the sector, to deliver the strategy.

HESA data: Colleagues with an interest in international matters will be interested in the HESA 2019/20 HE Student Data release mentioned above. There is a sub section exploring recruitment areas for incoming HE students here with useful charts. The transnational data is here.

Access & Participation

Left behind white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Education Committee continued to take evidence for its inquiry into Left behind white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Ministers Nick Gibb and Vicky Ford were questioned. While much of the content focussed on schools it was interested as it touched on several aspects of disadvantage. I was interested to learn that academic resilience (the ability of a child to excel academically regardless of their socio-economic background) has fallen for students from a disadvantaged background. You can read a summary of the session by Dods here.

Meanwhile the Public Accounts Committee have launched a new inquiry into Covid-19: Education. They intend to question DfE Officials on how well the DfE managed its overall response in the first lockdown, including whether it effectively supported schools and pupils in England during this period, whether it managed the move to mainly home-learning effectively and whether it effectively supported vulnerable and disadvantaged children. Questioning revolve around the current National Audit Office assessment.

Care leavers: TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE) published an evidence review: Supporting access and student success for learners with experience of children’s social care.

The literature review finds that activities and interventions aimed to support care leavers are not robustly evaluated: From the 57 studies under review, about half focused on the evaluation of actual support activities while the other half explored potential barriers and facilitators affecting the target group’s trajectory into post-secondary education. However, the small numbers and gaps in data involved with this target group mean establishing causal impact is trickier than evaluating other inventions. Classification of who to include and exclude were also a problem (such as interlinking because care leavers likely to enter HE as mature students). Many studies relied heavily on self-reported evidence through focus groups and interviews (which leads to a self-selecting sample), however, the review concludes that these approaches to support care leavers into and whilst at HE seemed promising:

Mentoring activities which also provide positive role models and build a sense of belonging with peers
A social network to support, guide and advise care leavers considering HE: A key part of this network is often a trusted adult or mentor who can provide encouragement towards academic and personal goals and emotional support on the journey into and through HE. Several interviewees emphasised the importance of building relationships with a trusted figure, especially in the context of a group of learners who have often built an innate distrust in large bureaucratic institutions.
A single point of contact within a provider who can help learners navigate the institution and access the support they need pre-application to post-graduation. The review mentions that HEIs with higher progression and success rates for care students had this role as their sole focus.
Links between local authorities, carers, schools and HE providers. In studies where this collaboration was felt to be successful, staff and carers reported better managed transition support, relevant sharing of information between inter-organisational staff and learners who reported of feeling less alone and isolated.

Equality Remit: The Government’s new Equality Hub is explained following a parliamentary question asking about the relationship between the new Equality Hub and the Equalities Office:

The new Equality Hub, in the Cabinet Office, brings together the Disability Unit, Government Equalities Office, Race Disparity Unit and, from 1 April, the sponsorship of, and secretariat to, the Social Mobility Commission. The Government Equalities Office’s remit related to gender equality, LGBT rights and the overall framework of equality legislation for Great Britain. The Equality Hub reports to Ministers who have other portfolios outside of the Cabinet Office, led by the Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss.
The Equality Hub has a key role in driving Government priorities on equality and opportunity. The Hub has a particular focus on improving the quality of evidence and data about disparities and the types of barriers different people face, ensuring that fairness is at the heart of everything we do.
Key to this is looking beyond a focus solely on statutory protected characteristics to ensure we understand how different issues interact, including in socio-economic and geographic inequality. In this way, the Equality Hub is key to driving progress on the Government’s commitment to levelling up opportunity and ensuring fairness for all.

Other recent care leaver relevant resources

Rees Centre has a video – Care-Experienced Students in HE: What we know…and what we don’t. Don’t be put off by some blurring in the video, it is to protect participants’ anonymity.
Buttle UK has put out a podcast relating to care experience – All in the Same Boat? Tackling the impact of the digital divide and whether putting more tech into homes for education jeopardises children’s safety.

OIA – Complaints

In related news the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) has published revised draft Rules for Large Group Complaints. Undoubtedly driven by Covid, the proposed Large Group Complaints process builds on their existing approach to group complaints by developing a bespoke approach to handling complaints from large groups of students. The proposed process is intended for complaints from large groups of students at a single provider where there is a high degree of commonality between the complaints and where the complaints could be considered collectively.

However, while the process the OIA proposes would be more streamlined than the current process for group complaints, they say their approach to decision making would be the same. I.e. they would still consider what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The changes require an amendment to their existing Rules and additional Rules for Large Group Complaints so final comments are invited before the change takes place (deadline 12 March).

Wonkhe have a blog by Jim Dickinson.

HESA

HESA (the Higher Education Statistics Agency) published the 2019/20 HE Student Data (which includes the first five months of the coronavirus pandemic). Here are HESA’s headline findings:

UK students from ethnic minorities made up 27%of all students studying for a first degree in 2019/20 – among students studying for a postgraduate taught qualification (such as a Masters) this proportion was 24% and for postgraduate research qualifications (such as a PhD) the figure was 19%
6% of all students were from a Black African background, but this group represented only 3% of postgraduate research students
Students from an Asian Pakistani background were also less representedamong postgraduate research students (2%) compared to representing 4% of all students
17% of UK domicile students reported having a disability, including 5% who reported a mental health condition – within these statistics there was also a difference at different levels of study, with 18% of first degree students reporting a disability compared to 15% of postgraduate taught students
41% of UK domicile students studying medicine and dentistry subjects were from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds compared to only 6% in the veterinary science and agriculture, food and related studies groups
5% of all students were studying psychology, and that 81% of psychology students were female
The subject groups with the most students in 2019/20 were business and management with 412,815 students (52% male) and subjects allied to medicine with 295,520 students (79% female)

Colleagues may be interested to delve further into the HESA data which includes some great charts and visualisation to break down the student data in these areas:

Who’s studying in higher education– the personal characteristics of students
What students are studying– the subjects and courses that students take, including a subject breakdown at the most detailed level available
Where students come from– includes the numbers of non-UK students by country of origin.
Where students study– full HE provider level breakdowns
Student progression rates and qualifications– including degree classifications by HE provider

David Kernohan of Wonkhe doesn’t think the data answers the big question about continuation this year.

Parliamentary News

Students – urgent questions: Michelle Donelan, the Universities Minister answered 39 questions relating to HE students as part of an urgent question session on Support for University Students: Covid-19. It covered familiar topics such as rent rebates and tuition quality. The Minister stuck to the party line and there was no new news.

Poor ratings for SoS: Secretary of State Gavin Williamson continues to be perceived negatively by Conservative Party members, according to Conservative Home. His net satisfaction rating is -48. We think he’ll be hanging in there though. Changing now would be unlikely to change much substantively in policy terms anyway, although you have to think that it might improve the ways of doing things and if nothing else, communication (although that’s a problem for the Universities Minister as well as the Education Secretary).

OfS Chair

As expected and following the Education Committee green light, the DfE officially confirmed Lord Wharton’s appointment as Chair of the OfS replacing Michael Barber. He starts on 1 April for a four year period (approximately 2 days per week). Wharton has declared his Conservative interests and party membership within his role as a Peer but not resigned the whip.

The Education Committee endorsed the appointment just before it was confirmed. You can read the report here. Rt Hon Robert Halfon MP, Chair of the Education Committee, said: The Chair of the OfS has a vital role to play in standing up for the rights of students and ensuring opportunities for all. I congratulate Lord Wharton on his appointment. I look forward to seeing the new Chair use his position to genuinely open doors for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, ensure that the access and participation funding delivers real change, use his independent voice to rocket boost degree apprenticeships and guarantee everyone has access to high quality skills that benefit both themselves and employers. Halfon’s statement highlights several of his own passions for education, such as the expansion of degree apprenticeships. He seems to be giving Wharton a public steer – interesting as the appointment process wasn’t without controversy.
Responding to the appointment, Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green, said: This latest appointment adds to the Conservative Government’s growing catalogue of cronyism. Students have been forgotten by this Government which is more concerned about securing jobs for their friends. It’s ridiculous to think James Wharton could make independent decisions while continuing to sit as a Conservative Peer. He must resign the whip without delay. It’s vital for public confidence that concerns surrounding senior appointments are urgently looked at.
While Wharton doesn’t commence until April Williamson has written to both Wharton and outgoing Chair, Sir Michael Barber, vehemently stating his strategic priorities for HE.

Research Professional interview Paul Blomfield MP, (Labour, Sheffield Central, Chair of the APPG for Students) who doesn’t mince his words.

Students

The Guardian report that the Government plan to allow some additional university students back to campus when the schools reopen, so potentially from 8 March onwards.

The education secretary is expected to announce on 22 February that final-year students in practical subjects will be able to return to face-to-face teaching, with students taking other subjects to follow soon afterwards…Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, said universities would follow the same roadmap as schools for reopening
Priority is expected to be given to final-year students on undergraduate courses or taught postgraduate degrees in practical subjects including performing arts and lab-based science courses. But many students may struggle to be allowed back before the Easter holidays at the end of March, when teaching in effect ends for many courses before exams.

It is likely this is part of a move to damp down on fee and rent complaints with the Government shifting the onus onto HE providers.

While the new higher education timetable was welcomed by senior leaders, they also fear that the education secretary’s waning influence with Downing Street means the Department for Education’s plan may be ignored in favour of other concerns.
Some institutions, such as the London School of Economics, have already said students will be taught remotely for the rest of the academic year, but Donelan said the government “will be giving them the option to alter those plans”.

The University and College Union stated: The priority right now must be to keep as much teaching as possible online for the rest of the academic year, and putting staff and student safety first.

And the article suggests that some students are returning anyway:

In defiance of the government’s orders to stay at home, several universities report that students are “returning to campus in droves”, even without the prospect of face-to-face teaching or the use of university facilities.
One university is said to have about 70% of its usual student numbers on or around campus, in part due to high numbers of students on exempt courses such as nursing. Most others estimate that 30% to 40% of students are back, and some have more than half.
“Some students have voted with their feet, it’s been reported by just about all the universities I’ve heard from, Russell Group and elsewhere. It’s interesting, it reflects the fact students start to identify university as their new home,” he said.

TEF

Wonkhe ran a feature on TEF this week with a blog written by Dame Shirley Pearce (who led the TEF review). Wonkhe say:

… the government, while claiming to have accepted the majority of the Pearce review’s recommendations, has failed entirely to engage with the spirit of that review, which posits enhancement of the quality of teaching as a delicate balance and interplay of accountability between regulators, providers, and students, and between nationally comparable data and locally produced evidence of quality. Today on the site, Shirley Pearce urges the higher education sector and the Office for Students (OfS) to engage with the recommendations the review makes, and to take seriously the review’s finding that far from being merely burdensome, the subject TEF pilots have sparked useful conversations inside universities, and offered levers to drive enhancement.
The Pearce review is grounded in a theory of change that says that if there is to be public confidence in quality, providers must evidence it, but that providers and their students must be empowered to do the enhancement work on the ground according to their distinctive mission and, importantly, at subject level. The elegant proposal that institutions be provided with subject-level data, split by demographic, and be asked to account for differences in outcomes, but that the subject data would not be published as rankings, is characteristic of the balancing act the review executes.
The government does not evidence its grasp of this balance in its response, instructing OfS to ground TEF ratings in nationally comparable data, while at the same time taking account of the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) critique of the limitations of said data in drawing accurate conclusions about the quality of learning and teaching in higher education providers – and good luck to the English regulator in squaring that circle.
In the relatively few years of its existence, the TEF has won few friends, and many enemies. There may be satisfaction to some in seeing the TEF reduced and downgraded. But the version of the exercise that appears to be currently on the table, as Paul Ashwin argues, risks rendering the TEF entirely irrelevant. Better, then, to have a larger exercise that directly engages with the processes of enhancing learning and teaching quality, than a light-touch exercise that does not – and redirects institutions’ energies to gaming the metrics.

Three Wonkhe blogs tackle TEF:

The TEF will serve public and student interests best if it drives teaching enhancement in universities. Shirley Pearce, independent reviewer of the TEF, sets out what that could mean in practice.
The government’s failure to seriously engage with the Pearce review’s proposals sets the TEF on a course towards irrelevance, argues Paul Ashwin.
Shirley Pearce’s review of TEF was supported by a superb analysis of the statistical issues from the Office for National Statistics. David Kernohan has a read.

As you’ll have read in the section covering the Secretary of State strategic priorities letter to the OfS Williamson has tasked the OfS to resolve how the TEF will move forward.

Brexit

Dods have summarised the DfE’s research on the effect of Brexit on HEIs in the UK. EU exit: estimating the impact on UK higher education looks at:

the effect of changes in the level of tuition fees on international student enrolments at undergraduate and postgraduate level
the potential impact on EU student enrolments and associated tuition fee income resulting from:
the removal of tuition fee loan and grant support for EU students
harmonisation of tuition fees charged to EU and non-EU students
changes to post-study work rights for EU students
changes to the rights to bring dependants

Across all HEIs, the analysis suggests that:

Removing the tuition fee support for EU-domiciled undergraduate students would reduce demand for UK higher education by approximately 13,090 (21%34 of all EU student enrolments) first-year students per year, equating to a loss of £80.7 million in tuition fee income.
Removing the Home fee status for EU-domiciled (undergraduate and postgraduate) students would generate additional fee revenue of approximately £114.6 million. That is, the increase in fees charged to EU-domiciled students would more than offset the loss in fee income due to falling demand amongst EU students (15,220 students, 24% of EU-domiciled student enrolments in 2016/17).
Restricting the right to work in the UK post-graduation for EU-domiciled students would potentially result in 6,640 (11% of EU-domiciled student enrolments) fewer EU student enrolments, corresponding to a reduction in fee revenue generated by UK HEIs of £88.0 million.
Restricting the right to bring dependants for EU-domiciled students would further reduce tuition fee income by approximately £8.4 million, with 590 (1% of EU-domiciled student enrolments) fewer enrolments.
Taken together, the estimated combined impact of all of these policy changes would be to reduce tuition fee income from EU sources by approximately £62.5 million, with 35,540 (57%) fewer first-year EU enrolments. However, the aggregate impact on fee income masks significant variation by university cluster (and level of study). In particular, HEIs in Clusters 1 would benefit in aggregate; whereas institutions in Clusters 2, 3 and 4 would be worse-off.
The results on student enrolments are insensitive to changes in classification of HEIs by clusters, with the reduction in demand varying from 34,555 (55%) to 35,750 (57%). The total financial loss ranges from £42.5 million to £66.5 million.

There is also the impact assessment here, which Dods summarises below:

The DfE have published an assessment of the effect that changes made to higher education student finance regulations will have on groups with relevant protected characteristics.

Expect the proposed amendments will most likely have a negative impact on EU nationals on the basis of their nationality, if they are domiciled in the EEA and Switzerland
They will also have a negative impact on older EU national students who are not covered by the Withdrawal Agreements, with those studying at postgraduate level proportionately more affected
Do not expect EU students who are female (who are slightly overrepresented as a result of these changes) or who have declared a disability to be significantly impacted by these changes
There is a lack of data to predict the impact on other EEA (Norwegian, Icelandic, Liechtenstein) and Swiss students
Other EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who do not fall into this category (or one of the other eligibility categories), and who do not have settled status, are not eligible for home fee status and student finance
While those not covered by the Withdrawal Agreements will therefore be impacted on the basis of their, or their family members’ nationality, the number of those currently benefiting from student support is very small and as such, the equalities impacts are assessed to be insignificant
With regard to EU nationals resident in the overseas territories, their assessment is that although protected groups of EU nationals who will be affected by our proposed position are slightly over represented, namely gender/sex (females), the impact of the amendments will not differ on the basis of these protected characteristics
Given the limited numbers of students involved, the equality impacts are likely to be insignificant

Concluding, they say that since these amendments will remove access to student finance for EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals not covered by citizens’ rights, there are number of routes such individuals may choose to adopt:

Proceed: Undertake HE study in England without receiving home fee status or any student support from Student Finance England, but potentially in receipt of funding from other sources such as their own Governments.
Go elsewhere: Take up HE study outside the UK where access to education can be obtained on the same basis as domestic nationals e.g. their own, or another state within the EEA or Switzerland, or the EU overseas territories, or other international countries.
No go: Choose not to participate in HE study

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.

Other news

Intergenerational Fairness: Dods published an interesting briefing on intergenerational fairness.
Games degrees: The number of UK graduates in computer games subjects has risen for a seventh consecutive year.
Fee Variability: You may remember that last year Australia changed the Government support and fee regime to prioritise support for certain programmes (such as STEMM) and charge more for lower priority courses. The change attracted much interest in the UK because the current Government has long been flirting with the idea of differential programme funding stemming all the way back to Jo Johnson’s tenure as Universities Minister and the introduction of the Higher Education and Research Act legislation (including TEF). Interestingly this week the Guardian have reported that demand for arts and humanities courses is still high in Australia despite fee increases,
LGBT+: UUK have a blog: Going the extra mile to embrace LGBT+ equality in higher education.
Pensions: HEPI have a trio of blogs on university pensions and in particular on the USS.
Dementia Research Funding: The latest news on dementia funding from a parliamentary question response: The Government’s Challenge on Dementia 2020 contained the commitment to spend £300 million on dementia research over the five years to March 2020. This commitment was delivered a year early with £344 million spent on dementia research over the four years to 31 March 2019. We are currently working on ways to significantly boost further research on dementia at all stages on the translation pathway including medical and care interventions.
Paramedics ELQ rules: The debate on whether to waive the ELQ rules for paramedical science continues. The Government response states: A decision will be dependent on business planning for the 2021/22 financial year following the outcome of Spending Review 2020.
Mental health animation: UKRI report that academics have partnered up with Aardman to tackle the current mental health crisis with the campaign: What’s Up With Everyone? funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The press release states: Although around half of all lifetime mental health problems start by the mid-teens, intervention typically starts much later. Issues include rising suicide rates among young people and unprecedented challenges for young people at school, university, college or the workplace. This points to an urgent need to rethink mental health education to reach and engage young people.
What’s Up With Everyone? is a series of five new animated films created with and for young people about dealing with life’s challenges before they impact mental health… the films link to vital information and signposting for how young people can help themselves or seek help for the issues raised through the project’s website. One wonders if it will link to the OfS’ mental health platform.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

January 21, 2021

HE policy update for the w/e 21st January 2021

Business Engagement, COVID-19, EU, HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, NHS, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

After a long wait the sector received a landslide of HE policy interventions on Thursday. The FE Skills White paper, PQA consultation, the Government’s take on Augar, publication of the Pearce TEF review with the DfE’s response, and significant changes to the HE recurrent grant, alongside some far less exciting stuff! And it wasn’t a quiet week before all that.

Some of it is good, some of it is very ominous indeed. Some of it is very high level and vague and so could go either way. There are a lot of new consultations to come and there will be lots to talk about in 2021. It will keep Sarah and I busy!

Boil that kettle, locate your reading glasses, and get comfy on the sofa ready to enjoy a bumper policy update!

Skills White Paper

This is the biggy because it’s a White Paper, However, most of it is not about HE. The Government has published the Skills for jobs: lifelong learning for opportunity and growth white paper setting out their ambition for reform to the post-19 technical education and training landscape.

Gavin Williamson spoke in the House of Commons (see this link at 13:08 pm)

White paper on skills for job published today (see below)
Enormous challenges ahead to rebuild the economy. Support packages already announced (etc). Strong and independent trading nation (etc).
Lifetime skills guarantee, flexible digital skills bootcamps (etc).
April – kick start Higher Technical Education by making it easy to get a loan. Pilots on modular learning. Lifelong loan entitlement running from 2025.
Employers at the centre of technical education. Supporting local economy. German style local skills improvement plans led by Chambers of Commerce. Strategic development funding for FE.
New courses – trailblazer areas this year. Fund of £65m in 2021-22.
$1.5bn of capital funding for FE. Announced next phase for FE and T-levels.
Longer term – more coherent longer term funding model that will collaborate on with the sector. Principles of high value, greater flexibility and greater accountability. By 2030 nearly all technical courses will follow employer led requirements.
Continue with apprenticeships and T-levels.
Network of Institutes of Technology will expand across the country.
Top quality teaching staff in FE – recruitment campaign, more support etc, training and development and industry experience.

We’ve done a separate 6 page summary for BU readers, because it’s long (and repetitive and full of the usual patting on the back about other good things already announced).

RP say (amongst many other things):

It’s almost as if there is a good news story to be told about further education, while the government hopes its lack of decision-making on higher education falls off the news agenda…
It’s actually called the Skills for Jobs white paper, which in fact takes the story away from underfunded further education and pivots towards post-Covid economic recovery. You will have seen much of the content before.
…So modular funding is on its way, but 2025 is a long way off—that takes us into the next parliament. Perhaps the Treasury has costed the commitment and decided to kick that particular can down the road.
The Skills for Jobs white paper… will seek to justify both disinvestment in higher education and funding of technical education on the cheap. It will play to the prejudices of the Conservative base and the idea that too many people are going to university and that decades of regional inequality can be resolved by more plumbing courses at local further education colleges.

From Dods: The Department says that the measures announced today “will put an end to the illusion that a degree is the only route to success and a good job, and that further and technical education is the second-class option.”

The White Paper is being pitched as forming part of the Plan for Jobs

As expected, the Paper enshrines the Lifetime Skills Guarantee, providing a clearer idea of what the programme looks like in practice – adults without a full level 3 qualification (A-level equivalent) to gain one from April 2021 for free in a range of sectors including engineering, health and accountancy.
The long-touted Lifelong Loan Entitlement is also fleshed out in more detail, representing significant reforms to student finance. [Actually, there is very little detail and there is going to be a consultation on this “in early 2021”.]

Measures include:

The Government is investing £1.5bn in further education colleges, to allow for high quality buildings and facilities
Employers will have a central role in designing “almost all” technical courses by 2030, to ensure education and training reflects the skills needed in the job market, supported by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education
Business groups, including Chambers of Commerce, will work alongside colleges to develop tailored skills plans“to meet local training needs”
This will be supported by a £65m Strategic Development Fund to put said plans into action, and establish new College Business Centre
New approved qualifications from September 2022, supported by a Government-backed brand and quality mark, to boost the quality and uptake of Higher Technical Qualifications(levels 4 and 5)
From 2025, people can access flexible student finance so they can train and retrain throughout their lives, supported by funding in 21/22 to test ways to boost access to more modular and flexible learning.
Nationwide recruitment campaign to get more teachers into further education and supporting professional development including a new Workforce Industry Exchange Programme
An “overhaul” of the funding and accountability rules, so funding is better targeted at supporting high-quality education and training that meets the needs of employers
An introduction of new powers to intervene when colleges are failing to deliver good outcomes for the communities they serve, and strengthening of Education Secretary’s powers to intervene in corporations and local areas with persistent weaknesses. [The sales pitch on this is a good bit of spin, it is presented as an opportunity to have a strategic discussion with the department and pitch the strengths of the college, but….]

The next phase of the FE Capital Transformation Fund has also been launched today, and further education colleges across the country are invited to bid for funding to upgrade buildings and campuses.

The Augar report stressed the need for impartial and quality careers advice and guidance, so more people can be support to make the right education, training and career choices. There will be an expansion of Careers Hubs and other infrastructure in line with the Gatsby Benchmarks of Good Career Guidance. Furthermore, Dods tell us that, as part of the Skills White Paper reforms, Professor Sir John Holman has been appointed as Independent Strategic Advisor on Careers Guidance, and will oversee the local and national alignment between The Careers & Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service. Sir Holman is currently an Emeritus Professor in Science Education at the University of York, and is also Senior Adviser to both the Gatsby Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

RP continue:

The Department for Education says: “The measures announced today will put an end to the illusion that a degree is the only route to success and a good job, and that further and technical education is the second-class option. Instead, they will supercharge further and technical education, realigning the whole system around the needs of employers, so that people are trained for the skills gaps that exist now, and in the future, in sectors the economy needs, including construction, digital, clean energy and manufacturing.”
The government may be hoping that first sentence becomes true; it surely knows that the second sentence lacks credibility. The white paper proposals are accompanied by a £65 million Strategic Development Fund to put the plan into action and to “establish new College Business Centres to drive innovation and enhanced collaboration with employers”.
To put that in context, the much-mocked Turing one-way exchange scheme has a budget of £100m, which is a reduction by nearly half of its Erasmus predecessor. The £65m fund is not going to reverse decades of underinvestment in skills, while College Business Centres sound like a classic ministerial vanity project doomed to irrelevance when their limited funding dries up.
There is going to be a lot of that sort of thing today, including the Workforce Industry Exchange Programme, aimed at coaxing talented individuals to teach in further education. It is not thought to involve basic incentives such as a competitive salary or security of employment.

RP also pick apart the percentage comparisons in the DfE’s criticism of the sector.

Wonkhe did a special email update at lunchtime: Debbie McVitty runs through the highlights so that you don’t have to.

On the proposals for funding lifelong learning, Debbie says: If the government can crack this policy Holy Grail, it will have a genuine claim to having radically transformed post-compulsory education. But this white paper marks an intention to start developing the answers rather than concrete proposals.

Commenting on the government’s interim response to the post-18 review of education and funding, Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said:

‘An increased focus on lifelong learning will help develop the highly skilled graduate workforce needed to support our economy, nationally, regionally and locally. The OfS plans to work with students, the sector and employers to explore how higher education can be made more attractive and responsive to mature learners, and ensure that mature students are aware of the breadth of options available to them in both further and higher education.
‘The focus on quality and the need to tackle poor quality provision is a strategic priority for the OfS as we consult on new proposals to enable us to anticipate and respond to poor quality, while ensuring that our approach is proportionate and targeted where it is needed.’

Robert Halfon, chair of the Education Committee:

“The proposals from the prime minister and department for education mark a sea-change in government thinking on skills.
“It will help address our skills deficit by boosting the accessibility of technical qualifications alongside the lifetime skills guarantee. It meets the needs of businesses in building an employed-led system, working with FE, to design employer qualifications and ensure funding follows employer requirements. It will give those from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to climb the skills ladder of opportunity, through the skills guarantee and easier access to finance. It is good that new funding will be made available in areas where colleges work with employers to transform their skills offering.
“‘Build back better’ clearly means building back a skills nation. I am really excited by these plans.”

Policy Exchange blog – Alun Francis and Andy Westwood preview the forthcoming FE White Paper.

There are some relevant blogs on HEPI:

an interesting blog on HEPI here by Chris Husbands: Universities must be critical delivery agents of the Government’s levelling up fund.
Unintended Consequences: How Level 3 reform could damage progression to higher education – looked at through the perspective of nursing
a report on the graduate contribution scheme.

Research

The Research Excellence Framework team have announced some flexibility to support universities with their REF submissions now the country is back within lockdown. Prior to the announcement on an LSE’s Impact of Social Sciences blog there is a call for REF2021 to be postponed until the end of the year.
Research Professional: Covid-19 has revealed flaws in the management of postgraduate research students.
Science Minister Amanda Solloway announced a UK-Japan robotics deal for fusion energy and nuclear decommissioning research
Research Professional analyse UKRI’s Ottoline Leyser’s statements to pick out future priorities for UKRI action.

Academic spinouts: Wonkhe review: The Royal Academy of Engineering’s Enterprise Hub has published a report on academic spinouts. Just four universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL – account for a third of UK spinout companies, with all such companies raising £1.30 billion in investment in 2018. While the impact of the pandemic is not yet fully known, indications point to increased investment in spinouts dealing with medical technology and pharmaceuticals. The Scotsman has the story.

Parliamentary Question: The potential merits of extending funding for all PhD students who have faced disruption as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Changes to HE Teaching Grant

So alongside all of this it is not surprising that we see some “rebalancing” in funding away from HE. And given that “low value” courses have been a focus for some time, it is not surprising to see how this has gone.

Gavin Williamson spoke in the House of Commons (see this link at 13:08 pm)

Proposed reform to teaching grant will allocate funding to deliver value for money for students and the taxpayer. Strategic priorities. Engineering and medicine. Will “slash” taxpayer funding for subjects such as media studies.
Will provide additional support for specialist arts institutions.
Will consult on introduction of minimum entry requirements and addressing the high cost of foundation years. We cover this in more detail with the rest of the Augar content below, the minimum entry requirements bit is a cost saving measure, of course.
Full response on Augar and post-18 review with next spending review (well maybe).

There’s more (a lot more) in the response to Augar, which we cover below, but let’s get down to brass tacks and immediate changes to 2021/22 funding first.

Gavin Williamson has written to the OfS to set out new guidance for the allocation of the £1.48 billion HE teaching grant for the 2021/22 financial year.

Strategic reprioritisation of high-cost funding towards the provision of high-cost, high-value subjects that support the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost STEM subjects and/or specific labour market needs, reducing funding initially by 50% for high-cost subjects that do not support these priorities (with further decreases in subsequent years).

Remove weightings for London providers from across the T-Grant, including the students attending courses in London supplement, and weightings within the student premiums. (This saves the Government £64 million.)
Allocate £5m to providers in order to provide additional support for student hardship – This is to mitigate the rise in student hardship due to pandemic impacts on the labour market which particularly affect, for example, students relying on work to fund their studies, students whose parents have lost income and students who are parents and whose partner’s income has been affected. The OfS should establish exactly how this is distributed but the funding should be clearly targeted towards disadvantaged students. The £5m will be a drop in the ocean across the national provider base but provide another support statistic for the Government to trot out when asked how they are addressing the issue.
Allocate £15m to help address the challenges to student mental health posed by the transition to university, given the increasing demand for mental health services. OfS to establish how to target those students in greatest need of such services, but likely through a Challenge Competition.
Protect the £256m allocation for the student premiums to support disadvantaged students and those that need additional help [yes, that £256m]
Reduce the allocation for Uni Connect to £40m (losing £20m). With the lost £20m redirected towards mental health and student hardship (as per the bullet points above) – so it’s not really new money, more robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Back to Uni Connect – the letter says: Funding for Uni Connect was originally agreed until July 2021, and so this is an appropriate moment to consider the scope and objectives of the programme. We welcome the current [OFS] consultation on the future of the Uni Connect programme… we believe that future investment is best directed to support the core infrastructure of partnerships, and funding targeted activities to fulfil specific policy objectives.
Increase funding for specialist providers, particularly those who are world leading and specialise in the performing and creative arts, by approximately £10m to £53m. This will help to support and/or expand the provision at those providers best equipped to secure positive outcomes for graduates, boosting outcomes for the sector. Note the wording there – positive outcomes, boosting outcomes…so specialist providers without the right metrics might be disappointed! Again the OfS is to decide who is eligible.
Deliver capital funding to providers through a strategically targeted bidding process and target funds at specific projects and activities aligned with the high-quality, skills-based education agenda – not the old formula model (because: The extent to which we can assure ourselves that funding is adding value and investment is focussed on key government priorities is, therefore, limited.) Jisc and HESA’s Data Futures Programme can still be supported too.
If you are willing to delve far enough you’ll spot that Annex C allocates £28 million for Turing outward mobility in 2021/22 from the teaching grant.

The letter also instructs OfS to consult with the HE sector given the impact on the HE sector anticipated from the proposed changes. With all the other special allocations to iron out and their regular workload the OfS will be busy!

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said about the Department for Education’s statutory guidance for the OfS’s approach to funding:

‘Distributing funding is an important part of our regulatory work. Our annual grant funding for universities and colleges plays a critical role in ensuring the availability to students of high quality, cost-effective higher education across the country. We intend to consult on the government’s proposed changes to how we distribute this funding, and have written today to universities outlining our proposals for consultations and a revised schedule for distributing next year’s grant allocations.’

Wonkhe: Gavin Williamson has set out his strategic priorities again to OfS including changes to the teaching grant that will hit London universities the hardest.

HEPI also has a blog piece on the case for the Office for Students to be a strong regulator, working closely with universities and sector bodies.

Post-18 Review of Post-18 Education and Funding and interim response to the Augar report

The Augar report from 2019 has been gathering dust for a long time following the (2018) Post-18 Review of Education and Funding (one of Jo Johnson’s legacies). The Augar Review made 53 recommendations for the reform of the FE & HE sectors including a more coherent unified post-18 system. You might want to look back at what Augar actually said (way back in May 2019).

The Government’s response to Augar has been long promised and many times shifted further down the road due to elections, Brexit, the pandemic, and the further postponement of the comprehensive spending review.

While the sector may approach the Government’s response to Augar with both anticipation and trepidation – alongside a healthy dose of just tell us! – it seems we’ll still have to wait for the real decisions. The DfE’s interim conclusion of Augar has been released, the main points are below. Much is inextricably tied in with the Skills white paper and FE decisions. The Government also plan to consult on further reforms to the system in spring 2021, before setting out their full response. The full conclusion of the review is promised to sit alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review. Augar: the sequel, we can’t wait!

The TEF will continue to play an important role in driving improvement in HE provision. The OfS will consult on a more, streamlined, improved, low-burden TEF exercise, and in an aim to reduce bureaucracy, the Government will not be introducing subject-level TEF. There is a lot more on the TEF below.
The Government are considering further reforms for tackling ‘low quality provision’ and will set out a response in due course.
The report highlighted the significant taxpayer subsidy in the HE student finance system. The Government intend to freeze the maximum tuition fee cap to deliver better value for students and to keep the cost of higher education under control, initially for one year, with consideration of further changes before the next Comprehensive Spending Review. It appear the reduction in the fee cap to £7,500 may still be on the table.

Wonkhe have a blog: editor in chief Mark Leach argues that the government’s chronic failure to resolve the Augar recommendations on reducing home undergraduate fees is storing up serious problems for later this year – Holding the threat of reducing fees over the sector will not help universities or students.

Research Professional (writing before the response was officially released): What will be presented as an interim response to Philip Augar’s review of post-18 education and funding will be little more than a holding position, with all the big financial decisions put on hold until the comprehensive spending review…It is also, no doubt, a way of putting pressure on universities so that the government gets its way on other policy priorities, such as low-value courses. Time will tell whether these interim findings will be a sword of Damocles held over universities or part of a process by which the Augar review is finally put out to pasture.

Autumn 2021 is the earliest the next CSR is likely to take place.

Some extracts from the response – but at 13 pages it is worth reading in full:

The Government’s focus on the response to the coronavirus pandemic means that now is not the right time to conclude the review in full. However, we remain committed to introducing further reforms that will ensure a just and financially sustainable student finance system, drive up the quality of higher education provision and promote accessibility for students. This will include consideration of elements mentioned in the Augar Report, including student finance terms and conditions, minimum entry requirements to higher education institutions, the treatment of foundation years and other matters. [note the minimum entry requirement piece. You will recall the outrage about this proposal which was going to be in Augar – the discussion at the time about the impact of a 3Ds minimum level. Augar actually stopped short of recommending it but threatened it as a response to the sector not sorting out issues relating to “low value courses”. See more detailed section below.]
We plan to consult on further reforms to the higher education system in spring 2021, before setting out a full response to the report and final conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review. [and how many times have they said that – the last two spending reviews at which we were promised this were cancelled]
As a further part of our Lifetime Skills Guarantee, and informed by the recommendation of the Augar panel, we will move to a system where everyone has a Lifelong Loan Entitlement, giving them access to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education. This flexible entitlement will bring technical and academic education closer together and will help people to train, retrain and upskill throughout their lifetime. The Lifelong Loan Entitlement will provide fairness of opportunity by making the same funding system available regardless of the route you choose and when you choose to study. We will consult on the scope and detail of the entitlement in early 2021, including seeking views on objectives and coverage.
This is potentially huge: We will move towards modularisation of higher education in order to provide a truly flexible system that provides more opportunity for upskilling throughout people’s careers, as recommended by the Augar Report. We will consult widely about the changes that are needed to enable universities and colleges to provide a modular offer.[doesn’t say when they will consult on this]
Our vision is that the substantial majority of post-16 technical and Higher Technical Education will be aligned to employer-led standards by the end of this decade
We will set out how the higher education teaching grant will be used next year to ensure that more of taxpayers’ money is spent on supporting provision which aligns with the priorities of the nation, such as healthcare, STEM and specific labour market needs. This gives reassurance to potential students that incentives are aligned to encourage courses with good job outcomes and reinforces the Government’s commitment to safeguarding the UK’s high-quality research base.
As recommended by the Augar Report, we will create a system that stimulates demand for technical education, improving the nation’s skills and encouraging growth…..
- …We need a better balance between academic and technical education – we are currently too skewed towards degrees above all else
- .. We want every student with the aptitude and desire to go to university to be able to do so and we want technical, employer-centric training to be a viable option for many more people.
We will ask the OfS to consult on a more streamlined, improved, low-burden TEF exercise that will ensure that the drive to improve the quality of provision applies across all providers, not just those at the lower end. In line with the ambition to reduce bureaucracy, we will not be introducing a subject-level TEF. [that is a fascinating nuance – see the TEF section below]
We are considering what further reforms may be needed to tackle low-quality provision and will set out a full response on this issue in due course. [So what is that, then? More than what the OfS are already doing with their quality and standards work, presumably. Augar also looked at, in the same way as it looked at minimum grade requirements, (i.e. “we aren’t recommending but you could look at”), targeted number caps on courses offering low value for money. Is that what the government response is hinting at?. We look at this in more detail below as well].
The Augar Report highlighted the significant, and growing, taxpayer subsidy in the higher education student finance system. It is important that the student finance funding systems remain sustainable and that those who benefit from their higher education should make a fair contribution. We intend to freeze the maximum tuition fee cap to deliver better value for students and to keep the cost of higher education under control. This will initially be for one year and further changes to the student finance system will be considered ahead of the next Comprehensive Spending Review. [There you are, postponed again to another spending review. Which is surely unlikely to happen this year, for the same reasons as it hasn’t happened the last two years.]

HEPI has a blog “The Government’s emerging vision for universities: labour-market need at the heart of the system.”

The Government might be determined to put short-term labour-market need at the heart of our higher education system – determining the subjects that people are encouraged to or able to study… If enacted, these proposals will lead to (i) a weaker student voice, (ii) an un-benchmarked metric that equates professional-level employment fifteen months after graduation with success, and (iii) connecting university courses’ conditions of registration to a pass/fail rule about successful outcomes that takes no account of the social backgrounds of different students. This would be a very significant change in how universities are held to account and, by implication, a philosophical shift on what the fundamental purpose of university is considered to be. Short-term labour-market need, not student choice, will be at the heart of the system. The Government is perfectly entitled to do all this but it will have ripple effects. The current funding model puts primary responsibility on the individual graduate to pay for their education. Young people might wonder whether they should pay in a system that steers their choices in a direction someone else has judged appropriate.

So what’s coming next on Augar?

So, the response to Augar says there will be a consultation on minimum entry requirements and one on “further reforms” – and more work on low value courses. We remind you about the previous debates about minimum entry requirements, and what Augar said about them, as well as what it said about further action on capping student numbers for low value courses.

Minimum entry requirements: This suggestion was made in Augar the context of this:

Our preference is for the HE sector, through the OfS, to resolve the problem of students being inappropriately recruited onto low value courses.
We believe that the sector should have three years – until the start of academic year 2022/23 – to put its house in order

If not, Augar said, then the government should do two things – impose minimum entry requirements and cap numbers on low value courses.

To remind you about the arguments:

The story about 3Ds first broke in December 2018 in THE. We covered it in our policy update on 21^st December 2018 and Wonkhe also covered it.
from March 2019: two blogs on HEPI, one by Iain Mansfield (architect of the TEF), and a response by Greg Walker of MillionPlus.
David Willetts wrote for the Times Higher in April 2019 and wasn’t keen either.

Augar was published in May 2019 and actually said this on minimum entry requirements (see pages 99-101)

We have considered the introduction at some future date of a contextualised minimum entry threshold for access to Level 6 student finance for students under the age of 25, to be used if the measures outlined above did not deliver the scale and pace of change needed. Students under 25 with tariff points below a certain level would be ineligible for student loans for tuition at Level 6. To repeat, this policy would need to be implemented such that disadvantaged students were not unfairly penalised.
The choice of threshold would be critical. As Figure 3.14 shows, there is no clear drop-off point in graduate earnings by attainment. To be effective, a threshold would need to be both high enough to address the issues of drop-out and lower wage returns set out earlier; and low enough to ensure that the impact could be managed across the sector and would avoid disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups.
Were a minimum entry requirement introduced, it should apply only to students under the age of 25, after which work experience, rather than Level 3 qualifications alone, would be the appropriate entry criterion. The policy should apply only to Level 6 courses: any young person with Level 3 attainment below the threshold would still be eligible for student finance to study at Levels 4/5, and could then use their qualification at those higher levels to progress on to, and therefore receive finance for, Level 6 in the future. Introducing high-quality alternatives to degree study will be crucial to addressing the problems of low-value degrees set out above. Students recognise the value of higher-level study but they must have these alternatives available to them or they will continue to enrol for poor-value degrees. We are aware that even with contextualisation the impact on some HEIs would be significant. Some of them might wish to focus on the new higher technical provision discussed in the previous chapter; if they chose to do so, this would be a positive outcome [ouch]
We consider a minimum entry threshold contextualised for socio-economic background to be feasible and that it could address the problems of low returns for graduates in a socially progressive way.
However, such a threshold would be a significant intervention into what has been designed as a competitive autonomous market. It could be seen as a reversal of the principle of allowing all who are able to benefit from HE to attend, a principle that has underpinned HE policy in recent years and was first pronounced in the 1963 Robbins Report.
It might be objected that the contextualisation process breaks the clear link between attainment and entry established by a minimum entry threshold. For example, it could result in a position where two students at the same school with the same grades holding the same offer from the same university would have different outcomes; one would be moderated over the threshold and attend university while the other would not. In so doing, it could be presented as an example of social engineering – and breach of concepts of fairness – that do not fit comfortably within a meritocratic education system.

There was a lot of debate about this idea before Augar was published – because it was leaked as a possible recommendation. Chris Skidmore, who was Universities Minister at the time, did not like the idea. In the end it was watered down as a threat if the sector did not sort out “low value courses” by 2022/23. The current government look to be a bit more impatient and have assumed that these issues will not be sorted out by then. And it may not be just this that they are considering – we look at the other Augar threat on targeted number caps below.

Targeted number caps on courses offering poor value for money

This was in the same context as the minimum entry requirements proposal:

Our preference is for the HE sector, through the OfS, to resolve the problem of students being inappropriately recruited onto low value courses.
We believe that the sector should have three years – until the start of academic year 2022/23 – to put its house in order

..and if not then: Augar said this on capping numbers (see pages 101-102)

If recruitment practice has not improved by 2022/23, discussed further below, an alternative or complementary option for the government and OfS is the imposition of a cap on the numbers admitted to courses that persistently manifest poor value for money for students and the public. The existing regulations give OfS the power to implement such caps where that is justified in accordance with their regulatory aims, at institutional or subject level.
The government has made it clear that it will not re-impose a cap on student numbers at national level. It would be out of scope for us to propose this and we would not wish to do so, even if it were within our terms of reference. However, we are mindful that the government does exceptionally place a cap on numbers, notably on university places for Medicine, because of the very high cost of a medical degree and of the professional training that follows it, and have considered whether this practice could be extended.[this looks interesting now in the light of the attempt to apply student number caps in the pandemic which was abandoned so quickly when the extent of the 2020 A-level results mess-ups became apparent].
We therefore invite the government to consider the case for encouraging the OfS to stipulate in exceptional circumstances a limit to the numbers an HEI could enrol on a specific course, or group of courses.
Where there is persistent evidence of poor value for students in terms of employment and earnings and for the public in terms of loan repayments, the OfS would have the regulatory authority to place a limit, for a fixed period, on the numbers eligible for financial support who could be admitted to the course. The institution in question would remain free to recruit to all other courses without restriction. Such a cap system would clearly target the institutions that are offering poor value, rather than altering the entry criteria for individual students.

International and mobility

Wonkhe have new content: Ahead of the British Council’s international education virtual festival this week, Director Education Maddalaine Ansell takes stock of the state of international recruitment.

Parliamentary Question: Ensuring the UK remains an attractive destination for education for international students

Wonkhe have a blog on what is needed for Turing to be a success. Here are some of the recommendations:

Monitor the graduate outcomes of Turing on a longitudinal basis so we can measure its benefit not just as a snapshot six or twelve months from graduation but over an individual’s lifetime
Be global in principle but trade oriented in focus because the rise of the Asian Century means giving our students as much opportunity to travel to Asia and learn Asian languages/culture as engaging with Europe and North America.
Ensure more industry and employer engagement which will require universities to understand their international graduate destinations and form alliances and partnerships with international companies that can host students on work placements overseas. With robust country specific data on international graduate outcomes institutions can focus employer engagement where it will have the most impact.
Attribute value to soft power because global goodwill is essential for the UK’s future economic success particularly during and following the global pandemic. Mapping the careers of those that take part in Turing will put the UK in the driving seat when it comes to having alumni with a wide network of contacts with the authority to invest and trade.
Demonstrate excellence through international employability by showing the value to an individual’s future career if they take part in Turing. Evidencing the outcomes from the scheme must be part of the hearts and minds approach to ensuring that UK students are motivated to take part in outward mobility.

Meanwhile Wonkhe report: Welsh education minister Kirsty Williams is reported to be in discussions with her counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland about the possibility that the three nations could rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme. Nation Cymru has the story.

HEPI have a blog: Five questions to ask about the Turing scheme

Parliamentary Questions

Whether UK students will be liable for fees in their host countries under the Turing programme. Answer – students taking part will receive grants to help them with the costs of their international experience…On tuition fees, we expect these to be waived for Turing scheme participants consistent with the arrangements for Erasmus+.
Will Turing involve a competitive bidding element? Answer: We will be making further information available very shortly to enable providers across the UK to prepare to bid for funding when applications open in the coming weeks for placements to take place from September 2021. This will include information on how applications will be assessed, and funding allocated and we plan to have a call for bids much like Erasmus+. Successful applications will receive funding for administering the scheme and students taking part will receive grants to help them with the costs of their international experience.

This scheme will be demand-led and will be open to bids from providers across the UK. As such, there is no projection as to the number of students from each nation or specific limits for any specific region.

Whether the UK remains a partner country of the Erasmus Mundus+ masters degree scheme.
Turing admin costs; and another angle – proportion of £100m for admin costs
Plans to ensure that people from EU member states due to participate in the Erasmus+ scheme in the UK have access to the Turing scheme.
Turing – In terms of direct income to higher education providers, we expect tuition fees to be waived for Turing scheme participants consistent with the arrangements for Erasmus+.

TEF

The Independent (Pearce) Review of the Teaching and Student Outcomes Framework (i.e. the TEF Review) has been published. This was completed and submitted to government (in August 2019) but hibernated in the Ministerial in tray (election etc…) whilst Governmental focus and priorities shifted.

RP:

the subject-level Teaching Excellence Framework looks to be heading for the highest shelf in the cupboard of abandoned higher education policy initiatives. It seems as if the Office for Students is to be sent back to the drawing board to come up with something less burdensome and more in keeping with government priorities on low-value courses.
… As ever, higher education should be careful what it wishes for, as the replacement for the subject-level TEF might be even less rigorous and more intrusive. The absence of benchmarking in the Office for Students’ consultation on quality has spooked some, who fear the imposition of a less sophisticated assessment process for universities.

Here are all the links:

Pearce review
Government response to the Pearce review
Consultation outcome on the Independent review of the TEF
Survey of HE applicants
Survey of HE careers advisers
OfS finally publish the findings from the 2018-19 subject level TEF pilot
ONS evaluation of the statistical elements of the TEF (for the people really keen on data).

Overall: Is it worth it?: Given the value of HE to the UK, we believe it is firmly in the public and student interest for TEF to have, as its primary purpose, the identification of excellence across all HE and to encourage enhancement of that provision.

We’ll set out the Pearce recommendations and the government responses together so you can compare.

Statistical analysis:

Pearce: Improvements are needed in the management and communication of:

statistical uncertainty at all levels of the process, including multiple comparisons
small numbers ( small providers and/or small datasets ) and non-reportable metrics
relative versus absolute comparisons

These have a significant impact on flagging and generating the initial hypothesis.

Appendix B sets out the essential ONS recommendations that address these concerns.

Government: …we would like the OfS metrics group to take into account and address the concerns raised by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) when reviewing the robustness of its metrics and data.

Subject level exercise:

Pearce: The process and statistical risks become exacerbated at subject level where the impact of problems due to small numbers becomes greater. This, in addition to the problems with subject categorisation and risks of inconsistencies at scale, mean that ratings at subject level risk undermining the successful development of TEF as a whole.

There is evidence however, that a subject-level exercise has value for driving internal enhancement. For this reason, we recommend that while TEF should not progress to ratings at subject level at this stage, a subject-level exercise should be incorporated into the provider-level assessment and inform provider-level ratings.

Work is needed to develop the most effective way to do this. We propose that all providers receive a full set of subject-level metrics and that failure to sufficiently address variability in subject performance should act as a limiting factor on ratings of the aspects of assessment and the overall provider rating.

Government: …we do not want to move to subject-level TEF ratings, because we do not consider at this stage it can be achieved without significant burden

Metrics:

Pearce:

Teaching and Learning Environment: Institutionally determined evidence addressing ‘how we create an excellent environment for teaching and learning and how we know we are doing this well’. Subject variability in teaching and learning environments should be addressed.
Student Satisfaction: Evidence to address ‘what our students think of our educational provision’. National comparisons should use National Student Survey (NSS) metrics. In the submission, institutions should address their performance in the NSS metrics and may also add their own data. Subject variability in satisfaction should be addressed.
Educational Gains: Institutionally determined evidence addressing ‘what our students gain from our educational experience and how we evidence that’. Educational gains might include knowledge, skills, experience, work readiness, personal development and resilience. This will be conceptualised differently in different institutions. Since there is no single nationally comparable metric of ‘learning gain’, each provider would be expected to demonstrate how, within their own particular mission, they articulate and measure ( quantify if possible ) the educational gains that they aim to provide for their students. Subject variability in those gains should also be addressed.
Graduate Outcomes: Evidence to address ‘what our students do as graduates and how we have supported these outcomes’. In addition to the existing TEF employment metrics, measures beyond employment should be used and regional differences in labour markets should be controlled for. Continuation and differential degree attainment should also be part of this aspect. Institutions would use their submission to respond to the metrics and add their own data. Subject variability in graduate outcomes should also be addressed.

Government:

….the Government does not consider ‘Student Satisfaction’ to be an appropriate measure of excellence, as satisfaction can, potentially, be too easily obtained via a reduction in quality or academic rigour – we believe ‘Student Academic Experience’ to be a more appropriate aspect
…we would like the OfS to ensure that the TEF ratings are based on an assessment of high quality, nationally gathered metrics and data (e.g., Graduate Outcomes, Longitudinal Education Outcomes and non-continuation data) and contextual qualitative information.
It should use more than just earnings and should take account of regional variations
OfS will also need to consider if and how educational gain can be reliably measured
The outcomes of the NSS Review will be important in considering the role the survey plays in the TEF assessment. We recognise that there is a place for students’ feedback on the quality of their teaching and learning experience and we will work with the OfS to develop how this aspect of quality could be included

Plus, new: For this reason, the Government considers it essential that student outcomes should act as Limiting Factors, such that a provider should not achieve a high TEF rating if it has poor student outcomes. We will work with the OfS to determine how the Limiting Factors should work. [so they will be a baseline in the quality framework and a limiting factor in the TEF -they are doing a lot of work here]

Submission

Pearce: …a standard structure should be developed which incorporates a subject level exercise. The student body should also be given the opportunity to provide direct input in an independent structured submission.

Government: We agree with the Independent Review’s recommendation that provider-level ratings should be derived from robust data and structured submissions from providers and students.

Ratings:

Pearce: Greater granularity in the rating system would provide more information about excellence and reflect the complexity of educational provision. We therefore recommend providers are awarded both an institutional rating, and a rating for each of the four proposed aspects.

We also recommend that the names of the ratings should reflect the level of excellence identified. We propose the following names:

Meets UK Quality Requirements
Commended
Highly Commended
Outstanding

Government: We agree with the Independent Review that there should, in future, be four TEF ratings overall, with the top three being signifiers of excellence to varying degrees.

The new bottom category will capture those providers failing to show sufficient evidence of excellence, and it will be made clear that these providers will need to improve the quality of their provision. We will work with the OfS to confirm the names for the four ratings in due course. [this is really interesting – the OFS quality consultation has a whole thing on using the bottom TEF rating as a reason to investigate a provider, which suddenly makes sense].

The name of the scheme

Pearce: We heard much frustration that the name ‘Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework’ does not adequately reflect what the TEF really measures. Teaching is only assessed via proxies and the student learning experience is dependent on more than just teaching. We recommend that the name should reflect more accurately what a revised TEF will measure and assess. Of the options we have considered, we propose the Educational Excellence Framework (EdEF).

Goverment: The Government would like the scheme to continue to be known as ‘the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) This name has a well-established brand value, and is increasingly understood, in the UK and internationally, to mean a rating on teaching, learning and student outcomes.

And in terms of the practical question about what happens next, the government have said:

… we will end the current approach of TEF running each year and expect the TEF to be a periodic exercise, taking place every 4 or 5 years.
Its costs should also be kept proportionate and for each exercise the costs, for both providers or the OfS, should, at an absolute maximum, not exceed the costs per provider of the TEF exercise that has taken place to date

And the OfS have told us (Letter to universities):

We are developing proposals for the TEF to be an integral part of the overall quality system in England. The role of the TEF is to continue to incentivise excellence above our baseline requirements. In developing our proposals for the TEF, we will take into account the Independent Review recommendations and the government’s response to these, and the evidence from the subject-level pilots. We expect to consult on these proposals in the spring, aligned to more detailed proposals on our approach to the regulation of quality and standards through the conditions of registration.
We do not expect a new TEF framework to be in place before the current TEF awards expire in summer 2021. We are considering the options for the interim period until a new TEF framework is in place and expect to consult about this soon.

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said:

‘Students invest a significant amount of time and money in higher education and should expect a high-quality academic experience. The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) plays an important role in driving up the quality of provision in universities and colleges – we welcome the publication of Dame Shirley Pearce’s review and the recommendations she has identified for developing the scheme further.
‘We are committed to raising the bar on quality and standards across the English higher education system. As we refine our overall approach to regulation, the TEF will continue to incentivise improvement in areas that students care deeply about: the quality of teaching and learning, and how well their courses set them up for success after their studies.
‘We will develop proposals on how best to take forward the independent review recommendations and the government response to these, as well as evidence from our own subject-level pilots. We expect to consult on proposals for the future TEF in the spring, aligned to more detailed proposals on how we regulate quality and standards through conditions of registration.’

On Wonkhe: TEF – Big changes lie ahead and David Kernohan is here to walk you through them.

Admissions

The DfE launched a consultation on their proposed changes for post-qualification admissions (PQA) in HE as part of Thursday’s deluge. The consultation explores whether student’s receiving and accepting university offers after they have achieved their A level grades would ensure a fairer higher education admissions system.

Brief overview of rationale from the documentation:

There is evidence that disadvantaged students ‘undermatch’ in relation to the grades they actually achieve
A PQA system might encourage disadvantaged students to be more aspiration in their choices and identify courses they are better matched to
Use of conditional unconditional offers and other undesirable admissions practices such as material inducements to persuade students to enter certain courses has increased in recent years, dramatically in the case of conditional unconditional offers
The current system is complex and difficult to navigate
Post-Qualification Admissions (PQA) has been proposed as a reform that could help alleviate some of these issues by a wide variety of groups and commentators across the political spectrum – including The Sutton Trust, The Universities and Colleges Union (UCU), The UCL Institute of Education and Policy Exchange
UCAS and Universities UK have concluded that now is the time for admissions reform to be considered, following months of engagement with students, schools, colleges and universities. This consultation will build on these findings, working across education sectors, to agree how reform could be delivered.

The consultation document states: We believe that it is time to explore whether a PQA system could address some of the challenges posed by the current HE admissions system: namely, that it is complex, lacks transparency, works against the interests of some students, and encourages undesirable admissions practices. Key delivery partners, as well as those across the education sector, have signalled that this is the right time to review the system. The experience of having completed full Level 3 qualifications, and knowledge of their actual results could put students in a better position to decide on their best options for further study. PQA could allow them to consider the full range of available qualifications, including higher technical qualifications as well as degree level study. Hence, it may lead to more students making better informed decisions, improve continuation rates in higher education and potentially lead to better career outcomes for students.

Prior to publication Research Professional said:

while a consensus seems to be gathering that post-qualification admissions are the right thing to do, a rearguard action is being mounted by vice-chancellors of low-tariff and medium-tariff universities who think that their institutions will be disadvantaged by the change.
The feeling is that there are some universities that need to spend more time building a relationship with applicants, and post-qualification admissions will see school leavers migrate towards established brand names. This, of course, may be what the government is hoping for.

Wonkhe have: A consultation from DfE on post-qualification admissions landed and Jim Dickinson has everything you need to know.

Exams in 2021:

Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards, issued a written ministerial statement on exams. There was no new content or updates, all remains as we outlined in last week’s policy update, the consultation closes next week.

Meanwhile Sammy Wright, a Social Mobility Commissioner, has stated that:

fair A level results are impossible and calls for a fully funded foundation year at university to avoid “catastrophic unfairness” among this year’s cohort.
Wright said disadvantaged students would not face “a level playing field” because they had missed out on more digital learning than their peers, and he warned that asking teachers to be objective in their grading could result in “a worse disaster than last year”. He also stated that no matter how grades are awarded, many students will be embarking on courses in September 2021 at a lower level than they may have done in a normal year

Wright was in favour of the Government’s proposal for clearing to take place after students have had time to appeal their grades. Wright states: At all costs we must avoid the chaos of clearing in 2020—and as such, we again call on UCAS and universities to ensure that clearing does not happen until all appeals have been responded to.

HEPI have a blog: How to be ‘innovative’ in school exam assessment – fewer grades

The Sutton Trust has published a report on how teachers and parents are responding to the second period of school closures.

Free Speech

During 2018 the debate over Free Speech in HE was a frequent topic in the policy update. While the HE sector agrees free speech is essential many were baffled by the Government’s dogged pursuit of the topic and the lack of evidence of its prevalence. This week we were transported back to 2018 – but on steroids – gone are the Ministerial speeches and push for the HE sector to sign up to ‘agreements’, now some Parliamentarians want a law and the ability to fine universities if they fail to uphold free speech. Conspiracy theorists might hypothesise that it all feels like another step towards a different agenda of tighter Governmental control over these (pesky) semi-autonomous university organisations. But back to this week…

David Davis (Conservative MP, currently an under-secretary of state for Wales and assistant Government Whip) presented a Ten Minute Rule motion on Freedom of Speech (Universities). In essence the Bill aims to: place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech and to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty. Davis’ introductory speech included:

Today, there is a corrosive trend in our universities that aims to prevent anybody from airing ideas that groups disagree with or would be offended by. Let us be clear: it is not about protecting delicate sensibilities from offence; it is about censorship. We can protect our own sensibilities by not going to the speech. After all, nobody is compelled to listen. But when people explicitly or indirectly no-platform Amber Rudd, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, Peter Hitchens and others, they are not protecting themselves; they are denying others the right to hear those people and even, perhaps, challenge what they say.
…views expressed in a recent survey commissioned by Britain’s biggest university academic union showed that Britain has the second-lowest level of academic freedom in all Europe. Just last month, a report by Civitas found that more than a third of our universities impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech—including, I am ashamed to say, Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews. The fact is that a number of our international allies today protect freedom of speech much better than we do.
Although in the UK we theoretically have laws protecting freedom of speech, in practice they are buried in education Acts, resulting in the protections not being widely known and universities not always upholding their duties.
… speech that is illegal—incitement to violence, for example—would of course be forbidden, but speech that is merely unpopular with any sector of the university would not be proscribed. Controversial views and the challenging of established positions would not be proscribed.

Ten Minute Rule motions are an opportunity for backbencher MPs to float an idea for a new Bill to the House, a ‘vote’ at the end of the (roughly) 10 minutes decides whether the Bill passes to the next stage. Similar to Private Members Bills the Ten Minute Rule motions rarely pass into legislation. However, some are introduced as a plant for the Government (perhaps to judge sentiment and support within the house without Cabinet embarrassment). This Bill was supported by 11 other Conservative MPs and it passed the initial ‘vote’ meaning it can progress to the second reading stage.

In theory Davis’ Bill should now stall – because time for all private bills has been paused due to Covid – but Davis knew this before he presented the Bill. Furthermore, if the Government wishes to back the Bill they can allocate it some of the time set aside for the Government’s agenda to progress it through the legislative stages. It will be an interesting one to watch.

Wonkhe take issue with the content of Davis’ speech: David Davis’ speech in support of his Ten Minute Rule motion to introduce a Freedom of Speech (Universities) Bill was passed unopposed in the House of Commons. His speech took in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the “no-platforming” of Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, “professional iconoclast” Peter Hitchens, and Amber Rudd – none of which were actually denied a platform.

Free Speech was one of the landmarks within Sam Gyimah’s tenure as Universities Minister in which he seems to have made several unsubstantiated claims that he later had to row back from. This BBC article stated the committee found little evidence that such censorship was “pervasive” – but instead found that a relatively small number of incidents were being widely shared. Research Professional dismissed another of Gyimah’s claims about overegging a safe space culture – With the Department for Education unable to confirm this latest claim about safe-spaces in universities, there remains little documented evidence of a culture of censorship in UK higher education. And an Oxford Professor states the obvious elephant in the room about lack of evidence in this Guardian article – When it comes to Sam Gyimah and Jo Johnson’s warnings that free speech is threatened, I’ve never seen either of them produce any evidence to support those statements. In education you’re supposed to be able to back up what you say, and they just don’t. The same article has Amatey Doku speaking within his 2018 role at NUS: There is vigorous debate every single day at universities. If there really were a censorship problem we’d hear about it. What we actually find are isolated instances blown out of proportion. There are a couple of reasons why ministers exaggerate: politically it plays well for their voter base.

iNews provide up to date coverage of the issue highlighting that Free Speech has continued as a hotspot for the Government, they state:

Concerns about freedom of speech on university campuses have grown in recent years, although some commentators have said the problem is exaggerated.
The 2019 Conservative manifestopledged to “strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities”.
Last summer the Government said that any university which gets into financial trouble because of the pandemic would have to “demonstrate their commitment” to freedom of speech in order to be eligible for bailout funds.

Michael Barber (outgoing Chair of the OfS) made a farewell speech on Wednesday evening in which he mentioned free speech. Research Professional pick it apart in their inimitable manner:

Referring to high-profile cases of “no-platforming”, Barber said: “I am often told that the vast majority of such possibly controversial speaking engagements do in fact go ahead. I am willing to believe that this is the case, but I would love to see the data. It is hardly a job for a regulator but if I were a university administrator or an influence at Universities UK, I would be collecting the data.”
England’s higher education regulator-in-chief seems to be unaware that the organisation he has chaired for the past four years gathers precisely these data, asking universities to return figures on the number of speakers approved or rejected as part of the Prevent legislation. In 2017-18…53 speaker requests [were] rejected. Of those 53, how many were to do with extremist views and how many were to do with a failure to complete the onerous paperwork properly? We are willing to bet on the latter for quite a few.
The Prevent statistics do not capture the Amber Rudds and Germaine Greers, but they do capture the reality of free speech in UK universities, rather than the issue imagined by some who mistake inherited privilege for inalienable rights.
Barber said: “My critique of the current free speech debate is not that it is too extensive but that it is too limited. After all, the conceptual rule for such events is surely clear: a university should be a place that actively promotes and protects the widest possible freedom of speech within the law.” At which point he should have sat down, or turned off his Zoom, because nobody ever, anywhere, has disagreed with that.

So will the Bill progress or fizzle…? I’m not sure even the Government know right now. Wonkhe’s irreverent interpretation (written before the Bill was presented) made me smile: There’s little chance of whatever’s in it becoming law all on its own – so we’ll have to wait and see to work out whether an extension of the culture war that the public looks increasingly bored with will take off this time around.

Education Oral Questions

Gavin Williamson took centre stage for Education Oral Questions and the Topicals on Monday breezing through content asking about:

the end of the Brexit transition period for HE,
Turing – Question: how will the Secretary of State ensure that the Turing scheme, a poor replacement for Erasmus, is as effective in encouraging inward student mobility? Answer: The Turing scheme is not a poor replacement…It is about us looking around the globe as to how we can expand opportunities for students. No comment on inward student mobility was made.
Research investment
Students paying rent for accommodation the Government have mandated they may not use (Answer: hardship funds)

Wonkhe covered the HE questions: Education Questions in the House of Commons saw Gavin Williamson once again reiterate that support for students remains under review – but apart from the £20m put towards hardship funds just before Christmas there has been no action.

Specific questions from Labour’s Emma Hardy and the SNP’s Stuart McDonald on support for rent where students are unable to use the property if following government guidelines saw no substantive answer.

Remote education (for pupils). Williamson states problems should be addressed with the school first before resorting to Ofsted complaints. Live lessons for SEN pupils was also covered as was laptops for disadvantaged pupils and internet access and free school meals.
Technical and vocational exams

During topicals:

Q – Bim Afolami: Many students have suffered as a result of inadequate teaching and pastoral care at their universities, in addition to unfair costs for accommodation that they are not even allowed to stay in. What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the Government are a voice for students, that they stand up for students and that they allow them to be compensated in some way by their universities when those universities fail them and let them down?
A – Gavin Williamson: There can be no excuses when universities are not offering the type of remote teaching and educational support that is expected. That is why it is so critical that, where that remote teaching and support is not happening, students’ rights are upheld. We saw at the tail end of last year that students’ rights were upheld and universities had to redress that. That is the right approach. We recognise how important it is to support students, which is why we will continue to look at how best we can support them through programmes such as the hardship fund.

This week’s Education Committee session focussed solely on the impact of COVID-19 on education and children’s services. There was no HE content. Do get in touch if you would like to receive Dods’ summary of the Committee session.

Case for Commons Reform

UCL’s Department of Political Science have an interesting publication: Taking back control – Why the House of Commons should govern its own time. It highlights that much of the time within the Commons is directed by the Government ministerial agenda and that several of the reforms recommended 10 years ago have not been implemented – some of its central concerns about the management of time in the House of Commons went unheeded… whereby MPs [despite coming from the majority party] have inadequate say over the running of their own institution. The report makes recommendations for change such as allocating more regular opposition and backbench business days, that the weekly agenda be put to members in an amendable form for decision (as happens in other parliaments) which would make ministers more responsive to the Commons majority (particularly their own backbench MPs). Also: that there should be a wide-ranging formal review of the extent of government control of House of Commons business.

In conclusion: As the Wright committee pointed out more than a decade ago, the extent of government control of the House of Commons is both unusual in international terms, and problematic for the functioning of Westminster. This was already true under periods of single party majority government, but it became even more obvious under minority government, as applied between May 2017 and November 2019. At present, House of Commons rules too often explicitly privilege the government rather than privileging the parliamentary majority. But these two will not always be the same thing. The core principle guiding House of Commons functioning should be majority decision-making, not government control.

Strategic Education Recovery Plan

Previous universities minister, Chris Skidmore, writes Thinking, fast and slow. Why we need a long-term Education Recovery Plan for Conservative Home. The article begins with humble words acknowledging the reality of home schooling whilst working. He recognises the disruption to all children’s learning and calls for an all through long term education plan from nursery to university. He states: We cannot afford to simply react to events, waiting to see what happens with the spread of the virus and its containment, before we decide the next stages of an entire generation’s future. The impact of the pandemic will emerge like the widening ripples in a pond when a stone has been thrown: its impact, in particular its educational impact, will be with us for years, a fact which we must come to terms with and have a strategic plan to help counter.

Already the Chair of the Education Select Committee and educational leaders have called for a redesign of the examination system. What is needed foremost, however, is a definitive understanding of the outcomes that we wish to achieve, before moving onto the processes to deliver this.

He highlights with two years’ worth of key stage assessments cancelled a system is needed to monitor individual pupil progress, so that pupils at risk of educational failure due to the pandemic can be rescued as quickly as possible, and given the individual support and tuition that they need to get back on track. This should be viewed as the critical mission. Identifying those pupils at risk of educational disadvantage means new forms of assessment, and data collection, will need to be considered. Above all, there must be transparency and a common approach to what is being measured. And this is the crux of his point. While schools will all be tracking and assessing the individual pupils without a national approach where is the policy push and additional funding. Remember the year 7 support funding – for pupils below year 6 SATs standards has been sucked into the coronavirus catch up fund – with different criteria for access.

He also talks about exams and HE admissions – I’m cautious about re-inventing the wheel at a time when stability and certainty is needed. Pupils deserve exam results to show for all their hard work, and existing systems that have held their own as a standard over time should not be thrown out for the sake of change. But we do need to address the issue of admissions to university, and how results and assessment are used to deliver this.

Post Qualification Admissions have been proposed as a way forward, yet with the qualifications themselves under review, we need greater long-term certainty of how we can achieve an equitable admissions system that encourages disadvantaged pupils to reach their potential.

Reforms to post-18 education to ensure lifelong learning and flexible qualification structures have taken on a fresh urgency in light of the pandemic, especially with the likely need for retraining and reskilling of a large number of people seeking new forms of employment.

Ultimately, a long-term education recovery plan must start not from what is convenient for existing systems and vested interests of the organisations that operate in this space. To do this would mean that those with the loudest voices, and greatest lobbying efforts, win out. What is needed instead is an approach that defines the “points of contact” at every stage of a child’s educational journey — and defining how these have been adversely affected by the pandemic, and what can be done to resolve this.

Defining and delivering a long-term plan, with the investment needed to achieve this, will be hard work: easier, more tactical approaches, may seem more attractive. Yet to achieve an effective recovery, the longer term, strategic planning is now essential… With all the immediate talk of laptop provision as the instant solution to current learning problems, we must not forget that now is also the time to prepare all pupils for their educational recovery, encompassed in a long-term strategic approach.

HE Staff Statistics

HESA have released HE sector staff statistics and data for the (pre-Covid) period to 1 December 2019.

Much media content has focussed on the lack of improving diversity, particularly at professorial level (see BBC). Some headline points from the HESA analysis.

Staff ethnicity – 18% BMC – an increase of 1 since 216/17; 11% of professors are BME
Staff nationality – 17% EU (excluding British), 14% non-EU
Gender – Men are more likely to work full time (52%) and academics are more likely to be male (53%); Females make up the larger proportions of part time staff (66%) and work in a non-academic role (63%).
Age – 19% of academic staff are aged 56 or over; almost half of all professors are aged 56+ years.
78% of academics’ salaries were paid in full by the institution. The other 22% were financed in part by research councils, UK branches of multinational companies, the NHS and/or UK and overseas charities.
44% of academic staff held teaching and research contracts. 32% held teaching only contracts. Teaching only contracts are increasing steadily each year, in 2015/16 teaching only contracts were held by 26% of staff.

Wonkhe have a good analysis delving into more detail (with understandable interpretations) here. Their blog specifically looks at Black underrepresentation too. The blog concludes by looking forward and reminding us that today’s issues will all have an impact on future figures. The pandemic has resulted in redundancies without appointing replacements, Brexit and the new immigration system may affect the diversity of nationalities employed, and, Wonkhe: A lot of what happens depends on government decisions as well as those made by providers – in particular institutional managers will be watching the decisions made by the Office for the Independent Adjudicator that could have a wider impact on student fee refunds. Other decisions made about university funding, for example as part of the response to the Augar report, will have an impact on university liquidity too.

Welsh support for students

The Welsh Government announced an additional £40m for universities to support students facing financial hardship. The fund aims to help the students most affected by the pandemic with expenses such as accommodation costs and addressing digital poverty. The £40 million is in addition to the previous £40 the Welsh Government provided to support students and universities. Kirsty Williams, the Welsh Education Minister, said:

This year, due to reasons beyond their control, many thousands of students have not been able to return to campus yet. In some cases, this means some students might still be paying for their accommodation while they are unable to use it. We recognise how difficult this is, which is why we are announcing this additional funding.
Our universities have worked tremendously hard to support their students, ensuring learning has continued, while putting measures in place to protect their students, staff and their local communities. This funding will allow them to build on that good work.

The Welsh Minister’s tone differs substantial from her English counterpart Michelle Donelan (who is still under fire on her Twitter feed). This week Research Professional dissect and comment on Donelan’s 6 ‘student’ Tweets, and they offer MP and leading HE sector figures censure on her simplistic slogans.

Access & Participation

HEPI have two blogs:

Reaching Beyond the School Gate: Making University Outreach More Meaningful asks if outreach teams are primarily working with students who are going to University anyway, and whether youth work embedded within the socio-cultural community and family context would be a fruitful new approach.
Rethinking fair admissions

Digital Poverty

At the end of last week Jisc, Universities UK, GuildHE and ucisa wrote to Gavin Williamson, Education Secretary, calling on the Government to lift higher education students out of digital poverty to avoid a lost generation of learners. By ignoring university students while helping other disadvantaged learners to study online, the government and telecommunications companies risk creating a ‘lost generation’ of young people who are missing out on their education. They state:

Half of higher education students are digitally disadvantaged
Many families are at risk of slipping into poverty and cannot afford the data costs required for online study
Digital and data poverty is the main issue that prevents effective delivery of online learning
Demand for hardship funding from universities has doubled

Indicating that around half of HE students are digitally disadvantaged, the letter cites the learning and teaching reimagined research project conducted by Jisc with sector partners, which found that digital and data poverty is the main issue that prevents delivering online learning effectively.

The letter goes on to highlight that, despite the welcome extra government funding to alleviate hardship for HE students, the demands on hardship funding have doubled, putting significant strain on university resources.

In conclusion, the letter, which calls for an urgent meeting with government and telecoms companies, states: Universities have moved mountains to provide learning and teaching online since the first lockdown and are now much better equipped to deliver a quality curriculum online. However, without urgent action to ensure students can get online affordably, the government is risking creating an even deeper and more long-term digital divide in education. We urge you to take action now on behalf of all higher education students experiencing digital poverty, or risk creating a lost generation of young people who are missing out on their education.

The Guardian cover the story here.

Disabled Students Commission: Wonkhe summarise the new report: The Disabled Students Commission has published its annual report, Enhancing the disabled student experience. The report outlines how the commission approached supporting disabled students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Going forward the Commission plans to adopt a student lifecycle model to inform its research and recommendations, with considerations including the intersection of disability with other characteristics such as race and gender, the diversity of disabled student experience, and greater consultation with disabled students.

Parliamentary Questions:

Access to post-16 education for asylum seekers is governed by funding rules in further and higher education.
What proportion of people (a) applying for and (b) securing places at higher education institutions were from (i) working class and (ii) disadvantaged backgrounds for the academic year 2019-20.
The effect of the covid-19 lockdown on the attainment gap (pupils). Answer: The Department has commissioned an independent research agency to analyse catch-up needs and monitor progress over this academic year. This research is based on a large sample of pupils and will identify whether particular groups of pupils have been more affected by time out of school – including the most disadvantaged, those with historically poor outcomes, and those in particular areas.
What assessment the Government has made of the report by the Social Mobility Commission Changing gears: understanding downward social mobility, published in November 2020; and what plans they have to address the Commission’s finding that one in five people move into a lower occupational group than their parents.

Students

Wonkhe have two student focussed blogs:

Isabella Enoizi sets out the case of a national student campaign calling for academic mitigation during Covid-19
Fleur Nielsen explains why an idea that looks good on paper – isn’t the government’s plan to move healthcare students onto paid placements is burdensome and inequitable.

Parliamentary Questions:

Sharia compliant alternative student finance product (no update yet); but this one on potential barriers to Muslim students has been answered
Additional support for HE students who have caring responsibilities for children and who are engaged in university studies alongside home tutoring. Government response: it’s up to the university but we expect them to be supporting student welfare
What support the Government plans to provide for undergraduate students whose university education has been disrupted by the covid-19 outbreak. Answer (as you’d expect): we are working with the sector to make sure that all reasonable efforts are being made to enable all students to continue their studies and provide the support required for them to do so. Our expectation, during these challenging times is that universities should maintain the quality and quantity of tuition and the Office for Students (OfS) will continue to actively monitor universities to ensure that quality of provision is maintained and accessible for all. And yes, Donelan also mentions the £256 OfS Student Premium funding which can go towards student hardship funds and the £20 million of additional hardship funding expected by providers soon
Student Finance – Illness/shielding: Students who suspend their studies for a variety of reasons, including shielding, can apply to Student Finance England for their living costs support to be continued while they are absent from their course. Students who suspend their studies due to illness automatically receive living costs support for the first 60 days of their illness.
Supporting students who have paid rent for accommodation at university but are unable to use it as a result of covid-19 restrictions. Answer: The government plays no direct role in the provision of student accommodation. However, the government encourages all providers of student accommodation to review their accommodation policies to ensure that they have students best interests at heart. We also urge them to communicate their policy clearly and be fair.
Emma Hardy, Shadow universities minister has been asking some emotive questions about students nurses such as whether they’ll have to pay extra tuition fees because Covid has prevented them from completing their placement hours and similar on course extensions
Private rented student accommodation – no Government support for release from contracts, use of hardship funds mentioned
While the parliamentary question asked about the mental health taskforce the minister sidestepped to respond: it is for higher education providers as autonomous bodies to identify and address the needs of their student body and to decide what mental health and wellbeing support to put in place…the government has asked universities to prioritise mental health support, and continue to support their students, which has included making services accessible from a distance…Many providers have bolstered their existing mental health services, and adapted delivery mechanisms including reaching out to students who may be more vulnerable. You can read more on the Government’s response here.

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 or inquiries.

Consultations to look forward to from today’s pile of announcements:

OfS consultation on a new TEF (in the “Spring”)
OfS consultation on interim arrangements for the TEF because the current awards expire in the summer (“soon”)
DfE consultation on further reforms to the higher education system in spring 2021, before setting out a full response to the report and final conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review.
DfE consultation on the Lifelong Loan Entitlement – “we will consult on the scope and detail of the entitlement in early 2021, including seeking views on objectives and coverage.”
DfE consultation on the changes that are needed to enable universities and colleges to provide a modular offer – doesn’t say when they will consult on this.
DfE: We will set out further plans to use the National Skills Fund in due course, consulting on the details in spring 2021 to ensure that the investment from the Fund helps to meet the needs of adults, employers and providers
DFE will consult on the proposals to reform FE funding and accountability

The OfS say: We are aware of the sustained pressure on providers as the impact of the pandemic continues to be felt and of the additional burden that may be caused by these proposed additional consultations. We have extended the deadline to our quality and standards consultation to 25 January 2021 and will continue to monitor the situation regarding current and future consultations.

Other news

Remote teaching: Wonkhe: Matt Jenner led a popular online course about teaching online – here’s what he learned from the experience about how to support educators in adapting to remote teaching.
On Monday Boris Johnson launched a new business initiative – the Build Back Better Council. Details including the Council members are here.
Teach online this year: UCU (the University and Colleges Union) are calling for teaching to remain online for the rest of the academic year to protect the wellbeing of staff, students and their communities. UCU state they fear staff will be forced to return to work in unsafe and unpredictable working conditions. UCU have warned they are considering balloting members for action against an unsafe return to in-person teaching.
Student rent strikes: The BBC cover student rent strikes in Wales. Politics Home also have an article on rent strikes.
Asynchronous learning: From Wonkhe – Asynchronous learning gives students the chance to treat modules like box sets, bingeing or skipping as they see fit. Tom Lowe wonders what this might mean for learning.
Academic misconduct: Contract cheating is well known however this (short) Times article explores the perspective of the innocent who was wrongly accused of cheating. It is written by lawyers who represent students appealing against academic misconduct.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

November 26, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 27th November 2020

COVID-19, EU, hate crime, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, parliament, PG research, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

The spending review was quiet on HE and heavier on research spending commitments. A UUK publication tackles racial harassment in HE and the OIA provides examples of what will and won’t be upheld from student Covid complaints. We wonder about the TEF. See you in December!

Driving home for Christmas?

Today’s news is all about tiers. Dorset and BCP are in Tier 2 and we thought we would help you with the links. There are 3 sets of rules which all apply at once:

All tiers
Tier 2 (same link, lower down the page)
Christmas rules

If you are hoping to see family or friends outside the local area, The full list is here. As has been widely reported, only Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly are in tier 1, so cafes and pubs will be hard hit across the nation. The full reasoning area by area has been published.

And our local MPs are not all happy about it. The Bournemouth Echo have spoken to MPs

Michael Tomlinson (MDNP) and Chris Loder (West Dorset) have just retweeted the guidance without comment and in the Echo article Michael Tomlinson says he will support the government.
Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Robert Syms and Tobias Ellwood will oppose it.
Simon Hoare will support the government.
It is not clear from their piece whether Conor Burns will oppose it or not although he is critical.

Spending Review – highlights and research focus

Phew – that was a lot of bad news and attempts at good news. Headlines: no big announcements on university funding or progress on the TEF. Lots of research news and lots about investment in education.

The documents are here. Press release here. The full content of the Spending Review session is available on Hansard here.

RP makes interesting points on the forgotten aspects of impending HE policy which the (3 year) comprehensive spending review was expected to tackle. We cover the TEF separately below.

The words ‘university’ and ‘universities’ do not appear. Nor does the term ‘higher education’.
Add to this the fact that neither the independent review of the Teaching Excellence Framework nor the government’s response to the Augar review of post-18 education was published alongside the review as promised, and it starts to feel very much like a snub.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and it is safe to say—as Fiona McIntyre reports on our site—that the no-show of the TEF and Augar was no surprise. They’ve been kicked so far into the long grass now that they can barely be seen. And with rumours of a Lord Agnew-led Treasury review of higher education costs, Augar’s recommendations—some of which Augar has all but disowned himself—seem more likely to become footnotes in whatever plan eventually befalls university financing.

On the spending review Wonkhe say:

Yesterday’s spending review left key questions over tuition fees and teaching funding for the sector unanswered, though there was limited good news on research funding. An overall £740m uplift in the BEIS research and development budget included promised increases in funding flowing through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) over the next four years. And it now appears that the ARPA-like “high-risk, high-payoff” research funding long seen as a Dominic Cummings’s pet project will also sit under UKRI.
There was plentiful recurrent and capital funding allocated to FE, in line with previous announcements, but there was little mention of the HE sector. The Student Loans Company will receive an extra £64m of capital linked to a transformation programme, and there’s an unspecified amount of funding (if required) to support the preparation of a domestic alternative to Erasmus+.
Other points of interest included the news that the promised phasing out of the RPI inflationary measure (as used in student loan interest calculations) will not begin until 2030, and an odd mention of “defending free speech” in the Chancellor’s statement. David Kernohan summarised what we could find on Wonk Corner

We cover the R&D sections here and the rest in a separate section below. In the main document the scientific super power section starts page 58.

Research Professional have a good summary in A game of two halves.

The headline figure, as Sophie Inge reports, was a pledge of “almost £15 billion for R&D over the next year” with the aim of making the UK a “scientific superpower”.
…. the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been awarded £11.1bn in R&D funding for the year ahead, which is up from £10.36bn this year and includes a boost of £400m a year, on average, until 2023-24 for core UK Research and Innovation budgets.
It is notable that the chancellor—who had abandoned plans for a full multi-year spending review following the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak—opted to make a four-year commitment to funding research. The argument that R&D is now simply too important to the future physical and economic health of the country to be managed on a short-term basis appears to have won. UKRI chief executive Ottoline Leyser summed it up, saying the spending review “signals a clear national ambition for research and innovation”.
Another £350m went to UKRI to support “strategic government priorities, build new science capability and support the whole research and innovation ecosystem”. This chunk of cash includes the “first £50m towards an £800m investment by 2024-25 in high-risk, high-payoff research”—which seems like a very strong hint indeed that any cash going to the UK Advanced Research Projects Agency will be distributed via UKRI.
The business department’s settlement includes a healthy £733m to allow the UK Vaccine Taskforce to purchase Covid-19 vaccines, which is part of the £6bn provided to procure vaccines. Of this money, £128m will go towards UK vaccine R&D and funding for the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre.
Meanwhile, there will be up to £17m in 2021-22 to establish a “new unit and fund that will focus on the last mile of innovation to help ensure that public sector knowledge assets…translate into new high-tech jobs, businesses and economic growth”. These assets include R&D, the spending review document states, along with intellectual property and other intangible assets.

Dods have a nice summary of the research announcements

Cement the UK’s status as a global leader in science and innovation by investing nearly £15 billion in R&D in 2021-22 (page 53)
Up to £17m in 2021-22 to establish a new unit and fund that will focus on the last mile of innovation to help ensure that public sector knowledge assets (page 53)
£450m in 2021-22 to support government priorities, drive the development of innovative ways to build new science capability and support the whole research and innovation ecosystem (page 54)
Raise economy-wide investment in R&D to 2.4 per cent by 2027 (page 54)
£280 million in 2021-22 for net zero R&D, including an £81 million multi-year commitment for pioneering hydrogen heating trials (page 56)
£695m of additional R&D funding between 2021-22 and 2024-25 to support the development of cutting-edge capabilities (page 56)

Other research news

Wonkhe have a new blog – The proportion of PGR students recorded as “writing up” in HESA data has been creeping up over the years. Is this a sign of a growing crisis? We don’t know, and that is the problem. Rebecca Teague and Billy Bryan take stock.
HEPI have a new blog which comments on the rise in numbers of PhDs but it also asks who and what are PhD’s for and references the recent Government and UKRI decisions on PhDs extensions as telling.
If you somehow managed to miss last week’s clamour – doctoral students were told to adjust projects for Covid-19. UKRI announced an additional £19m available to support doctoral students who are finding it most difficult to adjust their project and training plans. There is a report and policy statement advising students to speak to their supervisor about adjusting projects to complete a doctoral-level qualification within their funding period. And an interesting fact on the scale of the issue – 92% of final year students already requested an extension, with the average extension request of 4.6 months. Research Professional reported the announcement received a negative reaction from doctoral students, particularly around the lack of clarity it brought We’re still waiting to hear what involvement BEIS had in the UKRI decision.

This week’s parliamentary questions:

PhD students’ extensions, and the same support for those on low incomes & other factors.
Calculating SURE (the Government’s research rescue fund)
Diversity in peer review process and advisory groups

Forgotten Priorities Part 1: What is going to happen to the TEF?

Everyone expected that announcements on the Pearce review of the TEF and announcements on the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding – promised with the spending review – would not be forthcoming, once it was announced that it would not be a “comprehensive” spending review but a one year look, with a focus on the response to the pandemic. Then there were rumours that there might be after all- but there wasn’t. Universities and HE are not mentioned at all, although there is a fair bit about research (as we discuss elsewhere).

So what is the situation with the TEF? The current awards were all extended to 2021. The OfS announced in January 2020 that they would not run a TEF exercise this year. But what is going to happen when those existing awards run out at the end of this academic year? It’s all a far cry from September 2019 when the Secretary of State was encouraging the OfS to get on with things and run an extra TEF in 2020. And read this on Research Professional from February 2020 (BP – before pandemic).

Meanwhile, the OfS are advertising for a Head of TEF (closes early December). So something must be going to happen?

The OfS website says:

The new framework will take account of the forthcoming recommendations in Dame Shirley Pearce’s independent review of the TEF, the government’s response to it, and the findings of the latest subject-level TEF pilot.
Following these publications, we will consult on the new framework.
All assessments under the current TEF scheme have concluded, and the results will be replaced in the future by results from the new scheme. We will not conduct a TEF Year 5 exercise in 2020.

This is a bit confusing. There is no TEF year 5 exercise in 2020, but what in that case will replace it when the awards run out in summer 2021? Will there be a gap? Or will the existing awards be extended again – at which time the year two awards given in Spring 2017 based on data from the three previous years start to seem a bit long in the tooth.

The documents published (in 2018) for the last subject level pilot said:

The final provider-level exercise with published outcomes (TEF Year Four) will take place in 2018-19 and will operate completely independently from the subject-level pilots.
So that subject-level TEF produces comprehensive outcomes to inform student choice, the DfE has decided that published awards from provider-level TEF Years Two, Three and Four should no longer be valid when subject-level TEF awards are published in 2021.
At that point, all awards from provider-level TEF will expire, and be replaced by awards made through the first full subject-level TEF exercise (these awards will be at both provider and subject levels).
.. Up to now, each TEF exercise has been completed within a single academic year. However, given the scale of the first full subject-level TEF exercise, it will be conducted across two academic years, 2019-20 and 2020-21, to enable it to produce robust outcomes. This will ensure additional time for providers to make submissions and for panels to conduct the assessments.
We expect the application window to open in early 2020, and to publish the outcomes in spring 2021. This will also allow more time for the findings of the second pilot and the independent review to be fully considered before moving to full implementation.

So it certainly looks like there will have to be an extension. And if the new exercise really is going to take two years, it will be quite a long extension – because with the Pearce review not released, and the NSS consultations ongoing, they won’t be able to start a consultation on what the new TEF looks like until 2021. The earliest surely is that we start preparing responses in summer or autumn 2021 – and with a nearly two-year period for preparation, submission wouldn’t be before spring 2023? With outcomes in summer 2023 at the earliest? That’s another two-year extension.

Two alternatives – just let them expire and have a gap, blaming COVID. Or, run a much quicker exercise in 2021 with a view to getting results out in late 2021 or early 2022 (with a short extension in that case). This is certainly possible. Could we get an announcement and consultation straight after the quality one, in March, say, with preparation to do from July, submission in October/November, results in January 22? Institutional only with subject level to follow during 2022 building on the institutional and then next round in 2025?

And what do we know about what it might look like when it does come out?

There is a good chance that the NSS won’t be included any more – to be replaced by some narrative in the submissions about how each university has engaged with the student voice and how we are sure that we have mechanisms in place and have identified and addressed any concerns about student experience?
What about the Royal Society of Statistics: Ultimately, the RSS judges it to be wrong to present a provider/subject as Gold/Silver/Bronze without communication of the level of uncertainty. The current TEF presentation of provider/subjects as Gold, Silver, Bronze conveys a robustness that is illusory. A prospective student might choose a TEF Silver subject at one provider instead of a TEF Bronze at another institution. If they had been told that, statistically, the awards are indistinguishable, then their choice might have been different and, in that sense, TEF is misleading. The uncertainty is likely to be higher for subject-level assessment than for provider-level assessment….
We know from the recent consultation document (covered last week) that continuation/completion and employment outcomes will still be important – as they were in the last pilot (TEF 2019 subject level TEF pilot guide)
Will they get rid of the gold/silver/bronze institutional labels? They have little meaning now that hardly anyone is bronze, after the TEF’s own structure led to rampant grade inflation. The OfS had indicated potentially moving away from the annual grading to a less frequent one to address that problem. But maybe the labels themselves are now devalued?
We know that it is unlikely that subject level assessment will be abandoned. But how will they label subject level awards? Jim Dickinson on Wonkhe: 5/3/19: – but how on earth would students interpret a Bronze course at a Gold institution when the latter uses almost the same metrics, only less specific to your course? You could argue that both should exist, but with completely separate metrics – but given there’s no magic blueprint for what is devolved to academic departments and what’s run centrally, that won’t work either.
We know from the quality consultation document that the TEF will expect performance above the new outcomes baselines. The original TEF was based on benchmarks and relative performance not absolute levels. They may abandon or change benchmarks completely. If that is the approach for baselines, will you have a different approach for measures of excellence? There was a flirtation with absolute values in the pilot schemes, as you may recall, which was said at the time to be a nod towards Russell Group universities who performed well in absolute terms but not so well when benchmarked against others with similar student demographics.
They may not use all the data splits in a new TEF, or at least not at subject level. The consultation on quality and standards proposes using the demographic splits (gender, ethnicity, social background etc) only at an institutional not at a subject level, and recognises that there is an existing mechanism to manage these via the APP. So presumably the data will not be split along these lines for the TEF at subject level either. Rather than have us all look at all this again, perhaps a new TEF, with an eye on reducing bureaucracy, will just have “meeting (most or all of) your APP targets” as a threshold for application or for an award at a certain level?
Will they have listened to any of the grumbling about subject level definitions? Jim Dickinson on Wonkhe: 5/3/19: You could pursue subject level on its own, but the more you look at benchmarking, and statistical significance, and the basket of measures’ relevance to all courses (let alone its relevance to all students), the more you think the hassle outweighs the effort – not least because newspapers do a better job at remixing the metrics than you do. And then it dawns on you that some academic departments in some universities will straddle your subject groupings, and you’ll realise that there isn’t the room in their school office, their messaging or their accountability systems for all three medals to apply to that school all at once.

RP makes interesting points on the forgotten aspects of impending HE policy which the (3 year) comprehensive spending review was expected to tackle.

…it is safe to say—as Fiona McIntyre reports on our site—that the no-show of the TEF and Augar was no surprise. They’ve been kicked so far into the long grass now that they can barely be seen. …
As for the TEF, it simply doesn’t have the political capital with the general public for the government to hurry its publication. The review was mandated in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 but the publication of its findings was not, which has given the government infinite wiggle room that it continues to exploit.

So what is going to happen? We don’t know. And we don’t know when we will know. But we know it will be a lot of work when we do know!

Racial Harassment

On Tuesday UUK published new guidance on tackling racial harassment in HE, and executive summary here.

The context: The 2019 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report ‘Tackling racial harassment: universities challenged‘ highlighted the prevalence of racial harassment within HEIs. Events of 2020, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the increased prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement, brought to the fore the extent of racial inequality in the UK and reinforced the urgency to act.

UUK build on their Changing the culture framework in the new guidance. There is a focus on strong leadership and a whole-institution approach, as well as engaging with staff and students with lived experience of racial harassment. UUK call on the sector to hold open discussions on race and racism, to educate staff and students and make clear that tackling racism and racial harassment is everybody’s responsibility. The guidance asks university leaders to acknowledge where there are issues in their institutions, and that UK higher education perpetuates institutional racism. It cites racial harassment, a lack of diversity among senior leaders, the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic student attainment gap and ethnicity pay gaps among staff as evidence.

The guidance also showcases emerging practice from HEIs making good progress in tackling racial harassment.

Recommendations include:

Publicly commit priority status to tackling racial harassment
Engage directly with students and staff with lived experience of racial harassment
Review current policies and procedures and develop new institution-wide strategies for tackling racial harassment
Improve awareness and understanding of racism, racial harassment, white privilege and microaggressions among all staff and students, including through anti-racist training
Ensure expected behaviours for online behaviour are clearly communicated to students and staff, as well as sanctions for breaches
Develop and introduce reporting systems for incidents of racial harassment
Collect data on reports of incidents and share regularly with senior staff and governing bodies

OfS – value for money

OfS has reported against key performance measure 19 which looks at students’ perceptions of value for money from their university education. 37.5% of undergraduates and 45.3% of postgraduates stated it did provide value for money when considering the costs and benefits.

OfS also published their Value for money annual report on how they have managed the funds they were allocated. They are still working on plans as to how they’ll reduce the registration fee for HE providers by 10% over the next two years.

Free Speech

The Lords Communication and Digital Select Committee inquiry into Freedom of Expression Online received evidence this week. There were some interesting points raised within the topics of free speech online Vs offline, public attitudes, protected characteristics, the narrowing impact of algorithm use and the role of the state in regulating. Platform moderation and take down rules on social media sites were also discussed. Dods provide a summary of the discussion here.

Sport

The British Universities & Colleges Sport (BUCS) launched The Value of University Sport and Physical Activity: Position Statement and Evidence highlighting the role which sport plays within the student experience. It includes a focus on how sport contributes to students’ physical and mental wellbeing. The report itself divides into six key strategic drivers for universities – recruitment, transitions and retention, health and wellbeing, graduate attainment, graduate employability, and the civic and global agendas – outlining how sport contributes to positive outcomes in each.

And on graduate employment: Whilst graduates also earned more than non-graduates, those who took part in sport earned a higher salary irrespective of educational level, thus showing a positive correlation between sport and earnings that cannot be explained by level of education.

The authors state the report is a ‘call to action’ for universities to review how they position sport and physical activity; especially at this time when students are isolated and anxious, and universities are concerned about the retention of students with the current restrictions.

There was a relevant parliamentary question on university sport this week outlining what is and isn’t permissible during Covid.

Access & Participation

The Commons Education Committee continued their inquiry into the educational outcomes of white working-class pupils. Dods have summarised the session here.

This parliamentary question on DSA paperwork/online applications clarifies the pre-population of information and that help is available by phone if the student’s disability causes difficulty in completing the paperwork.

Wonkhe report: A report from Civitas argues that a belief has developed around the university system that students from ethnic minorities are likely to underperform academically, and that the available data does not back this assertion up. Report author Ruth Mieschbuehler calls for a reexamination of the practice of disaggregating student data by ethnicity

The Sutton Trust has scoped how leading universities in different countries are addressing inequalities in access for those from low income and other marginalised backgrounds in Room at the top: Access and success at leading universities around the world. The report looks at the issues based on five themes:

Actions and commitment at the strategic and institutional level
Financial support for low-income/marginalised group students
Non-financial support at the pre higher education level (outreach)
Support to enable student success
The role of national/regional policies

The recommendations (they call them key messages) are on pages 5& 6 of the document.

Unpaid student placements

Placements are big at BU. Every undergraduate honours student is offered the opportunity to undertake a work placement as part of their course and BU has an excellent reputation nationally and internationally for the quality of the placement opportunities. Covid has been a significant disrupter to students on placement. Internships were cancelled in some sectors and for some of those that were able to move to remote and online versions the richness of the face to face placement experience elements were curtailed. Pre-Covid individual parliamentarians regularly flirted with the notion that everyone on a work experience opportunity of over 4 weeks should be considered a worker, and therefore paid for the work they undertake. This would make a significant difference to students undertaking the traditional sandwich year, yet the impetus for this change has stalled. This week Sarah wrote for Wonkhe to continue to argue the case for students to be paid. The blog also suggests alternatives which employers could offer to reduce the financial pressures on students when they are offered an unpaid placement.

SEND

Children and Families Minister Vicky Ford spoke during the APPG for Assistive Technology launch event for their new research aiming to bridge the gap between education and employment for young people with SEND. The Minister praised schools, colleges and the technology sector for their response to the ‘historic challenges’ during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially for vulnerable students with the most complex needs, but urged companies to make sure all their products and practices are fully inclusive.

She said: Assistive technology can be life-changing and for many it is vital to communication, learning and overall independence…In recent months, the importance of Assistive Technology has been demonstrated like never before. The essential collaboration provided by groups such as this APPG is vital to ensure that we make policy which is informed by as much research and evidence as possible…Our review will give schools and colleges a helping hand by providing greater transparency in what tools and interventions can improve outcomes of SEND students and bridge the gap from education into employment. It will also support the technology sector in embedding accessibility features – such as text to voice tools – as part of their service development, and policymakers to better embed inclusion into their policies and services. This will lead to real, meaningful differences in the quality of education for children and young people…This is key, because we need to be clear: accessibility should never be an add on, it should be the norm.

Dovetailing the event the DfE released a series of rapid literature review reports on assistive technology in educational settings. The reports summarise the evidence on assistive technologies use and outcomes in education and cover when, where and for whom assistive technology works. The report are split by policymakers, administrators, educators, researchers and developers of assistive technologies and products.

Student Complaints – case studies

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE (OIA) has published case summaries of complaints arising from the impact of Covid-19 on their HE learning and experience. So far the OIA have received nearly 200 complaints from C-19 disruption..

Summary of case studies arising from Covid complaints (only available to internal readers)
Individual Case studies (all of them)
OIA Guidance on the approach to case studies and public interest cases
Wonkhe blog by Felicity Mitchell – OIA Independent Adjudicator

Wonkhe say:

While the OIA does not underestimate the challenge of sustaining teaching during the pandemic, “some providers have done more than others to mitigate disruptions to students’ learning opportunities.”
Where universities have rescheduled missed teaching, or made a broadly equivalent alternative available, or where students have been unable to cite a specific academic or material disadvantage, complaints have not been upheld. However, where universities have failed to engage properly with students’ concerns, or relied on too broad exclusion clauses in student contracts, complaints have been justified or partly justified.

2021 GCSE & A/AS level Exams

The Joint Council on Qualifications have announced that, following consultation with schools and colleges, the final level 2 and 3 exams timetables are confirmed. The compulsory education sector are still waiting for further information on how the Government intends to facilitate Covid-safe exams, and what ‘Plan B’ will consist of. The announcement demonstrates the Government’s determination for the exams to take place in England during summer 2021. This is expected new as Monday’s Covid Winter Plan announcements mentioned their commitment to a ‘full set of exams’ in England.

Meanwhile, YouGov have an interesting series of polls on exams – see our polls special here.

Finally, Ofqual published a new research paper on the Sawtooth Effect. The Sawtooth Effect is the pattern in student performance that can be seen when assessments, such as GCSEs and A levels, are reformed. Performance tends to dip, then improves over time as students and teachers become more familiar with the new content and the new assessments. Research by Ofqual in 2016 highlighted this post-reform effect, and enabled mitigation to level out fairness for students. This week’s release covers the impact of Covid-19 on student performance. The research suggests the same methods could be used to ensure fairness during the pandemic. Wonkhe review the Sawtooth paper (worth a read) and also manage to mention why predicted grades are useful too.

Participation in Education

The DfE have released the latest participation in education statistics. Summary also covering FE and apprenticeships here. DfE HE statistics

9% of 17-30 year olds enter HE
41% of 18 and 19 year olds
1% females, 45.1% males (by age 30)
9% entering to do full-time study
0% to do part-time study (only 1.5% 18-19 year olds study part time)
Learning intention (undergraduate):
- Full degree (46.6%)
- Foundation Degree (2%)
- HNDs/HNCs (1.8%)
- other undergraduate quals (1.4%)
8% aged 17-30 enter postgraduate study

International

Wonkhe report: New researchfrom QS, covering 887 prospective international students found that nearly a quarter felt that the introduction of a potential Covid-19 vaccine made them consider starting their studies earlier than planned. 43 percent said that the vaccine news had made no difference to their plans.
Also a parliamentary question – Student visas are not a route to settlement

Spending Review – the rest

Research Professional on Erasmus:

….the Treasury did reveal that its settlement with the Department for Education “provides funding to prepare for a UK-wide domestic alternative to Erasmus+, in the event the UK no longer participates in Erasmus+, to fund outward global education mobilities”.
This seems good, on the face of it, since any alternative scheme will need money. However, Erasmus’s main purpose is to provide student exchanges—and by definition, any effective exchange requires not only the outward movement of students from the UK (which is covered in the spending review costing) but also the inward movement of students to the UK (which it seems is not).
“Budgeting to replace Erasmus+ for outward students only is disappointing, if predictable, and is clearly inferior to full association,” Daniel Zeichner, Labour MP for Cambridge and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Universities, told Playbook last night.

Dods have a nice summary of the announcements which we’re re-ordered and edited

International

Provides funding to prepare for a UK-wide domestic alternative to Erasmus+ in the event that the UK no longer participates in Erasmus+ (page 63)
Further financial support will be provided to the British Council to reform and invest (page 70)

Student loans

£64m for the Student Loan Company, including for its transformation programme (page 63) [this is mainly to help them prepare for providing student loans to FE students and adult learners]

Technical education

£291m for Further Education in 2021-22, in addition to the £400m that the government provided at SR19 (page 62)
Investing £375m from the National Skills Fund in 2021-22 (page 62) including:
£138m to fund in-demand technical courses for adults, equivalent to A level, and to expand employer-led bootcamp training model
£127m to build on Plan for Jobs, fund traineeships, sector-based work academy placements and the National Careers Service
£110m to drive up higher technical provision in support of the future rollout of a Flexible Loan Entitlement
£162m to support the rollout of T Levels waves 2 and 3 (page 63)
£72m to support the commitment to build 20 Institutes of Technology (page 63)
Almost £100m to deliver the National Citizen Service (NCS) and invest in youth facilities. The government will review its programmes to support youth services including the NCS in the spring (p81)
£2bn Kickstart Scheme to create hundreds of thousands of new, fully-subsidised jobs for young people across the country. This settlement confirms funding for over 250,000 Kickstart jobs (p85)

Apprenticeships

Confirm changes to support employers offering apprenticeships by delivering further improvements to the system (page 45)
Made available £2.5bn of funding for apprenticeships and further improvements for employers (page 62)

Department for Education

A £2.9bn cash increase in core resource funding from 2020-21 to 2021-22, delivering a 3.2 per cent average real terms increase per year since 2019-20 (page 62)
The department’s capital budget increases by £0.5bn in cash terms next year, taking core total DEL to £76.4bn (page 62)

Pre-Spending Review this is what was MillionPlus asked for (but didn’t get):

Introduce a maintenance grant of up to £10k for all students in England to encourage them to train in key public services subjects
Invest in high quality placements in NHS, social work and teaching
Offer loan forgiveness for those remaining in relevant professions for at least 5 years
Establish a new Public Services in Higher Education Capital fund to support universities in England and partners to invest in high quality simulation equipment and other vital infrastructure
Create a new professional development programme to underpin the NHS volunteer reserve force in England
Increase skills and expertise by enabling individuals in England to access loan support for short courses and modules at levels 4 and 5
Place employers in England at the centre of apprenticeships policy and encourage them to partner with universities to support regional skills development and productivity growth

There’s more detail on specific areas in the links below:

Dods summarise all areas of the spending review with the key announcements in bullet points.
National Infrastructure Summary, full strategy here. The full strategy is high level (yet still 100 pages long). There is very little on the specifics of research investment, just lists of priorities, no mention of universities.

Teaching Tech

Jisc published the Teaching staff digital experience insights survey 2020, They report that 79% intend to use technology in their teaching.

95% of teaching staff have a positive attitude to using technology
79% are motivated to use it in their teaching
Only 20% said their organisation had offered support to them in using new technologies
37% of teaching staff had worked online with learners during the survey period, and 43% had created online teaching materials to adapt to the situation
When asked what more their organisation could do to improve the quality of digital teaching and learning, staff cited
- Training and CPD (33%)
- Software, infrastructure and systems (31%)
- Organisational culture (13%)
- 68% of respondents said they’d had support to develop their basic IT skills
Only 14% reported having time to explore new digital tools, and only 7% spoke of receiving reward and recognition for the digital skills they developed
29% stated their organisation provided guidance about the digital skills needed in their job role

Retraining by sector

Also within our polls special are the YouGov surveys on retraining for workers disrupted by Covid-19. There are views on whether the Government should be encouraging retraining and new careers – the national hasn’t forgotten the ballet/cyber retraining advert yet but it hasn’t had the negative effect that might be expected! Plus specific indicators show the popularity of industry’s skills gap areas (look out for cyber!).

Covid Parliamentary Questions

The Government is considering mass testing students before they return to university in January.
No news on whether students will be required to self-isolate on their return in January the Government is working on it and will provide further guidance in due course.
No plans to carry out asymptomatic testing for students before exams commence.
How the travel window applies to students on placements or employed as a key worker.
Covid impact on student suicide not assessed.

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.

Other news

Bias in HE: Wonkhe report that Advance HE has published the first in a new series of literature reviews on bias in higher education. The review tackles bias in assessment and marking, bringing together literature on the topic and current good practice among universities. The next in the series – covering bias in the curriculum and pedagogy and bias in decision making – will be published next year

Online end assessment: Wonkhe have a blog on online digital assessment as an alternative to taking exams in person.

Alumni: BU’s own Fiona Cownie writes for Wonkhe on how alumni may be key in building a student community during the pandemic

Medical: Wonkhe tell us that The Medical Research Council has published a review of its units and centres portfolio. The report has identified research areas where MRC investment could have a significant impact, including the development of new tools and technologies, interventional approaches to population health, and research into health needs from anthropogenic effects such as urbanisation or climate change.

LEP: Cecilia Bufton has been confirmed as the new Chair of the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership from 1 December 2020.

Degree apprenticeships: Sums consulting have a blog on degree apprenticeships: Understanding the Apprentice Lifecycle in Universities.

Apprentices are not standard learners; there are material differences in terms of the application process, progression, breaks in learning and withdrawals, data reporting and the amount of time spent working, learning, and training. Apprenticeships are not standard programmes; there are material differences in terms of the adherence to standards, the endpoint, cash flow, audit, and risk profiles.
The success or failure of any individual apprentice will be down to a three- or four-way relationship between the apprentice, their employer, the main provider, and any sub-contracted training provider.

The blog also advertises their services in this area.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

October 26, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 23rd October 2020

COVID-19, EU, Funding opportunities, Impact, international, Knowledge Exchange, parliament, policy, Public engagement, Research communication, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Some fresh news and reports but overall a quieter week HE wise as the Government continues to focus on the rise in virus numbers nationally. Much of the media interest has focussed on familiar topics such as student complaints and white working class students. HEPI looked at future demand for HE study and UUK surveyed about modular study, have a new vision for the HE sector and talk international research partnerships.

The Policy Update is taking a break next week to coincide with the Parliamentary recess. See you all in November!

Spending Review

The Treasury has confirmed that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will cover a one year period to set Government department’s resource and capital budgets for 2021-22 due to the constraints of the pandemic. The Devolved Administration block grants will also be set for the same period. The exact date the CSR will be delivered hasn’t been confirmed but it is expected towards the end of November. The CSR focus is expected to cover:

Providing multi-year NHS and schools’ resource settlements and priority infrastructure projects at full funding.
Providing Government departments with the certainty they need to tackle Covid-19 and deliver the Government’s Plan for Jobs to support employment.
Enhancing the vital public services to continue to fight against the virus alongside delivering first class frontline services.
Investing in infrastructure as part of the levelling up agenda and to drive economic recovery and Build Back Better.
Rishi Sunak, Chancellor, said:In the current environment it’s essential that we provide certainty. So we’ll be doing that for departments and all of the nations of the United Kingdom by setting budgets for next year, with a total focus on tackling Covid and delivering our Plan for Jobs. Long term investment in our country’s future is the right thing to do, especially in areas which are the cornerstone of our society like the NHS, schools and infrastructure. We’ll make sure these areas crucial to our economic recovery have their budgets set for further years so they can plan and help us Build Back Better.

Factors that will be of interest to HE that were meant to be included within the spending review are the Government’s response to the Augar review, response to the Pearce review of the TEF, and implications impacting on HE resulting from the Government’s already announced intentions for FE.

It isn’t clear whether the announcements over the last month on skills and technical education are it or whether there is more to come on FE. There was a debate on the role of colleges in a skills-led recovery from the Covid-19 outbreak this week. During the debate Robert Halfon (Education Committee Chair) welcomed the recently announced increases for FE funding and called for a long-term plan for FE, specifically a 10-year plan for college funding. Speaking about a previous Education Committee report he said:

We found that sometimes initiative-itis was standing in for long-term vision and the sector needed more money going into the base rate of funding, over small pots of funding.

He also said:

There is a social justice case for a pupil premium to support disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds. We have to get the basics right.
I urge the Minister to consider whether the apprenticeship levy pot could be fine-tuned so that companies can use more of their levy if they hire younger people from 16 to 19 years, people from disadvantaged backgrounds and people who are going to meet our skills needs where we have huge skills deficits.
We need to ensure that there is much closer collaboration between further education colleges and universities, because further education can play a major role in promoting degree apprenticeships—my two favourite words in the English language. Part of the £2.5 billion skills fund should be spent on covering training costs for small and medium-sized businesses taking on young apprentices.
Finally, it would be very special to see institutes of technology across our landscape. We have done this before, with national colleges and other schemes. I urge the Minister to ensure that they are properly integrated into further education, and that they are further education institutes of technology, not just some brand new shiny buildings. Why not help them to build the prestige of further education?

A vision for universities

UUK also published Recovery, Skills, Knowledge and Opportunity – a vision for universities. It sets out what universities do now and do well and how as a sector we contribute to the economy, communities, the nation’s wellbeing, innovation and research. It also sets out a wish list series of reforms and recommendations for the future vision.

Below we list some of the recommendations within each section. As you read the recommendations you’ll spot several touch on the Augar Review’s recommendations and recent Government priorities and announcements such as FE & the Skills agenda.

Economic recovery and levelling up

Relax the eligibility criteria for financial support for higher education to enable greater access to short courses from level 4 and level 5 up to postgraduate study, specifically removing the requirements to i) study at an intensity of 25% or greater of a full-time equivalent course; and ii) follow a full course for a specified qualification.
Modernise the regulatory system to recognise the level 4 and level 5 components of an undergraduate degree, not just as non-completion of level 6
Make it easier for higher and further education providers to collaborate and deliver more flexible opportunities for upskilling and re-skilling locally
- address Sector Deals and integration with local Skills Advisory Panels,
- ongoing support for Institutes of Technology,
- ensuring that reforms at levels 4 and 5 allow learners to progress to technical, apprenticeship and more academically focused provision
- remove regulatory obstacles that hamper innovation and block partners working together
Support a national graduate paid intern scheme, getting highly-skilled graduates into companies to help those businesses to thrive.
Ensure that research funders meet more of the cost of research, and significantly grow flexible, excellence-driven and low-bureaucracy research funding for universities (known as quality-related research).
Grow the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) in England. The removal of the lower thresholds in the fund should be considered to enable small, research-active universities to drive growth and support economic recovery in their localities.

Equal chances: equality, diversity, inclusion and transforming lives

Continue funding for collaborative partnerships between higher and further education providers and schools. This should include expanding opportunities for the most high-need schools to engage
Introduce targeted maintenance grants for those students that need them the most and remove the financial barriers for those wanting to study flexibly, such as part time and mature students. Extend support for the additional costs of study via Childcare Grants and the Parents’ Learning Allowance to all students.
No cut in real-terms funding per university student. This includes maintaining remaining government funding per student and the premium for supporting those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds
No imposition of student numbers caps in England. Any government-enforced number caps would create new barriers to access and a cap on aspirations.

A high-quality university experience for all students

Work with students and universities on proposed reforms to the National Student Survey (NSS) to ensure that student feedback continues to play a role in driving up quality and providing useful information to students, while keeping the administrative burden to a minimum.
Bureaucracy:
- not proceeding with subject-level TEF until the limitations of the methodology, its costs to universities and the taxpayer, and the actual value of its contribution to student decision-making in the wider student information landscape, have been fully considered
- using data and intelligence already available through other sources (e.g. UCAS) to minimise reporting demands
- OfS should not increase the bureaucracy burden when it adds new conditions or expands the regulatory framework

The UK’s globally competitive position

Prioritise full Association to the Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes
Ensure that funded contingency plans are in place should Association not be possible. Any funding to replace Horizon Europe should be additional to current research and development (R&D) spending commitments set out in the 2020 Budget, including providing guarantees for third country participation in Horizon Europe. A national replacement mobility scheme should also be fully funded.
Ensure that the UK’s visa and immigration system offers a ‘best-in-class’ service to international talent in terms of cost, accessibility and ease of navigation
See other recommendations listed on pages 13-14

Health and well-being

Secure the sustained growth of healthcare programmes to meet the government’s ambitious targets through funded expansion of medical and health/social care placements and investment in teaching capacity, including support for digital innovation and simulation.
Commit support for clinical academic roles and career pathways that provide teaching and research capacity, and instil research-informed practice that is shown by evidence to improve patient outcomes, quality and safety.
Target support for whole-university approaches to the mental health and well-being of students and staff to build on the lifetime well-being gain for graduates, enhancing their resilience and health literacy.

Tackling climate change – see page 18
Culture and community – Support our creative economy by reviewing R&D definitions to ensure that these are not narrower than those of competitors, and do not neglect R&D in the UK’s internationally strong creative industries, which have been hit hard by Covid-19 measures.

Research news

The Minister writes: Amanda Solloway has written to Greg Clark (Chair of the Science and Technology Committee) on the stages of consultation and discussion the Government has taken in the development of the new ARPA style body. She also responded to the Committee’s questions on university research funding and Horizon Europe and alternatives.

Reforming the REF

Amanda Solloway spoke of reforming the REF in the Research Landscape speech for the Education Policy Institute webinar on Tuesday.

She said that the Government recognises the importance of science and innovation for the future and mentioned the commitment to increase public spending on R&D to £22 billion per year by 2024/25. On the Roadmap she said there was a duty to spend that money wisely so it can make the biggest difference possible. Key to this is evaluation… And evaluation can be a powerful incentive – and it can change behaviours. Through linking evaluation to funding, we have introduced policies intended to drive greater impact and openness from our research… But, if implemented in the wrong way, or in a way which doesn’t evolve, evaluation can drive negative behaviours. She said culture was at the root of the challenges with conducting research.

Key points:

Researchers tell me they feel pressure to publish in particular venues in order to gain the respect of their peers, which wrongly suggests that where you publish something is more important than what you say. That just can’t be right.
People talk to me about “REF-able publications” – a total distortion of the value of research and a constraint on the diversity of research objectives. Despite the rich variety of outputs that can come from research, over 97% of outputs submitted to REF 2014 were text-based. Just think about that. And it is surprising how commonplace it is to talk about the UK’s leading position in “citation impact” – an odd phrase, actually, which confuses a process with an outcome. Indeed, the processes researchers use to communicate with each other have now become so ingrained into the recognition and reward system that publication and citation seem to have become ends in themselves…. people feel pressured to show significant results from their work, to get it published, just to justify the effort and investment involved…This could be having a profound effect on the very integrity of science itself – leading to questionable research practices and evidence of a growing crisis in the reproducibility of research.
We have created this situation, in part because of the way we evaluate success.
Although intended for simple purposes, universities have turned the REF into a major industry, with rising costs and complexity. Lord Stern also commented on this, but I am not convinced that the changes introduced have gone far enough. There are now very few parts of academic life in the UK that are not affected in some way by the REF.
…a risk-averse compliance culture risks stifling creativity and diversity.
… we know that 4 in 10 surveyed researchers believe that their workplace puts more value on metrics than on research quality.
…it’s really important that I say clearly up front. I have absolutely no intention of disrupting the important work of the current REF. It is vital that this work continue as planned, delivering robust outcomes which will inform significant funding decisions over the coming years. And, perhaps even more importantly, we must protect our dual support system, which is a key strategic advantage for the UK research base.
However, we must be prepared to look to the future and ask ourselves how the REF can be evolved for the better, so that universities and funders work together to help build the research culture we all aspire to. We need to work together to build an evaluation system that achieves our goals.
- More quality time spent on research.
- A positive culture which recognises all contributions to research.
- A culture which motivates people to do diverse, creative and risk-taking work.
- Institutions improving in ways that align to their diverse missions.
- And clear accountability for public funding without layer upon layer of complex bureaucracy.
- We should not shy away from asking the tough questions.
- We need to be prepared to take bold decisions.
We need to consult widely… Culture change doesn’t happen overnight – and this is equally a conversation which we must not rush. I have today written to Research England to ask them to start working with their counterparts in the devolved administrations on a plan for reforming the REF after the current exercise is complete. Recognising the importance of protecting the current REF and valuing it. But being clear that we need to continue the journey towards building that better system we need.

Research Professional cover the speech here and Wonkhe pick apart the speech in a very short (and worthwhile) blog, read the comments too!

REF2021 – Research Professional have a piece on getting REF 20201 ‘done’.

Horizon Europe – Politico raises concerns of ‘long-term consequences’ if UK does not participate in Horizon Europe following a leaked scientist letter.

Funding News – Wonkhe tell us:

The Wellcome Trust has launched a new vision and strategy for the research they fund. Wellcome’s current funding schemes will close over the course of 2021, to be replaced by three new discovery research schemes. These will cover work done in the fields of mental health, global warming, and infectious disease. The exact closing date for specific schemes can be found on Wellcome’s website. Applications for the new schemes will open in summer 2021.
UKRI has announced details of support and facilities available to Natural Environment Research Council grant holders. This consists of specialised equipment, analytical facilities, and expert advice for researchers.

Race Equality: Advance HE have a short video by PhD student Daniel Akinbosede on race equality and why it is important for HE to mark black history month. He covers the research funding awarding gaps and he urges HE institutions to use Black History month to reassess their policies and processes rather than ‘just hosting a few cultural events’.

Prolific Publishing : Times Higher profile a gambling studies academic who publishes a paper every two days

EU / UK Research & Education: You can watch a session on the future UK-EU relationship on research and education. The Committee intends to address these questions during the session:

Should the UK seek third country affiliation with the EU’s Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes at the end of the transition period?
What should the priorities be for future domestic research funding if the UK does not affiliate with Horizon Europe?
How might the lack of a positive data adequacy decision at the end of the transition period affect the UK’s research and education sector?
What would the impact of a ‘no agreement’ scenario be for UK universities and research bodies?
Are research and education organisations, including universities, research institutes and businesses, well prepared for a ‘no agreement’ scenario at the end of the transition period?

Answering the Committee’s questions will be:

Professor Sir Richard Catlow, Foreign Secretary and Vice President, Royal Society
Catherine Guinard, Policy and Advocacy Manager, Wellcome Trust
Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, Vice President for Higher Education, National Union of Students
Vivienne Stern, Director, Universities UK International.

Parliamentary Question: how much funding the Government plans to make available in grants during the second stage of the university covid-19 research support package that was announced in June 2020. Amanda Solloway answered: …it will depend on income losses which at this point remain unclear – each university’s allocation is the lower of 80% of losses in international student income or the value of non-public research funding.

Future International Research Partnerships: UUK published Future international partnerships: putting the UK at the heart of global research and innovation collaboration. They state it

…proposes a wide-ranging set of policy recommendations to enable UK universities to grow and diversify their international research and innovation collaborations. Specifically it sets out a clear plan for how the UK can expand and capitalise on researchers’ international links to attract talent and business investment from overseas.
Over the next decade, universities will pull their weight to ensure that the UK is able to meet global, national, regional and local needs…Universities…will be instrumental to make the government’s vision a reality through their international networks of excellent partners (Chapter 2) , their critical contribution to building innovation capacity in their local economy (Chapter 3) and their institutional partnerships with universities across the world (Chapter 4) provided that their role as global collaborators becomes a feature of the domestic system in the future (Chapter 1).
… However, this requires taking a strategic system view in which international connections are hardwired into the structure of the domestic funding system, rather than treated as an add-on or an afterthought

Recommendations for each area are peppered throughout the text and cover responsibilities for both Government and HE institutions.

Scottish Shake Up

Wonkhe succinctly report on a FE/HE review commencing in Scotland:

The first phase of what amounts to a major Scottish Funding Council review of the shape and scope of the HE and FE sectors hints at a unified funding model by level of provision, and a range of potential collaborations. The report – “Coherence and sustainability: a review of Scotland’s colleges and universities: phase one” – focuses on the “emergency period” of 2020-22, but recommendations are made with an ear to existing trends and likely future societal needs.
An associated financial projection highlights the varied impact of Covid-19 on sector providers. The report suggests a number of potential measures – including a cut in student numbers, consolidation of courses across providers, and “fee-only” places for providers that can afford to take the loss. Of interest around the UK will be potential measures to include regional demographic and economic skill demand data in planning and funding higher education. This first stage report follows a period of consultation with stakeholders – further such consultation will take place before the phase two report is released in February 2021.
The Times has an opinion piece from Anton Muscatelli, Principal of the University of Glasgow, which welcomes the review and calls on the universities of Scotland to work together.

And a blog: A Scottish Funding Council review is supportive of the sector as it stands, but ambitious in rethinking tertiary education post-Covid.

Petitions

Parliament’s Petitions Committee considers all e-petitions which achieve over 10,000 signatures. Decisions on all are here. Of most interest are:

Cancel GCSEs and A Levels in 2021: The Committee agreed to consider scheduling this petition for debate at a later point.
Lower university tuition fees for students until online teaching ends: The Committee agreed to debate this petition along with other petitions about tuition fees on 16 November.
Extend Tier-4 visas and waive third-term tuition fee for international students: The Committee noted the Government’s responses.

Modular learning

UUK have published a summary of results from a poll they commissioned with English adults aged 18-60 who were interested in future university study and either unemployed (or at risk) or wanting to up or re skill.

82% were keen to study individual modules of a degree and this would make them more likely to undertake university study. (Currently learners have to commit to 25% of full time equivalent to access financial support/loans.)
Earning whilst learning and maintaining a good work-life balance were important and the top benefits identified for modular learning.

UUK say these findings come as universities call for the introduction of loans for more flexible study, which would unlock opportunities for those with caring or work responsibilities.

Business management was the most popular subject individuals would select; engineering was second (a skills shortage area in industry), then teaching and nursing/allied healthcare
13% who were interested in university education said they were not likely to study part-time, but would consider modular study. UUK say this finding means that modular study has the potential to increase the number of people with high level skills in the UK
93% of those likely to undertake modular study, if loans were introduced, placed value on being able to gradually build up to a full qualification
Over one third of those unlikely to undertake modular study, even if loans were introduced, were concerned about repayment.

UUK say: The polling also revealed concerns over how financially accessible university study is, highlighting the need for a comprehensive government-funded national education campaign on student finance… The lack of clear information on the student finance system is holding back individuals of all ages that could benefit from higher education. Targeted maintenance support should also be explored to ensure flexible learning opportunities are truly open to everyone who would benefit.

UUK Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis, said:

With one million more job losses forecast by the end of the year, it is more important than ever to boost people’s skills and maximise their job prospects in a flexible way.
The government should change the eligibility criteria for financial support for higher education to allow more people to benefit from access to shorter courses, and it should make information about the student finance system more accessible.
The recent announcement of a Lifetime Skills Guarantee is welcome, but it is not yet clear how much flexibility will be built into the system at undergraduate and postgraduate level.
Providing more people with the opportunity to upskill and retrain will be crucial to meeting the country’s skills needs, rebuilding the economy and levelling up.

Growth of HE by 2035

HEPI have published Demand for Higher Education to 2035 which considers the country’s changing demographics and participation rates. It finds that England will need an additional 350,000 more places, whilst Scotland will need fewer places despite increased participation in HE.

The report explains the findings:

In England –

if demography were the only factor, without any increase in participation, there would be an increase in demand of 40,000 full-time higher education places in England by 2035 due to rises in the 18-year old population;
if participation also increases in the next fifteen years at the same rate as the average of the last ten years, then this increases to a demand of 358,000 full time higher education places by 2035;
the greatest growth in demand will be seen in London and the South East, due to both demographic changes and patterns of participation. Our projections suggest that over 40% of demand for places will be in London and the South East.

In Scotland –

if demography were the only factor, without any increase in participation, there would be a decrease in demand of 18,000 full-time higher education places in Scotland by 2035 due to a decline in the 18-year old population;
if participation also increases in the next fifteen years at the same rate as the average of the last five years, then we can expect the decrease in demand to shrink to close to nil full-time higher education places by 2035;
these projections suggest Scotland will be able to accommodate a growth of participation in higher education without increasing student numbers, due to a decline in the 18-year old population.

This is ambivalent news for Scotland who are already struggling with the financial effects of Covid and the impact on their HE institutions. However, whilst expansion seems unlikely it means the cost to the Scottish Government is less. Wales isn’t covered by the report and Northern Ireland is expected to be similar to Scotland but precise calculations are not possible because of data comparisons would be inaccurate.

Although the report does cover how some in Government would like the student numbers cap on HE places to return it doesn’t really tackle the effect of the Government’s intention for technical education demand to increase, with a likely resulting shrinkage in traditional HE degree route. Although written for another topic Sarah likes the below by Wonkhe which summarises the Government direction:

Developing government rhetoric on “low-value” or “low-quality” courses in higher education seems to be evolving to address a concern that too many students do not progress into graduate jobs when they take those courses. The hope seems to be that creating more technical routes at levels four and five and – potentially – reducing the availability of degree-level courses that might cannibalise demand for these new routes will funnel at least some of those students in a more economically productive direction, as well as create new education opportunities for those who are less likely to progress to degree-level higher education…white working class young people…

Research Professional also make interesting comments in the same vein:

Previous incarnations of the Conservative government imagined that a growing demand for higher education in England would be met by the private sector. That was the whole point of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which sought to create favourable conditions for supply-side reform in higher education. That spirit seems to have been abandoned… The Johnson-Cummings-Williamson way seems to be to funnel that demand into further and technical education… the government is… listening to its skills tsar Alison Wolf. Wolf is a devotee of the eccentric notion that the UK’s productivity problem is the result of too many graduates working in non-graduate jobs, and that the cure is to boost the number of people with subdegree technical qualifications. Of course, the increased demand for higher education that Hepi identifies does not necessarily translate into a corresponding rise in graduate job opportunities, but it does reflect a competitive dynamic in the workforce whereby higher education is the perceived path to successful employment.
Wolf’s emphasis on technical education will not address the country’s productivity woes. It may, however, go some way to addressing the UK’s reliance on immigrant labour to fill technical vacancies in the labour market. The two things should not be confused.
UK productivity issues are not caused by its higher education participation rates but by the massive imbalance in the UK economy between services and manufacturing, the uncompetitiveness of sterling against currencies in emerging economies, and being slow out of the gates on the fourth industrial revolution. None of which can be solved by sending fewer people to university.

Returning back to the HEPI report…

However, while FE intentions and the growth of technical alternatives may direct young people aware from the traditional academic degree the HEPI report highlights how we are entering a global recession and that student numbers tend to increase during a recession as people choose to avoid entering an unstable labour market or look to retrain. On page 40 of the report HEPI also ponder a growth in mature numbers (again due to need to retrain and the intended flexibility in the loan system) and page 41 looks at the impact of Level 3 attainment increases and decreases on HE admissions. HEPI conclude that the growth in demand for English HE

should not make the higher education sector complacent. All these projections could be over-estimations if government policy were to change to restrict the number of students entering higher education. Assuming there is no significant change to the student loan charges and repayment terms, the projections set out in this report will be seen as a significant additional cost to the Government. The response to this could be to limit the overall numbers of students entering higher education by setting student number caps, limiting the provision of courses that are deemed ‘low value’ or by introducing minimum entry standards. All of these would limit the number of people able to enter higher education. It is likely that the effects of any of these changes would be felt most by those students from disadvantaged backgrounds. If we want to see all those who www.hepi.ac.uk 45 wish to enter higher education able to do so, we will need to continue to make the case to Government of why, now more than ever, continuing to educate our population to higher levels is so critical.

Rachel Hewitt, HEPI Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:

There have been declining numbers of 18-year olds in the population in recent years, which has impacted the way universities have operated. However, 2020 is the last year of this trend and universities are set to see a significant rise in student numbers over the next fifteen years. Among focusing on their recovery from the current pandemic, universities will need to consider how they can scale up to incorporate this level of demand. Government will also need to consider how to best prepare for this increased level of demand.
There are those who would like to see a cap on the number of students entering higher education. However, these projections show clearly that if trends in participation continue as in recent years, capping student numbers in England would deprive a growing group of students who will be looking to enter higher education, which would likely be detrimental to the push for greater equality of access to higher education.
Our projections suggest the greatest growth is likely to be seen in London and the South East, partly due to their existing higher levels of participation. If government is committed to levelling up across the country, perhaps the focus should be on the disparity of participation rates across England, rather than debating national targets.
For policymakers in Scotland, these projections suggest an easier path to tread…Scottish universities should be able to take on more students without having to expand the number of places available, limiting the cost to the Scottish Government.

Research Professional have their take on the HEPI report here.

Covid news

While the discussion of how to get students home for Christmas still hasn’t abated this weekend the media are asking whether – once the majority are back home – how feasible it is for students to return to campus in January. Guardian article here; BBC here.

Research Professional:…what happens when they all need to head back to their university campuses again. Can Covid Britain condone not one but two mass movements of people in the space of less than a month? We are already witnessing the fallout from just one student exodus

From the BBC article:

…options are under discussion about whether next term should be fully online – or maybe for the initial weeks – or for delayed or staggered starts, rather than risking triggering a fresh wave of campus outbreaks.
Students could “amplify” the spread of coronavirus, said the SAGE advice, and movement around the Christmas holidays posed “a significant risk to both extended families and local communities”.
Unlike the autumn term – when university starting dates in the UK are spread across about a month – the January return is much more concentrated. And it leaves the universities and the government with a decision about whether to press ahead with bringing students home and then straight back again, including across areas where travel is being discouraged – or finding a different way of starting the new term.
university leaders are pointing to the idea of a greatly expanded testing regime – and say privately that campus outbreaks seem to have peaked and are subsiding.

The BBC article also states decisions on the process for students who wish to return home for Christmas will be published next week (commencing 26 October). Among the issues to be clarified will be how, if in-person teaching stops in the week beginning 7 December, what would stop students disappearing home in the days before that, rather than remain confined for a fortnight’s isolation. They’re adults and it isn’t boarding school. The DfE is expected to publish a specific date that face to face tuition should cease by.

And whether students will even want to return is covered by the Guardian:

The growing fear, meanwhile, is that disillusioned students may simply drop out – a decision with consequences for the rest of their lives. Some struggling freshers have already fled, while others have quietly started commuting from home. Academics still teaching in person talk of lecture theatres emptying out, with students either self-isolating or too frightened to show up.
Boris Johnson has vowed to get students safely home for Christmas, but some in academia are beginning to worry more about getting them back in January. What if some decide they’d rather not risk getting trapped in locked-down cities once again? Before long, the government may be forced once again to choose between pumping more cash into universities or trying to craft a solution on the cheap. Let’s hope this time it doesn’t fail the test.

Wales: Welsh universities will continue to deliver blended learning during the two week fire-break lockdown. It has been stated that it is safer for students to remain on campus during the firebreak and to avoid travelling home.

Covid Cases: Wonkhe have a very short analysis.

It states: This…is not an absolutely reliable indicator – but it does look like the days of extremely rapidly growing case numbers among students might be behind us…Universities have been particularly good at testing, and fairly good at managing student self-isolation…What we don’t know…is the number of symptomatic cases, or the severity of those cases.
None of this is to downplay the huge number of cases in student-heavy MSOAs, or the utter foolishness of bring students back to campus this term. We need to think about next term very carefully…We are by no means leaving the second wave, though the student-based initial spike may be coming to an end.

The Times also reports a slow down in young case numbers.

Covid related parliamentary questions

Whether the Government have formed a COVID-19 response University stakeholder advisory group; and if not, why not.
Limiting the charges universities can make on students
Training for university students to help them access their online tuition
What compensation is available to university students who have their online tuition cancelled
Steps to ensure students have access to digital and online learning during Covid-19
Emma Hardy, Shadow Universities Minister, asks when the plans for safe return of students home from universities at the end of the autumn term will be published
Steps to increase C-19 testing capacity and reduce wait times for students and staff at universities

Student Complaints

The Welsh move has reinvigorated media debate concerning whether all HE teaching should be online or face to face continue where it is essential. We’ve all been around this discussion wheel many times now. Research Professional bring it up again and highlight that an (unnamed) Vice Chancellor has sensibly said [That] there were three main reasons to keep in-person teaching going:

universities have worked hard to make campuses and classrooms Covid-secure;
depriving students of face-to-face teaching could exacerbate mental health problems; and
putting all teaching online could lead to the risk of students moving around the country and spreading the virus.

And Research Professional (RP) add (you’re allowed to sigh here): A fourth consideration not mentioned by the vice-chancellor could be the need to deliver what was advertised and avoid complaints—and more calls for tuition fee refunds. They mention the new OfS intention to monitor universities with significant numbers of students being required to take all their courses online and the pre-pandemic strike action.

In addition, RP made freedom of information requests to research-intensive universities finding that during lockdown the number of complaints about teaching or course…grew in 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. RP continues: At King’s College London, for example, complaints rocketed from 17 in 2019 to 567 in 2020. Cardiff’s response to the FOI request sums it up: the past two years had been “some of the most difficult for our students and their university experience”. While the spokesperson pointed out that the “vast majority” of Cardiff’s 30,000 students had not complained, the university recognised that there had been a “disappointing” increase in complaints… The cumulative impact of two periods of industrial action on some, and the current global pandemic, have presented unprecedented challenges and impacted on the delivery of teaching and learning.

What is interesting to note is that quite a volume of complaints relate to the strikes rather than the vast majority on Covid related online teaching and learning, as the media would have us believe. And RP highlight that Not all universities that responded to our request reported a rise in complaints, and not all complaints will translate into requests for tuition fee refunds. Anyone who has ever written an online review knows that the act of complaining can be cathartic enough. If you have the will you can read more from RP on complaints here.

The Guardian have an article too capturing the student voice amongst the reporting.

Research Professional highlight the parental role in student complaints:

Beware, too, the wrath of the helicopter parent.
“In Facebook groups and WhatsApp circles, parents furious that their children are racking up debt in order to be banged up in Covid-riddled halls of residence are beginning to organise,” Hinsliff wrote in her Guardian op-ed. “One group of parents, using the hashtag #Fees4What, has started an online petition urging parity with Scotland, where students have the right to end university tenancy agreements early owing to Covid; others are plotting legal challenges.”
Playbook has followed the threat of mass student actions closely, as you will know. We have spent less time considering the possibility of parents and guardians mobilising to bring legal action against a provider. It is a scary thought.

Smita Jamdar writes for Research Professional to suggest how universities can mitigate the risk of student demands for refunds. Smita writes:

routes are available to students to secure what are, in effect, partial or full refunds—but to do so, they would have to identify specific assurances and promises made by institutions that had not been fulfilled, or alternatively show that the service they received was not of a reasonable standard.

Smita suggests that To mitigate the risk of claims universities can:

Ensure that information for students and prospective students is accurate and up to date
Changes to provision and services should be kept under review to ensure that wherever possible, the impact on students is continually monitored and appropriate remedial action is taken as promptly as possible. Particular attention should be paid to those courses and students where the risk of adverse impact is especially high: practical and laboratory-based courses and students with disabilities, for example. Communication of changes needs to be accurate, clear and regular.
Universities should comply with the provisions of any force majeure clause carefully. There may be obligations to give notice or to consult students that must be discharged or the clause may not be enforceable.
Low-level complaints and social media storms can be useful indicators of where future legal claims may lie, and institutions should ensure that quick action can be taken in response to emerging problems. It may be helpful to have an escalation process that ensures problem areas within specific schools and faculties are logged at a central point, which considers whether there are lessons for the wider institution.
introducing a bespoke, simplified complaints process, so that every effort can be made to address complaints without the need for external consideration…This should be accompanied by clear guidance for decision-makers so that there is a consistent position across complaints, and consistency of findings and outcomes, without the different facts and circumstances of each case being overlooked.

Wonkhe have a guest blog on fee refunds urging universities to explain things better.

Access & Participation

White Working Class: Following last week’s NEON publication Wonkhe have a blog on not treating white working class as a homogenous group.

…exactly who are we talking about? Are we all talking about the same group when we discuss the white working class?
Any comparison between ethnic groups has to grapple with the fact that the white working class far outnumbers any other ethnic group. And they live all over the country, from deprived fishing villages in Devon, rusting seaside resorts on the Essex coast, former pit villages in Cumbria, and on council estates in Toxteth, Kilmarnock, Aberdare, or Romford.
These structural questions, about who lives where, with what infrastructure, and what opportunities, these are the things that come to mind when I think about what my chances of getting in higher education were.
I have no doubt that most who use the term mean well, just as I know that there are many people across the UK who find that the term suits them well. But if we’re going to solve the issue of so few white working class boys and girls entering higher education, then we need to be more precise and engage with the country as it exists.
Britain is still a country shaped by wealth and class. The way we start to fix that is by looking seriously at how working class people actually live, and that begins by talking to us, not just about us.

There is a great comment to the blog which highlights that the past measures of social class were withdrawn and there hasn’t been a replacement:

A big issue is that there is virtually no official data on social class collected and reported on meaning that we are stuck with poor proxies such as free school meal eligibility or living in a disadvantaged area. The first narrows the debate a lot – it confuses being from a working-class background with being in poverty and so only includes a sub-set of people from working-class backgrounds. The second captures a lot of people from advantaged backgrounds and, for POLAR and similar measures, ignores ethnically diverse working-class areas including (virtually) the whole of London and large parts of other cities.
HE data by social class used to [be] reported until HEFCE decided to abolish it a few years ago despite the pleas of the Social Mobility Commission on the basis that data quality was poor (I think it’s still collected though – just not available publicly). The planned replacement measures appear to have been canned, meaning we’re left with two measures of disadvantage, neither of which are good proxies of coming from a working-class background: going to a state school and living in POLAR/TUNDRA Q1…
This lack of data needs to be resolved…[if] the UK Government wants to get serious about tackling the inequalities faced by those from white working-class backgrounds. Enacting Section 1 of the Equalities Act 2010 to impose a duty on public bodies to “when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage” would also help – it’s been lying around on the statute book for over a decade now…

Recycling spending again and again: Wonkhe have a blog – Jim Dickinson took to Wonk Corner yesterday to count the number of times that DfE has reallocated £256m of Student Premium Funding since the start of the pandemic. It’s a lot.

Education: Equality of Opportunity: An oral question within the Commons on ensuring equality of opportunity in education took place this week.

Michelle Donelan (Universities Minister): … talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not. This Government have made it our mission to rectify that, and equality of opportunity lies at the heart of the work by the Department for Education, including opportunity areas, access to higher education work and reforms to further education such as the flagship T-levels. We recognise that education has an unparalleled ability to create and unlock opportunities across the nation.

White working class, the levelling up agenda, and raising school standards were also mentioned.

Parliamentary Questions

Care leavers (not specifically HE related) – what proportion of funding available to young people leaving care announced in 2019 has been allocated to initiatives which provide dedicated support for girls and young women as a named group; and what steps he is taking to monitor and evaluate the effect of that funding on girls and young women leaving care and experiencing poor mental health. The answer talks about a pilot scheme for certain groups.
Supporting care leavers and estranged students during C-19.
Secondary school careers advice and effect on social mobility (again not specifically HE related). Also a question on whether there are plans to incorporate the monitoring of the quality of careers advice in schools into the OFSTED inspection process.

Gaps: Advance HE have published their annual analysis of students by equalities characteristics LINK. Wonkhe have a blog by Advance HE introducing the key points. Numbers of students with declared disabilities have more than doubled since 2003-04, and the participation gap between the genders continues to increase. The blog also highlights that at the current rate of progress the awarding gap between white and BAME students would not close until 2070-71, and that between white and black students until 2085-86.

SEN: A parliamentary question on when the Government expect to publish the outcome of their review of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The answer should pop up on this link from 3 November onwards.

Non-continuation

There has been speculation whether the difficult study circumstances in 2020/21 will lead to an increase in the student drop out rate. Students who leave university within (roughly) four weeks of first commencing are not liable for their tuition fee loan. This week Wonkhe have been talking about the official measures – the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s UK Performance Indicator on non-continuation – which captures data on students who leave more than 50 days after the start of their course (but not before). This leaves a hole round about days 28-50 where student drop out is not monitored nationally. Wonkhe state:

So even in three years’ time, when this data is released, we will never know exactly what happened at the start of the autumn 2020 term. Another unknown and unknowable number is of the students who enrolled and never turned up, or that left within two weeks…In 2020, an empty room in a hall or an unanswered Zoom call might be the only indication that something has gone wrong.

Wonkhe have a blog cobbling together a data source to show attrition. On non-continuation they highlight that it is often a drawn out withdrawal:

When a student “leaves” higher education they tend not to make a sudden decision and then immediately notify everyone that needs to know. The process is best understood as a gradual disengagement. A student may stop attending lectures first of all, or find themselves unable to continue to support themselves financially, or find themselves with other responsibilities and other constraints that stop them being able to participate.

International & Mobility

The DfE updated guidance on UK students intending to study in the EU after the transition period. The information relates to those who are planning to study in the EU, and those who are continuing their studies in the EU. The links also contain information on travel insurance, making changes to Erasmus+ placements and support when students are abroad.

Exceptional Circumstances

SUMS Consulting published a short briefing paper: Crystal Ball Gazing: What is the Future for Handling Exceptional Circumstances? Highlighting the changes that were made to exceptional circumstance policies to account for the pandemic disruption but also addressing the exponential increase in the volume of requests for exceptional circumstances in recent years. There is more content here. The paper concludes:

The combination of Covid-19 and the learnings from the last few months have led many universities to significantly change their approach to exceptional circumstances. Over the next few months, it is inevitable that further adaptions may be required to accommodate events such as local lockdowns or students being sent home. There is a move to divert resources from approaches that add little value, to those that benefit the student. Universities are adapting their evidence requirements, introducing self-certification and focusing on consistency across academic disciplines. The OIA is due to publish the final version its Good Practice Framework later this year, and there is no doubt that this too will incorporate many of the lessons from universities in operating the process during Covid-19. The pandemic has accelerated the rate of change in so many aspects of university life – the exceptional circumstances process is proving to be no different.
In thinking about their exceptional circumstances process this year, universities may wish to consider:
How coherent is your overall policy framework? When were related policies last updated?
How recently have you reviewed the evidence required to support exceptional circumstances?
How recently have you reviewed the list of examples of circumstances that are likely to be accepted and those that are likely to be excluded?
How do you ensure that there is consistency and equity in determining exceptional circumstances across different disciplines and academic units?
Have you decided whether to introduce self-certification with safeguards, if you have not already taken this step?
Analysing your data over an academic year in the way that UWE has done, to discover the impact of your present process.
Whether or not your existing processes are inclusive?

Young unemployment

The Alliance for Full Employment (AFFE) have published Youth Report: A Million Reasons to Act on the impact of the pandemic on young people’s employment prospects. Under-25s suffered 60% of the post-March redundancies, and male youth unemployment is at 16%, more than three times the UK adult rate. They call on the Government to convene a jobs summit of UK nations and regions to address to impending issue.

The report also states that Kickstart, the Government’s main youth unemployment programme, will not provide anywhere near enough places for those in need of support. The report estimates that over 1m young people will be unemployed by November, and are likely to “fall through the net.”

They identify four new groups who will require the Government’s attention and help as we head into winter:

Many of this summer’s 500,000 school college and university leavers
Young people who lose their jobs on or before October 31as a result of Covid, as furlough ends
Young people in partial lockdown areas where businesses are closed down and where young employees not eligible for furlough are being laid off
Young people made unemployed because of the general turnover of staff, which is highest among the young, and including those on temporary contracts, who will now struggle to get new opportunities.

The report, which features a foreword by former PM Gordon Brown, recommends the following priorities for the Government:

Provision of quality work experience – not a return to the Youth Opportunity Programmes (YOPs) or Youth Training Schemes of the 1980s
Training geared to new jobs, like in care sector It and logistics, jobs linked to the recovery from lab technicians and contact tracers, to care worker and teaching assistant not training for continued unemployment.
Help with job searches – a vital element of getting into work, as demonstrated by the 2009 Future Jobs Fund.
A wage subsidy in the order of a £100 a week for six months for employers to take a young person on full-time.

Prof. Gregg (author) concludes: The recession in the UK has only just started, in terms of the impact on jobs, consumer confidence and firm planning. Yet because firm profitability was already low and the trading block under Lockdown, the wave of job losses will be incredibly condensed and intense between now and next April. This means that the need for getting intervention on the ground is urgent and hard to get to scale in time.

The Guardian cover the above report and report on a call from former PM Gordon Brown for employers to be given a wage subsidy of £100 a week to hire workers under 25 as part of a plan to prevent youth unemployment exceeding levels seen in the 1980s.

Graduate unemployment was also mentioned in this week’s Department for Work and Pensions topical questions:

Q- Tim Loughton (Con): With forecasts showing that there may be as many as 1 million young people without a job, I urge the Minister to think outside the box. I have long argued that we should use graduates and gap-year students to help some of those pupils who have missed out on schooling to catch up. Can we devise, with the Department for Education, a scheme to pay them a variation of JSA to provide such a service, or at least offer greater flexibility for claimants who volunteer to help in such a way or to take the pressure off other public services?

A – Dr Coffey: One element of the kickstart scheme, a £2 billion investment in the future of our young people, is designed to help people to get on the first rung of the ladder with a proper job. It is a way for those people who have recently left school or university and are at risk of long-term unemployment to get experience and financing, which does not just have to be through private organisations and could be through local government or charitable or other sectors. It is a specific way to ensure that those people get not only a job but the extra training and wraparound support that they need to help them further on in their lives.

PQs

As we’re on a break next week some of the parliamentary questions cover the two week period, you may have to check back on them in early November to see the response.

HE sector

What steps the Government is taking to increase the accessibility of counselling and support services for HE students.
Introducing an immigration checking service for Student Finance to check student eligibility similar to that of the employer checking service. (Answer: the SLC already ask the Home Office for this information when necessary.)
What steps the Government is taking to ensure that jobs involving recruiting, retaining and supporting students in their studies are protected in higher education (answer: nothing additional to the national schemes)
The Erasmus replacement questions have started up again here is one example
Deferrals
Gender diversity: what assessment the Government has made of the potential effect on gender diversity of university (a) students and (b) teaching now Silver Award of the Athena SWAN charter for Women in Science is not required. And: what steps the Government is taking to assess the effectiveness of UK research bodies and university departments in working to and achieving gender diversity.
HNC & HND student loan uptake (2017-2019)

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.

Other news

Shadow Education Secretary – Kate Green has been in post as the Shadow Education Secretary for 3 months already. There is a good background and profile on her in Schools Week which suggests she is committed to slower policy making with sufficient time for research and evidence based formulation.

Historic Statues: Colleagues following the debate surrounding the removal of historic statues may be interested in this Lords discussion on the topic. It is not specifically HE or education focussed, although the matters covered do have some application.

Groceries: While it isn’t policy news, if you were interested in the reasons behind the price increases for your food shopping during lockdown the Institute for Fiscal Studies have a paper on it. In short: less promotions were available and there was a reduction in product variety. They’re unsure if the autumn restrictions will see the return of grocery inflation.

HE numbers: The House of Commons Library has published a research briefing on HE numbers. It finds that: Headline student numbers have increased to new records following a short dip after to the 2012 reforms. There are however ongoing concerns about numbers outside this group where trends have not been so positive, including part-time undergraduates, some postgraduates students, overseas students from some countries, especially Nigeria and Malaysia, mature students and some disadvantaged groups. There is also considerable concern about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and student numbers, particularly those from overseas and uncertainty about the impact of Brexit on EU student numbers.

Physics: The Institute of Physics is railing against the limiting words of others which are influencing young people from continuing to study physics post-16. Report here.

many young people who want to pursue physics to improve their future are being denied the opportunity by those whose opinions they trust.
many young people are put off studying physics from age 16 by misconceptions about what physics is
They are told “physics is too difficult”, “it’s not creative” or “it’s boring”… They are told that physics is not for the likes of them based on their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their disability and their social background.

People of Black Caribbean descent: In England, young people of Black Caribbean descent represent the ethnic group least likely to pursue physics post-16, with only 0.5% choosing to study physics A-Level despite making up 1.4% of all young people in England aged 16 – 19.
People from poorer backgrounds: Young people from poorer backgrounds are much less likely to study physics than peers from wealthier backgrounds. In England, only 2.7% of students from the most deprived backgrounds choose physics post-16 compared to 8.1% of the least deprived.
Girls: Latest figures show that girls are far less likely than boys to choose to study physics post-16. In 2020, physics was the second most popular A-level subject for boys in England and Wales and the fifth most popular in Northern Ireland. In 2019, only 3.59% (1,869) of girls in the Republic of Ireland chose Leaving Certificate physics, compared to 9.91% (5,884) of boys.
People with disabilities: According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, in 2017/18, 13% of physics undergraduates in the UK had a known disability, much lower than the percentage for all working age adults (19%).

Recess

The House of Commons enters recess next week and the policy update will take a break. We’ll be back on 6 November.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

September 28, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 25th September 2020

BU research, COVID-19, EU, innovation, international, parliament, PG research, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Has anyone else been shouting at the radio last week and over the weekend, or muttering aloud while reading social media posts? Or is that just me? There has been nowhere to hide from negative and badly informed stories about students, universities and the virus this week. Then you add in the news that lorries will need permits to enter Kent in January and things start to feel a bit bleak. So to cheer you all up for the weekend we have the usual wide and varied selection of policy news. If it carries on like this we might need to start including recipes or knitting patterns to lighten the mood (we’re not knitters, BTW).

Another delay to the big #HEpolicy announcements?

With the Autumn budget scrapped we start to wonder what will happen to the Comprehensive Spending Review and the associated announcements on the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, and the Augar report that informed it. And the other things we are waiting for, which may or may not be linked, i.e. the response to the Pearce report on the TEF and a subsequent OfS plan for the TEF going forwards. The link being that the outcome on fees may be a link to “quality” which may link to the ambition for the TEF as an indicator. The BBC article we linked to above says that the CSR will still proceed but last year’s review was downgraded to a one year update. This year’s was meant to be a 4 year review but may go the same way. In which case, we may be heading for another delay on big changes to fees and funding.

That would be consistent with other things – we reported last week that Nicola Dandridge had said that the OfS admissions review would stay on pause until we had got through this year’s recruitment cycle, with continued uncertainty about the timing of A levels and other assessments next year and the potential for other disruption.

The OfS have also not rushed to radical change on the NSS, despite the government’s request for a “root and branch review” by the end of the year. They announced this week that the review will take place in two stages. The first stage will

Assess the bureaucratic burden the NSS places on providers and how this could be reduced.
Explore the unintended consequences of the NSS for provider behaviour and how these could be prevented, including whether the NSS drives the lowering of academic standards and grade inflation.
Examine the appropriate level at which the NSS could continue to provide reliable data on the student perspective on their subject, provider and the wider system, and what could be done without depending on a universal annual sample.
Examine the extent to which data from the NSS should be made public, including the implications of Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation.
Ensure the OfS has the data it needs to regulate quality effectively.
Ensure the NSS will stand the test of time, and can be adapted and refined periodically to prevent gaming.
Ensure the UK wide role of the survey is considered in any recommendations.

The second stage of the review will look more widely at the role of the NSS, including which questions should be asked to support regulation and student information across all four countries of the UK. OfS intend to consult students, providers and employers in their review.

The contract for the 2021 NSS has already been awarded, and the OfS intend to continue with the survey next Spring, however, providers will not be required to promote it. Also: given the significance of the review, the board agreed on a number of measures to amend the 2021 NSS. First, any decision on what to publish from the NSS and at what level should await the outcome of the review to ensure that the 2021 published results were aligned with the new direction of travel resulting from the review.

There is a Wonkhe blog questioning the assumptions and Government concerns over the NSS, and another by David Kernohan which asks really good questions.

Research news

Research Professional had a lot to say this week:

How likely it is that the Government’s R&D budget promises can be realised
Several universities are unofficially jostling to host ARPA
UKRI have asked for more funds to deliver the place based levelling up agenda
An article speculating whether UKRI may fall to the Government’s cull during their consideration of the making the research system more efficient

They also covered the Industrial Strategy Council’s report highlighting strikingly uneven distributions across the UK of research and innovation funding. Meanwhile over on Wonkhe a new blog asks whether focussing state R&D spend at regions which are not currently research-intensive is a levelling-up solution and provides examples from the UK and overseas. And the Royal Society explore the contribution of public and non-profit research organisations to the research and innovation landscape.

UKRI

New UKRI Chief Executive Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser spoke this week: Science and Society, 20 years on: legacy and lessons for a post-Covid world at an online event marking the 20 year anniversary of this report. The report was credited with triggering a policy and institutional shift towards public engagement, dialogue and deliberation. Dame Ottoline spoke of the lasting significance of the Science and Society report and emphasised the continued importance of public engagement in research and innovation:

We have made good progress. But despite efforts to engage the public in research there remains a significant gap between those who feel able to make informed choices, to question, challenge and influence research and innovation, and those who feel disconnected, underrepresented and disenfranchised…For this group, science is something that is done to you, not something in which you have a voice.
In the next 20 years, we need to make the next step in the evolution of the place of science in society…science IN society. Science needs to be a normal part of cultural life…An expanded research and innovation concept that includes all the participants, not just the researchers and innovators, can build science capital, connecting a much wider range of people with the system, making it familiar and part of their world.
This approach would build the research and innovation system out into society, at the same time as continued development of public engagement to include much more embedded co-creation would bring a wider range of voices in to the system.

Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, also spoke at the event. The UKRI press release for the event is here.

Commons Science & Technology Committee : Wonkhe report on this week’s session of the Science and Technology Committee:

Giving evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, William Bonvillian of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Peter Highnam of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) set out the working model of DARPA, including potential avenues for the commercialisation of research and innovation, and spoke to the challenges of replicating DARPA’s success outside of the defence context. Regina Dugan of Wellcome Leap suggested that the life sciences could be a potential focus of a fledgling agency, while Antoine Petit of French National Centre for Scientific Research spoke on the relationship between researchers and government in the French system. You can watch the entire session here; or ask us for a more comprehensive summary (Ref: D24/09-10:05)

PhDs: Oxford University was recognised by the media this year as making inroads into improving the diversity of the undergraduate students it admitted. The Telegraph report on a pilot approach they are testing to address diversity within PhD admissions. Oxford intend to take into account a student’s socio-economic background as well as their academic credentials.

PQs

The proportion of transport-technology research innovation grants awarded to (a) female entrepreneurs (b) companies led by women (7.4% awarded to teams led by women); and the proportion awarded to disabled entrepreneurs (not known – no disability data collected).
Any obligation & timescale that organisations in receipt of R&D tax breaks are required to publish their research within; and preventing duplication

Admissions

In 2020/21 enrolments were expected to drop as Britain hit the lowest point of the population demographic dip for young people. However, nationally admissions numbers have been good (for home, international and disadvantaged access) suggesting that the limitations of Covid have not hampered recruitment as much as feared (although enrolment may be a different story). The UCAS clearing analysis statistical releases are available here.

Wonkhe highlight a record 515,650 students with a confirmed place, up 4% from last year, and an 8% increase in the numbers of disadvantaged students. There has been a 12% increase in numbers of students accepted into higher tariff institutions, attributed partly to an increase in overseas applicants, and partly to the effect of the late adjustment of centre assessed grades. The Guardian, i News, and Tes have the story. The UCAS press release gives more information here.

UCAS Chief Executive Clare Marchant said:

This has been one of the most momentous of undergraduate admissions cycles in living memory. The dust certainly hasn’t settled – our end of cycle reporting in the winter will provide the definitive account of the year.
Predictions that the lower and medium tariff providers could have their numbers decimated haven’t come to pass… While there has been little (medium tariff) or no growth (lower tariff) in overall acceptances for the two other groups, they have not fallen off a cliff edge for these groups as a whole; though recruitment in the weeks following A level results day didn’t benefit them to the extent in previous years as students used their raised grades to move (back) to higher tariff
Courses that will educate the next generation of frontline workers have been incredibly popular. The inspiring and welcoming healthcare sector is currently due to have a record 34,190 new nursing students, a huge increase of more than a fifth on last year. Demand for teaching courses has also risen during the pandemic. These courses are particularly popular with mature applicants, and previous UCAS research has shown the link between these subjects and periods when the economy and job market is in decline.
… the demand for UK HE is still palpable, testament to all those who work in the sector.

Labour Party “conference”

Parliament has not broken for party conference recess this year. Labour opted to run four days of virtual contact for party members including the popular fringe events which normally discuss a wide range of matters significant within the policy sphere.

HE Fees: Earlier in the week Research Professional reported there wouldn’t be an announcement on Labour’s fee policy: Playbook understands that following discussions on that topic last week (covered in last Monday’s edition), progress was made—but not enough for Labour to nail its colours to the mast on university matters. The smart money is on an official policy line in mid-to-late October.

Too many graduates?

Tuesday saw an event led by Policy Exchange (who describe themselves as a centre-right think tank): Too Many Graduates, Too Few Workers: How should higher education adapt to a shrinking knowledge economy? Dods ‘attended’ the event and have summarised the discussion here; it is worth a read with the party divisions clear behind the thoughts expressed.

Wonkhe also suggest indicators of Labour’s emerging HE attitude were present at the event:

there were hints of a developing Labour policy that seemed keen to improve technical routes within and around universities, and on providers being even more closely linked to ideas of place and space. And: Shadow Minister for Further and Higher Education Emma Hardy enumerated her benefits of higher education – soft power, individual aspirations, and public good.

There’s a good (and slightly humorous) Wonkhe blog on the event and it expands more on the Labour education hints:

The ideas in the earlier policy of higher level education without leaving your locality, and the support for higher technical education, appears to suggest a developing policy position that takes the best of the NES thinking and marries it with some of the more sensible parts of Augar.

Introducing…

We are pleased to introduce Roshana Wickremasinghe, Policy Adviser for SUBU! Roshana has been with SUBU since February. Previously she taught secondary level English in Poole as part of the Teach First Leadership Development Programme. She has an MA in Transformational Leadership in Education, and hopes to undertake a PhD examining the impact of government policy on public perception of HE.

Do look out for Roshana’s contributions to this week’s policy update and more from her on the student perspective in future editions.

Student Matters – SUBU guest blog

Roshana covers the new student fees parliamentary petition and an Advance HE report on student transition.

Petition: In addition to the popular petition that gained 352,658 signatures over the summer, another petition asking for a partial tuition fee refund has appeared with 191,000+ signatures. Rather than a total refund, the petition is calling for a partial refund due to the implementation of online teaching. The government’s response to the previous petition was that universities should review complaints issued by students receiving poor quality learning, with vague wording not directly addressing the issue. With many universities in America already reversing any plans for in person teaching despite historic promises, it will be interesting to see how this will impact consumer rights in the UK system if our universities make similar U-turns.

Transition: AdvanceHE have published a report on the 20/21 transition process back to university for new and returning students. The document explores how universities can support students by managing expectation, awareness of student concerns, addressing digital poverty, supporting wellbeing and supporting academic study. The report comes in response to the increased concerns of students during this typically stressful time of year (money, socialising, campus safety measures and timely advice). Whilst the report does not reach any ‘stand out’ conclusions, it does stress the need for clear and personalised communications to students during the full transition process.

Student Unions

The Adam Smith institute published: State of the Unions: How to restore free association and expression, combat extremism and make student unions effective critiquing the student union model of today.

Roshana summarises the briefing paper: The highly critical report proposes that student unions currently cost taxpayers £165 million per annum, with an average spend of £75 per student per year. The report goes on to state that unions undermine freedom of association and expression through compulsory membership, lack democratic legitimacy, limit free speech and pursue a narrow political agenda (the list is much longer than this). Despite the almost humorous tone of the report, criticising SUs for banning sombreros and clapping, it has been well received in government by figures such as Sajid Javid and a foreword written by the Chair of the House of Commons Education Committee.

On the day of issue both Wonkhe and Research Professional dismissed the report.

RP: The report…is nothing if not provocative…It is available online if you wish to read more. However, if you want a nuanced take on what is undeniably a legitimate area of interest then you needn’t bother. Much of the report will already be familiar to Playbook readers. It turns out that when trying to give cast-iron examples of where students’ unions, which host many thousands of events every year, have a problem with “cancel culture”, it’s the same old tired examples that get dragged up. Nonetheless, the paper certainly provokes debate, if you like that sort of thing.

Wonkhe: When the Department for Education published its proposed restructuring regime for higher education providers back in July, many were surprised to find that expenditure on students’ unions – and in particular their sabbatical officers and “niche activism” – had been identified for scrutiny. There didn’t seem to be any anchoring evidence for the assertion that funding for such things was “disproportionate” and “not focused on serving the needs of the wider student population”, but now, courtesy of the Adam Smith Institute, some background has emerged…[It] contains a long list of culture war stories about students, and some inaccurate and misleading figures on expenditure and voter turnout, but very little on student welfare, student voice, or the good work that students’ unions have been doing to support students during the pandemic. It proposes that students’ unions be split up, with the National Union of Students required to collect individual subscriptions from students. Of course Wonkhe have a blog on it too: Do students’ unions waste money?; and one for data buffs.

The report is easy to dismiss. However, the Chair of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon, a particularly influential parliamentary figure, stated the suggestion of a split model was “intriguing”. He continued:

By making the political part of student unions voluntary, ordinary students would no longer be required to finance political activities of which they did not approve… money could be focussed on those functions that students do appreciate, such as decent social and recreational facilities, better student sports, and more effective academic representation.

Research Professional report that Halfon stated:

student unions had to choose whether to represent members or become “bastions of obsessive political campaigning. Across our universities and colleges, far too often, freedom of expression and intellectual curiosity on campus are being deeply eroded because of minority political activism.”

The same RP article mentions NUS’ immediate refutation of the briefing paper (poorly researched, outright misinformation, OfS concluded no evidence of free speech being systematically suppressed), alongside the Adam Smith Institute’s response which maintained the integrity of their report and findings.

HEPI have a story New polling shows students’ support for the Labour Party has grown under Keir Starmer and students have become more politicised since the start of 2020

Students & Covid

The flurry of commentary and blogging surrounding Covid and the influx of students to their university area continued this week. Here is a selection mostly from Wonkhe:

Not enough whack for the moles: The press seems to frame students in lockdown as some kind of mild inconvenience, but…if students are in lockdown without enough money to cover essentials, away from support networks and unable to work or return home, what happens next?… universities are going to want to do all they can in the coming days to avoid misery for those that follow the rules, and misery for those that don’t. (Wonkhe)
What data is useful for responding to C-19 risks? There is very little useful “real time” data on student activity or the presence or absence of a Covid-19 outbreak… But we can track cases which may have an impact on students, staff, and local communities, at a high resolution but with a time lag – using public data. (Wonkhe)
Keeping student data safe through Covid (Wonkhe)- University staff and students must be aware of what happens to their data; this means processes must be completely clear and transparent. Institutions should also bear in mind that the only acceptable circumstance for health or track and trace data to be shared in the case of Covid-19 is if a public health body, for example Public Health England (PHE), requests it. It is therefore essential that processes are in place to avoid mixing or aggregating it with other data that might be shared elsewhere by mistake.
We know that online fraud and scamming ramped up during lockdown. In recent weeks this has given way to greater numbers of cyber attacks. This Wonkhe blog anticipates the university sector is particularly vulnerable and makes recommendations of how to prepare.
Wonkhe examine the SAGE minutes here, and state: what we have is more evidence that lazy or in some cases dangerous assumptions about student behaviour have clouded the advice given to DfE which has then re-emerged as advice to universities.
iNews features a student’s reflections on his return to university: We no longer have that lively ebullient feeling we once had. The sense of collectiveness is simply absent…. Not being able to go out and live the student life is peculiar, but I know it is best for our safety. My peers and I are fearful of contracting the disease, but we also fear our education will be significantly impacted too. The messaging from the Government is also incredibly confusing. Reopening institutions will inevitably result in people interacting through lecture theatres, seminar rooms and public transport. I’m worried this could cause an astonishing escalation of Covid-19 cases across the country and lead to more blame being put on the shoulders of young people.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, was quick to shift the accountability to young people. This blame game is profoundly unfair.
Similar themes on lacking the sense of belonging, which we know is so important to students, is raised in this Wonkhe blog, and it also reminds about commuter students.
On Wednesday the PM confirmed that schools, colleges and universities should remain open despite: the recent rise in coronavirus cases. There was mention of students in the C-19 debate on Tuesday:
Boris Johnson – The most important thing is that the students who are now back at university in large numbers should, like everybody else, follow the guidelines. It is also important that, where there are outbreaks in universities, students should not be going home to infect their older relatives.
The above touches on one of this week’s major themes that rose in the publics’ consciousness: fear that students may infect relatives when they return home at vacation times (with Christmas being particularly celebrated) alongside fear students won’t be allowed home for Christmas. iNews cover it here: Ministers have yet to draw up plans to prevent students from spreading coronavirus, but will be desperate to avoid telling students to celebrate Christmas away from their families. And Wonkhe reiterate that SAGE did not say students cannot return home at Christmas and debate whether the concept of ‘household’ will allow students to pop home at the weekends.
Finally Wonkhe tell us that Advance HE has released“Safe for Staff”, a report into the equality implications of reopening university campuses.

PQs

What research is being done on younger students spreading covid-19 into the wider community. (Focuses on schools/colleges.)
Still no answer to what additional support will be provided to universities in areas where there is no campus or local walk in covid-19 testing centres.
What discussions the Government has had with universities about the steps taken to prevent new outbreaks of C-19 when students return home.
Steps to ensure foreign students are quarantined upon entry to the UK & oversight of the process

Career Satisfaction

HESA have published: Higher Education outcomes: How career satisfaction among graduates varies by ethnicity. Wonkhe cover the report and – yes, you guessed it – they do have a blog dissecting it further:

A new report from HESA finds that UK domiciled Black mature graduates were less likely to report career satisfaction than their peers.
An analysis of Longitudinal Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (LDLHE) data dating back to 2013 found a nine per cent difference in career satisfaction between Black graduates aged above 26 and their White peers. For younger graduates the gap was around 2.6 per cent, in both cases after controlling for personal and study characteristics.
These findings also highlight the lack of a current career satisfaction measure for graduates – there’s no measure in the new Graduate Outcomes survey, though it is suggested that HESA are looking at addressing this.

Graduate Career Recruitment

The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS) has published: Evaluating the effectiveness of employer engagement (shorter summary report here). It explores the range of careers or employability-related interactions taking place at universities between students and employers through surveys with AGCAS members and 8 interviews with graduate recruiters. Key findings:

The careers fair is not dead. In face-to-face interactions, careers fairs are still seen as one of the most effective employer engagement activities for both universities and employers.
Employer-led skills sessions/presentations were the most commonly offered activity, and rated one of the most effective activities according to employers.
Work-based learning such as placements, and embedded curricula activity are considered most effective by universities, despite the majority of employer engagement activities being extra-curricular.
From a university perspective, generic advertising services are considered to be the least effective employer engagement activity
Before March 2020, a minority (only 21%) of careers-related employer engagement was delivered virtually and only 30% was embedded. Virtual was also not considered to be as effective as face-to-face delivery.
To measure effectiveness, universities tend to focus on experiential feedback, while employers look for quantitative numbers of hires or applicants and return on investment.
Employers want to know that the information they are sharing will reach students, so they are often keen to speak to student-facing staff as well as employer engagement professionals/their account manager.
The majority of careers services have specialist employer engagement teams with some form of employer engagement strategy, and most use an account management model to personalise the service they offer employers.

The final page considered graduate recruitment activities in the post pandemic world:

The pandemic has had a severe and signification impact on students, graduates and the wider population and it is unlikely that things will ever fully return to normal. Whilst appreciating the damage caused by the crisis, it is also important to acknowledge where it has influenced positive changes. For employer engagement, we may see the use and effectiveness of online activities increase dramatically. The flexibility resulting from increased remote working may see employers targeting a wider range of universities more sustainably. Students who struggled to afford the costs of travel to interviews and assessment centres may find their access to opportunities improved.

AGCAS plan more ‘short pulse surveys’ to understand how C-19 has changed employer engagement moving forward into the future from now onwards.

HEPI have a relevant blog: Isolation Generation – looking ahead to the sector’s unique recruitment challenge which highlights that this year’s Year 13s have an almighty catch up to achieve on top of contemplating their next steps. The article paints this year group as an even bigger challenge than the lockdown-exam-cancellation generation because of the lack of face to face contact that can be delivered. Excerpt:

Almost 90% of next year’s applicants are already in the advanced research stages of their application but only 27% have already chosen their final five higher education courses.
We might have expected that number to be higher, but with 59% reporting that they do not have enough information to make their decisions, it is clear there is an immediate need for more targeted information and advice. As pre-applicants undertake their research, they are casting their net beyond friends and family to find new opinions. There is obvious growth in virtual Open Days and virtual school events, but university websites are now seen as more important by 57% of all students. UCAS, too, by more than 40%.
At the other end are parents and the recommendations from friends, which are comparatively less influential. Only 1% of pre-applicants told us their parents were now more influential when making their choices and just 9% said the same about friends. Applicants are now placing their trust directly with first parties. For the higher education sector, it means more scrutiny of their messaging, but also more demand.
Next year’s applicants are very aware of what is coming for the economy.
More than half of all Year 12s said since the lockdown they now assign more importance to ‘high graduate employment rates’. A fifth, think the same for placement years. This year’s applicants are looking for recession-proof degrees more than ever, and the onus is on universities and colleges to convince them of their own efficacy.

Today’s students are Gen Z and the sector should base their assumptions on the fact that they are the most agile and digitally-focussed customers they have come across. They want the answer to everything in their pocket – and they expect it now.

PQs

Does the Government intend to mandate universities to publish their C-19 risk assessments.
Providing support to university students unable to provide a guarantor to secure their accommodation; the number of students unable to provide a guarantor
What additional funds will be made available for universities for deep cleaning after cases of C-19
Whether NUS representatives will be invited to join the taskforce on university capacity
Any plans for a new immigration route to allow international students to undertake a work or study based placement of between 6 & 12 months.

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.

Other news

Social Sciences: HEPI blog: For employers, the Social Sciences stand up to the STEM obsession

OfS Board: David Palfreyman and Simon Levine will continue as non-executive board members on the OfS board for a three year period.

Student skills survey: Wonkhe are running a survey about student skills following their Secret Life of Students conference last week. They are working to understand current thinking on the skills students should be acquiring during their time at university. There’s no national consensus on what these skills should be, or even what they’re called – we’ve heard soft skills, life skills, employability skills, transferable skills – but employers want students to be able to demonstrate them. We know that whatever you call them, it doesn’t make sense to think about “skills” as distinct from subject knowledge, so we’re asking academics and those in academic-adjacent roles such as education developers, careers advisors, education technologists, and librarians to share your views about the state of student skills in 2020 via this short survey. As an incentive, once you complete the survey, you will be offered the chance to enter your name into a draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers and a £100 donation to the charity of your choice.

Different times: The Guardian states universities are expecting unprecedented demand for student hardship funds as the part time job market collapsed under Covid. It also covered concerns that online learning will lead to higher drop out rates as students struggle to adjust to digital study and curtailed socialisation. Monitoring engagement online is also a concern. The article ends with a comment from Jacqueline Stevenson at Leeds: for some students, taking a break from their course will be the best thing, rather than a catastrophe. “Dropping out can be a pejorative term and is caught up with the idea of failure. But if someone makes a sensible decision to leave, and may come back later to finish their course, that should be celebrated. A student can carry that feeling of failure with them for a very long time.”

Study UK: The British Council’s ‘Study UK’ event (including 65 UK universities) will promote the benefits of studying in the UK to UG & PG prospective students across Europe during October and November. 13,000 students from Europe are expected to join the education events. This event aims to give students direct contact with UK universities, which the students cited as the most influential source for making their study abroad decisions. Maddalaine Ansell, Director of Education at the British Council said: ‘

Our research shows that European students view the UK as the most attractive overseas study destination for teaching quality and employability. However, misconceptions about the application process, fees and requirements – particularly after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU – may be discouraging some from applying. Study UK Europe: Gateway to the UK aims to address this through a unique mix of information sessions and one-to-one conversations with higher education institutions. We will enable UK universities to reach European students directly – and to provide them with the information they need to start what we hope will be a life changing UK study journey.’

Subscribe!

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

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

April 15, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 15th April 2020

Business Engagement, COVID-19, Impact, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, parliament, policy, Research news jforster

Hi all, a short update this week, with a couple of important updates

Office for Students update

The Office for Students issued another update to providers on 14^th April.

They confirm the on-going uncertainty on access to government schemes for HE providers – there are hopes that this will be resolved (in a positive way) later this week. The update says:

We understand that the two coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Schemes and the COVID-19 Corporate Financing Facility are open to higher education providers, although final confirmation about eligibility for these schemes has still to be determined. We will continue to work with the Department for Education and HM Treasury to get further information about eligibility and will provide further information as soon as we can.

And this on the TEF:

As you will be aware, we were previously planning to develop and consult on a new framework for the TEF during the first half of 2020. The impact of the coronavirus crisis means that we do not currently have a date for the next TEF exercise. We will provide further information as soon as we can. We intend to consult on the future TEF scheme after the government has published the Independent Review and its response to the Review’s recommendations. Publication of the subject-level TEF pilot reports has been delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Some commentators (see Johnny Rich here) are seeing this as a major step – an indefinite postponement of TEF using the virus as cover. After all, there are rumours that the Pearce review is not very positive about the TEF.

But this could be over-egging things. The OfS has postponed all its consultations and hasn’t yet set new deadlines for any of them – so this is just the OfS being consistent. Don’t read too much into the postponement, folks – we would be very surprised if TEF goes away, even though the 2020 data will be weird.

There is comment from Wonkhe here:

From the looks of the scant paragraph we get it would seem that this is a temporary measure, and that there would be every expectation that we would get a new date in time. But it is not hard to imagine this indefinite pause as a quiet death for a basket of metrics that has failed to capture the imagination of the audience it sought…..

It could, of course, be argued that the current situation suits everyone involved perfectly well. The Government seems in no hurry to publish a review of TEF that is likely to have been less than glowing, the OfS doesn’t need to respond to it or consult on it (making it easier to integrate TEF into the mainstream of regulation), and TEF remains on pause forever. Nobody loses face, the decision to cancel TEF is never explicitly taken (so the government never goes back on a manifesto promise) but it is quietly understood that no future work will be done on an indicator that signally failed to indicate anything.

[PS there is still no news from UKRI on the KEF deadline extension]

The Office for Students has a webpage which brings together all their guidance, FAQs and the Ministerial letters, which is a useful resource. They keep adding to the FAQs – what we are all waiting for now is the next news on admissions, due on 20^th April

We have created a provider guide to coronavirus which includes information about our regulatory requirements, FAQs, and links to all letters and guidance issued by the OfS. There is also a student guide with FAQs and signposting to sources of information beyond the OfS.

Support for Universities

Universities UK issued a package of measures to address concerns in the sector – and shared it with Gavin Williamson in a telephone call.

They highlighted the many challenges to the sector, the work that we are doing to support the national effort and our staff and students. They asked for specific confirmation that confirmation that universities are eligible for the Job Retention Scheme (furloughing staff), and the Business Interruption Scheme and the Corporate Financing Facility and recommended a range of actions, including:

increasing funding for research and covering the full economic cost for UKRI funded research;
introducing a one year “stability measure” in the form of a student number cap equal to the number of UK and EU students forecast for 2020-21 plus 5% and a new sector agreement on fair admissions practices that would, amongst other things, restrict unconditional offers at volume;
provide further funding for courses that support key public sector services, including nursing and healthcare and some short and part-time courses;
a transformation fund to support universities to reshape and consolidate through federations and partnerships or mergers;
bridging loans and support for changes in lending terms, reprofiling funding allocations including the student finance payments towards the beginning of the academic year, and halting the planned cuts in teaching grant; and
mitigating the impact on international recruitment by providing flexibility of visa requirements and delaying changes that would apply to EU students after Brexit who would join in the 2021 academic year.
We don’t know when there will be a response, if at all.

The Opposition view

Research Professional has an interview with Emma Hardy, shadow Universities Minister. It’s an interesting read:

The model of intense competition is failing. Having read Universities UK’s submission to the government, letters from the University and College Union and other higher education organisations and interest groups, what is not surprising is the amount of consensus there is. If we continue down the same path of “unseemly competition” as UCU has warned, then some universities will face financial failure and as it stands the Office for Students has been clear that it will not bail them out.

As highlighted by UUK, the likelihood is that ‘cold spots’ will develop, exacerbating the regional inequalities and putting already disadvantaged students at a greater disadvantage.

There is a consensus around the need for change, and we should look to create a more collaborative system. UUK has already acknowledged that changes need to be made and that these could include “federations and partnerships”. Labour believes there should be greater collaboration between higher education, further education and adult community learning, to anchor those institutions in their communities and reform their governing structure.

Institutions offering similar academic courses in the same region could cooperate with the aim of staff development and educational improvement to benefit students and our national interest.

…

There needs to be a collective acknowledgement of the unpalatable idea of asking mature students who find themselves unemployed as a result of this crisis to commit to a lifetime loan of over £27,000 for a degree which the government knows they will never repay. Labour will continue to argue for free education for all as we face of challenge of upskilling our country in a post-Covid-19 world.

…

A higher education system funded by government, industry and commerce has the power to hold universities to a higher standard, and it should use this power to radically reform the terms and conditions of university staff and in particular the use of insecure contracts.

If we wish the UK to maintain its reputation as a world leader in research, then research grants must be balanced and distributed regionally to create regional institutions of excellence.

The Research Excellence Framework has been discredited nearly as frequently as the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework and the space provided by the suspension of the REF due to Covid-19 opens the discussion on what makes for effective accountability. If we are to build a future based on cooperation, and universities acting in the national interest, then market-based accountability measures serve no purpose.

This follows an intervention by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the new shadow Education lead, who wrote to Gavin Williamson last week, as reported by Research Professional

In a missive dated 9 April, that also addresses schools and further education policy, Long-Bailey—who finished second to Keir Starmer in the recent Labour leadership election—asks Williamson if he believes universities are “likely to require additional financial support” as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, and how decisions on such support will be made? She also asked the Department for Education to protect institutions from closure “for the duration of this crisis”.

…

She also asked if overseas staff working in universities would be offered the same one-year visa extension available to NHS staff and sought reassurances that international students’ visas will be extended where required.

“I believe in the current circumstances some additional support should be given to students,” Long-Bailey writes. Specifically, she calls for ministers to immediately suspend all interest on loans, waive tuition fees for the period that students are not receiving full tuition, and give students the opportunity to “defer to next academic year without needing to pay extra tuition fees”.

There should also be an assurance that students do not have to pay for accommodation that they are no longer able to use, Long-Bailey wrote, while those in receipt of a maintenance grant should be able to return all or part of it in exchange for it being written off.

The shadow education secretary also calls for clarity on student assessment practices during the Covid-19 outbreak and asks the government to “urgently consider” creating a student hardship fund for those who encounter financial difficulty as a result of the pandemic.

Opportunities

Finally, we are delighted that two members of academic staff have submitted evidence to an All Party-Parliamentary Group this week and we are very proud of the work that staff across BU are doing to support the national effort, and to contribute to the national debate.

If you haven’t done so before, now may be a good time to explore the APPGs active in your area of expertise and see if they are doing interesting work – the full list is here. Look under subject groups and follow the links Some APPGs don’t update their websites very often (or have them at all) but some are very active.

And if you have a news story or a plan for research, or a solution to a practical problem linked to the virus, speak to the M&C press team or Becca Edwards.

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

September 23, 2019

HE policy update for the w/e 20th September 2019

policy, Student Engagement jforster

With Parliament suspended until 14^th October (despite calls for a recall, pending the outcome of this week’s Supreme Court hearing on the lawfulness or otherwise of the prorogation), things are a little quieter in policy circles, although there is likely to be plenty of news from the Labour and Conservative party conferences over the next couple of weeks Labour kick off first, and the Tories next week.

Two things struck us this week – a much bigger interest than usual in the Lib Dem conference, with the national press streaming lovely views of the Bournemouth sea front all week, and the level of blow by blow coverage of the Supreme court hearing. With an election now inevitable, probably before Christmas, and a Lib Dem surge predicted, the first isn’t surprising, and the second is just the latest in the Brexit/Boris soap opera. We are taking a break from making predictions about what will happen on Hallowe’en. It’s all too difficult to call.

OfS urged to act on ‘quality’ matters

Secretary of State Education, Gavin Williamson, has written to the OfS setting out his priorities and giving support for the OfS to use a big stick to push for progress (e.g. on the attainment gap) and curb unpopular practices (e.g. conditional unconditional offers). The letter is a very long wish list (including the kitchen sink) in which the Minister basically asks the OfS to solve all perceived ills in the name of safeguarding the sector’s reputation and encourages them (in bold type) to use their regulatory sharp stick boldly.

The Government press release has the Minister urging the OfS to: “set as high a bar as possible on quality in the sector, so universities are focused on reducing dropout rates and ensuring the best possible value for money. We have to fight to keep the public trust and respect in our world-leading universities and to me that means a relentless focus on quality. That’s why I want the OfS to go even further on this, developing more rigorous and demanding quality requirements, and I give my full backing to boldly use its powers to ensure value for money.”

Excerpts from the letter (use of bold type reflects the letter, a new style approach in these letters):

Value for money – OfS must attach “the highest priority to this work” and make sure that it is reflected in its forthcoming value for money strategy.
Exercise your powers boldly to ensure you are an effective regulator. Refers to refusals to register, Suggests using powers where there are “courses and providers that are not delivering value for students”, such as “unacceptable levels of drop-out rates or failure to equip students with qualifications that are recognised and valued by employers, falling short of what is required…under the registration conditions”…
Develop “even more rigorous and demanding quality requirements”. This means apparently, raising current baseline requirements to ensure that providers deliver successful outcomes for all students. Supports the “OfS intention to revisit the minimum baselines”…
Be ambitious for the TEF in both scope and timing. That means publishing subject level TEF in 2021 alongside the implementation of a new TEF following the Pearce review. Those hoping that subject level was going to be abandoned will be disappointed, and presumably subject level will also be continued in the “new model” otherwise it would an orphaned measure with weird reputational consequences.
Consider running a further provider level TEF assessment with results published in 2020. If they are going to do that, having already said everyone’s TEF is extended and we don’t have to, they need to get on with it.
Refers to the “injudicious use of unconditional offers” and other inducements “that could have an adverse impact on the access and success of students in HE”. Other than the OfS working with the CMA on enforcement of consumer law, no particular action here.
“Prioritise work supporting students as empowered consumers” – complaints, Ts and Cs, free speech, harassment, etc. The OfS are to review current practice and consider standard contractual templates by Feb 2020. He commends their plans on student protection and urges “action in this area to be as ambitious as possible”
Focus on part-time and flexible learning, mature learners, “regulatory and funding arrangements surrounding flexible provision” (including how performance metrics support and incentivise flexible provision) – plan by end Nov 2019 and interim report by end of March 2020. Also a Challenge Competition for that.
Raising awareness of accelerated degrees.
Monitoring schemes and arrangements for student transfer –institutions to develop a plan for how they will use regulatory powers to promote greater student choice.
Explore how international students can be better supported and integrated, in line with Global Britain’s efforts to strengthen relationships around the world.

The Sec of State also tasked the OfS Review of Admissions to fully consider a Post Qualification Applications system (note application not admission – so students would apply after their level 3 results).

The TEF stuff has caused a little stir – there is not supposed to be a TEF this year, and the idea of running a subject level TEF in 2021 alongside the development of a new TEF seems like a lot of work to produce a set of outcomes that would not be very useful for anyone, as they would not be comparable with what has gone before or what will come after. As there is no link to fees etc. (yet, we still think that this might re-emerge as one outcome from the Post-18 Review), and students are not using TEF, what is the point? See Wonkhe on this.

Access, Participation & Success

HEPI have published The white elephant in the room: ideas for reducing racial inequality in HE. It consists of a series of essays by national HE figures recommending how to reduce a range of racial inequalities including the attainment gap. Some recommendations:

All Higher Education Institutions should participate in the Race Equality Charter (56 are members). Funding bodies should consider creating financial incentives behind them doing so – such as making research grants conditional on participation. This proved effective when applications for the gender equality focused Athena SWAN Charter went up 400% after the British Medical Research Council made funding conditional on holding a Silver Athena Swan Award.

Kalwant Bhopal, Professor of Education and Social Justice, University of Birmingham: ‘Work on gender is seen as worthwhile and contributing to an equalities agenda. Race, on the other hand has always been seen as a secondary priority. If higher education is serious about social justice, then race equality must be seen as a priority – linking the Race Equality Charter to research funding would be a good start.’

Do groundwork to facilitate conversations about race within institutions. Do not underestimate the obstacles faced in doing this and the need for ground rules.

Professor Shân Waring, DVC, London South Bank University: ‘In a room of people talking about race, there will be people confused about which words are okay and which are not. And there will be people in the room who will not join in the conversation, for fear of appearing racist, of being called racist, and perhaps of finding out when it comes down to it, they are racist.’

Make sure that work done by BME staff and students to tackle racial inequalities is recognised and rewarded. Being an informal mentor to BME students, or giving up time to help with racial equality initiatives, should not become another form of disadvantage.

Amatey Doku, former Vice President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students: ‘Universities are under more pressure than ever to address the 14% attainment gap between BME and white students. Some universities are responding positively, but end up putting a disproportionate burden on BME staff and students. Ultimately it is the institutions themselves that need to fix the problem.”

Academic faculties should look to their curricula and to other ways of addressing inequalities in their subject, such as Studentships for BME candidates.

Margot Finn, President of the Royal Historical Society: ‘A third of black and minority ethnic historians have faced discrimination or abuse – twice as many as for white historians. That tends to shock white historians, but it has never surprised BME historians with whom that I’ve shared our findings.’

Diversity practitioners within institutions need senior management diversity champions to rely upon. For instance, inclusion networks should be sure they have the resources and the remit to make changes. (Sanchia Alasia)
Avoid well-meaning but vague actions which are unlikely to effect change. For instance, implicit bias training should be used in a targeted way to map how biases are playing out in an organisation and to tackle specific issues. (Srabrani Sen)

Access Gap – FE news have published a news article by UCAS highlighting that 20.4% of students from the most disadvantaged communities (polar 4 quintile 1) have a confirmed HE place. The Daily Mail have coverage too.

Brexit and Parliament

Apart from the battle over prorogation and the focus on who said what to the Queen when (which is getting David Cameron as well as Boris Johnson into trouble this week), there is ongoing speculation about what will happen in October.

An interesting YouGov poll revealed that 52% of Leave voters believe the PM should break the law by refusing to ask the EU to extend the Brexit deadline. 28% believe Boris should follow the law despite his ongoing insistence personal campaign that the 31 October exit deadline is non-negotiable, with 21% undecided.

Speaker Predictions – YouGov have also reported that according to a Jan 2019 poll Lindsay Hoyle (current deputy speaker) is the MP’s favourite candidate for the next Speaker of The House of Commons. YouGov state:

He [Lindsay] was the only potential successor nominated by a substantive number of MPs, with a further 41% saying they didn’t know who the next Speaker should be. Hoyle’s fellow Deputy Speaker, the Conservative MP Eleanor Laing, came in a distant second on just 6%, with former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman in third on 5%. Both have announced that they will run for the Speakership.

4 year study in only 3 years leave to remain – Gavin Williamson tackled the conundrum of EU students who are studying 4 year courses (e.g. in Scotland) but will only be afforded 36 months of temporary leave to remain post Brexit. The Education secretary said “the UK Government would find a solution”.

Education Spending

There is a new Institute for Fiscal Studies report on education spending.

The HE highlights are (our emphasis added):

Universities currently receive £27,500 per full-time undergraduate student to fund the cost of teaching for the full course of their studies (usually three years). This has fallen by 5% since 2012, but is about 50% higher than at its low point during the mid 1990s.

While per-student funding is similar today to its early 1990s levels, total resources for teaching undergraduate students have doubled in real terms over that period. This was driven by a near-doubling in student numbers. The nature of that funding has changed significantly, with it now coming primarily through tuition fees rather than through teaching grants.

The overall cost of the current system is about £17 billion per cohort entering higher education. More than half of the cost is expected to be paid for through graduate contributions (£9.0 billion), particularly from higher-earning graduates. The long-run cost to government is expected to be about £8.0 billion, about £7.4 billion through unrepaid student loans and £700 million in up-front grants.

The Augar Review proposed cutting fees to £7,500, reintroducing maintenance grants and changing the terms of repayment. This would give policymakers greater control of spending on different subjects, which they have little control over at present due to funding being dominated by tuition fees and to a lack of controls on student numbers. The proposals would reduce repayments amongst higher earners and increase repayments amongst mainly middle earners. But there is no good reason to say the current distribution of repayments and incentives is the ‘correct’ one.

Labour’s policies of abolishing fees altogether and bringing back maintenance grants would come at a cost to the public finances of just over £6 billion per cohort of full-time students over the long run. This policy would give the government even more control over the distribution of spending on certain subjects or institutions, but would benefit the highest-earning graduates substantially. The policy is significantly cheaper now as a result of the 2017 increase in the repayment threshold on student loans from £21,000 to £25,000.

Considering part-time students adds approximately another £1 billion to the cost of Labour’s proposals at current student numbers. However, the cost of this policy could increase rapidly if the large decline in part-time student numbers since 2010 were reversed.

The Guardian and the BBC cover the report.

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 inquiries and consultations.

Other news

Graduate Outcomes: The Telegraph has an interactive comparator to accompany their article stating that Oxbridge doesn’t always result in the highest salaries, and that some subjects at ‘lesser known institutions’. Engineering, computer science and business graduates ‘from a wide variety of universities’ are said as ‘punching above their weight’.

Money Mules: The phenomenon of targeting students to act as money mules has been around for several years but the Telegraph has teamed up with Barclays to publish an article warning what to watch out for. Staff working directly with students may be interested in reading about this fraud scam.

Arts & Heritage: The Taking Part 2018/19 survey statistics have been released. It is a continuous face to face household survey of adults and children in England providing reliable national estimates of engagement with the arts, heritage, museums, libraries, digital and social networking. It is a key evidence source for DCMS. In 2018/19:

77.4% of adults had engaged with the arts at least once in the last year. The rate of adults engaged in the arts has remained relatively stable since 2005/06.
72.4% of adults reported having visited a heritage site in the last 12 months, similar to 2017/18, and an increase from 69.9% in 2005/06.
50.2% of adults reported having visited a museum or gallery in the last year. This is similar to 2017/18 and a significant increase from 2005/06 (42.3%).
59% of adults reported being aware of UK events to commemorate the Centenary of the First World War. This represents a significant increase from 2017/18 (50.5%).
35.2% of adults had used a public library service in the last year for any purpose, similar to 2017/18 and 32.9% had used a public library service in the last year for voluntary work or in their own time, this is similar to 2017/18 but a decrease from 2005/06 (48.2%).

Marketisation: HEPI have a new blog – Changes to student entry quality in a marketised English higher education system. It concludes Universities appear to have been adopting different strategies with many focusing on growth in volume, at the expense of entry points, and a smaller number prioritising quality.

Trading Up: iNews have an interesting article regarding students who undertake a foundation year (and therefore an extra year of debt) with the aim of completing it successfully and transferring (‘upgrading’) to another university. The article carries the tone that this is a risky manoeuvre and Geoff Barton, Association of School and College Leaders, said “we advise students against trying to use foundation years to ‘trade up’.” Instead the advice is that it is cheaper to retake their A levels. The article is interesting because while the Government is very keen that universities support students and proactively facilitate transfers to another institution they didn’t have this in mind – yet the young population seem to have found their own solution. There was also recent negativity stating that universities were capitalising on Foundation Years (because of the fee income received) and that students would be better off taking Access to HE courses. Despite this, foundation courses have increased in popularity in recent years. Perhaps, not least because of the different way in which students are treated and expected to learn between FE and HE. Furthermore, retaking A levels suggests failure, whereas a foundation year allows the individual to move away, be independent, and experience and learn the skills needed to succeed in HE study.

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