text:
Tagged / mature students
Business Engagement, COVID-19, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
Parliament was still in recess whilst the Conservative Party Conference takes place. We have the news from the Conference, some movement on Essay Mills and several new reports. And we have a big primer on student finance, ahead of the budget.
Conservative Party Conference
After the first day of the Conservative Party conference Wonkhe speculate what the personalities and lack of fiscal room for manoeuvre mean for HE in the forthcoming spending review (looming on the later October horizon):
At last night's Policy Exchange fringe meeting, new Secretary of State Nadhim Zahawi represented a breath of fresh air insofar as he was keen to stress that decisions would be "evidence-led", that he understood that universities delivered vocational skills and that a consultation is still coming over aspects of Augar. But the spending envelope isn't his call – and the big question for this spending review remains "What does Rishi Sunak want?" If he wants to balance the books and demonstrate fiscal prudence – and all the signs point to a reining in after the immense scale of public spending during Covid-19 – then universities could be in for a rough ride when stacked up against other pressing priorities. The potential for a fee cut, in particular, will be keeping university finance directors up at night. Without a complete rethink of the funding system, there are few good available options to reduce the overall cost of the system. Thanks to inflation, even maintaining the status quo of the frozen fee level means diminishing funding to higher education over time.
It now seems likely that a new financial settlement, aimed at reducing the Treasury's exposure to higher education, will see changes to graduate repayment terms, perhaps even retrospectively for existing students. Last week, former universities minister David Willetts, in a pamphlet for the Higher Education Policy Institute, suggested that this option is more politically defensible at a time of constrained public spending than reducing funding to universities via tuition fee cuts. Minimum entry standards could also do its bit to cap the supply of students over time, thus saving Her Majesty's Government a little more money, though with few outside the fringes of the Conservative Party genuinely believing that fewer people benefiting from a higher education is a desirable outcome, and ever-growing numbers of school and college leavers hoping to go – it's a policy that if implemented could end up coming back to bite the Conservatives in the future.
So with so many moving fiscal and political parts around the spending review and Budget, there's every chance that late deals could lead to unexpected outcomes and changes to what was previously thought to be a direction of travel. As ever in politics, decisions are not made until they are announced in public, and with this prime minister in particular, huge changes of direction can be made on a whim
New Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi gave a keynote address at the Conservative Party Conference. It focussed heavily on schools (including emphasis on English and maths). Nadhim also gave HE a nod in crediting Oxford University for the vaccine development. The Government's intention towards T levels remains.
DfE is investing in maths hubs, while at post-16 there is funding for a further 2m courses. One day soon I want T levels to be as famous as A levels.
Zahawi promised a schools White Paper in the new year to focus on illiteracy and innumeracy. I will work tirelessly…to unleash the brilliance of young people in this country.
Nadhim added that as Vaccine minister he used evidence to deliver a world-leading vaccines programme and that DfE will deliver the same for education.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak promised new scholarships in artificial intelligence:
2,000 elite AI scholarships for disadvantaged young people within the Government's focus on innovative technology which he stated was a sign of the party's ambition for the future.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a particularly colourful rambling speech to entertain the Conference attendees. It was light on HE content. Within the context of levelling up he questioned why York (2 universities) had so many graduates yet Doncaster (a FE/HE college) didn't. Perhaps not the best example his aides could have chosen.
There was also familiar messaging about the alternative routes than university: our universities are world beating, I owe everything to my tutors and they are one of the great glories of our economy but we all know that some of the most brilliant and imaginative and creative people in Britain and some of the best paid people in Britain did not go to university and to level up you need to give people the options the skills that are right for them and to make the most of those skills and knowledge and to level up you need urgently to plug all the other the gaps in our infrastructure that are still holding people and communities back
On foreign investment: It was not the government that made the wonder drug it wasn't brewed in the alembics of the department of health. It was, of course it was Oxford University, but it was the private sector that made it possible behind those vaccines are companies and shareholders and, yes, bankers.
Lots of focussed discussion took place during the Conservative Party Conference fringe events. Here are some summaries of the content prepared by Dods with bold emphasis added so you can pick out the most relevant HE points.
Build back higher: how the Government and universities can work together
Towards recovery: the role of lifelong learning in addressing the skills gap
Boom or bust: The economy in a post-pandemic world
Employing the change: Putting green jobs at the heart of the economic recovery
Investing in FE: The key to a healthier, more prosperous society?
On Tuesday the DfE stated it will introduce a ban on 'essay mills' via the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. The Government intends to make it a criminal offence to provide, arrange or advertise cheating services for financial gain to students taking a qualification at any institution in England providing post-16 education including universities.
You'll recall from our regular coverage on contract cheating that Lord Storey has campaigned to this end for a long period, including introducing two Private Member's Bills (PMB) which the Government was not opposed to but neither succeeded. In contrast to Lord Storey's PMB the DfE's intention is to apply the legislation to all post-16 providers including colleges and sixth forms.
Previously the Government urged the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education), UUK and the NUS to collaborate and produce institutional guidance on combatting the threat from essay mills and compiled guidance for students to make them better aware of the consequences to send the clear message that these services are not legitimate.
Minister for Skills Alex Burghart said: Essay mills are completely unethical and profit by undermining the hard work most students do. We are taking steps to ban these cheating services. We have also announced a new measure to make sure all young people receive broader careers guidance so everyone can get the advice that's right for them. [Perhaps meaning to pursue T levels and an alternative route than university.]
Gender Differences in subject choice
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) paper Gender differences in subject choice leads to gender pay gap immediately after graduation highlights how course choice exacerbates the gender pay gap. IFS notes:
In 2019 – before the pandemic disrupted data collection – women were paid 16% less per hour than men on average. The gap in average annual earnings was even larger, at 37%, since women are much more likely to work part-time.
The financial return to getting a degree – how much more a graduate earns compared to an otherwise similar non-graduate – varies enormously across subjects. Previous IFS research estimates that studying economics at university boosts women's pay by 75% by age 30; this is more than ten times the return to studying creative arts (7.2%). However, women make up nearly two-thirds of creative arts graduates but less than a third of economics graduates.
In general, women are overrepresented in degree subjects with low financial returns. There are some exceptions – for example, medicine and law both have average or slightly above average shares of female students and very high returns.
Differences in degree subject choices explain most of the gender pay gap soon after graduation.
Of the 5% gap in annual earnings at age 25, 2.9 percentage points (55%) can be accounted for by university subjects, with A-Level subject choices making up a further 0.2 percentage points (5%).
Subject choice continues to contribute between 3 and 5 percentage points to the gender pay gap over graduates' early careers.
But over this period, other factors lead to a widening of the gender pay gap, so that by age 30, subject choice explains only a fifth of the total gender pay gap.
Other factors that come into play could include motherhood, gender differences in attitudes towards risk, recognition for group work, hours worked, the propensity to bargain over wages and ask for promotions, and discrimination.
We should be concerned if information on the returns to different subjects isn't easily available to young people, and if the large differences in subject choice (arts for girls, economics for boys) are driven as much by gender stereotypes as by true preferences.
When it comes to a subject like economics, which delivers the very highest financial return for female (and male) graduates, there is an additional concern that many students cannot access the subject at all because it is not offered in their school.
More needs to be done to educate and inform young people about subject choices at A level and university, particularly in a system like the UK where subject choices narrow at an early stage and where decisions taken early can have long-lasting effects.
Research and innovation review: BEIS published the terms of reference for the Review of the Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape. The independent review (announced on 22 July) will be led by Sir Paul Nurse with the final report expected during Spring 2022. The goals of the Review are to:
explore the features and characteristics in the existing ecosystem of RDI-performing organisations across the UK, learning from the best in the world and drawing on transformative examples
identify whether improvements to the organisational research landscape are required to deliver the government's objective for the UK to be a science superpower at the forefront of critical and emerging fields of science and technology, and drive economic growth and societal benefit
futureproof the UK landscape of organisations undertaking all forms of RDI, from pioneering, visionary blue-skies research to practical support for innovators to commercialise or implement their ideas, and ensure an agile and sustainable system that can respond to future priorities and developments
The Review will consider the full and varied policy and funding context within which RDI-performing organisations are set up and operate. The Review is focused on the landscape of organisations that deliver research rather than on mechanisms for funding research and will:
analyse how the various organisations that contribute to the ecosystem of RDI-performing organisations across different parts of the UK – including universities, institutes and laboratories, across UK government and the devolved administrations, public, private and non-profit sectors – compare to each other and that of other countries with strengths in RDI
learning from international examples, consider the role that different mixes of organisations can play in delivering economic and societal impact from RDI, and the mechanisms and business models that will best enable the UK to capitalise on emerging and new fields of science and invention
consider how best to secure an organisational landscape now and in the future that delivers high-quality RDI outputs, and which is sustainable and cost-effective
consider options to support the UK's strengths and what targeted interventions in the public sector might enhance the quality and diverse mix of RDI-performing organisations through our policy framework and the policies of the devolved administrations
Research Budget distribution: MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities, published a policy briefing calling for the pledged increase of the R&D budget to £22bn to be shared more equitably around the country in the name of the Government's levelling up goal. The briefing emphasises the importance of re-balancing the way research in the UK is funded so that modern universities, many of which sit in marginalised areas of the country, and those hit hardest by the pandemic, can do more to support a world-class system of research and innovation, for the benefit of their regions and the country. Recommendations:
Scale up the Higher Education Innovation Fund, so that knowledge exchange makes up a greater proportion of overall grant funding from Research England.
Increase the number of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships funded across the UK.
Expand the Strength in Places Fund.
Ensure that the Shared Prosperity Fund is devolved, based on long-term funding cycles, and accessible to universities and local businesses.
MillionPlus also published Innovate and generate: modern universities supporting local businesses aiming to highlight the partnerships that modern universities with local roots and an industry-facing outlook have with businesses in their regions. The document emphasises their calls for Government to prioritise and dedicate specific R&D funding streams for such relationships and the positive impact it can have on levelling up the UK.
Incentivising business innovation through taxation – CBI Economics consider the arguments for R&D tax credits
Imperial College London announced their new Institute for Infection. The aim of the Institute is to address some of the biggest unanswered questions in the field of infectious disease, such as how is climate change impacting the spread of diseases transmitted by flies and mosquitoes, how can gene-editing technologies help to reduce the spread of disease (such as Dengue and Zika), and how can animal vaccination programmes help to curb diseases which also affect humans.
Student Hardship funding: Hitting the news last week (from the July OfS Board papers) was that £1.66 million of the additional £70 million hardship funding provided by the Government was unspent and recovered by the OfS.
Wonkhe say: Despite overwhelming evidence that the hardships caused by Covid-19 were near universal, the government was wedded to the idea of individual student problems rather than the systemic issues felt across the whole cohort. There were conditions attached to allocation: providers had to distribute funds to students that expressed a specific need, and all of the money needed to be handed out by 31 July…The complexity of existing hardship fund arrangements at providers (many had to recruit extra staff to administer the process) and the tight deadline (three months for the final tranche) made it difficult to get the money to where it was needed.
The Mental Health Foundation released new research combining evidence with expert opinion and public views. You can read about it here but in short it recommends (in order of popularity):
Be aware of using drugs to cope with difficult feelings
Build money skills and seek financial support if you need it
Get more from your sleep
Develop awareness of your feelings and emotions
Have something to look forward to
Get closer to nature
Speak to someone you trust for support
Stay curious and open to new experiences
Almost as popular (chosen by at least 45% of the public panel) were:
Have a healthy diet
Help others, contribute to something bigger
Engage in physical activity
Practice gratitude and cultivate hope
Strengthen social connections
Our research shows that it's the fundamentals of life that protect our mental health: our finances, our relationships and our experiences
The DfE updated the information on who is eligible for undergraduate, postgraduate and further education financial support from Student Finance England. The update includes new policy notes on the rights to home fee status and student support for people covered by the Withdrawal Agreements who make a valid late application to the EU Settlement Scheme, and rights for joining family members under the EU Settlement Scheme:
Access to student finance in England: joining family members under the EU Settlement Scheme
Access to student finance in England: late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme
Possible changes to fees and funding have been in the news a lot over the autumn in the build up to the Comprehensive Spending Review on 27th October when, yet again, we are promised the final response from the government to the Augar report and an outcome for the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, which Augar was meant to inform.
Some changes have already happened:
Some OfS funding for "non-strategic" subjects was cut this year – but it was a small cut to a tiny amount of funding. Anxiety was heightened because the former Education Secretary kept saying in the HoC and to newspapers that he was "slashing" funding, but he was exaggerating. A lot. The OfS got very defensive about it. You can read what they did here. Anyway, it set the tone for what may be more to come. The OfS were told to stop calling the main funding a "teaching" grant and call it a "strategic priorities" grant. You get the point. Let's hope the updated Ministerial team choose their language more carefully, to avoid future misunderstanding. Words matter.
The OfS decided to distribute a chunk of their capital funding via a competitive bidding arrangement, in a big departure from previous allocation methods. You can read what they did here. This may well also set the tone for the future, and is consistent with what is expected to happen with some streams of research funding going forwards.
The main pre-announcement that we are expecting to see followed through with a consultation at the end of the month is on minimum entry requirements. This is a technique to reduce or at least limit the growing cost of the student loan portfolio by applying a floor to the academic entry requirements that applicants must meet in order to qualify for a student loan. Students could still go to university, if they pay their own way, of course, or are able to borrow the funding another way. Widely criticised as a cap on aspiration and a retrograde step for social mobility, because of the risk that many of the potential students who will be excluded from university will be those whose prior attainment does not reflect their true potential, and because many of those will be in that position as a result of some form of disadvantage. We have commented on this extensively before and note that Augar suggested that it be deployed as a last resort if universities did not clean up their act on quality. We note that we are not convinced that there is necessarily a direct link between "quality" and low entry tariffs and that it feels a bit early in the cycle for last resorts. But there you are. The definition of quality debate is a much bigger one that is ongoing now as the OfS looks at its licence conditions.
And there could be many other things announced. Most of the press coverage recently has been about a potential cut to the repayment threshold (increased by Theresa May in a shock move after the 2017 election that cost the government a lot of money). This idea has not been well received by students or recent graduates. We note that retrospective changes to the terms of loans (other than interest rates) are not usually allowed (for banks, for example), and that there is a general feeling that students and recent graduates, who have not had a great couple of years, will be asked to fill a government financial hole "because they don't vote conservative anyway". Given that Theresa May put the floor up precisely because she was worried about the so-called youthquake in the 2017 election, the link seems to be a fair one. The Tories in 2017 didn't have the majority that they have now. And the financial hole is very big.
BU staff can read our May 2021 summary of what else we might have to look forward to here.
Given that there is likely to be a flurry of press stories, better or less-well informed opinion, social media excitement etc, around any changes, we wanted to give you a bit of context. Apologies to regular readers or those with students in the family who know all this, all too well, but here we go. And apologies to readers in the devolved nations, we are focussing on England here. Also we are focussing on undergraduates.
Undergraduate tuition fees
These are capped. The cap hasn't moved for a long time. There is very little prospect of it moving for a long time to come.
They are not tuition fees. The OfS in their most recent publication on the subject (well worth a read) calls them "course fees". They aren't really that either.
When they were introduced they replaced a big chunk of government funding for universities and, apart from those universities with huge numbers of international or post-graduate students, or huge proportions of research or donor income, these fees are the main source of income for most universities. They therefore pay for staff, services, loan interest, depreciation, building maintenance, IT, OfS registration fees, and so on – the lot. They famously cross subsidise research which is generally funded at less than cost.
If a student has a tuition fee loan (most do as otherwise they need to pay up front), the fee is paid by the Student Loan Company directly to the university in three chunks across the year. The biggest chunk (50%) is paid in the summer AFTER the student has completed most of the year. This helps avoid a situation where the university gets money for students who don't stick around. But it also explains why cash flow across the year is a talking point in universities, and why a temporary change took place last year when the second instalment was paid early because of concerns about financial sustainability of universities in the pandemic.
Maintenance loans
These loans are made available to UK students to help with their living and other costs while at university. They replaced the grant system. Before loans were introduced, if students didn't qualify for a grant they needed parental support or another source of income. That is still the case. There is a minimum amount for a maintenance loan, but above that loan eligibility is means tested according to the income of the student's family. So the vast majority of students in the UK still need parental support for their maintenance costs, and if that isn't available, they will need to work or borrow money instead.
You can see more in the SLC document for 2021/22 students.
Maintenance costs are a huge issue for many students. Unlike the tuition fee, which is paid by the SLC to the university, this is cash the students need to find and spend. There has been a lot of coverage of the high cost of accommodation in many places (often more than the maximum loan) and of the particular unfairness of the situation over the last two years when students were told by the government not to return to accommodation they had paid for, with money neither they nor their families could afford. That's a long and separate story.
Although they are called loans, student finance arrangements are very different from the usual loan arrangements we are all used to, and this is where it gets complicated and political. So apologies again. This very useful paper from the House of Commons library (September 2021) has lots of context on this.
As noted above, student loans are made up of two items, tuition fees and maintenance loans (you can also use a student loan for postgraduate support but that's a different story).
Interest starts to accrue on the loan balance straight away, while the student is at university. Interest rates are very high – compared to some other rates available in the market. But the interest rate charged varies over time and according to the income of the graduate (not their family, this time).
From an SLC document describing 2021/11 arrangements:
While studying and until 6th April after you finish: RPI pls 3%
After that:
Income £27,295 or less – RPI only
Income above £27,295 to £49,130 – Interest applied on a scale from RPI to RPI + 3%
Income above £49,130 – RPI + 3%
Martin Lewis explained the latest rate for Money Saving Expert in October 2021:
On 1 October 2021, for students from England and Wales who started university in or after 2012, the headline student loan interest rate decreased from 5.6% to 4.1% in line with the current RPI, and the temporary 'Prevailing Market Rate'
Despite the decrease, this rate is still higher than most mortgages, and far higher than for students from prior cohorts. And, the headline rate is expected to increase again, to 4.5%, on the 1 January 2022.
Repayment arrangements
This is where student loans really start to look different from "normal" loans. The student finance arrangements we have are not really loans at all. Really what we have here is a graduate tax. But shhh – it isn't called that. Because people don't like taxes, so it could never be called a tax.
The notional amount of the student finance grows throughout out the time that a student is studying, and interest is added during that time and afterwards. So far so like a loan.
But – graduates only start to repay it from the April after their course ends, and only when their income reaches a threshold. Most students are on what is called "plan 2" and we are going to use their data:
You'll only repay when your income is over £524 a week, £2,274 a month or £27,295 a year (before tax and other deductions).
G. Your annual income is £28,800 and you are paid a regular monthly wage. This means that each month your income is £2,400 (£28,800 divided by 12). This is over the Plan 2 monthly threshold of £2,274. Your income is £126 over the threshold (£2,400 minus £2,274). You will pay back £11 (9% of £126) each month.
In other words, repayments are means tested, and only the income over the threshold is used to calculate the repayments. Clearly in a lot of cases that means that the amount you are repaying is not enough to cover the interest that is also still accruing. So the overall amount just keeps on going up, just as it would with a "normal" loan if you didn't pay enough off each month.
The other big difference with a "normal" loan, though, is what happens at the end. The whole thing, interest and all, is written off after 30 years from the April after your course finished. That is a big and growing cost to the government. This very useful paper from the House of Commons library (September 2021) gives some context on what this means.
The RAB charge is the difference between the amount lent to a cohort of students, and the value of their repayments as graduates. For 2020/21 it is predicted by the Government to be 53%.
… repayments for the 2020/21 cohort will range from just over £1,000 on average in decile 1 to almost £63,000 for decile 10. The average lifetime repayment across all borrowers is just over £19,000.
"Overall, 22% of borrowers are forecast to repay their loans in full, this rate varies from 0‑2% in the bottom four deciles to 87% in decile 10"
So when students say that they are "paying" tuition fees – they aren't paying it yet, and in fact most will never pay it all back. Only the highest earners, mostly men, will pay it all back. The paper has charts showing the difference for women and men.
We should also note that the loan is not treated like a normal loan when you are taking out a normal loan, either. Your potential repayments are taken into account when considering your ability to pay, but it is not treated the same way for your credit score as a typical loan would be. So it is treated more like a mobile phone contract than a car loan.
So it's really a graduate tax which stops after 30 years. Or an income dependent contingent loan (which is written off after 30 years).
Potential changes
The government would clearly like to recover more of this money. It must be noted that it was never intended that it would all be repaid, however. When the system was set up it was deliberately intended that only the students with higher income would pay it all back. This was meant to be progressive.
That's why there has been little sympathy for arguments to reduce the interest rate. On the face of it, students seem to be "paying" a high interest rate. But they aren't in fact paying it at all, and most of them will never pay it. It accrues at a high rate, and then most of it is written off. So increasing the interest rate may be an option instead:
The impact of a 1 ppt increase in the interest rate would mean that the average repayment per borrower would increase by £1,500 or 5.2%.
However, this increase is not spread evenly across borrowers. Only those with higher earnings pay back more. The number of borrowers who repay their loan in full would drop from 22% under the current system to 18%.
For a long time the government was able to keep this cost "off the balance sheet" until the auditing rules were changed and the whole cost was added to the national debt. That started to change perceptions about it.
And of course, since the scheme was introduced, the number of students going to university has increased, we are just emerging from a demographic dip. So the potential cost just keeps on going up.
We have already mentioned changes to the repayment threshold may be under discussion. That has all sorts of consequences – but they are not very progressive (another HoC library paper):
Middle earners would see the largest absolute increase of around £4,000 on average, while the highest earners would see their repayments fall slightly.
While the increase for lower earners is below average in absolute terms, it represents the largest percentage increase at around 30%. The number of borrowers who repay their loan in full would increase from 22% under the current system to 25%.
There has also been talk of extending the payment term from 30 to 35 years (Augar said 40) and increasing the rate of repayment (different from the interest rate). Another helpful briefing paper here.
both measures result in increased lifetime repayments especially from middle to higher earners.
We'll see. But we think there will be some tinkering with repayment arrangements – despite the fact that these would be retrospective changes to the agreed terms. And there may be other changes that will reduce the number of people eligible to take these loans out in the future – as well as the minimum qualifications requirement.
Or there may a cut in the tuition fee. The latter would reduce the loan book and the notional interest – and give the government more direct control of university funding though the use of "strategic priorities" to top up (some of) the difference – consistent with the current direction as noted at the start of this section.
There could be caps on the numbers of students studying particular subjects, or at particular institutions (if they don't meet quality thresholds, for example). Note in this context that the government is increasingly linking definitions of quality to "outcomes", by which they mean highly skilled employment and relative earnings. And that is a whole different subject which we have discussed before, and will again.
The Lifelong Education Commission, supported by ResPublica and chaired by former universities minister Chris Skidmore MP, published The Pathway to Lifelong Education: Reforming the UK's Skills System. It is the first of 8 reports the Commission has planned on on lifelong learning and the UK's skills system. The Commission recommends how the barriers to adult learning can be removed; what future investment is needed to support this; and what change is needed to ensure the maximum flexibility that will benefit learners and deliver on the promise of a whole system change for lifelong education.
All citizens will be able to access the loan entitlement regardless of prior qualifications, or how they choose to study, including: modular or full qualifications; part-time or full-time; via face-to-face or distance learning.
The Lifetime Loan Entitlement should allow funding to be applied to different modules of learning to enable (i) existing qualifications to be unbundled into smaller units (e.g. 30 to 60 credits) and (ii) microcredentials to be stacked as part of larger units.
A more ambitious reform would be to create a unified credit-based funding system that does not distinguish between different modes of study and provides equal access and support for learners regardless of how they learn or where learning takes place.
Alongside the loan entitlement, Government should consider means-tested maintenance grants to provide support with living costs and encourage adult learners to access higher technical qualifications, particularly those for whom debt will be viewed as a disincentive and a barrier to reskill.
Government should: (i) Build on the existing credit framework and regional consortia approach to design a networked system that can guarantee the autonomy of higher education providers while enabling the transfer and accumulation of credit. (ii) Consider reform of the wider regulatory framework to simplify the jurisdiction between various bodies (HEIs, the Institute, QAA, Ofsted, OfS, etc.) regarding higher technical qualifications, which has the scope for duplication and inconsistency. (iii) Consider Scotland's 'articulation agreements', which provide a good model for clearer routes between FE and HE.
There is, especially in England, a need to bring together and better integrate the various parts of the careers system: (i) A single integrated careers service is required for all citizens at all stages of their working life. This will need to provide high level, specialist advice, available in every locality. (ii) A system should be established to regulate and support the continued professional development of careers advisers. As a minimum, all careers advisers should be registered with the Careers Development Institute and have relevant qualifications at Level 4 or above.
Retain part-time student premium funding and make part-time learning an explicit priority for the teaching grant to incentivise lifelong education and training.
Remove the remaining restrictions on ELQs so that available funding (including loans for fees and maintenance) can support those who want to study for a second higher education qualification in a different discipline.
Government should explore options, including a 'Flexible Skills Levy' and 'Tax Credits' to incentivise employer investment in skills training.
In addition to employers and educational institutions, Mayoral Combined Authorities in England with devolved responsibilities for adult skills should play a central role in the coproduction of local skills plan. Moreover, MCAs should be given genuine power over issues of essentially regional concern. Almost all of the functions currently exercised by the Department for Education could be devolved.
Former universities minister Chris Skidmore said: If there is one policy to deliver 'levelling up', it is adult learning and skills. Acquiring new skills is something we all do throughout our lives. Yet the formal process for acquiring them is incredibly constrained. There are too few opportunities to return to learning for those who have left it. And those willing to retrain or re-skill can barely see the wood for the trees; the pathways are so complex.
The government is embracing adult learning at just the right time. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement, combined with the prospect of modular and course-based learning and the expansion of Level 4 and 5 provision, has the potential to create new journeys into learning for those for whom a graduate route was not the way. But if these reforms are to succeed, it is essential that new partnerships are forged between HE and FE providers.
Grammar and spelling – the next stage of the culture war?
The OfS have published an ominous paper on this.
This review examines the policies on spelling, punctuation and grammar in written assessment at a small number of higher education providers. It features anonymised examples of approaches that maintain rigour in student assessment, and examples of approaches that do not.
The purpose of the review is to highlight to higher education providers which assessment policies are likely to be a cause for regulatory concern, and encourages providers to adjust their policies accordingly.
This supports the position in the recently closed consultation on quality conditions.
New condition B4.2:
…the provider must ensure that: …c. academic regulations are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible; ….
"credible" means that, in the reasonable opinion of the OfS, relevant awards reflect students' knowledge and skills, and for this purpose the OfS may take into account factors which include, but are not limited to: …ii. whether students are assessed effectively and whether assessments are valid and reliable; ….
Guidance re "Credible": …identifying circumstances in which it is likely to be concerned about the credibility of a provider's qualifications:…c. Students are not penalised for poor technical proficiency in written English. For example, for assessments that would reasonably be expected to take the form of written work in English and for which the OfS, employers and taxpayers, would reasonably expect such proficiency, the provider's assessment policy and practices do not penalise poor spelling, punctuation or grammar, such that students are awarded marks that do not reflect a reasonable view of their performance of these skills. ….
Key bits from the report itself:
Because of the importance of these issues, we undertook a short review during summer 2021 to gather evidence and examples of practice from a small number of providers about the extent to which technical proficiency in written English is being assessed. This report summarises our findings and sets out their implications for our ongoing regulation of higher education providers.
We sought voluntary cooperation from a small number of providers, selected to allow us to explore a range of assessment practices. The inclusion of a particular provider in the review was not driven by whether or not it had featured in press reporting about its assessment practices, and this report does not identify the providers that were involved in the review
The common features we have seen in the small number of cases we have considered in this review suggest that the practices and approaches we have set out in the case studies may be widespread across the sector. We are therefore drawing the attention of all registered providers to our findings, because they highlight matters that are likely to raise compliance concerns, now and in the future.
The findings in this report are shared as case studies; we have not conducted a formal regulatory investigation. Any regulatory judgements we make in future would depend on the circumstances of an individual case, and would involve detailed consideration of the impact of a provider's policies on the marks awarded to students.
If we were to consider compliance with our current regulatory requirements for the practices described in the case studies, we would be likely to have regulatory concerns about the following:
Case studies 1 and 2: In these examples, it seems plausible if not likely that some students are not being assessed on their proficiency in written English. This is because learning outcomes do not include this requirement. In these circumstances we would have concerns about whether the provider's courses are well designed and provide a high-quality academic experience. We would also have concerns about whether the qualifications awarded to students are valued by employers or enable further study. We would consider whether such qualifications represent value for money for students and taxpayers.
For Case study 2, we would take a particular interest in the effect of the policies on groups of students whose first language is not English
Case study 3: In this example, we would have similar concerns as for case studies 1 and 2. We would also consider the adequacy and effectiveness of the provider's academic governance arrangements, which have the potential to create inconsistencies in the requirements for students in different subject areas.
We are currently consulting on proposals to clarify and strengthen our regulatory requirements for quality and standards. We will consider all consultation responses carefully before reaching a decision about whether or not we should take forward our proposals, in full or in part. For illustrative purposes, if we were to implement the proposals as set out in the consultation document, the practices we have seen would be likely to raise concerns in relation to proposed conditions B1, B2, B4 and B5
If the policies and approaches identified in this report are leading to students getting higher marks than they otherwise would, for instance because poor proficiency in written English is not being routinely assessed, then this not only undermines the rigour of assessment processes, but also contributes to unexplained grade inflation. 55. We will test this hypothesis for individual providers through our investigatory work.
Local Digital Skills Partnerships
DCMS published the findings of an independent Evaluation of the Local Digital Skills Partnerships which assessed the impact made by six regions operating Local Digital Skills Partnerships (LDSP). LDSPs are designed to build regional capacity to improve digital skills capability at all levels. They bring together and connect partners from the public, private and third sectors to upskill the current workforce, advance digital inclusion, and raise awareness of the importance of digital skills regionally. The evaluation found the LSDP model to be agile and worked effectively. Therefore, DCMS have confirmed they'll consider the key findings, and look to build on this early success and expand the model to other parts of the country.
Academic lockdown time recovery: A Wonkhe blog on the impact of lockdown on academic parents with suggestions on how to help them catch up on missed research and professional time:
Potential solutions here are: using a different form of annual evaluation, reducing the teaching load in future semesters on academic parents who've seen their research completely stalled, providing more teaching assistants or other types of support to reduce the teaching load, temporarily reduce service and administrative burdens, and/or have better parental leave arrangements. One respondent indicated that their university developed a working parent task force, to get input from the working parents and think about solutions together.
Taking a step back, we recommend developing a culture of care, and making our universities places where compassion and solidarity are important values.
Tags: academic quality access and participation Augar review contract cheating digital skills essay mills fees and funding Graduate Outcomes maintenance loans mature students mental health Office for Students OFS
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.
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
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.
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.
Not much more detail on the £20 million for ECRs
Artificial Intelligence intellectual property
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.
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.
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.
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 19th 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).
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 27th 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 27th 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 21st January 2021.
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
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).
Tags: access and participation admissions contract cheating essay mills fees and funding KEF Knowledge exchange framework local skills plans mature students Mental Health and Wellbeing modular learning skills Skills Bill teaching excellence framework TEF value to business
Mothering, studying and isolating: A mature student's experience of studying during the Covid-19 pandemic
BU research, COVID-19, student research, Uncategorized, Women's Academic Network fcoward
Archaeology and mothering, image by Marion Fayolle
A guest post by outgoing BSc Anthropology student Natalie Campbell.
While mature students may make up a minority of the student cohort our numbers are not insignificant. There can be advantages to returning to academia later in life. We may bring significant life and work experiences with us and often the driving forces behind our pursuit of education make for dedicated students. However, while we may not be leaving home for the first time and learning to stand on our own feet, we often have to contend with a weight of responsibility not experienced by your average school leaver. Many mature students have careers, homes and families to support requiring a constant juggling act of time and priorities. To me, this juggling act has never been more apparent than throughout the Covid-19 global pandemic.
I myself am a 3rd year undergraduate student studying BSc Anthropology. I am in my 30's and have three children. As with many undergraduate degrees my final year has been dominated by my dissertation where I explored mothering in prehistory.
The following excerpt is the evaluative supplement of this dissertation where I reflect on the parallels between my research and my experience as a student and mother during lockdown.
I cannot reflect on this paper without first acknowledging the extraordinary circumstances in which it was written. The global pandemic has deeply impacted each and every one of us and encroached into every aspect of our lives for the past year. I cannot fail to see the irony of attempting to complete a dissertation exploring motherhood experiences while I myself, like millions of mothers around the world, was attempting to navigate a new motherhood experience of juggling childcare and home-schooling while working in lockdown. I am not ashamed to admit that during this time I experienced levels of stress I have never known before. However, the experience has taught me valuable lessons both academically and as a mother in patience, prioritising, flexibility, organisation and time management.
Throughout the entire process from researching to writing I was compelled to make considerations and accommodations for my children and other responsibilities. Whether that meant being mother by day and student by night or reading articles with a 4-year-old perched on my knee while watching more TV than is considered healthy. Reflecting on this has given me a deeper insight into how women's lives are impacted by motherhood and how much of the mothering experience is about evaluating the situations put before us and putting considerations for our children at the heart of our response.
It is my hope that this insight was carried through into my research project, and that I was able to successfully demonstrate that mothering cannot be reduced to those large events such as childbirth and weaning, that are often the subject of anthropological and archaeological research. Much of mothering is in the small moments of care and consideration that take place every day, which may seem on the surface as invisible not only today but also in the archaeological record. However, by taking a more holistic approach we may be able to scratch the surface and see small traces of mothering in unexpected places such as the diet of a sick child or the positioning of bodies in graves.
While formulating a methodology for my project I struggled to compile a scientific framework that could present these intangible aspects of mothering in context, without losing the personal human experience aspect of mothering. When I was introduced to the concept of a fictive osteobiographical narrative I recognised its potential to represent scientific data in an accessible way. This was important to me as I was keen not to weigh motherhood down with academia to the extent that the human experience is lost. This is a fine line to tread while researching and writing for academic purposes. While some may consider a fictive narrative beyond the scope of academia, I believe it serves as a necessary reminder that behind the data, hypothesise and science are the real people who lived conscious, messy, complicated lives.
At the very beginning of this project, I was advised to choose an area I was truly interested in, otherwise I would be thoroughly tired of the subject by the end. When I first read the case study of the multiple burial at Monkton-Up-Wimborne I was instantly struck with a sense of empathy, not for any specific suffering or hardships they might have faced in life but as one mother to another recognising the extra mental load that comes when factoring children into every aspect of our lives. I remember remarking that I could barely get my children to school without some level of stress yet alone repeatedly escort them to the Mendips and back on foot! In contemporary Britain such an undertaking would require immense planning and consideration and I felt compelled to know if the same were true of Neolithic Britain.
I was to learn through my research that this line of thinking has the potential to create a bias in how we perceive the movement of women in past sedentary societies, where outdated assumptions that women only moved for marriage have prevailed. More research into the motivations behind female mobility is clearly necessary.
Further areas identified throughout this study for future research involve the visually identifiable impact of mothering on skeletal remains, including physical markers of carrying children and whether the higher levels of stress identified in Neolithic women was purely due to pregnancies or if the exertions of mothering had an impact too.
Finally, while this undertaking has been one of the hardest challenges I have faced, I can honestly say it was worth every moment of stress experienced. I entered this degree with the intention of improving my potential in order to support my family, but along the way I have discovered a passion for research which moving forward I would love to foster and develop.
Tags: Bioarchaeology BU research childcare mature students motherhood
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
The OfS published their May insight brief: Improving opportunity and choice for mature students. It has some interesting insights.
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 2nd 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Tags: Augar review constituency boundaries equality and diversity fees and funding foundation years Graduate Outcomes mature students Office for Students OFS part-time students quality teaching excellence framework TEF widening participation
HE Policy Update for the w/e 23rd July 2020
Business Engagement, EU, humanities, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, NHS, parliament, PG research, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
We've been inundated with words – Ministerial speeches this week, (g)rumblings over social mobility continue, and Parliament showed no signs of slowing down as they hurtled towards recess. Plus lots to look forward to as we look to the next horizon. With that in mind, for BU readers we have issued a horizon scan in our separate occasional series. And for staff outside BU, we have published the summary on the Lighthouse Policy Group blog site.
The Chancellor launched the comprehensive spending review which will conclude in the Autumn. Priorities:
strengthening the UK's economic recovery from COVID-19 by prioritising jobs and skills
levelling up economic opportunity across all nations and regions of the country by investing in infrastructure, innovation and people – thus closing the gap with competitors by spreading opportunity, maximising productivity and improving the value add of each hour worked
improving outcomes in public services, including supporting the NHS and taking steps to cut crime and ensure every young person receives a superb education
making the UK a scientific superpower, including leading in the development of technologies that will support the government's ambition to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050
strengthening the UK's place in the world
improving the management and delivery of our commitments, ensuring that all departments have the appropriate structures and processes in place to deliver their outcomes and commitments on time and within budget
Note that the government response to the Augar report and the conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding is also due with the outcome of the review in the Autumn as confirmed by the Minister last week. This was (last) promised in the Autumn last year with the comprehensive spending review that never happened because of the election…..(seems so long ago!).
So with Augar in mind, perhaps, Boris took to the Telegraph last weekend to announce the Cabinet Office is considering restructuring HE fees. His piece sits behind a pay wall so we include the coverage from Wonkhe and Research Professional below.
Wonkhe: At the weekend, the Prime Minister unexpectedly revealed that variable fees may be back on the agenda. He said in an interview that Number Ten is reviewing the "pricing mechanisms" of university courses, in a move that could see "reductions in the cost of science and engineering degrees, with higher fees for some arts subjects." We learn that Johnson believes that what went wrong was everybody charged the "maximum whack", because no institution felt that they could accept the loss of prestige associated with offering a course that was cheaper. "In reality, it would have been much more sensible if courses had been differently priced. We are certainly looking at all that." If that seems familiar, that's because it sounds eerily similar to an Australian government announcement last month. Could we be heading in the same direction?
Research Professional: It would be easy to lump Johnson's comments in with the recent spate of government attacks on 'low-value courses'. Both education secretary Gavin Williamson and universities minister Michelle Donelan have in recent weeks used language that alluded to their beliefs on varying course quality, and it would appear that Johnson shares their concerns. By financially disincentivising study in the arts and humanities, you risk creating the perception that these broad disciplines (and all the cultural and societal capital they contain) are the sole reserve of the moneyed elite. Education for the poor is all about getting a job; education for the rich is about personal enrichment and development. And getting a job, too, of course—which doesn't seem to have been too much of a problem for Williamson (social sciences degree), Donelan (history and politics) or Johnson (literae humaniores).
Research Professional have full coverage here and here.
The piece also states the Government intends to support FE the same way Governments have supported HE. Does this ring alarm bells for anyone else? Tuition fees for FE? Even if fees started small (as they did with HE) this would be a major change and many would argue a blow for social mobility (even if they are income contingent). Of course this is jumping the gun and what the Government probably actually meant by that statement is providing a good level of funding for the FE sector. However, FE fees must have crossed the Government's mind – apart from anything else, the contrast between apprenticeships (paid for by employers and much grumbled about by government because the levy has not achieved what they wanted) and tuition fees is interesting.
There was lots of commentary following the Telegraph article on Twitter. This one summed it up for Sarah (read the two comments too!) and this one posts excerpts of the article.
Government HE spending in last 10 years.
Interestingly: how much the cost of student finance is forecast to increase in the absence of further policy changes in the next three years.
The annual cost of student finance to 2030 assuming no policy changes; the cost of HE to the public purse for last 20 year by degree subject area; the cost of media studies to the public purse (last 3 years)
HE restructuring regime announced
The Government announced their scheme to support HE institutions in financial difficulties (detail here). They call it a 'restructuring regime' because it is – any institutions needing to access the loan to keep themselves afloat can expect full intervention – chopping courses and curtailing services to only deliver the aspects the Government considers in the public interest (fitting national priorities and any local demonstrated needs). The Government are clear the support isn't for all providers, so if the Government doesn't think the institution can deliver in the national interest it will be allowed to close – Government's intention is not to provide a blanket bail-out to the sector. It is not a guarantee that no organisation will fail (WMS). If that happens the OfS student protection arrangements will come into force – see later in this section for the consultation on those.
An independently-chaired Higher Education Restructuring Regime Board will be established, which will include input from members with specialist knowledge external to Government. The Board will advise the Minister.
It's a repayable loan only offered as last resort measure with specific conditions that align to wider Government objectives: The scheme aims to support the important role universities play in their local economies, and preserve the country's science base.
If eligible, providers will need to comply with conditions ({harsh ones, see below) to focus the sector towards the future needs of the country, such delivering high quality courses with good graduate outcomes. As a condition for taking part in the scheme, universities will be required to make changes that meet wider Government objectives, depending on the individual provider's circumstances. This could include ensuring they deliver high quality courses with strong graduate outcomes, improving their offer of qualifications available, and focusing resources on the front line by reducing administrative costs, including vice-chancellor pay.
Conditions would be determined on a case-by-case basis, but there are some baselines:
Clear economic and value for money case for intervention
The need for support is because of C-19 (ie not underlying and longer-term financial weakness) and there must be a clear and sustainable model following the restructure (i.e. once the Government has provided the loan the provider won't fail anyway).
Providers will only be supported if their collapse would cause significant harm to the national or local economy/society (examples given are the loss of high-quality research or teaching provision, a disruption to COVID-19 research or healthcare provision or overall disruption to policy objectives including a significant impact on outcomes for students).
Providers must comply with their legal duties to secure freedom of speech. (How can this be demonstrated? And have the DfE just zipped through the last 5 University Minister's pronouncements and added their pet projects in? Probably not or accommodation costs might have appeared (Skidmore). And they haven't gone as far as printing costs Gyimah –although nearly, see below). So no, this is probably purely political.
The provider must continue to meet the OfS' regulatory requirements.
In exploring whether the Government will provide support the institution must cooperate with independent business review advisers.
The business review will address a number of things, and this is where the direction of travel really becomes clear:
Provision – removing any duplication of provision, cutting out the dead wood and refocusing the offer on high-quality courses with strong student outcomes, low drop-out rates and high proportions of graduates achieving the high-skilled employment measure which ALSO develop skills aligned to local and national economic and social employment needs.
Revising the level of provision – could any of the provision be more effectively delivered at Level 4 or 5 or through a local FE college?
Governance – strengthening governance and leadership
Efficiency – reviewing admin costs to identify cost savings and efficiencies to achieve future sustainability (senior pay, professional services, selling or repurposing assets to repay loans, fund restructuring, closing down unviable campuses or provision, considering mergers and options for consolidation and service sharing including with FE). The growth of administrative activities that do not demonstrably add value must be tackled head on.
Ensuring student protection – current students to complete the course on which they enrolled or an equivalent course by remaining at the same or transferring to a different provider.
Some other choice snippets:
The funding of student unions should be proportionate and focused on serving the needs of the wider student population rather than subsidising niche activism and campaigns. (On this RP say: Is the government really suggesting that representation of students is overfunded? And are universities expected to interfere further in what student unions get up to?)
And this is telling:
We would encourage any provider looking to restructure outside the regime also to bear in mind the statement of policy direction set out in this document, to align with our overall strategic direction for HE in England.
Public funding for courses that do not deliver for students will be reassessed.
It is probable that the sector in 2030 will not look the same as it does now
The DfE have done a fantastic job of setting out all the Government's priorities. This is not just about the restructuring regime, as it says very clearly, this is about government's priorities for HE going forwards.
Research Professional point out that: Access and widening participation get no mention. And on post-graduation employment that doesn't reach the 'graduate' level threshold they ask – what if the benefits of taking a [degree] course are mainly about gaining better opportunities than are available without it?
SoS Gavin Williamson stated: We need our universities to achieve great value for money – delivering the skills and a workforce that will drive our economy and nation to thrive in the years ahead. My priority is student welfare, not vice-chancellor salaries.
These latest rescue measures are not available to independent HE providers who do not already receive public funding. Alex Proudfoot, Chief Executive of Independent Higher Education, said:
The coronavirus pandemic has generated huge disruption and uncertainty in all walks of life, and higher education is no exception. We welcome the Government's recognition that some providers may run into difficulties through no fault of their own…Independent higher education providers do not expect a bailout, but they do expect their Government to take ownership of the nationwide lockdown it ordered, and to recognise the impact this decision had in the form of significant lost revenues from the cancellation of intakes and the crucial summer short course market. Businesses in the hospitality and tourism sectors were rightly helped to make up some of the income lost from closures. No less of a helping hand should be extended to education businesses – SMEs, for the most part – for whom the lockdown directly caused cancellations which have hit their bottom line. They urgently need the same consideration of a Business Rates Holiday and targeted grants to sustain them past this difficult period, and allow them to play their part in the essential task of retraining the many thousands of workers displaced by this crisis.
It would be a difficult task for the Government to extend a similar 'restructuring regime' bailout to the independent sector (not least because the DfE don't have their heads around these type of providers yet) but Alex makes a key point in highlighting the lack of arrangement for this sector. This Government is keen for the independent providers to be a success (and suitable competition to drive up standards in regular HE), these private providers are also a crucial part of the bridge between industry and education in the Government's technical and vocation pathways agendas. Yet these providers may go under before the FE reforms are enacted.
RP comment:
The terms of the bailout for universities facing financial difficulties are such that no vice-chancellor could ever accept them—a merger would be a preferable option to being run by the board of the Restructuring Regime.
The consequence will be that in order to avoid straying into financial hot water, university managers will be much more hawkish than they might otherwise have been over cost-cutting. That means more job losses than might have been the case. Intentionally or not, the government has fired the starting pistol on a kind of anti-furlough scheme for university staff.
Not only will universities be reducing capacity at a time when they should be gearing up for the unprecedented investment promised by the R&D roadmap, but an exit from the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic depends largely on the success of university research teams like those working on vaccines…
The promising results coming out of these labs are not the product of lone geniuses but the outcome of a research ecosystem, which includes cross-border collaboration, and an institutional pyramid, which involves teaching and research in subjects other than the life sciences.
Those who are calling the shots in government education policy—this does not necessarily include Williamson and Donelan—are listening to voices telling them that the cure to the UK's productivity problems is higher technical skills. However, the UK does not have an economy with extensive opportunities in advanced manufacturing—80 per cent of GDP is generated by services, which require graduates with broad and flexible skills.
Rather than producing graduates for the UK economy as it is, the education system is being pushed into training people for an economy that does not exist. Williamson wants a German-style further education system, but he does not have at his disposal the several centuries it took to build up the German guild system and the Marshall Plan that built up the German manufacturing base—or the euro, which sustains it.
OfS: consultation on new powers to intervene
Alongside this the OfS announced a consultation on a new targeted condition of registration allowing the OfS to intervene more quickly where providers are at material risk of closure and therefore there is increased risk to students' studies. It is intended the new powers continue post pandemic: The implementation of proposals set out today would help ensure the protection of students on an ongoing basis, both during and after the pandemic.
OfS are proposing that providers comply with specific directions to take action to protect students such as:
continuing to teach existing students before closing
making arrangements to transfer students to appropriate courses at other universities and colleges
awarding credit for partially completed courses and awarding qualifications where courses have been completed
offering impartial information, advice and guidance to students on their options and next steps
enabling students to make complaints and apply for refunds or compensation where appropriate
archiving records so that students can access evidence of their academic attainment in the future.
Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive OfS, said:
Our regulatory approach has extended the protection available to students if their course, campus or provider closes. We had intended to consult on measures to strengthen our ability to protect students, including from the consequences of provider closure. But with financial risk heightened during the pandemic, it has become clear that we need to prioritise some elements of those plans. Nobody wants a university or college to run into financial trouble, but where this happens, it is vital that students are able to complete their studies with as little disruption as possible and receive proper credit for their achievements.
This proposed condition would ensure that we are able to act swiftly and decisively where there is a material risk of closure. We have been clear that, as a regulator, we wish to reduce unnecessary burden on higher education providers. For the vast majority of universities and colleges that are in a sound financial position, these changes will not have any effect.
This is a carefully targeted and proactive measure to protect students, particularly during these uniquely challenging times. Where universities and colleges are at material risk of closure, we will ensure that our focus is on the needs of students.
Meanwhile over in FE…
The Government (DfE) has set out proposals to strengthen relationships with colleges and promote better planning within FE provision. The Dame Mary Ney review on the financial oversight of colleges concluded 9 months ago and has now been published by the Government along with their response. It proposes:
Strengthened alignment between the Further Education Commissioner and Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)
A regular strategic dialogue led by the ESFA and Further Education Commissioner's team with all college boards around priorities, starting from September 2020
New whistle-blowing requirements for colleges, including publication of policies on college websites
A review of governance guidance to strengthen transparency
A new College Collaboration Fund round
More changes are expected to be announced when the Government publish their FE White Paper (due Autumn).
Some key excerpts from the written ministerial statement:
Survey – Despite the Government's intentions to invest in FE the Association of Colleges' summer 2020 survey has revealed that colleges are providing hardship support exceeding the costs of what they have available, laptops and connectivity resource doesn't cover enough of the disadvantaged learners and redundancies are imminent. The report states:
46% of colleges are planning to make redundancies by the end of the autumn term 2020.
21% will have made redundancies by September 2020.
88% of colleges have evidence of increased student hardship.
90% of colleges report that their bursary / hardship funds are under more pressure as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
56% of colleges reported that their existing and additional bursary funding from DfE has not enabled them to purchase laptops and/or connectivity (dongles) to support all their disadvantaged learners.
78% of colleges would need additional resources to support the provision of free college meal vouchers to current eligible students over the summer holiday period.
The level of additional resource needed to meet these hardship needs ranged from £20,000 to £2,000,000 with an average of £300,000 per college.
And on transport:
Four out of five colleges anticipate major transport difficulties around September re-opening.
Comments from FE sector on student hardship:
Support from government is not on a level playing field with schools.
We are providing meal vouchers over the summer, but we can't really afford to do this.
Digital poverty is a major concern and pressure.
Access to a laptop without broadband is of limited use.
Laptop bursaries are wholly insufficient to meet demand.
Free transport would make a huge difference to learners. Removal of the oyster for travel will increase pressure on young people.
Bursary allocation has been reduced for next year.
FE Vision – The Independent Commission on the College of the Future has published People, productivity and place: a new vision for colleges – a vision for the college of the future, accompanied by a collection of short essays and case studies about the civic role of colleges.
Here is more coverage on what was said at last week's Education Committee hearing with Minister Michelle Donelan. We covered this last week but the transcript wasn't out. You can read it in full here.
Another ministerial speech
We've had quite a number of speeches on HE recently – Boris, Gavin, Michelle and Shadow Minister Emma Hardy have all spoken multiple times over the last few weeks. The Minister spoke again this week as part of the Festival of HE (even though it finished over a week ago). Research Professional (RP) cover the speech which reiterated the same themes as her previous speeches and appearance in front of the Education Committee:
Much of her address centred on what we may now be able to call the minister's hobbyhorse: differentiating between what she terms "true", "genuine" social mobility and the old social mobility…
She stated: I want to continue to make clear the passionate importance I place on achieving genuine social mobility…true social mobility is when we put students and their needs and career ambitions first—be that in higher education, further education or apprenticeships.
RP continue: To be fair to Donelan, it is too simplistic to say that simply attending university will be beneficial for everyone. There are good arguments to be made about how we measure social mobility…
Donelan: True social mobility is not getting them to the door, it's getting them to the finish line of a high-quality course that will lead them to a graduate job.
The focus away from access only and onto student support, achievement and careers and post-graduation support is all within the current Access and Participation Plans. The big access-only push hasn't existed since the demise of Aim Higher (and even then Aim Higher did so much more). So the Minister is really only bringing a focus to the aims the work is already pushing for – although likely (to use the words of a former access Tsar) the Government will want further, faster, progress. And this is the sticking point for most HE institutions – fast progress is not easy to come by.
RP state:
Donelan's example raises many questions and legitimate problems. What it does not do is offer any evidence that slowing the expansion of higher education will address those issues. Surely it would be better, for example, to look at why progression rates are lower among some groups of students, rather than concluding simply that university is not for them. Although the Government may argue that this is what the sector has been doing – to little avail.
It also seems fair to ask why those with the same qualification but a different colour of skin are not being hired into top roles (although that is also a fair question to ask of universities specifically). It seems unlikely that the sole cause of this career discrepancy is their attendance at a university—and even less likely that their progress would have been more in line with that of white graduates had they opted not to attend university at all.
It would be wrong to paint the minister's speech as another lecture on social mobility—that was only one part of the address. However, until Donelan addresses the issue of whether the demographic make-up of university attendees "matters" or not following her comments last week, it may be the issue that comes to define her tenure.
RP also have this article on the other aspects of Donelan's speech in which the Minister called for more modular courses for adult learners lamenting the continued norm for three year degrees.
Donelan said she was "determined" the government would "support our universities to become more flexible" and deliver more modular courses, as "now is the time to innovate"…. modular courses are "tremendously desirable to adult learners looking to upskill, and it is likely to be more important than ever as the economy recovers from coronavirus".
"If Covid has taught us one thing in reference to the higher education sector, it is how flexible it is – let's utilise this flexibility. Now is the time to build on the recent innovation we have seen.
The Minister feels shorter courses are particularly important for portfolio careers.
The minister also stressed she wanted to see "more emphasis on part-time learning that links with labour market needs and skills gaps", more degree apprenticeships, and more higher technical education at Levels 4 and 5. She also spoke favourably about two-year degrees.
"I…want the sector to think more about how it delivers learning differently," she said. "Sadly, the three-year bachelor's degree has increasingly become the predominant mode of study. But that doesn't suit all students. Many young people would like to earn while they learn."
Donelan also stated she wanted to see the practice of making conditional unconditional offers "end for good". "I don't want to see students making decisions that are not in their best interests. Quite frankly, there is no justification for such practices. Once again Donelan shows herself out of touch with those students for whom unconditional offers were originally designed. But maybe she doesn't mean them.
The Guardian have a good article taking issue with the Government's new stance whereby they want less pupils progressing to university and have glossed over the disadvantaged groups access. The article challenges the Government:
"We need to create and support opportunities for those who don't want to go to university, not write them off," says the education secretary. On this point, he's right. But let's be clear: it is the Conservative government who wrote off non-academic pupils as if they were bad cheques. Successive Tory education secretaries have made it harder to pass GCSEs, chopped vocational qualifications from the school curriculum, slashed FE funding by eye-watering amounts, and complicated the apprenticeship system so badly that only half as many young people now starting an apprenticeship as in 2017.
If Williamson wants us to believe that further and technical education can genuinely have parity in the future and this whole narrative isn't just a way of pulling up the drawbridge on university access, here are a few things he could do.
First, if there are going to be fewer undergraduate places, in order to preserve social mobility a large portion should be reserved for those from low-income families or areas. Second, if apprenticeships are for everyone, not just "other people's kids", then why not set another target? Make it so that every school is expected to send, say, 25% of young people on to apprenticeships. No exceptions for grammar schools. No exceptions for schools in leafy areas.
Finally, make student maintenance loans (the ones used for living on) available to those on vocational routes. A big draw of university life is the ability to live independently, using the loan and topping it up with part-time work. Apprentice wages are often too low to live on, and long hours make top-up work difficult. Fund vocational routes fairly and the calculation becomes very different.
Do this, and Williamson's announcement suddenly looks like a genuine revolution. Until then, I fear it's just another way of cutting back and preventing people like me from going into higher education. Unimaginable? Not any more.
And the shadow minister speaks too
Shadow HE Minister Emma Hardy spoke at the Convention for HE (RP cover it here – see second half of article) and today in Conversation with HEPI.
RP report she commented on the Government's social mobility stance:
More incisive were Hardy's words on the issue of the week: does the background of the people who enter university matter, or is it getting in the way of "true social mobility"? In short, the shadow minister's answer was: Yes, it matters.
"The government's response to the looming university financial crisis has been to launch an attack on the sector, accusing it of offering 'low-value degrees'," she said, "astonishingly implying that if you don't come from a family where your parents have gone to university, you could be tricked into attending university.
"To enable real choice for everyone, the government should be focused on identifying the barriers to learning and breaking them down, not establishing more.
"We cannot ever see a situation again where education is viewed as a privilege for the few and not a right for all… No country's economy has grown on the back of reducing access to higher education. It matters which groups in society get access to university."
On the Government's rescue HE restructure package RP report that Emma stated:
Labour cannot countenance the loss of a single university," she said. "At a time when the country is facing the possibility of the deepest recession in its history—when unemployment is set to soar and when retraining and reskilling will be more needed than ever—the government's position is beyond rational comprehension."
Emma Hardy's focussed speech during this week's Conversation with HEPI was interesting. Labour's approach to HE agrees with several of the Government's themes, however, the devil really is in the detail, and there was a world of difference in tone. She is a big fan of FE and HE working together seamlessly to deliver for their local communities. Of course, the Government have been pushing HE to support and work with the full range of local institutions from primary up for years. Labour's approach is 'work with to deliver' not the 'done to' sharing of expertise that Theresa May originally envisaged.
A passion for degree apprenticeships and level 4 & 5 qualifications, however, Emma took issue with the Government's universal aim for all HE institutions to offer them stating offering degree apprenticeships is dependent on the local area – and this relies on the local infrastructure and Government investment to achieve that infrastructure in the area. She stated that the Government's new found love of this sector is ringing hollow.
Post qualification admissions – the sector shouldn't block a change in approach and it shouldn't be dropped because it is just so difficulty to do. Instead Emma favoured a cross-sector collaborative approach dealing with the difficult elements in turn, gradually adjusting each aspect from FE to HE to produce a new system that works across the board.
Emma wasn't opposed to student number caps (as a temporary solution) in principle, however she disagreed with the Government's method and stated they haven't got rid of the competition as intended. Looking to the future she wouldn't rule out a form of student number limitation, however, she said she was new to the sector and hadn't formulated her firm position on the matter yet.
Key differences were Labour's approach to social mobility which opposes the reduction in courses and allowing universities to fail (although their position on private providers wasn't stated). Labour believes genuine choice is needed particularly across disadvantaged groups whose personal life circumstances (such as caring responsibilities) and the limitations of the geographic area they live within may already limit available choices. Emma stated that no university should be allowed to fail – failure impacts on choice, aspiration and the local economy…potentially creating cold spots. Unsurprisingly Emma supported the civic university model.
While overall Emma was against differential fees and intervention to cut courses she did allow that some courses did need looking at. She also stated the sector shouldn't leave itself vulnerable to lazy attacks [from the Government and media].
Emma was firmly behind the new 5 year targets in the Access and Participation Plans stating they could be revolutionary, changing the make up of universities, changing the system.
She also disagreed with the Government's focus on graduate employment stating the rise in child poverty and early services cuts will undermine social mobility and that it is unfair of the Government to have removed such services and then blame the HE sector for not churning out socially climbing graduates.
The OfS have updated their series of reports on unconditional offer making.
As we know, they, and the government, believe that unconditional offers are unconditionally bad, except where they are used to admit students based on a portfolio or similar. That much is very clear after the chaos of the moratorium/proposed retrospective ban/final new licence condition that we have worked through over the last few months. You can read more about the licence condition in our update from 9th July in case you missed it.
Their press release makes it fairly clear;
The Office for Students (OfS) has today reiterated that unconditional offers risk pushing students into decisions that are not in their best interests, as updated analysis shows that young people who accepted unconditional offers before sitting their A-level exams are less likely to continue into their second year of study.
The analysis finds that, even after controlling for a range of characteristics associated with dropout rates, A-level entrants who accepted an unconditional offer in 2017-18 had a continuation rate between 0.4 and 1.1 percentage points lower than would have been expected had they taken up a conditional offer instead. This translates to between 70 and 175 of the 15,725 A-level entrants placed through unconditional offers that year.
UCAS analysis published in December 2019 found that applicants holding an unconditional offer in the 2019 cycle were, on average, 11.5 percentage points more likely to miss their predicted A-level grades by three or more grades. Today's analysis by the OfS suggests that this lower A-level attainment then results in higher dropout rates in higher education.
The OfS has also previously highlighted that 'conditional unconditional' offers – now banned until September 2021 because of concerns around unfair admissions practices during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic – distort student choice and could be seen as akin to 'pressure selling'.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the OfS, said today:
'It is becoming increasingly clear that unconditional offers can have a negative impact on students. Unconditional offers can lead to students under-achieving compared to their predicted A-level grades, choosing a university and course that may be sub-optimal for them, and ultimately being at increased risk of dropping out entirely.
'Dropout rates are overall low in England, so this is a small effect. But we remain concerned that unconditional offers – particularly those with conditions attached – can pressure students into making decisions that may not be in their best interests, and reduce their choices. It is particularly important that we allow students the space to make informed decisions at this time of increased uncertainty, which is why we have temporarily banned 'conditional unconditional' offers during the pandemic.
'It is in everyone's interests for students to achieve their full potential at school, enrol on a higher education course that best fits their needs, interests and aspirations, and succeed on that course.'
Their analysis says (excerpts):
The number of unconditional offers being made has continued to grow. In 2019, four in 10 applicants had at least one offer with an unconditional component and over a quarter received at least one 'conditional unconditional' offer. Meanwhile, the proportion of students receiving at least one 'direct unconditional' offer rose modestly (0.5 percentage points since 2018) and the proportion receiving 'other unconditional' offers fell slightly (0.2 percentage points since 2018).
As previously reported, there is little evidence that applicants placed through an unconditional offer are either more or less likely to enrol the following autumn. Regardless of whether they hold an unconditional offer, around three per cent of applicants placed through UCAS are not identified as starting higher education in the same year, or at the intended higher education provider. Applicants that have come through 'other UCAS routes' are roughly equally likely to be identified as starting higher education as those placed through conditional or unconditional offers.
For entrants in 2015-16, 2016-17, and now 2017-18, a lower proportion (more than 1 percentage point) of those entering with unconditional offers continued with their studies after the first year, compared with those who enter with conditional offers.
By contrast, the model estimates that 2017-18 BTEC entrants with unconditional offers were between 0.3 and 2.6 percentage points more likely to continue with their studies, relative to being placed through a conditional offer. The model estimates that between 15 and 135 additional BTEC entrants in that year continued with their studies having been placed through an unconditional offer, instead of a conditional offer. This is out of 5,115 BTEC entrants placed through unconditional offers in our 2017-18 modelling population.
In addition, when looking at the different types of unconditional offer, A-level entrants in 2017-18 who were placed through 'conditional unconditional' or 'direct unconditional' offers are shown to be less likely to continue with their studies, relative to those placed through a conditional offer, after controlling for the same factors as above. 'Direct unconditional' offers are found to have the largest negative relationship with continuation rates (between -0.9 and -2.4 percentage points), compared to 'conditional unconditional' offers (between -0.1 and -1.0 percentage points). We find no statistically significant difference between the continuation rates of A-level entrants placed through 'other unconditional' offers and those placed through conditional offers.
In our modelling of continuation rates, we control for predicted entry qualifications, instead of achieved qualifications, so that the model estimates include the impact of unconditional offers on Level 3 attainment reported by UCAS. Annex D contains results from an alternative model which controls for achieved entry qualifications instead (see Model II). This model finds no statistically significant association between unconditional offers and continuation for A-level entrants in all entrant years available. This would be consistent with what would be found if poorer performance at A-level, relative to predicted grades for those placed through unconditional offers, were driving the lower continuation rates of these entrants
The National Student Survey outcomes were published (interactive charts are here). Last week we highlighted the OfS analysis which suggested C-19 didn't have a real terms impact on the responses given to the survey. This week OfS have published summaries of the data from the national position (the charts can be viewed here).
And as reported last week on the negative side students continued to report comparatively lower rates of satisfaction with how their courses are organised and how effectively changes are communicated by their university or college.
Research Professional report on the NSS. And Wonkhe have a blog examining which factors that improve teaching practice may improve positive outcomes within the NSS. The blog is keen on consistency.
The APPG for students has published Reforming Student Finance: Perspectives from Student Representatives.
Student finance and cost of living
Students generally felt that current levels of maintenance support are inadequate.
Support should be increased and non-repayable means-tested maintenance grants should be reintroduced
The system should better recognise the diversity of students and their particular needs
Tailored support should be offered to certain students through better means testing
Accommodation was identified as the main cost, with prices having increased significantly over the last decade – in many cases exceeding the maintenance loan available
The relative reduction in maintenance funding was a concern as household income thresholds had not risen with inflation
Other issues which were raised included travel costs, childcare costs, and that the current London weighting does not address the different costs of living all around the UK
Consideration could be given to moving to monthly payments, instead of the current termly instalments
Many students respond to the shortfall in money they faced, if they do not have savings or money from their family to plug the gap, by taking up significant amounts of part-time work and taking out commercial loans leading to serious effects on student wellbeing and mental health.
Attainment can also be affected both by the financial stress and through the impact of taking on too much part-time work on their ability to study.
The increase in drop-out rates over the last five years must be seen as a consequence of the above.
Student representatives were clear that the current funding system reproduces existing social injustices, as these issues predominantly affect those from poorer or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds.
Information, advice and guidance
Student representatives generally felt that there was not adequate information, either nationally or through institutions, about various costs of being a student. The 'hidden costs' of studying were a particular concern, e.g. textbooks and graduation – students felt they had not been made aware of these enough. Furthermore, the lack of information around funding, particularly for postgraduate students, was a real issue.
Student representatives were also angry about the way that UCAS advertised commercial loans.
Differences between funding agencies across the UK
The timing of students receiving payments was raised as a major issue of difference
The four funding agencies also differ in their treatment of estranged students
All agencies require and allow different levels of input from staff
Other issues identified
Students felt there needs to be better support for distance learning.
Changes were proposed to 'lifelong learning' to allow students to undertake further study later in life .
Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare students – a shortage of funding for these courses was identified; students on these courses were much less able to take on part-time work alongside their studies to support themselves.
The lack of support for childcare was a key concern, as well as a lack of information or support for placements
Loans – Quick repayment facility
Meanwhile Martin Lewis has attacked the Student Loans Company new website. He isn't a fan and has called the new repayment tool irresponsible and dangerous, stating it gives UK graduates a damaging and demoralising picture of their debts by exaggerating their outstanding loans. He is campaigning against the quick repayment facility on the website and tries to remind the public that they are only required to repay 9% of their earning above the threshold. He stated that unless huge overpayments were made well above the 9% it makes very little difference to the overall debt, except for the reduction in income that the individual will feel (flushing money away unnecessarily). The BBC report that Lewis intends to write to Michelle Donelan to request the quick repayment facility be removed immediately. Given that it may increase the monies returning to the public coffers and Donelan's track record of toeing the party line his campaign may fall on deaf ears – or only result in a reminder that they don't have to make overpayments near the facility on the website.
Research Professional cover the argument, including the SLC's response to Lewis.
Opportunity areas expansion
Donelan announced the expansion of the Opportunity Areas programme (additional £18 million) which will twin the 12 Opportunity areas with places facing similar challenges to help unleash the potential among young people in other parts of the country. It is the fourth year of funding for the Opportunity Areas programme and this year will focus on tackling the exacerbation caused by C-19. Catch up schooling, teacher recruitment and training, and early speech and language development are priorities to help narrow the attainment gap within the Opportunity areas. The article details some of the approaches currently in place to help these areas 'level up'. Approaches include: improving the quality of careers advice, work experience, digital and other skills for employment, holiday clubs, support for excluded pupils, and opportunities to develop confidence, leadership and resilience.
Devolved news: Wales
Welsh Universities and Colleges will benefit from the announcement of a £50m support package to help them cope with the impact of the coronavirus crisis (£27m for HE; £23m FE). The support is part of the Welsh Government's actions to support students and Wales' major education institutions and provide the skills and learning in response to the economic impact of the coronavirus.
The HE Recovery Fund will support universities to maintain jobs in teaching, research and student services, invest in projects to support the wider economic recovery, and support students suffering from financial hardship.
The FE funds will increase teaching support following students' time away from education due to C-19 virus and help new students with their transition to post-16 learning. Up to £5 million will be provided to support vocational learners to return to college to help them achieve their licence-to-practice qualifications, without needing to re-sit the full year.
An extra £3.2 million will be used to provide digital equipment such as laptops for FE students. £100,000 will also be provided to support regional mental health and wellbeing projects and professional development in Local Authority Community Learning.
Civic engagement rankings
King's College London, the University of Chicago and the University of Melbourne have published Advancing University Engagement: University engagement and global league tables stating that universities need to better demonstrate their value to society. Universities around the world are making a positive impact through engagement but, unlike teaching and research, this is rarely recognised or celebrated. The report calls for societal impact to be recognised in university rankings and proposes a new framework to measure and rank this impact, or 'engagement' to be incorporated into global university league tables. The authors suggest this would encourage universities to ensure more of their activities benefit local communities and wider society, while better showcasing the existing benefits they produce.
Richard Brabner, Director UPP Foundation (which established the Civic University Commission), said:
… it would be much better if existing and new rankings included the value universities bring to society so that they provide a more comprehensive picture of our sector. The report provides an important contribution to this debate and includes a sensible range of indicators. I particularly welcome the report's focus on embedding civic engagement within the curriculum. This is vital to fostering a student's long-term commitment to service, as well as developing the skills and attributes to thrive in the outside world.
I would however caution any perception that a global ranking can define whether a university is civic or not. A truly civic university focuses on the needs of its community and region. It is important these local factors drive the activities of a civic university, not the benchmarks or indicators in a ranking.
Public Attitudes to Science
BEIS published the 2019 edition of Public attitudes to science which looks at the UK public's attitudes to science, scientists and science policy. The survey shows that public opinion places scientists and engineers as the trustworthy professionals, that the public is supportive of spending on 'blue skies' research, and that UK adults are becoming more familiar with, and more adaptable to, an ever-accelerating pace of technological change. It also looks in depth on attitudes towards an ageing society, AI and robotics including their use in healthcare, genome editing within food security, and micro pollution and plastics. It finds the public continues to have an appetite for information about science and mainly use television, online news platforms and Facebook to stay informed. However, they're unsure if they can trust media reporting of science issues – with online sources particularly mistrusted.
Of the range of scientific applications asked about, vaccination and renewable energy attracted near universal public support, while driverless cars, GM crops, nuclear power, and the use of animals in research were the most contentious. However, on balance, more people felt that the benefits outweighed risks in almost all technology areas asked about. The one clear exception was driverless cars, where more people felt the risks outweighed the benefits: only 23% agreed that driverless car technology will be safer than human drivers. It is notable that support for vaccination remained very strong (only 4% felt that the risks outweigh the benefits) despite prevailing media attention around the 'anti-vaccination' movement.
On the ageing society:
The large majority (84%) would prefer to live only for as long as they can ensure good quality of life
Two thirds (64%) of people had heard about life extension technologies to slow the ageing process, and 31% would choose this if available. However, people were more negative (62%) than positive (31%) about the impact this would have on society, with people concerned about burden on the NHS and increased taxes for working people.
When asked about different enhancement technologies to assist older people in later life, the public was largely in favour of cognitive enhancing drugs (80%) and to a lesser extent robotic clothing to improve mobility (59%). However, there was much less support for more medically invasive technologies such as brain chip implants to improve intelligence and cognition (24%).
54% had heard about the idea of robot caregivers to help older people and around half (45%) said that they would use one, either for themselves in later life or for a relative. People felt more comfortable with the idea of a robot helping with household tasks (61%) or healthcare (57%) than providing companionship (29%). Eight in ten (80%) thought that robot caregivers would lead to older people having less human contact.
On AI and robotics:
Nine in ten people (90%) had heard about the idea that AI and robots could begin to take over many human jobs, beyond the more routine jobs. Most working people recognised that aspects of their job could be automated in the future: 51% thought that their job could be at least partially automated within the next 5 years, rising to 69% within a 20-year timeframe. Overall, 49% considered this to be a 'good thing' for society and 45% 'a bad thing'
A large majority felt comfortable about AI and robots being used to support a human doctor to make a diagnosis or recommend treatment (80%), or in surgery (71%). The opposite was found in relation to technology replacing human doctors, where a clear majority felt uncomfortable in both contexts (respectively 81% and 75% felt uncomfortable about technology replacing doctors in diagnosis and surgery). While 58% believed AI and robots used in healthcare will accelerate progress in medicine, only 37% thought that it could surpass the accuracy of human doctors. The chief concern was related to loss of contact.
For the purposes of developing healthcare-related AI, the large majority were willing to share their personal health data with the NHS (90%). People were somewhat less willing to share their data with research organisations (73%) and the government (61%), and much less willing to share their data with private companies (35%). This echoed earlier findings that the public is uncomfortable with the role of the private sector in scientific development.
There was widespread disapproval of the use of data to target online adverts and for political campaigning
EU Budgets – The EU R&D budgets have come back well below the level expected. Research Professional report:
Heads of EU member states agreed their stance on a 2021-27 budget of €1,074bn (£970bn) for the bloc in the early hours of this morning, along with a €750bn Covid-19 recovery fund for 2021-23, after four days of tense negotiations.
The budget would devote €75.9bn to the Horizon Europe R&D programme, topped up with €5bn from the fund. The Erasmus+ mobility programme would get €21.2bn, all from the budget. These totals are much less than the European Parliament and research and education institutions wanted, so all eyes are now on the Parliament to see whether it will veto the deal.
This RP article has more detail and the responses from the European research alliances and guilds.
UUK, GuildHE, the Russell Group and European bodies have signed this joint statement aiming to reach agreement by addressing the sticking points on UK participation in Horizon Europe. It addresses:
Demonstrating UK commitment to the programme
Ensuring a fair financial contribution through a 'two-way' correction mechanism
Accepting EU oversight of the use of programme funds
Agreeing to introduce reciprocal mobility arrangements to support the programme
Clarifying that the results of research can be exploited beyond the EU
The statement argues that, with enough will on both sides, it should be possible to reach an agreement before the Horizon Europe programme is due to begin in January whilst acknowledging that time is rapidly running out.
UKRI – UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) published their (146 page) Annual Report and Accounts (2019-20). The report recognises the stated significant milestones and achievements as the work supporting the research and innovation community during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the delivery of significant
PhD to Academia – a challenging transition – HEPI published PhD students and their careers examining the professional ambitions of PhD students. Key findings:
Most PhD students (88%) believe their doctorate will positively impact their career prospects.
PhD students are equally more (33%) and less (32%) likely to pursue a research career now than before they started their PhD, with the majority choosing academic research (67%) or research within industry (64%) as a probable career path.
PhD students feel well trained in analytical (83%), data (82%) and technical (71%) skills, along with presenting to specialist audiences (81%) and writing for peer-reviewed journals (64%).
They are less confident of their training in managing people (26%), finding career satisfaction (26%), applying for funding (22%) and managing budgets (11%).
When considering future careers, PhD students are more likely to attend career workshops (76%) and networking events (60%) or to do their own research (64%) than to discuss options with an institutional careers consultant (13%).
The report incorporates qualitative research that captures the voices of PhD students:
'I don't feel qualified or prepared to enter a career outside of research.'
'The requirement to move around in pursuit of short term postdocs is terrible for social and family life'.
'The academic culture will be detrimental to my mental health.'
Post report the media picked up on the above stated difficulties of moving into an academic career for an early career researcher.
Research parliamentary questions covered:
Tackling diversity in UKRI funded PhD studentships
Encouraging former postdoctoral researchers to return to the profession
Expanding the R&D tax credit to include data and cloud computing costs
No details on the Office for Talent yet
Financial support for charity research sector
And an oral question:
Q – Daniel Zeichner (Lab) (Cambridge): What steps he is taking to secure the future of UK research and development.
A – Amanda Solloway (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy): The Government are now implementing their ambitious R&D roadmap, published earlier this month, reaffirming our commitment to increasing public R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024-25 and ensuring the UK is the best place for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs to live and work.
Q – Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate the recent announcements, but can the Minister reassure us that all universities will be able to access those loans, with freedom to invest in line with local priorities? Will she take a look at the proposals from the new Whittle laboratory in Cambridge, which needs to match the already secure £23.5 million in private sector funding to develop the first long-haul zero-carbon passenger aircraft?
A – Amanda Solloway: I give my assurance that one of the things we are addressing in the roadmap is ensuring that we become a science superpower. Within that, we are levelling up across the whole of the country. I am committed to making the workplace diverse and ensuring that we have a culture that embraces that throughout the whole of country. We will ensure that UK scientists are appreciated and rewarded.
And another oral question:
Mr Sheerman:…The Minister has a business background, so does she not realise that if she could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow Mrs Thatcher's example and introduce a windfall profit tax on people who have made a lot of money—the gambling industry and companies such as Amazon—that could be ploughed into research and development? Universities will go through a tough time in the coming months and years, so let us put real resources into research and development as never before.
Amanda Solloway:…The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a taskforce that has been looking into how to support universities. It has enabled us to set up a stability fund, which will enable R&D to continue in our institutions. In addition, in the roadmap, which contains the place strategy, we are talking about lots of levelling up. We are making sure we have the opportunity to take this forward and become the science superpower that we all want to be.
Advance HE have published Three months to make a difference a booklet detailing seven areas which are challenging for disabled students alongside recommendations for their resolution. It draws on the content raised in a series of roundtables run by the Disabled Students' Commission (supported by OfS). It highlights that rapid action is needed to ameliorate for the additional challenges C-19 creates for disabled students.
Provide disabled applicants with support and guidance that is reflective of the COVID-19 pandemic in the clearing process
Ensure ease of access to funding for individual level reasonable adjustment
Ensure student support meets and considers the requirements of disabled students during the pandemic
Consider disabled students when making university campuses and accommodation COVID-19 secure
Facilitate disabled students' participation in welcome and induction weeks and ongoing social activities
Ensure blended learning is delivered inclusively and its benefits are considered in long-term planning
Embed accessibility as standard across all learning platforms and technologies
Parliamentary question: Disabled students' allowances
Q (Mr Barry Sheerman) (Huddersfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of his Department's announcement of 6 July 2020 on (a) changes to the Disabled Students' Allowance and (b) the introduction of a maximum allowance of £25,000 applying to both full-time and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate recipients of that allowance on those students with the highest needs.
A: Michelle Donelan: Regulations will be laid in Parliament to effect this policy change along with the other elements of the student finance package for the 2021-22 academic year. An equality analysis will be published alongside that. The date that these regulations will be laid is yet to be confirmed.
Also Donelan confirmedthat for the vast majority of students receiving DSA funding greater than £25,000, this was driven by funding for the DSA travel grant, which will continue to remain uncapped.
Degree Classifications
UUK have published a press release stating that universities from across the UK have agreed new principles to tackle grade inflation, reconfirming the sector's strong collective commitment to protect the value of qualifications. There are 6 principles and recommendations to be guided by when deciding the final degree classifications awarded to students. The principles will be added to the UKSCQA statement of intent which outlines specific commitments universities have made to ensure transparency, fairness and reliability in the way they award degrees.
The press release explains:
Alongside six new principles which cover the importance of providing clear learning outcomes, regular reviews, student engagement and transparency in algorithm design, the report includes examples of recommended good practice in the following areas:
Discounting marks – academic experimentation and risk taking by students are important elements to course design and learning, but there should not be the option of discounting core or final year modules. Clear instructions on how discounting applies to the final award and progression through their degree must be provided to students.
Border-line classifications – there should be a maximum zone of consideration of two percentage points from the grade boundary. Rounding, if used, should occur only once, and at the final stage.
Only one algorithm should be used to determine degree classifications and this should be clearly stated to students at the beginning of their studies.
Weighting given to different years within degrees – divergence from the four outlined models(p6; principles) should be limited.
Research Professional write about the announcement and comment:
…universities today find themselves playing catch-up with the government's perceptions of higher education through a new commitment to tackling grade inflation…
The pledge is suitably vague so as not to impinge on institutional autonomy, covering four ill-defined areas: ensuring assessments continue to stretch and challenge students; reviewing and explaining how final degree classifications are calculated; supporting and strengthening the system of external examiners; and reviewing and publishing data and analysis on students' degree outcomes.
Greater clarity over algorithms used to calculate degree classifications is in the frame. While there are plans to limit grade borderline boundaries and to stop discounting low grades in final year work. There will also be periodic reviews of how the system works.
Whether this statement of intent will make much practical difference to degree awards in the long run remains to be seen. However, it does show that universities are increasingly preoccupied with responding to the bêtes noires of ministers.
The Royal College of Nursing has published Beyond the Bursary: Workforce Supply. It states to get more people into the nursing degree and successfully graduating in England, the Government must provide appropriate support both on entering and throughout the degree. This report details our modelling, undertaken by London Economics, which demonstrates the level of funding required to increase the number of applicants to the nursing degree. It calls on the Government to immediately:
reimburse tuition fees or forgive current debt for all nursing, midwifery, and allied health care students impacted by the removal of the bursary
abolish self-funded tuition fees for all nursing, midwifery, and allied health care students starting in 2020/21 and beyond
introduce universal, living maintenance grants that reflect actual student need.
Parliamentary question:2020 nursing applications so far
No detriment approach to assessment.
Care leaver outcomes
On the adequacy of predicted grades Donelan stated the disadvantaged groups were more likely to be OVERpredicted: Black applicants were proportionally 19% more likely to be overpredicted compared with White applicants. Disadvantaged applicants (measured using POLAR) were 5% more likely to be overpredicted compared with the most advantaged applicants.
Parliament is winding down. The House of Commons enters recess at the end of this week, with the Lords following shortly after. Although MPs will return to deal with constituency business and take their summer holidays Ministerial business will continue to tick over with possible, HE announcements during this traditional down period. We'll continue to monitor the latest developments and keep you informed periodically through the policy update. We anticipate the policy update will be shorter and we won't send it every week throughout the summer period we have our own recess too, after a very busy few months.
Levelling up: Guardian article on creating the MIT of the North.
Admissions: iNews has an article based on comment from an Ofqual former board member which states that universities should check with schools what teachers originally predicted because a 'significant minority' of students are likely to end up with the 'wrong' final grades.
Boys ambition: The Guardian has an article based on research by UCL suggesting boys are more ambitious than girls and more likely to reach to apply to higher tariff institutions. They suggest it could be a factor in explaining the gender pay gap. It also suggests that having firm or ambitious university plans means higher GCSE grades too (compared to pupils with looser intentions).
Nikki Shure, one of the co-authors of the research, said the data found boys to be more ambitious than girls regardless of family income. That ambition often translated into attending higher-status universities and more lucrative careers, which may help explain the gender pay gap.
"The goal of this paper is not just to tell girls to be more ambitious, but to get young people to think about making concrete, specific university plans. Of course it is a good idea to foster high-attaining girls to be ambitious and provide them with the information and support to achieve these goals," Shure said.
"It is interesting that a boy and a girl at the same school with the same prior attainment and same family background have substantially different university plans," she said.
"Making more ambitious plans could help narrow the gap, but of course it is not going to eliminate the gender pay gap, given issues around different returns to different courses even at the same institution."
The research team found a similar pattern among pupils who were immigrants or the children of immigrants, who were more likely to aim for selective universities than their classmates. "First- and second-generation immigrants are hence much more academically ambitious than their peers of British heritage, even when they are otherwise from a similar background, of similar academic ability, and attend the same school," the paper states.
Shure said: "One of the main things that we want to highlight is that making a concrete goal matters for academic performance. The young people in this data set had to type out the name of the top three universities to which they plan to apply, which requires some agency and thought.
"We are definitely not saying that everyone needs to plan to apply to a Russell Group university, but rather make a concrete plan to which they can work."
Brace yourself: Diana Beech (ex HEPI, ex-Universities Minister's policy advisor) writes for Research Professional's Sunday Reading reflecting on the last year of Parliament's HE changes and anticipating what is still to come. Here are a couple of excerpts looking forward:
Questions nevertheless remain on what the government will do about newer institutions, which might not have the resources and reserves to weather the oncoming storm but that remain anchor institutions in their local communities—creating jobs, attracting investment and producing hugely employable and socially valuable, but not necessarily high-earning, graduates. Depending on location, letting institutions like these fail may not tally with pledges to 'level up' the regions. So there are sure to be major turf wars ahead if the government is intent on convincing the electorate that levelling up, in this instance, means siphoning some places off and levelling their opportunities down.
Other battlefields to watch out for could include…measures to engineer student choice towards subjects leading directly to a particular job—all of which we could see addressed in the long-awaited response to the Augar review due in the autumn.
The past 12 months have been turbulent for universities, and the political roller-coaster shows no signs of slowing yet. Higher education would do well to brace itself for further challenges and changes ahead.
And that's what we think too Diana!
Tags: admissions attainment gap Augar review civic university degree classification disability disabled students financial sustainability Gender grade inflat horizon 2020 mature students NSS parliament part-time students post qualification applications R&D roadmap regional engagement research and development restructuring Review of post-18 education social mobility student finance unconditional offers widening access
Business Engagement, COVID-19, international, policy, Public engagement, Research Integritiy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
Welcome to your bumper edition of the weekly policy update. There has been so much action this week we delayed sending it to you twice! International Education is on the agenda with a push to the Government to do more. The Social Mobility Commission find the Government lacking and push them to make progress. It was decision time for prospective HE students all over the UK this week. The first Graduate Outcomes data has been published. REF dates have been announced and the OfS have been busy, busy, busy!
Ministerial News
Universities Minister Michelle Donelan was interviewed by HEPI. She spoke of the transition to online learning, the challenges faced by students, and launched Student Space a mental health collaboration (more on this below).
The Minister responded to questions on Black Lives Matter, disgruntlement that the student numbers cap has been applied to English domiciled students at devolved universities, delivering safe student accommodation through the pandemic, international students, graduate labour market and post graduate study. Donelan also reassured that the Augar report hadn't been lost and that she had been working 'extremely hard on our response to Augar' reconfirming it would be released in line with the Spending Review and reveal 'our vision for the sector'. She was questioned on her opinion of OfS contradictory messaging during the pandemic and responded by stating that OfS had been excellent in their feedback to the sector and in the way they shared good practice and recent guidance e.g. on consumer rights. She particularly recognised the OfS' flexibility on Access and Participation plans and the focus on bolstering support for disadvantage that they have emphasised throughout the pandemic.
Michelle also confirmed she was working on a domestic alternative to Erasmus to ensure there was no break in provision if Brexit outcomes mean the UK cannot continue to participate in the Erasmus scheme. Stating it gives the opportunity to be more international in focus (not just accessing a subset of counties) and to prioritise social mobility and support students from all walks of life. She called it a 'prudent plan B'.
If you do watch the webinar the first ten minutes are rather wooden as she clearly reads from a prepared speech but her responses to the questions are far more human whilst they toe the party line beautifully (although Research Professional pick up on a misstep in her response to the student numbers cap – see below).
Student Space – £3 million has been earmarked to run the Student Space mental health service as a collaboration between Student Minds, the OfS and the Welsh HE funding council. Michelle stated is available to all students at English and Welsh universities providing access to mental health support services every day for 6 month period. She stated it has been launched to close the gaps in student support services that have become apparent through the pandemic and it will work alongside the existing services. Michelle described the aspects the service will cover as:
Prevention support and immediate interventions for those in distress
Therapeutic interventions & stress relievers
Suggestions for strengthening mental health & online resources
Peer support platforms and volunteering opportunities
Research Professional cover the mental health announcement here.
In answering a question on the student number cap being applied to the devolved nations against their wishes, seemingly against previous discussions, and without an impact assessment having been done Michelle opened herself up for criticism by stating it was the English universities calling for the cap to apply to devolved institutions too. If you watch the webinar I don't think it is quite as dire as Research Professional report, however, here is their coverage.
Donelan stated that she worked "very closely" with the devolved administrations and had discussed the numbers cap decision with them after English institutions had called for restrictions to be applied to non-English institutions. "I think the reality was we had to introduce something that would help stabilise the system and this was something that was also called for by English institutions to make sure that we didn't create a system where institutions in Wales or Scotland could then in effect have aggressive recruitment strategies and make the policy null and void in essence."
Her point is if Wales or Scotland over recruited whilst the English institutions are limited on how many students they can take from an already dwindling pool it wouldn't result in the 'sharing' of students that the cap is designed to achieve. Setting this aside Research Professional have been on a mission to uncover which English institutions called for the cap to be applied to the devolved nations (shorter version here). They contacted all the major mission groups and UUK – all stated it wasn't them, with most stating they either didn't want a Government imposed cap or didn't agree with it covering the devolved nations.
The DfE responded to Research Professional's (RP) investigation into which universities called for the cap stating:"It's worth noting Universities UK called for student number controls and after considering UUK's proposal, ministers considered that it was right and fair that these should apply to all English students, wherever they were studying."
RP weren't impressed and said:That's less of a statement and more of an attempt at a correction. As our coverage and all the sources we spoke to make very clear, the original UUK proposal of 10 Aprilonly refers to voluntary recruitment practices in England and Wales, and contains specific reference to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales as the sole arbiter of student numbers in Welsh universities. As entertaining as it was we can expect the drama to die down now.
The latest DfE publication on student number controls is here.
Education Select Committee Chair, Robert Halfon, writes for The Times Red Box with We are letting our adult learning system slip into disrepair
Despite the need for world-class adult learning, we're letting our adult offer slide into disrepair. Take part-time higher education, where the number of adults enrolling has fallen by 70 per cent since 2009-10. Employer investment in training, too, is not what it once was — the proportion of employees who receive job-related training was lower in the past four years than at any point since the mid-1990s.
But worst of all, we are not doing enough for disadvantaged individuals. Adult training, it seems, is a higher earner's game. Those who would benefit most from training are the least likely to do it. Almost half of adults from the lowest socioeconomic groups have not received any training since they left education.
He suggests starting small with community learning centres, reenergising employer-led training including a skills tax credit for investment in lower skilled workers, and the government should nurse part-time higher learning back to health including reinstating fee grants for disadvantaged part time learners whose learning would meet the nation's skills needs.
Halfon has spoken out about adult learning regularly and is particularly supportive of restructuring and reconsidering the funding for Further Education. Halfon's Times piece is almost verbatim the Foreword he writes for The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) new report: The Long Game – How to reboot skills training for disadvantaged adults which is really the news rather than Halfon's Times article.
The CSJ publication makes 14 recommendations (pages 9-11). Those most relevant to the HE sector are:
Consult employers, sector experts and labour market information to identify existing level 4 and 5 courses that are high quality, and formally recognise these as such. Give employers a greater role in formulating new qualifications
Once the government has identified and accredited higher value level 4 and 5 courses, it should allow students enrolled on these courses to access the same student finance system that is available for 'prescribed' courses.
Reinstate tuition fee grants for disadvantaged part-time HE learners who study qualifications that meet skills needs.
Leverage access and participation plans to better support part-time HE learners
Improve information flows for part-time HE learning and build a single UCAS application portal for part-time courses
Focus part-time HE providers' minds on childcare requirements where relevant.
Publish return on investment data for a broader range of courses and levels, including technical and vocational routes at all levels, and formulate a value-added metric for part-time, mature learning.
Update, and continue to refine, previous labour market analyses to provide cutting-edge data on current and likely future skills demands, and hardwire outcomes data into careers advice.
Offer workers at high-risk of losing their jobs, including those on furlough, the chance to assess their options and retrain where suitable.
The report doesn't tackle apprenticeships and promises a separate paper on this shortly.
Research Professional cover the report and Halfon's calls to act.
Mature students – The Guardian have a nice article giving the perspective of mature students who realised during lockdown that returning to study would enable them to take the next step in their life. It contains a comment from Sheffield on the increase in mature applications they've seen as a consequence of lockdown. HEPI also have a blog – Why and how the post-Covid world could offer more opportunities for widening participation in England discussing how online and cross-institution shared activity could provide wider and richer experiences for prospective students unable to access summer schools and other access initiatives, whilst reducing the burden on individual institutions. And there is a parliamentary question from Lord Fox asking the Government whether they will encourage those who have lost work due to C-19 to develop new skills through part-time HE and on providing greater financial support for learners on shorter HE courses.
Jo Johnson continues to speak out on international students, a topic that was close to his heart during his stints as the Universities Minister. Jo was opposed to including students within the immigration targets, regularly spoke on the cross-subsidisation of research and teaching from international student fees, and a fan of the post study work visa including proposing amendments to the immigration bill to support the visas. Jo writes the foreword for a joint publication: Universities open to the world – how to put the bounce back in Global Britain.
The report states that post-pandemic the international student market will be even more competitive, reluctance to travel overseas alongside travel restrictions will mean a smaller pool of students to recruit from. The report recognises that before C-19 international student numbers were predicted to reach 10 million by 2030. While the report acknowledges the potential decline it cautions against the myriad of surveys which portend ultimate doom and gloom with the decimation of international intake. Yet states that the Government and Vice Chancellors are preparing for 50-75% drop in international numbers a significant reversal for one of the great boom businesses of the globalised economy. It continues:Any decline of this magnitude would expose real vulnerabilities in university finances and highlight the way universities have been the victim of competing and conflicting Government policy objectives in Westminster over much of the last decade. Governments have long required universities to develop additional revenue streams to cross-subsidise research… and the teaching of certain strategically-significant laboratory and studio-based subjects that cost more to deliver than the £9,250 fees paid by domestic students. They have recognised that, far from squeezing out qualified domestic students, overseas students have made viable courses and research opportunities that would otherwise not be offered.
Johnson blames the Government for the UK's declining dominance in global education:
For much of the last decade, however, the UK Government has run contradictory policies aimed both at increasing education exports, while at the same time managing down international student numbers in a misguided attempt to reduce overall net migration to below 100,000. This confusion and ambivalence has created a volatile and unstable policy environment which helps explain why the UK – a perennial world leader in education – has gradually seen its share of the international education market slip over the past ten years.
How rapidly UK universities bounce back post-Covid-19 will be of central importance to the UK's economic recovery and, in the wake of the pandemic and in anticipation of the end of the Brexit transition period, the Government is now sensibly revising its International Education Strategy… It is vital it is suitably ambitious.
The report goes on to state the new strategy's targets are not ambitious enough – By settling for growth rates significantly slower than the global market for international students had enjoyed over the previous decade the targets tacitly accepted a steady loss in UK market share. And sets out the recommendations the Government should adopt to see the UK rise back to its top 2 ranking again:
Offer the best post work study visa available – 4 years duration
Transform the British Council to focus on promoting UK study. Including operating a global student mobility network (Erasmus replacement), resolving the online study conundrum and creating reciprocal recognition agreements where countries don't currently recognised the online elements.
Strategic push to rebalance student flow – doubling numbers from India. Including India and China in the low risk country category.
End the hostile bureaucracy – Cut the time consuming and off-putting red tape to allow overseas students to study here increase flexibility for English testing and Tier 4 visas, holding universities to account for non-compliance.
Mitigate the effect of international travel restrictions for international students
Commit to the 2030 targets including UK to be second in world as overseas study destination; the International Education Champion to be accountable and report progress to Parliament annually; and education exports as central within the UK's post-Brexit trade strategy.
The report concludes:The university…is now one of the great global institutions…For years, however, they have had their hands tied, unable fully to unleash their potential, tied down by bureaucracy, obsessions with poorly-crafted immigration targets and pettifogging rules. The moment has come to ensure that the UK's great universities can play their full part in this next chapter of Britain's engagement with the world beyond its shores… Seize the moment. The time for action has come.
Research Professional comment on the report:As a package of measures it is both wildly optimistic—four-year work visas, no travel restrictions—and a measured technocratic approach that would have credibility with parliament and the civil service, if not the actual government…. The problem is that the ink is still not dry on trying to get the two-year work visa over the line. But, you know, God loves a trier.
And acknowledges that the pandemic cannot be blamed for everything:Beyond the policy recommendations, the report has some telling analysis of the state of play on international recruitment. The truth is that even before the pandemic, UK market share was flatlining at a time when global demand for higher education was soaring.
ITV news also cover the report.
Parliamentary questions on international student matters this week include the Trade Minister recognising HE as an export sector and confirming the Government is exploring the extent that trade negotiations could support education services and collaboration in science, research and innovation.
Visas – On Tuesday evening the Home Office issued guidance on temporary Tier 4 concessions as a result of C-19. It confirms that international students studying online will be eligible for a visa the following academic year when they attend for in-person study once restrictions are lifted. It also confirmed access to the post-study work visa assuming they are studying in the UK by 6 April 2021. However, some countries, such as China, would not recognise the degree if it contained too much online learning. This is Johnson's point above – that residents of other countries need their UK degree recognised by their own country – the reciprocal agreements need to be in place otherwise this is yet another discourager. There is also a response to a parliamentary question stating sufficient capacity is in place to ensure visa applications are processed in time.
The Universities Minister responds to a parliamentary question on how the Government will support universities with international students who are subject to the quarantine policy.
Other related parliamentary questions:
EU 2021 student starters
Is the export of UK HE a priority sector in future trade negotiations; and whether (a) research collaboration and (b) student exchanges will be included in those negotiations
The 3 month visa window won't be extended to 6 months at this stage.
Fee status confirmation for British Nationals (Overseas)
The OfS followed up last month's appearance before the Education Select Committee with additional information on their HE regulatory approach during the pandemic, with particular mention of access and participation work. You can see all the follow up letters to the Committee's inquiry here including those from other organisations.
The OfS have published their latest briefing note showcasing advice and case studies where providers have effectively supported postgraduate research students. They have also published a briefing note providing information advice and guidance for prospective students, another on student and consumer protection and one on Graduate students: getting into employment showcasing how universities work with students to help them access appropriate employment.
The OfS also held a webinar on Supporting BAME Students during the Coronavirus pandemic on 5June. You can watch the recording of the event here, see the blog here, panel sessions here, and our thanks to Ann Barnes who has shared her summary notes from the event here.
Research Professional have an article on the OfS' response to the precarious HE situation. It covers the OfS consultation on student protection plans, their temporary powers, and regulatory action. Meanwhile Wonkhe have a completely different approach to student protection – a try before you buy approach. The blog is useful at the very least for the analysis on transferring institutions, particularly the reminder that disadvantaged students don't transfer.
Seize the day – Admissions
EX-UCAS Chief Executive Mary Curnock Cook writes for the Times Red Box on why this isn't the year to defer:
Why on earth is it a good idea to defer your university application to next year when gap years will be blighted by poor job opportunities and travel restrictions? On top of that, if mass deferrals from 2020 are added to the expected intake next year, 2021 could quickly become the most competitive year to enter university in recent history. Already we know that the 18-year-old population starts to increase again in 2021 for the first time since 2009, and we could expect international student applications to be sharply up after thousands of overseas students' plans were thwarted by the virus this year.
Instead, 2020 looks like being the best year for university admissions due to a combination of a low point in the school-leaver population, a likely dip in international enrolments and general uncertainty because of the virus crisis. Despite the lottery of calculated exam grades, 2020 could be the year for thousands of students to step into the university place of their dreams without having to negotiate clearing or pleading calls from school to university for leniency over missed grades.
if students enrol with an open mind, they could become part of the heroic generation which cocked a snook at tradition and were bold enough to join the experiment which will herald a new age of higher education. Do they really want another three years of classroom-style teaching? Of course they don't. They want to be prepared for 21st-century employment where communication, enterprise and commerce take place in a digital world.
If some social aspects of university are curtailed in the early part of the academic year, this will be a shared constraint with the rest of the population. If you're not allowed to socialise, play sport and go to the student union bar at uni, you probably wouldn't be allowed to had you stayed at home.
And if it's value for money for your £9,250 fees that's worrying you, I'd wager that the corona cohort will look back and consider that the extraordinary circumstances in which they embarked on their higher education journey made them better students, better citizens and prepared them better for their careers than any preceding cohort. Bluntly, short-term disruption at university is a better option for most students than short-term disruption at home or a year on the job market.
Decision Time – Students had until yesterday to confirm their first choice of institution through UCAS; so the extent of deferral within the sector will be known shortly. Wonkhe report on the newly released admissions data from UCAS highlighting that despite predictions students' are not deferring in drove (yet):
…as of earlier this week, 31,380 applicants have at least one deferred choice, compared to 30,760 at the same point last year – a 2 per cent increase, which should be seen alongside a 1.2 per cent rise in overall applicants…UCAS COO Sander Kristel suggests that figures show that while more applicants are thinking of deferring, those thoughts are "not yet translating into definitive actions".
Sander has a blog exploring this in more detail.
And on decisions about whether to attend HE:
20 per cent of respondents, up from 15 per cent a month ago, say their biggest single worry is "missing out on the experience". This has now overtaken online learning (16 per cent) as the most common top worry about starting university. Young applicants' other top concerns are not having access to the right facilities (10 per cent), not having enough contact hours (7 per cent, increasing from 4 per cent in early May), and not having a freshers' week (also 7 per cent).
First to defer: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has highlighted that students who defer entry to university are more likely to achieve a first-class degree than those who go straight from school:
18% of deferrers achieved a first compared to 12% of school leavers.
23% deferrers undertake postgraduate study compared to 15% of school leavers.
47% of deferrers were in high skilled work post-graduation compared to 45% of school leavers
46% deferrers achieved a 2:1 compared to 51% of school leavers
The ONS state the results from their Annual Population Survey are consistent across groups who graduated before, during and after the last economic recession in 2008. There doesn't appear to be an analysis of the characteristics of the deferral group which could affect these results, e.g. if the deferral group had a higher proportion of advantaged students. ONS commentary
The Times cover the story with the header: Coronavirus gap year is the road to first-class degree.
However, Wonkhe explain that the results aren't quite as they seem:
This isn't a particular cohort, just all graduates that the ONS have been able to identify – and the deferral is simply people who left school, registered as doing something (or nothing else) and then registered as a HE student….plus the fact we are comparing a very small group with a very larger one gives us a bit of a problem.
Gap year graduates also earn less than their straight-to-uni equivalents – you'd expect the opposite, really. They are more likely to net a first, but also more likely to net a third or below. They're less likely to hold a post graduate qualification, and less likely to be employed.
In essence, our tiny gap year group is weird. Not in a negative way, you understand, just that as a small group they are likely to contain outliers for all kinds of reasons. So we are not so much seeing a trend as more outliers.
Accepting Independent Students
There is a Wonkhe blog on the independent students who cannot be awarded a predicted A level grade; home educated, distance learning candidates and private entries will all have to take the autumn exams to obtain a grade. But this may mean postponing entering higher education for a year – something that may be feasible for younger students considering a gap year but won't work for older students needing to make long term decisions about their jobs and families.
The blog calls on universities to be compassionate in accepting these students:
unless universities are flexible, very few independent students will be able to take up their conditional offers of university places this autumn. Ofqual and the awarding bodies have been aware of this problem from the beginning and have worked hard to find alternative solutions for this group, but without success.
Universities should consider giving a place this year to a student who has a conditional offer on the basis of an academic reference or an assessment such as an essay set by the university. This could work well providing it is planned carefully and well in advance.
We want universities to be aware that all independent students have been disadvantaged this summer and to be as understanding as they can when considering their applications.
We are looking to the future and are calling for a more flexible and resilient exam system where students have the option to be assessed at a distance, possibly using a combination of coursework and proctored exams. This would also open up a route to national qualifications for people who need special access arrangements or are institution- bound like prisoners.
Student Numbers Cap
The draft legislation on the student numbers cap has been published. (Research Professional cover it briefly here.)
Wonkhe continue to delve into the detail of the Student Numbers Cap and have come up with a new potential loophole they felt could be exploited:
if you have the appetite to gamble and a strong expectation of underlying growth, in some ways it actually makes more financial sense to recruit six per cent above the cap this year than to stick to the rules. Sure, you may be in breach of the new ongoing condition of registration, E6, but is that really going to be important?
This potential loophole applies particularly to large providers with diverse income streams that can be certain of sustained growth in applicant demand – for universities that have home fees as a primary source of income, the risk would probably be too great… that's large, prestigious, research intensive providers quietly being given an incentive to grow at the expense of others – twice in the same policy is beginning to feel like more than an accident. All the signs are now that government policy is favouring one sort of university at the expense of another on a level not seen for many years. Is this really the "stability" the government wants for the sector post-pandemic?
You can read the Wonkhe article here to make up your own mind whether you agree.
Emma Hardy, Shadow FE & HE Minister, asks if degree apprenticeships are included within the student number controls.
UKRI have published Research Integrity: A Landscape study. It highlights the importance of personal integrity and the influence of local culture as key to research integrity, with bullying and harassment identified as the single biggest negative influence.
Key findings include:
Almost unanimous agreement from respondents that personal integrity drives research integrity and that local culture can have a strong influence on behaviour.
Good leadership and management, professional development, sharing research, and the opportunity to collaborate and work with colleagues from other disciplines are all considered to have a strong positive impact on research integrity.
The report found that bullying and harassment was the biggest negative influence on integrity and almost eight out of ten respondents believe that researchers feel tempted or under pressure to compromise on research integrity at times.
Research integrity includes the professional standards that researchers should adopt and research organisations should promote, as well as the core values of honesty, rigour, openness, transparency, care, respect and accountability.
UK Research and Innovation Chief Executive, Professor Sir Mark Walport, said:
"Maintaining high standards of research integrity is of overwhelming importance to the UK's research and innovation sector, and this should be re-emphasised in the current crisis.
Research integrity is central to our vision at UKRI and cuts across all we do, as a research organisation, funder and partner. The report published today will inform our ongoing work, helping us to enhance positive incentives for research integrity and address negative ones. It will align with other activities in this area, such as the creation of a Research Integrity Committee, in supporting our commitment of ensuring a vibrant, healthy and responsible research climate. We will work with partners and stakeholders across the sector to address the issues highlighted in the report.
Dr Helen Munn has been appointed as the Interim Chair for the Research Integrity Committee, which will champion research integrity in the UK and independently examine whether research institutions have followed appropriate processes to investigate misconduct. She will lead on subject matter expertise to refine the scope of the Research Integrity Committee over the coming months before an open recruitment for the Committee Chair and members gets underway.
REF Deadlines – 31 March 2021 has been confirmed as the revised deadline for REF 2021 submission. The press release states:
The exercise is scheduled to resume on 31 July 2020, eight months ahead of the revised submission deadline. Updated guidance on any revisions to the exercise will be published by this date, following a further period of engagement with the HE sector and wider partners. As previously advised the staff census date of 31 July 2020 remains unchanged.
In recognition of ongoing uncertainty about the effects of COVID-19, the funding bodies have set a review date in November 2020. This will consider the level of disruption being experienced, and whether further contingency arrangements for the REF may be necessary.
There will be an extension to the impact period until 31 December 2020 to enable case studies affected by, or focusing on the current response to, COVID-19 to be assessed in REF 2021.
The decisions have been made following the March 2020 consultation which the REF Steering Group Chair confirmed received a good response and a clear preference for the March deadline. Here is the summary of the consultation responses.
The Panel nomination process is expected to be confirmed shortly.
ARPA – The Commons Science and Technology Committee are running an inquiry into the nature and purpose of the proposed ARPA style new research funding agency. ARPA aims to fund emerging fields of research and technology with longer term more sustainability funding targeted at high-risk high-pay off blue skies science, engineering and technology research innovation. The Government confirmed their intention to fund this agency in the Queens Speech following the December 2019 election. It is estimated it will cost £800+ million. The Committee are questioning how it might address current gaps in the research system, the implications it will have on the existing funding agencies, whether it should be based outside of the golden triangle, how to maxmimise ARPA effectiveness and learning from other countries.
At PMQs last Wednesday Boris reconfirmed support for the Advanced Research Projects Agency confirming funding of £800 million:
Alan Mak (Conservative): Britain's new Advanced Research Projects Agency is vital to securing our status as a science and technology superpower, particularly as we recover from coronavirus. Will my right hon. Friend commit to protecting its funding and its independence, so that there are no obstacles to delivering transformational breakthroughs from clean energy to new vaccines? [903040]
Boris Johnson (Conservative, PM): Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. We will be funding the Advanced Research Projects Agency to the tune of £800 million, and it will be tasked with supporting really revolutionary breakthroughs in this country. It is the UK—from the splitting of the atom to the jet engine to the internet—that has led the world in scientific research, and under this Government we intend to continue.
Michelle Donelan responded to the parliamentary question on the timescale for an alternative Erasmus+ scheme post-Brexit confirming that the Government remains committed to international exchanges in education, that current exchanges and research bid funding remains valid for the original full time period (it won't be axed early due to Brexit) and that:Beyond the 2020/21 academic year, the government remains open to considering participation in elements of the next Erasmus+ programme, provided that the terms are in the UK's interests. Future participation is subject to our ongoing negotiations with the EU. In parallel, the government is continuing to develop the option for a domestic alternative to Erasmus+, to ensure that we are prepared for every eventuality, and will publish information on a possible alternative, if appropriate, in due course.
Other parliamentary questions include confirmation the Research Sustainability Taskforce won't get involved in UKRI's Open Access review nor will it consider the financial effects of the review's outcome for the HE sector. That the Taskforce is meeting fortnightly.
Funding & Data
The Office for National Statistics have published the 2018 R&D expenditure figures covering research councils, HE funding councils and Government departments.
Science Minister Amanda Solloway announced 38 projects allocated a share of £70 million for quantum technology projects.
Lord Callanan confirmed the financial support the Government are providing for AI research.
The House of Commons Library have the latest briefing on R&D spending.
Gender inequality amelioration
Research Professional report on a Spanish science unit who are trying to find ways to limit the impact of the lockdown on female researchers. It has been reported that women are submitting fewer funding applications and journal articles during lockdown compared to men. This has been attributed to women taking on increased responsibilities for childcare, home schooling and domestic duties. The Spanish team call on funders to factor this into the design and requirements of their future funding calls and for research institutions to assess their career support policies ensuring they promote gender equality.
The Royal Society of Chemistry are working with publishers of peer reviewed journals to proactively tackle gender bias. Previous research demonstrated that a publishing bias does exist and the Royal Society has committed to addressing this.
Public Perception of Universities
Last week we mentioned the Public First survey which aimed to establish the public's perception of the importance of universities, particularly in recovering from the pandemic. This week Wonkhe managed to access the underlying data and highlight public opinion that Public First didn't publicise.
17% per cent think that universities should benefit from increased public spending (compare 83% for the NHS)
Only 37% feel that social work should be a graduate profession.
Only around 1% feel that universities should be expanded post-Covid-19.
93% do not feel that supporting more people to go to universities should be in the government's top five priorities. Note – the blog explains how this last question wasn't really a fair comparison due to the other possible responses to the question.
It also critiques the survey design overall ironically quoting the founder partner of Public First who states:Using research to consider how best to sell an approach to the public is … generally seen as being a much more appropriate way of using research. This is not about coming up with specific policy ideas and positioning, but working out the best way of framing an issue to the public – working out the language that should be used to describe an issue and how to present it overall. This really matters. Express a police idea in one way and people hate it; change the language and they like it
Wonkhe say:The idea of these tables circulating without caveats in high-level policy circles is worrying, and one that could easily have been avoided by asking different questions…the sector could have missed out on the opportunity for a deeper conversation about how the public really perceives universities. Meanwhile, we know that this government doesn't ignore opinion polls and probably won't ignore the findings of this one either.
The Social Mobility Commission is dogged by the frustrations of making little progress in tackling systemic social inequalities. The last Commission resigned en masse in protest at the lack of progress and their belief the Government wasn't doing or committed enough to the agenda. The new Commission has lost its leader who was unable to juggle the role alongside her substantive employment during the C-19 crisis. And the new Commission's report describes similar frustrations with Government departments failing to act.
The new report Monitoring social mobility 2013-2020: Is the government delivering on our recommendations describes the Commission's role as a critical friend of Government holding it to account for its efforts to create a more socially mobile society, while also offering a longer perspective, free from short-term political cycles. It finds a mixed picture when examining whether the Government departments have adopted the Commission's 52 recommendations in the last seven years. The recommendations covered:
They find:
On 23% of recommendations strong progress has been made or the recommendation achieved
On 46% some, but insufficient, progress has been made
On 31% of recommendations little or no action occurred
Progress made (before the pandemic) was:
more disadvantaged pupils staying in education for longer,
more disadvantaged students going into higher education, and
more people in work than ever before.
Of major concern the Commission notes:
an increasing number of children growing up in relative poverty
600,000 more than in 2012, and set to increase further due to pandemic
BAME children more likely to be impoverished (46%) compared 25% white British children
a crisis in the early years' workforce (45% of workers on tax credits or benefits), the status and prestige of the workforce must increase
Disadvantaged attainment gaps persists (25% disadvantaged achieve GCSE English & Maths compared to 50% of all other pupils).
The Government hasn't acted on a 16-19 disadvantage premium, the Commission says the Government doesn't do enough to prioritise disadvantaged young people in this age group
The Government hasn't done enough to reverse the declining participation in adult education and training – half of all adults from poorest background received no training after leaving school.
Life expectancy is falling for women in the most deprived 10% of areas. Issues around health inequalities and race linked to socio-economic background have also been exposed by coronavirus (COVID-19) and need to be addressed.
Of primary concern was the lack of joined up thinking across government departments. Therefore, the report launched a call for the Government to set up a central unit and cross-Governmental common strategy to support the work of the social mobility commission and achieve greater social mobility in the UK. The unit should coordinate actions across Government and ensure the Commission's recommendations are delivered.
The need to tackle social mobility has been exacerbated by the pandemic which is impacting the poorest groups in society most. Social mobility has never been more important. It is the poor and the young who will suffer most from the economic downturn.
Pragmatically the Commission recognise We have made dozens of recommendations over the past seven years… As we collectively deal with the shock of the pandemic, it is imperative that improvements in social mobility are integrated into the way we regroup and rebuild. We must design a recovery that ensures that the needs of the most vulnerable are met. The Commission highlights the following 8 key points to move forward in the face of declining social mobility
Page 12 shows the Government departments responsibilities and how they equate to social mobility – illustrating the call for a joined up cross-Government approach. And pages 15 onwards contain the detail of the questions asked to Government and their response on what had been implemented and progress made which enabled the judgement that one third of recommendations hadn't been implemented. Pages 40-49 cover post-16 education, including a red – no progress – rating for understanding what works within technical education for disadvantaged learners (despite the Government's push to increase the status of technical routes and the accelerated rolling out of T levels).
The BBC cover the story.
HE Sector Financing
UCU have launched their Fund the Future campaign. Urging for support funding for HE institutions and requesting a meeting with PM Boris. Research Professional (RP) cover the campaign here but the real analysis is contained in the RP playbook blog here. Excerpts:
As a request directed at the government, the UCU campaign is similar to the Universities UK bailout terms, which were roundly rejected by the Treasury and Downing Street… Like the UUK request, this campaign also asks for financial help without expecting to give anything back in return. If that strategy did not work for vice-chancellors, it certainly is not going to work for the trade union… During the online launch of the campaign, Grady also placed an emphasis on opposing cost-cutting measures in universities… There are only two possible responses by vice-chancellors to the scale of this crisis: cutting expenditure or going bankrupt…
But what would work as a campaign that might move the dial on government inaction over financial help for higher education?
First, make alliances with others outside universities: not just further education colleges but the NHS and schools… A request to government that is likely to be well received would be: We will do whatever it takes to ensure the education of Britain's young people, in return for a long-term underwriting of the finances of all educational settings as a contribution to the national recovery. That means giving ground on engaging with a return of pupils and students to schools and campuses, while doing everything that needs to be done to keep staff and their charges safe… It ought to be clear by now that the government has no real plan or special interest in the plight of schools, colleges and universities… Together, education leaders and unions need to get out in front of this narrative of paralysis, take charge of their own professions, provide confidence to students and shame the government into action.
They will find plenty of sympathy in the country from frustrated parents and bored young people. If this populist government reacts to one thing, it is popular opinion. Universities should make common cause with schools and propose a long-term investment package in return for a mass effort to unlock education.
The Student Loans Company has announced an extension to the application deadline for student loans for full-time returning students to 30 June. They have also opened the applications for part time and post graduate master's students tuition and maintenance loans.
Racial and Ethnic Disparities within HE
Valerie Amos, outgoing Director of SOAS moving to become Master of University College Oxford in September, writes for Research Professional in A case to answer to describe the persistent racial and ethnic disparities within HE. She states
initiatives are not enough. We have a case to answer. We are not all bastions of inclusivity. Our students tell us that all the time. Culture change is tough and takes time. Race equality is not a bolt-on or a luxury…
I have spent a substantial part of my working life campaigning for equality and social justice. I have sat on committee after committee, making recommendation after recommendation about what needs to change. I am not naive. I don't think the kind of transformative change needed can be delivered by universities on their own. It's a responsibility for all leaders in every institution in the UK. But this is a moment, potentially, of profound change in the public mood. We've wasted chances like this before. We mustn't waste this one
The Black British Academics network have also published a new collection of essays on racial inequalities: Transforming the Ivory Tower: Models for gender equality and social justice. The network is led by BU's Deborah Gabriel.
New commission: The Government has set up a new commission on race and ethnic disparities. In relation to the Commission the Minister for Equalities, Kemi Badenoch, stated Education is seen as a key social mobility lever.
The data from the first Graduate Outcomes statistics batch has been released! It features the outcomes from the 2017/18 student cohort. You'll recall that the Gradate Outcomes survey replaced the DLHE (student destination data) covering students 15 months post-graduation and while we've had the LEO (Longitudinal Education Outcomes) data to play with there has been a transition hole. This week it is the sector level data that has been released with provider level data more widely available next week and further analysis scheduled for release on 9 July. The data is considered 'experimental' with HESA openly acknowledging that it will be tweaked and refined in future years to achieve a robust survey that will command the confidence of the sector. There has been lots of commentary on caution around the results and the new measures introduced.
Research Professional state: This year's survey is described as "experimental" because it is new and still undergoing evaluation. HESA stresses that this "does not imply that the statistics or source data are of poor quality, nor does it provide any signal to suggest that the data is not fit for any operational purposes".
They go on to note the response rate was only 47% (HESA set a 60% response target initially) acknowledging the rate would be lower because it is longer after students graduate, however they consider the number involved as disappointing and are concerned about TEF implications.
Wonkhe describe the enhancements for this data set:…there's more nuance: for the first time, graduates can now identify themselves as a carer, as self-employed, or as travelling. Data quality should be better now we have moved to centralised collection and coding. By far the most interest will be in some of the more reflective questions, which ask graduates to put their university experience in context with the meaningfulness of their current work and future plans.
Alongside fair warning: Graduate Outcomes would need – almost by default – to feature in a revamped TEF and in other regulatory activity, but it will take a while to build up the kind of time series that would be useful. The need to understand data collected during and beyond the Covid-19 pandemic to a rubric that is very much still bedding in will cause a fair few problems.
On TEF Research Professional say:[The low response rate] could pose a problem since the survey was intended to inform the Teaching Excellence Framework. Jonathan Waller, HESA's director of data and innovation, told Research Professional News that whether the data were robust enough for this purpose was "a decision for particularly the Office for Students and the other administrations in the UK"….OfS said it intended to consult on the TEF once the government had published and responded to Dame Shirley Pearce's independent review of the exercise—which is more than a year late and counting…And they remind of a past UUK comment: "we were clear that the TEF should be metrics-informed and not metrics-led and that it needs to be rebalanced toward teaching and learning rather than narrowly on employment outcomes to ensure it covers the total package of what a graduate achieves and gains through their time at university".
Portsmouth University blogged for HEPI earlier this week warning about inaccuracies in the pre-release information for graduate outcomes: Comparing HESA's Survey data with our own records shows that 20 per cent of the graduates HESA records as unemployed during survey week were, at the time, registered with the University as full-time, postgraduate students. To put the point differently, the Survey over-reported our graduate unemployment by 25 per cent. This is not an insignificant inaccuracy.
On release day Wonkhe re-joined in the caution stating:Publicly and privately, sector bodies have emphasised the differences in the new methodology, which takes a one-week snapshot survey of graduate activity 15 months after graduation. It is always important to be cautious in interpreting a new survey, and the release itself will carry several caveats to this effect.
And they have an introductory blog to the new data written by the Higher Education Strategic Planners Association (HESPA).
Research Professional say:
The release is designed to help inform students who are considering where and what to study, institutions that are considering how to tailor their courses and services to the needs of their students and the labour market, and regulators and policymakers who are planning strategy and monitoring performance.
But how much of a guide will the figures actually be for prospective students, contemplating their employment prospects in three or four years' time, in the wake of both Brexit and the pandemic? And, for the same reason, how reliable a base will they provide for policymakers looking for information on which institutions and courses provide "value for money"?
…graduate employment data [is] becoming more serious, feeding into crucial information sets and league tables that influenced student decision-making, as well as being of increasing interest to the government as it looked at where students were getting "value for money" in terms of the financial returns on a degree.
59% of graduates are in full time employment; 10% part time; 4% unemployed
18% of graduates were undertaking further study (10% of which were also working whilst studying)
66% of postgraduates and 56% of undergraduates were employed full time, with Scottish graduates most likely to be in full time work (60%), and those aged 25-29 most likely to be employed full time.
Postgraduates were twice as likely to be on a fixed term contract (12 months +). 3% of all graduates were employed on zero hours contracts.
Entrepreneurs: 37% of non-UK graduates run their own business; specifically, half of non-UK taught masters students run their own business
Students who attended a private school and those whose parents have a HE qualification were more likely to be undertaking further study. Research Professional suggest that postgraduate education is becoming the new social mobility frontier. And Graduates who attended state schooling were more likely to be employed part time than privately educated students.
The gender pay gap is apparent at the 15 month post-graduate census point, with the biggest gap at the high skilled employment level. Overall males are paid 10% more than females. However, males are more likely to be unemployed than females.
Disabled graduates are more likely to be in part time work or volunteer than non-disabled graduates
Ethnicity: 62% of white graduates were full time employed, 8% higher than BME groups. Graduates of Black Asian or Other ethnicities were more likely to be unemployed. There were more white graduates earning the lowest salary bands and more BME graduates in the £27,000-£36,000 salary band.
LPN: in England graduates from neighbourhoods that are overall less likely to attend university were more likely to be employed part time than those from areas with a higher participation rate.
Degree classification: Graduates achieving a first had the highest full time employment rates (58%), those with a third or pass degree the lowest (53%). Those with third/pass had highest part time employment rate. Only 2% of first graduates were unemployed, third/pass degree graduates were 7%.
Degree subject:
Graduates who studied creative arts & design were more likely to go in to part-time employment than those from any other subjects.
On average, more graduates who studied science based subjects were in full-time employment or full-time study than those studying non-science subjects.
Undergraduates who studied computer science had the highest unemployed group when excluding interim study, this was 6%.
There's plenty more data on other subjects here and the data showing which subjects (its STEM) have the biggest variance between low and high pay is at figure 14, (arts subjects have less salary variance).
Science Vs Arts: 82% of UK science graduates were employed in a high skilled occupation Vs 71% of non-science graduates. 23% of creative arts and design graduates were classified within a low skilled occupation.
Pay: The modal group of full time employed graduates were paid £24-£27,000. Generally maximum salary rose with the age of graduates: Under 21 £21,000; 21-25 £27,000; 25+ £39,000+.
Opinion: Graduates stated whether their current situation (employment/study) was meaningful (85% stated it was meaningful), fit with their future plans (79% felt it did fit), and whether what they studied was useful (71% useful). Those than undertook part time study were happier than full timers but graduates employed part time were less positive than others, postgraduates were less happy than undergraduates, non-UK graduates were more satisfied than UK graduates. Here is a chart showing the overall responses within HE, figures 15 and 16 on this link allows you to play with the data.
You can read Research Professional's (good) analysis of the survey outcomes here
Sector Reactions to the data release
HEPI have a quick blog with their reaction to the data publication. Excerpt:
Today's new Graduate Outcomes statistics show the importance of having a rich and contextual picture of the graduate labour market, beyond just graduate salaries. Fifteen months after they leave higher education, by far the majority of graduates find themselves in work or further study. Most who have entered employment are working in highly skilled occupations. The data demonstrate clearly the benefits that higher education can bring to individual's lives, as well as the wider labour market.
However, it also clearly shows there are not equal opportunities for all graduates… Employers need to do more to ensure their hiring practices are fair for all graduates and without discrimination. This needs to be accompanied by continuing support from universities for students who may face adversity when starting work. This will become particularly important in the coming years, as graduates face a particularly challenging labour market.
On value for money Research Professional say:
messages about the kinds of courses offering "value for money" remain unclear—at least in this initial data release. While just 4 per cent of full-time science graduates are unemployed 15 months after graduation, the same is true of just 5 per cent of those in non-science subjects, and this goes up to a surprising 7 per cent of law graduates. Graduates in a medium-skilled job in biological sciences earn the same as those in a medium-skilled job in the creative arts.
Most data for next year's survey will be collected between September and November this year, when the ramifications from Brexit and the reality (or not) of a second wave of Covid-19 will be clearer. The first Graduate Outcomes survey looks like becoming a fascinating baseline from which to compare the fate of graduates in two different eras.
Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, said:
It is good to see that higher education continues to have significant benefit for most students in their employment and career prospects. Most graduates also feel that they are doing something meaningful, making progress towards their future plans and applying the things they've learned at university or college.
There is clearly more still to do to ensure that these benefits are felt equally across all student groups. It is concerning that BAME graduates were more likely to be unemployed than their white peers, and that women are overrepresented in lower pay bands. With the labour market likely to become more challenging in the aftermath of Covid-19, it is more important than ever that all graduates are well prepared with the skills and knowledge they need to fulfil their career aspirations.
Regulatory cost: Research Professional (RP) examine the complaints received about universities from students revealing that a level of complaints above a set threshold means the university pays the regulator a higher fee (whether the complaints are justified or not). RP highlight that a significant proportion of universities are having to pay the additional charges and ask whether this is acceptable in a year when the HE sector is predicted to encounter considerable financial challenges, and a higher level of complaints due to the strike action and pandemic disruptions to study. Meanwhile law firm Pinsent Masons have examined the OfS guidance in relation to the effect the pandemic is having on 2020/21 admissions which advises HE institutions to be clear on their offer to students. They conclude:
The guidance provides OfS registered providers with a crumb of comfort in that it confirms that the OfS does not intend to take regulatory action unless there has been a 'significant' disregard for the CMA's guidance or breach of consumer protection law which is not as a result of actions that were necessary to implement public health advice… This is important as it shows that the OfS acknowledges the unprecedented issues created by Covid-19 and that it would be wrong to take regulatory action where providers are varying the contractual offerings to ensure compliance with government guidance.
However, this does not mean that providers have free reign to 'do as they wish' as long as they can point to public health advice as the reasoning for their decisions – they will still need to carefully consider their actions with their consumer protection obligations in mind. Just because the OfS has confirmed they will not take action in such circumstances does not mean there has not been a breach of consumer law and that the CMA or students will not do so.
What steps the Treasury is taking to ensure that universities have adequate short-term liquidity during the covid-19 pandemic; and whether he plans to allocate additional funding to that sector.
Universities Minister confirms no universities have changed their fee level for 2019/20 to mitigate for C-19 (as far as she is aware).
Some questions (due for answer later this week) on student complaints – here, and here, and another here.
A decision on EU student fees will be provided with 'sufficient notice'.
Students wishing to defer 2020/21 due to lack of face to face teaching
Universities Minister urges fairness in residential accommodation charges during and post-pandemic.
Business Economic Recovery: The CBI set out its health-first recovery plan for the economic recovery. They urge the Government to focus recovery plans on:
Making job creation, skills training and opportunities, especially for young people, the top priority. Specifically:
transforming Job Centres into new Job & Skills Hubs to help create dynamic, local labour markets;
a future skills fund to support areas with high job potential such as digital, low carbon and health;
and introducing greater flexibility into the apprenticeship levy to help school and college leavers get into work.
Investing in the green economy to create new jobs, investment and a more sustainable future.
And targeted financial support to kick-start consumer demand and unleash UK competitiveness.
Competencies: Wonkhe have a blog on competence based training within HE.
Green economic recovery: Dods examine how green priorities can be addressed whilst the nation recovers economically from the C-19 pandemic in A Green Recovery: aligning economic recovery with climate policy in the UK. It considers what a green recovery could look like and how the Government might finance such an approach.
Cyber security: The Government announce the 10 successful bidders for the £10 million cyber pot which aims to strengthen the security of digital devices and services.
Where do you get your HE news? Here is a twitter thread reminding of some places you can access HE news. BU colleagues can also access Research Professional (and the Wonkhe daily for free).
T Levels: Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, has announced the third wave of T level providers. The first T levels will be taught this September with another 22 rolled out between 2021 and 2023. You'll recall that T levels require the equivalent of a 45 day work placement and the Government aspiration is this vocational route is to be considered just as worthy as the academic route in public esteem. The Government's press release talks of the acceleration of the T level roll out.
Copyright: A Wonkhe blog explains how copyright can be an issue in sharing material online to provide a high quality student learning experience.
Reopening: A UUK poll (of only 92 institutions) states that 97% of universities will provide some level of face to face teaching in the autumn term with 95% planning a mix of in-person and online teaching plus support services such as study skills, careers advice and mental health support. 87% are planning some in-person sports, fitness and wellbeing activities. Most have shared their teaching and opening plans with students, with the remainder planning to share imminently. The Guardian covers the survey, as does Research Professional. Meanwhile Wonkhe continue to report on the StudentHut C-19 tracker: 91% of prospective students are still planning to attend university this September, down from 95% in week one.
Claire Sosienski Smith, VP for HE at the NUS, said: "It is still unclear exactly how teaching and learning will work next year. Even if most universities intend to provide at least some in-person classes, will they be available for all subjects, and what proportion of learning will be online? Students need to know what they are signing up to; we want them to be able to make informed choices."
Digital & Debt: Bim Afolami MP writes for the Social Market Foundation (a cross-party think tank) to set out 10 ways to transform the country post-pandemic. He has two points directly relating to HE:
Student debt on high-quality STEM degrees should be written off if graduates spend five years working in STEM occupations (i) of high demand or (ii) in new Freeports or Opportunity Zones. STEM apprentices to be better funded and further financial incentives given to employers to take on more apprentices into full employment. (Wonkhe interpret 'high-quality' as intended to apply to Russell Group institutions only, with lesser quality course providers paying for the debt write off.)
Digital skills: private schools and universities should provide all their digital courses to state schools free of charge, which would enable us to equalise opportunities and widen digital skillsets in young people before they enter higher education and the workplace.
He raised the report at PMQs on Wednesday to which Boris responded: I have studied my hon. Friend's proposals with interest. He is an expert in what he speaks of and we will certainly look at all kinds of imaginative ways in which we can stimulate a strong rebound, a strong economic recovery. He should stand by for what the Chancellor is going to be announcing in the next few weeks. An adept response, likely there will be little relating to Bim's proposals however securing the question spot to highlight his report was a lucky break.
Student Opinion: Wonkhe report on the QS UK Domestic Student Survey 2020 (a survey of 4,200 UK students at 9 institutions concluding in Feb 2020):
73% of students agree that tuition fees should be abolished (up from 65% last year)
59% feel higher graduate employment or further study rates is the best indicator of high quality teaching.
60% feel that the TEF has not been clearly explained to them.
Contract Cheating: Wonkhe report that QAA has published the second edition of "Contracting to Cheat in Higher Education", its guidance on essay mills. They state that the new version responds to what is described as the "increasing scale" of essay mill use, and particular risks during the Covid-19 pandemic – with the approach now focused entirely on detection rather than assessment design.
PhD Apprenticeships shelved: The government will not fund PhD apprenticeships stating that they do not provide value for money. Gillian Keegan, Skills Minister, stated they were "not in the spirit of our reformed apprenticeships system".
Tags: admissions adult education ARPA BME compliance contract cheating deferrals Devolved government gender inequality Graduate Outcomes HE funding international students mature students Office for Students OFS public engagement public perceptions Racial disparities ref 2021 regulation research funding research integrity social mobility student experience student finance student number controls widening participation
EU, Industry collaboration, international, policy, Student Engagement jforster
The big news this week was the defeat of the Government's wishes to prevent an amendment which aims to hinder the prorogation of Parliament. Chris Skidmore made what may be his last speech as Universities Minister. Few HE reports were issued and the main thrust this week focussing on skills within industry including apprenticeships and the launch of the national retraining scheme. Have a lovely weekend, refuel and shore yourself up ready for Parliamentary changes next week!
When we write next week we'll have a new Government with (probably) a swift Ministerial reshuffle. The media has few hints about who will get what job, aside from some key Conservatives jostling for ministerial position.
Hints include:
Matt Hancock challenging Boris' stance on energy drinks – Boris wants to remove the sugar tax, Matt want to ban the drinks. Is it enough to boot him out of the Health Secretary role despite his declaring for Boris when he removed himself from the leadership race?
Gove (Environment Secretary) has stated Boris would make a 'great Prime Minister' and on both Boris and rival Hunt he states: "We can trust them both to do the right thing on every critical issue" whilst warning that time is running out to stop climate change. On this note he described Boris as having been "passionate about the environment for decades… [upon first meeting Boris Gove recalls that Boris] described himself to me without prompting as a passionately green Tory and in every role he has had he has championed the environment". The media is awash with stories that this is Gove's pitch to remain as Environment Minister. When Gove was asked if he wished to stay on in the Ministerial spot he stated he had merely been giving in the speech a "personal indication of the way which I would hope policy to develop, whoever does this job".
Amber Rudd has performed a political U turn and dropped her opposition to a no-deal Brexit. The Spectator claims she is a 'reasonable bet' for Ministerial office. Interesting, especially as she is backing Hunt for PM.
Plus Justine Greening, Sam Gyimah, local Sir Oliver Letwin, Sarah Newton, Minister Margot James all showed their stripes this week and voted against a 3-line whip in the amendment aiming to hinder Boris' potential prorogation of Parliament (more on this below).
Similarly four ministers failed to ingratiate themselves when they abstained on the amendment vote – Rory Stewart, long term Cabinet member Greg Clark, current Chancellor Philip Hammond (long rumoured to already have been off the list anyway) and Justice Secretary David Gauke.
And Chris Skidmore gave a speech which he said might be his last as Universities Minister –although he has also said he would like to stay.
Change is inevitable. Boris (assuming it is him) has said all his Ministers must support a no deal Brexit.
The Guardian has this to say on the Cabinet spots: Johnson is adamant that he has not been offering jobs to anyone before entering No 10, as appears likely to happen next Tuesday. He has even declined to say that Hunt will be allowed to stay in the cabinet. It remains to be seen whether he will forgive Gove for his betrayal in 2016, although senior Eurosceptics believe he will extend the hand of friendship with a cabinet post.
Meanwhile the Lords are trying to safeguard against Boris prorouguing Parliament (assuming Boris becomes PM). In an amendment to legislation the Lords defeated the Government by 272 votes to 169. While we have seen various opposition and backbencher parliamentary challenges aiming to prevent no deal or the prorogation this is the first real success.
Last week former PM John Major spoke out and threatened action against Boris' refusal to rule out closing down parliament to pass no deal. This week it appears the Lords may have been tipped into action by Boris' team suggesting that if Boris becomes PM he is considering holding a Queen's Speech to set out his legislative plans at the start of November – such a move would usually close down Parliament for the preceding two weeks – meaning MPs would be unable to vote against a no-deal in the run-up to the crucial Brexit deadline.
On Thursday afternoon the Commons debated the final stage of the Northern Ireland Bill (considering the Lords above amendment) – this is the legislation the amendments are being made to hindering the prorogation of Parliament for Brexit. Despite a Government 3-line whip the MPs voted to uphold the Lords amendment and this amendment blocks suspension of Parliament between 9 October and 18 December unless a Northern Ireland Executive is formed. It the NI Executive is not in place MPs must be recalled to debate Northern Ireland issues (of which Brexit is the key current issue) at this point. Notable for their vote against their party whip are: Justine Greening, Sam Gyimah, local Sir Oliver Letwin, Sarah Newton and the Minister Margot James who promptly resigned her DCMS ministerial post. Twelve other conservative MPs voted against the Government's wishes. Four cabinet ministers abstained: International Development Secretary Rory Stewart, Business Secretary Greg Clark, Chancellor Philip Hammond, and Justice Secretary David Gauke. Leadership hopeful Jeremy Hunt 'accidentally' missed the vote and took to Twitter to say he would have voted based on Government wishes. 30 other Conservative MPs abstained, including local MP Simon Hoare. Universities Minister Chris Skidmore and Education Secretary Damian Hinds voted with the Government's wishes. See the listings here for the full who's who details on the votes.
The amendment places another road block against the prorogation of parliament. However, the power to request the Queen to prorogue remains with the PM so it could still happen. What is most interesting is that the Government's defeat in this vote shows the potential for Conservatives to rebel and vote down the next PM in support of a Labour motion of no confidence. However, this would be an extreme action for Conservative MPs as doing so would precipitate a general election with the risk of MPs losing their constituency seats and potentially Labour (or a coalition group) forming a new Government. Many rebels have been suggested that they would stop short of this.
WP Speech from Universities Minister
Universities Minister Chris Skidmore spoke on widening access and participation on Monday. He visited Birkbeck University which has a big widening participation agenda and classes are held during the evenings only. The Minister visited because he wanted to learn from Birkbeck's flexible, 'step-on, step-off' approach to higher education for the future. And that's why we're expanding the range of options available to students today. The Minister states the Government's agenda is all about students making choices, which are best for them. He goes on to highlight key points:
We are putting extra resources into higher technical education and apprenticeships. So, as well as offering a range of world-leading higher education courses, we'd like to ensure that vocational and technical training options of equal quality are available across the entire country, so that all 18-year-olds are able to select the pathway that best suits their aspirations and potential. But…higher level education is not just for 18-year-olds. Here…we see the ultimate in flexible teaching models combined with high impact research, which all goes to show that part-time and mature students are right to expect the highest quality experience and outcomes.
This government recognises the importance of studying part-time and later in life, and the huge range of benefits it can bring to individuals, employers and the wider economy. We acknowledge there has been a 57% decline in the number of students in part-time higher education since 2010-11 – many of whom will be mature. And we recognise the need to rectify this since, as the world of work changes, it is important people are able to retrain and reskill as they need, so they don't get left behind. According to research by the Centre for Social Justice, it is expected that anywhere between 10 and 35% of the UK workforce will need to reskill in the next 20 years.
The Minister goes on to detail the changes aimed to support part time and mature students – access to maintenance loans and access to loans for STEM courses for ELQs (students who already have a degree or equivalent level qualification). But we know we still need to do more – both to encourage students to study part-time and later in life, and to encourage all higher education providers to develop their offers to appeal to those students. The Minister mentions the OfS' work on Access and Participation Plans and how institutions plan to tackle barriers and problems for mature students.
In 2018, for the first time ever, over 20% of English 18-year-olds living in the lowest participation neighbourhoods entered higher education. And the data just released on 2019 applications shows further significant progress… But, we cannot rest on our laurels… we're still not getting the most disadvantaged students into the best possible courses for them. Our widening participation data shows White boys on free school meals have the lowest progression rates to higher education. And there are still significant regional differences to address across the country.
To make sure our efforts to improve access and participation are as effective as they can be, we need to be willing to look at the system as a whole, and to take a whole-system approach to outreach and widening participation activities… we cannot offer just generic support. What we need is support tailored to different student groups – including commuter students, postgraduate students, mature part-time students, international students, care leavers and estranged students, disabled students, students from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds, and students from the poorest parts of our society. And let's not forget the need to support the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT+) students… Inclusion needs to be at the heart of all institutional policy. Because it is only when inclusion becomes mainstream that we will deliver a sea change in attitudes – putting an end to the old myth that university is only for a certain type of person, from a certain type of background.
That's why I welcome the review of admissions being undertaken by the Office for Students (OfS)… Experimenting with contextual admissions is one part of this. Contextual admissions involve universities reflecting on the circumstances within which students' attainment has been achieved; for example, the nature and overall performance of the school they attend, their socio-economic background, or perhaps a difficult personal situation. Most universities already do this to some extent, but I would like the most selective, in particular, to be more ambitious in making contextual offers to recognise the untapped potential that many disadvantaged students have. There is good evidence to show that students who have had offers reduced by several grades can make excellent progress at university, provided the right support has been put in place for them.
Ensuring we [institutions] are using the right data, measuring the right things, and using data in the right way is a key priority for me
The Minister went on to state a reformed student information resource would be launched in the autumn including LEO data, the innovative digital tools developed through the Open Data Competition and the OfS review of Unistats. The UCAS new student hub to enable applicants more personal searches and advice was mentioned too.
And the OfS is promoting and supporting greater and faster progress to support disadvantaged students…all [HEI's] need to be able to access high quality evidence of what works to enable them to make a step change in closing the gaps between students – in access, experience, and outcomes. This is why the new [OfS] Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes (TASO) is so important.
Unpaid internships are mentioned too: let's not forget the work we can be doing to support graduates into the world of work at the end of their studies… we shouldn't turn a blind eye to the fact that it is at this point of the year that some students and fresh graduates fall prey to unpaid internships to gain experience and get a foot on the jobs ladder.
Recent research by the Sutton Trust showed that the minimum cost of carrying out an unpaid internship here in London is £1,019 per month. So, we should be doing everything we can to stop these work placements being a privilege of the rich and making careers support more visible on campus to steer students in the right direction.
Employability needs to be weaved into the system – not just by careers teams but also by academics, who equally have a role to play in making students aware of the transferable skills they are gaining from their higher education. It's obviously not great news when almost half (49%) of young people aged between 17 and 23 believe their education has not prepared them for the world of work – as revealed by a survey from the CBI in November last year.
And, as this may well be my last higher education speech as Universities Minister, I want to thank the sector for all I have seen and for all it is doing in continuing to make our universities and colleges accessible, inclusive and open to all.
Universities UK has launched the Future of Degree Apprenticeships report arguing the qualification provides significant opportunities for employers to diversify their workforce, increasing the opportunities available to young people, and widening employers' talent pools. It suggests that the link between apprenticeship policy and the Industrial Strategy needs to be strengthened to ensure provision in key sectors can flourish. This is in line with the recent Government position on focussing degree apprenticeships into specified key sectors and stemming the (expensive) significant growth in higher level apprenticeships which has displaced some lower level provision (see 12 July policy update for more on this). UUK suggest that encouraging development of more level 4 and level 5 apprenticeships and progression pathways will bring flexibility and is a direct appeal to the Government during the Higher Technical Education Reform consultation period.
The report recommendations sound familiar:
The Government should lead a campaign to promote the benefits of degree apprenticeships to employers and the public, including better careers information and guidance at an earlier age in schools, and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) should make the application system for degree apprenticeships as straightforward as it is for undergraduate degrees.
The Government should invest in initiatives to support social mobility, lifelong learning, and growth in degree apprenticeships among underrepresented groups.
The system should develop to meet current and future demand for higher level skills in areas such as digital technology, management, and public services, to boost regional economies.
Make it easier for employers to include a degree within their apprenticeships where they see it adding value to their business and to their apprentices, and streamline processes and reduce unnecessary costs in the system.
Professor Quintin McKellar CBE, VC, University of Hertfordshire stated: Degree apprenticeships provide an opportunity for employers to work closely with universities to develop high-quality programmes that meet key skills needs, fill occupations that are experiencing shortages and deliver them in an innovative and flexible way. They provide opportunities for employers to recruit talented staff with potential, and to develop and upskill existing staff.
Industry Skills Focus
The new Peterborough University has surveyed employers in its quest to directly produce graduates which serve national shortages but particularly fit the skills needs of local employers. Retaining graduate talent in the local area is another key priority. The survey is interesting because it provides feedback from employers on what they see as the most useful degree programmes.
The most popular areas were business, IT and digital, and sustainability skills. These areas of learning were judged to have been favoured because of their general importance to a range of business sectors.
Employers also said that skills in mechanical and structural engineering, mathematics, science and certain health and social care skills were in demand now, and would continue to be so in the future.
Newer and rapidly progressing technology featured strongly in the responses, with artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and software development highlighted as likely to be in significant demand in the future.
Sustainability, primary environmental management and the circular economy were also identified as areas where skills will be needed in the future.
(Note: employers selected their most useful degree programmes from a slightly limited range, based on what Peterborough is proposing to offer.)
Interesting for the Government's achievement of the Research Development target is that 83% of the industry respondents stated they would use the university's research functions with manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and materials companies the most enthusiastic about the prospect.
Peterborough Mayor, James Palmer, said: We have always said that this university will be delivery and should engage with the local business community from development through to operation in order to turn out the kinds of technical skills needed in our local economy. Not only that, but the way skills are delivered is also important, and we can see from the survey that courses which involve work placement or work-based study were revealed to be very popular…We need this university to help retain and attracted talented people to the local area, to drive up the levels of aspiration and to offer a secure, proven educational pathway to better life chances, fulfilling careers and the skills that will be in demand in the 21st Century economy.
Councillor John Holdich, Leader of Peterborough City Council and Deputy Mayor of the Combined Authority said: Our aspiration is for a university for Peterborough which is rooted in the needs of the local economy and supplying the skills demanded by local employers. This in turn will help our young people into well-paid, secure jobs fit for the rapidly evolving 21st Century workplace. Our employers have told us quite clearly what skills they need and the industries likely to prosper in future years which will now be used to shape the curriculum to be offered by the university.
National Retraining Scheme
The DfE have launched a National Retraining Scheme to support people whose jobs are at risk to adapt to technological change. Current figures suggest that 35% of jobs will change due to automation within the next 20 years. The scheme is starting in the Liverpool City Region with help provided through a new digital service Get Help to Retrain. It aims to support those at risk to identify their existing skills, explore local job opportunities and where to go to find training courses to gain the skills they need to progress. As the scheme is available through an online digital method we hope those needing the support do have sufficient digital literacy to access the service.
Education Secretary Damian Hinds said:
"Technologies like AI and automation are transforming the way we live and work and bringing huge benefits to our economy, but it also means that jobs are evolving and some roles will soon become a thing of the past.
"The National Retraining Scheme will be pivotal in helping adults across the country whose jobs are at risk of changing to gain new skills and get on the path to a new, more rewarding career.
"This is big and complex challenge, which is why we are starting small, learning as we go, and releasing each part of the scheme only when it's ready to benefit its users
You can read the DfE written ministerial statement on National Retraining Scheme here.
Student Loans Company
You may recall the effectiveness of the Student Loans Company was questioned in 2018 following high profile resignations, their use of social media to determine the estrangement status of students, and the revelation of concerning levels of poor mental health within the workforce.
Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore issued a Written Ministerial Statement on the Tailored Review of the Student Loans Company stating the organisation remained relatively fit for purpose, despite significant operational challenges which include high turnover of staff, and is meeting the majority of its performance targets.
On moving forward the Minister states: The SLC's own Transformation Programme seeks to address some of the issues and the Tailored Review provides additional and complementary recommendations. The Department for Education is committed to working with the SLC and other stakeholders to develop and implement an action plan to take forward all 39 recommendations.
Parental financial top up
Which? have released findings revealing the scale of parental support for children studying at university. In a survey of 846 parents of both current and prospective undergraduate students, a quarter admitted to cutting back on big expenses, such as holidays.
More than eight in ten parents of current students said they were funding their child in some way while they were studying.
Half of parents said that the overall cost of university was more than they expected and it caught them off guard.
Some parents took a second job to cover their child's university expenses. Two thirds of parents manage the extra costs through their normal employment pay levels whereas a quarter fund the child through their savings. Two in five parents state they had to cut down on their day to day spending, not just luxuries such as taking holidays.
When asked what expenses they were helping to cover, parents of current students listed accommodation, bills and food (56%), study materials (37%), outings and hobbies (28%), and even tuition fees (10%).
Yet one fifth of parents stated they didn't know exactly what their child was spending their additional top up money on
The survey states parents of current undergraduate students in our survey said they are putting their hand in their pocket to the tune of £360 per month, on average.
A separate Which? survey to students found nearly half of respondents underestimated the price of accommodation and course expenses.
Which? use the news article to highlight the range of student finance options available and to urge parents of younger children to use the calculators and tools to begin financially preparing in advance of their child commencing university.
Graduate Regional Earnings
The DfE has released the LEO data detailing regional findings in HE graduates earnings.
Almost half of all graduates residing in the same region as their HE provider 5 years after graduation. If a graduate now lives outside of the region of their provider they are most likely to have moved to London.
Some of the movement away from provider region will be graduates returning to their home region. One year after graduation a very high proportion of graduates (82%) are in the same current region as their original home region (43.7% who studied in the same region and therefore never left their home region and 38.3% who chose to study in a different region and subsequently returned.)
Graduate earnings are highest in London but graduates earn more, on average, than non-graduates in all regions of England with the gap in pay relatively similar across the country but greatest in absolute terms in London (around £5,000) and in percentage terms in the South West (around 22%). The report acknowledges that the regional itself has a significant effect on earnings.
Education Committee funding report
The Education Committee has published the report from their inquiry into school and college funding. It calls on the Government to fix the broken education funding system, commit to a multi-billion cash injection for schools and colleges and bring forward a strategic ten-year education funding plan.
See the report for all the school related findings; here we focus on the key points relevant to FE.
The report shows that further education has been hardest hit, with post-16 funding per student falling by 16% in real terms over the past decade.
The capital funding landscape is becoming increasingly concerning. The Department must make the strongest possible case to the Treasury for a multi-billion pound funding increase in the next spending review, and ensure this is aligned with the requirements for a ten-year plan.
The continued underfunding of post-16 education is no longer justifiable. These budget pressures are the result of political decisions that have had enormous impacts on young people's educational opportunities and undermined attempts to tackle social justice. The Department must make the case to the Treasury for a post-16 core funding rate raise from £4,000 to at least £4,760 per student, rising in line with inflation. This is needed to ensure pupil services can be provided at minimum acceptable levels, and prevent institutions from having to cut back still further on the breadth of subjects offered.
It is clear that Pupil Premium is being used to plug holes in school budgets rather than being directed at disadvantaged children. The Department should also introduce a 16–19 Pupil Premium scheme. The Department should additionally develop a data-sharing system to ensure FE institutions can identify disadvantaged students automatically.
A ten-year plan for education funding is essential. It would provide schools, colleges and the Department with much needed strategic direction and financial certainty. The short-termism and initiative-itis that characterises the Department's current approach cannot afford to continue.
Rt Hon Robert Halfon MP, Chair of the Education Committee, said:
"Education is crucial to our nation's future. It is the driver of future prosperity and provides the ladder of opportunity to transform the life chances of millions of our young people. If it is right that the NHS can have a ten-year plan and a five-year funding settlement, then surely education, perhaps the most important public service, should also have a ten-year plan and a long-term funding settlement.
Parliament will enter recess shortly after the new Prime Minister is announced. We'll issue a policy update next Friday 26 July, then there will be a break for a few weeks followed by a bumper edition catching you up with the summer news.
Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you'd like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
Don't forget! – There's still time to response to BU's internal consultation gathering colleagues view on transparency and openness in health and social care research to inform our response to the HRA Make it Public consultation.
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
Tags: adult education Brexit degree apprenticeships employability Graduate Outcomes industrial strategy LEO lifelong learning longitudinal education outcomes mature students national politics part-time students school funding SLC student finance Student Loan Company widening participation
HE Policy update for the w/e 24th May 2019
EU, hate crime, humanities, international, policy, Student Engagement jforster
We usually post these early on a Monday morning so you can all catch up before you start the week, but we write them on a Friday – these days they can be out of date within 10 minutes, let alone after a weekend. So this week we are going early!
EU election results will be announced on Sunday. In BCP the turnout was 36%. In Dorset it was 41.2%. While these are not spectacular turnouts, they are higher than some were expecting.
The PM has announced that she will step down and that the leadership contest will start on 10th June (which means the positioning etc that had already started will now intensify massively and candidates will only start being eliminated formally after 10th June). We have more below.
And in "legacy" territory – the Augar review may be published next week.
Expect "ground-softening" over the weekend – probably as painful as it sounds.
Augar rumours – the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding.
The Augar review may be published next week. Remember, it's the review of an advisory panel. The Department for Education will have to respond (was planned for the Autumn) and it is dependent to a certain extent on the Comprehensive Spending Review (not yet started). Whoever gets the top job may have other priorities than implementing its recommendations. And if whoever gets the top job really messes things up, there might be a general election before the end of the year.
However, once the recommendations are out, it will be very hard to put them back into the box, so hold on to your hats. Personally I'm expecting a very complex and detailed set of recommendations – not just a simple cut to headline tuition fee loan amounts (although that may be the starting point).
Damien Hinds is already positioning. How to read this?
"universities that are shown to offer a poor economic return for their degrees will not be able to charge £9,250 a year"…." Instead, a lower fee of around £7,500 is expected to be announced by Philip Augar's review" [note it's a recommendation not an announcement]
"the Education Secretary argued that under the current £9,250 a year tuition fee system there is "no distinction" between courses that offer a high return for graduates and the economy and those that do not"…targeting "low value, low quality" university degrees – "the move is likely to crack down on creative arts and media studies courses from lower tariff universities"
So does this mean fees set by subject? But it sounds more complex than that – how do you address the low quality, low value bit of this?
This could imply an uplift on a £7500 base for the "high value, high quality programmes" within a subject based on a metric linked to either "quality" [defined how?] or outcomes [aka graduate salaries or a basket of outcomes measures?]. If so, let's hope it is based on data that takes into account background, context (eg geography and the state of the economy) and prior attainment of students, and not just raw salaries.
Any uplift could be in the form of a government grant or an increased fee cap funded by a tuition fee loan. The latter seems to add a level of complexity for applicants and a set of strange incentives [pay more for sciences] so a government grant/loan to the provider seems more likely – perhaps with further strings attached?
Or does it mean something else? "he said too many universities were being "incentivised" to expand courses that cost little and offer poor prospects to students in a bid to generate income"
This is the "bums on seats" argument. So that sounds like instead of being based on outcomes, a fee cap might be linked to cost? Probably not, it probably means quality and outcomes again. There will just be [slightly] less incentive to offer these courses and pack the bums onto seats once the fee cap is reduced. This is playing to the proponents of the "too many students are going to universities" argument by linking high volume and low cost to poor quality – which doesn't necessarily hold true.
But on top-ups, the article says: "Universities have argued that any cut in tuition fees should be topped up by the Government, but Mr Hinds suggested the sector had not been forced to bear the brunt of cuts as other areas of the public sector had since 2010." "If you look back since the financial crash in 2007/08…it has been difficult for the public finances. We've protected the five to 16 schools budget, we've protected the health budget but for everywhere else there have been tight times. For universities they haven't had that same tough, tight times," he said."
So no top ups then? But if that is the case, how is the Minister going to achieve the differentiation that he seems to want? I think this is just an argument against universal top ups – and there will be some, just limited, linked to metrics and with strings attached as described above.
It's all a bit of a muddle. We may see as early as Sunday….
Grade Inflation
In November 2019 QAA ran a consultation on degree classification and academic standards (here is BU's response). You can read an analysis of the consultation responses here, and this week the outcome report has been published: Degree Classification transparency, reliability and fairness – a statement of intent. It sets out a statement of intent by which HE institutions will ensure academic standards are protected. It also calls on English universities to publish a degree outcomes statement. The statement should report on an internal institutional review which will self-judge whether the Quality Code and the OfS' registration conditions relating to qualifications are being met.
A common degree classification framework, which will act as a reference point for providers by describing high-level attributes expected of a graduate to achieve a particular degree, is also in development. The descriptions formed part of the consultation and are currently being refined ready for publication by the UKSCQA in the summer.
Finally the report sets out the sector level actions to ensure the conventions and practices are refreshed and remain current.
Nicola Dandridge, Chief Exec of OfS, welcomed the report and said: "This is a welcome statement of intent which shows that universities recognise the need to ensure that degree standards are maintained, and can be trusted by students and employers alike…Our own research on this issue showed that there has been significant and unexplained grade inflation in recent years. The Office for Students has been clear that measured but decisive action is necessary to ensure that students, graduates and employers have confidence in the manner in which degrees are awarded."
Brexit and the government….
Well, this is out of date the minute it's written. The Withdrawal Agreement Bill is now completely irrelevant until after the Tory leadership contest. There is time for one of those and then who knows what before Hallowe'en and the default date for leaving the EU without a deal. Everyone assumes that either a no-deal advocate will win – and ignore the wishes of Parliament and let us default out of the EU – or that whoever wins will have to ask for yet another extension while they sort out a new arrangement or try to persuade the EU to change the backstop etc.
Key EU figures have spoken out against the Conservative leadership squabbles restating that the EU will not reopen negotiations with the new Conservative Prime Minister. Ireland's deputy PM, Simon Coveney, said: "the personality might change but the facts don't". Coveney said: "The danger of course, is that the British system will simply not be able to deal with this issue…even though there's a majority in Westminster that want to avoid a no-deal Brexit, and that is why over the summer months we will continue to focus significant efforts and financial resources on contingency planning to prepare for that worst case scenario."
The BBC explain the process here:
Candidates need two MP proposers to back them for leader;
Tory MPs then vote and the candidates with the lowest votes are eliminated until two candidates remain;
A postal vote ballot is then held on these two candidates with the rest of the Tory membership. The winner of this becomes Conservative leader.
Current likely candidates: Jeremy Hunt, Amber Rudd, Liz Truss, Sajid Javid, Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom, Matt Hancock, Penny Mordaunt, Tom Tugendhat, Michael Gove, Esther McVey, Sir Graham Brady, James Cleverly, Kit Malthouse, Mark Harper, Rory Stewart. A recent YouGov poll reveals Boris Johnson is the most popular Conservative candidate among the party members with a lead of 18 points.
With a change of party leadership and PM we may see some policies being pushed and others dropped. The Times have an interesting piece sharing a survey of 858 Conservative members' opinion on key manifesto pieces such as same-sex marriage, HS2, economic policy, and avoiding an early general election.
Finally, a cascade reshuffle has been announced to replace Andrea Leadsom:
Mel Stride,the current Treasury minister, will become leader of the Commons replacing Andrea.
Jesse Norman, currently the transport minister, will replace Mel Stride as financial secretary to the Treasury and paymaster general.
Michael Ellis, currently a culture minister, replaces Jesse Norman as transport minister.
Rebecca Pow joins the government to replace Michael Ellis as culture minister.
The Government have announced the package of measures to support employers to deliver T-level industry placements. The T Level placement will be at least 315 hours (approximately 45 days) allowing students to build the knowledge and skills they need in a workplace environment. The package includes:
New guidance to support employers and providers to offer tailored placements that suit their workplace and the needs of young people. This will include offering placement opportunities with up to 2 employers and accommodating students with part time jobs or caring responsibilities.
A new £7 million pilot scheme to explore ways to help cover the costs associated with hosting a young person in their workplace such as equipment and protective clothing.
Bespoke 'how to' guides, workshops and practical hands-on support for employers – designed alongside industry bodies to make it as easy as possible for them to offer placements.
T levels begin rolling out in across the first three study areas in September 2020 (digital, education, construction). The announced pilot scheme will start prior to the 2020 roll out. From 2021 Health and Science T levels will be introduced, followed by legal, finance/accounting, engineering and manufacturing, creative and design in 2022. Bournemouth and Poole College are listed as one of only 20 providers who will run the first T level projects. The Government also aims to attract 80 industry experts to teach within the T levels sector.
Education Secretary Damian Hinds said: T Levels represent the biggest shake up to technical education in a generation…Industry placements will provide businesses with an opportunity to attract a diverse range of talent and build the skilled workforce they need for the future. To make a success of T Levels, we need businesses working in partnership with us and colleges. Industry placements will help young people build the confidence and skills they need to get a head start in their careers and they'll help businesses maximise their talent pipeline for the future.
Matthew Fell, CBI Chief UK Policy Director, said: There has long been a need for an increase in prestigious technical options after GCSEs that parents, teachers, and businesses understand. This package of measures to help employers deliver placements is welcome, because if T Levels are going to be a success they will require long-term commitment from Government. Support will be most needed for small and medium-sized businesses, so special attention should be paid to these firms.
Mature Foundation Year Phenomenon
Last week we told you about how access courses are declining whilst foundation years are on the rise and explored the student outcomes for these differing routes (see here, pages 9-10).
HESA have analysed data from 2010/11 to 2017/18 to find clues about disadvantaged students who undertake a foundation year. Foundation years have taken off in increasing numbers since 2014/15, in particular London sees significant growth in foundation year numbers. Click here for the interactive chart to explore the interactions between disadvantage and young/mature.
The analysis uses the index of multiple deprivation to measure disadvantage and find that across England the number of entrants to a foundation year from the most disadvantaged areas has grown by 7% – making it 32% of the total entrants. However, the effect is greater when only the most disadvantaged mature students are explored up by 12% to 41% of the total entrants. Mature students seem to account for the significant rise in foundation years – it can be seen most prominently in the London only data.
HESA say:
The Office for Studentshas said that reversing the decline in entry into higher education among mature students and especially those from less privileged backgrounds is a vital part of ensuring more equality in access to higher education. Much of the current debate has been around what modifications are required within part-time study and student finance to help achieve this, given such courses are taken predominantly by older students.
The above narrative suggests that foundation years could also be a useful way of helping disadvantaged mature learners return to study. In both countries, we found that much of the increase in mature entry in recent years is accounted for by a small number of institutions. Hence, future research may wish to explore how these universities have managed to buck the wider trend of decline, as this may improve sector understanding of what is needed to support mature and/or disadvantaged individuals into higher education.
Wonkhe report on the graduate recruitment company who have published Working with class: The state of social immobility in graduate recruitment. Wonkhe state the report finds over a third of 18-25 year olds are put off joining a business if they perceive the workforce to be made up predominantly of middle and upper-class employees – equating to 2.5 million young people. The report argues that this is costing businesses and the wider economy £270 billion per year. The research also found two thirds (66%) of graduates felt they had to change "who they are" to "make a good impression" during an interview and the majority (64%) said they weren't able to express themselves as individuals during application processes.
Wonkhe also have an interesting and short blog on what the graduate outcomes metrics aren't measuring despite the data being available. What about graduate job satisfaction? explores the old DLHE question examining why the graduate chose the job they were doing and the nearest equivalents in the Graduate Outcomes survey which asks whether the graduate's current activity fits with their future plans, is meaningful, and utilities their degree learning. The author calls for TEF and league table compilers to pay more attention to this richer source of graduate outcome information.
Disadvantage – access, participation and success
A parliamentary question on opening up disadvantage data to support university admissions receives the usual 'not yet' response:
Universities: Disclosure of Information
Q – Ben Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with the Office for Students on the transmission of data on applicants' pupil premium status and ethnicity directly to universities in order to support universities' work on widening participation and access.
A – Chris Skidmore:
Widening access and participation in higher education is a priority for the government. This means that everyone with the capability to succeed in higher education should have the opportunity to participate, regardless of their background or where they grew up.
We have made real progress in ensuring universities are open to all, with record rates of disadvantaged 18-year-olds in higher education. However, we know there is further to go to maximise the potential of the talent out there, so it is vital that we build on this progress.
Higher education providers need to use good quality and meaningful data to identify disadvantage in order to effectively address disparities in access and participation in higher education. We encourage institutions to use a range of measures to identify disadvantage, including individual-level indicators, area data (such as Participation of Local Areas, Index of Multiple Deprivation or postcode classification from ACORN), school data, intersectional data such as Universities and Colleges Admissions Service's (UCAS) Multiple Equality Measure, and participation in outreach activities. To this end, we are working with the Office for Students (OfS), UCAS and sector representatives to further explore how we can support universities to improve and enhance access to data.
We want institutions to consider a broad range of information in their offers, including the context in which a student's results were achieved. We are committed to helping universities progress in their efforts to improve access and successful participation for under-represented groups.
And while we're talking of Chris Skidmore, he has had a temporary promotion to cover for Claire Perry, Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth. Chris will retain his Universities Minister portfolio whilst attending Cabinet on Claire's behalf.
Minimum salary threshold
Politics Home reports that Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, will remove the £30,000 minimum salary threshold for EU migrants wishing to work within the UK. All media sources are drawing on a letter than The Sun obtained in which Sajid wrote to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) recommending they reconsider the wage threshold and address regional wage discrepancies. The Sun report Sajid also said he wants EU migrants to receive exemptions for a range of professions and for new entrants and inexperienced works to be paid less.
The MAC's £30k policy brought the wage requirement for EU in line with that required to be achieved by international migrants and said it would also help to boost wages for UK workers. Prior to the £30k policy announcement (see Immigration white paper, Dec 2018) it was reported that there was heated opposition to the policy in the cabinet from both the Chancellor and the Business Secretary (Greg Clark). As a concession to the opposition it was agreed the Minister (Sajid Javid) would consult with business on the final level of the salary threshold. Politics Home state: "Saj is basically telling the MAC to go away and do their work all over again. He knows Theresa is off and he's cashing in."
The leaked letter states: "The Government is committed to engaging extensively over the course of this year before confirming the level of the minimum salary threshold." It is believed the MAC are due to reopen the salary threshold discussions and report back to Sajid Javid at the end of 2019.
The Public Accounts Committee have published a progress review on the apprenticeships programme, raising concerns over low take-up, unambitious targets and poor-quality training.
It argues that the DfE has failed to make the predicted progress when launching apprenticeship reforms in 2017. The number of apprenticeship starts fell by 26% after the apprenticeship levy was introduced and, although the level is now recovering, the government will not meet its target of 3 million starts by March 2020. The committee moreover concludes that the department's focus on higher-level apprenticeships and levy-paying employers increases the risk that minority groups, disadvantaged areas and smaller employers may miss out on the benefits that apprenticeships can bring.
The report also finds that the Department underspent the programme's budget by 20% in 2017-18, but employers' preference for higher-cost apprenticeships means that the programme is expected to come under growing financial pressure in the coming years.
Smart dorms: Accommodation provider UPP are considering trialling new technology and research initiatives as part of a smart property technology push. UPP said: "We have an aspiration to create smart communities within our bedrooms and our accommodation, and we want to support universities' smart agendas…One of the ideas that we're following at UPP is, how can we get virtual assistants into our rooms? How can we use smart technology in the lights and so on?" UPP state that students want more control over their accommodation, such as how much energy they use, and that new technology could help monitor student wellbeing, for example registering how often students leave their rooms. They are encouraging suppliers to see university accommodation as a "testbed for…their new gadgets", which could help keep down costs for students renting the rooms. Research Professional have the full article here.
FE funding: Education Select Committee Chair Robert Halfon joins the call for FE providers to be funded fairly. Writing in Politics Home he states:
When delivered well, skills, education and apprenticeships provide a ladder of opportunity that allows anyone, no matter what their background, the opportunity to secure jobs, prosperity and security for their future. This is important for two reasons: to address social injustices in our society and to boost productivity in our country. Getting this right benefits everyone, and colleges are the vanguard in our fight to achieve this.
Despite delivering fantastic outcomes for their learners and meeting our skills needs, colleges get a raw deal in funding terms. According to the IFS, 16-18 education "has been the biggest loser", with spending per student falling by eight per cent in real terms since 2010/2011. For too long, Further Education has been considered the 'Cinderella Sector'.
The Education Select Committee has been: examining the potential for a long term, ten-year vision for education investment that recognises the vital contribution from our colleges…The benefit that colleges bring to individuals, communities and our country transcends party politics and referendum lines.
Antisemitism: Universities were reminded of their responsibilities to tackle religious-based hate at the end of last week. This Government news story tells of potential indirect discrimination after a University Jewish society was expected to fund a £2,000 security bill to run an event.
Careers Hubs: Dorset LEP has been successful in a bid to establish a Careers Hub. In 2018 Careers Hubs were trialled through first wave providers who reported over performance against the measured careers education targets:
outperforming the national average on all 8 Gatsby Benchmarks of good careers guidance;
58% of Careers Hubs provide every student with regular encounters with employers;
52% provided every student with workplace experience (work experience, shadowing or workplace visits).
Improvements were strongest in disadvantaged regions.
The press release describes the Careers Hub model:
Careers Hubs bring together schools and colleges with employers, universities, training providers and career professionals to improve outcomes for young people. There is a focus on best practice and schools and colleges have access to support and funding, including an expert Hub Lead to help coordinate activity and build networks, a central fund to support employer engagement activities, and training for a Careers Leader in each school and college. Employers are vital to the Hub model's success, with all Hubs required to demonstrate strong engagement amongst local businesses and a clear plan for increasing employer engagement
Carolyn Fairbairn, Director General of the CBI, said:"Firms can sometimes struggle to engage with the schools and colleges that need their support. It's therefore hugely encouraging to see more Careers Hubs on the way. There is no doubt they will play a pivotal role in helping employers get more involved."
Poverty: The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, published his final report into extreme poverty and human rights (including taking account of 300 written consultation responses). You can read the full report here, or you can contact Policy for a shorter summary and recommendations if this topic is of interest. The report sets out a bleak picture of poverty levels in the UK and draws a direct parallel between the rise in poverty and the Government's austerity agenda:
"Close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. Food banks have proliferated; homelessness and rough sleeping have increased greatly; tens of thousands of poor families must live in accommodation far from their schools, jobs and community networks; life expectancy is falling for certain groups; and the legal aid system has been decimated"
"The bottom line is that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos."
The Government have responded pushing back on the report calling it a "barely believable documentation of Britain" and stating that "all the evidence shows that full-time work is the best way to boost your income and quality of life."
Industrial Strategy: The 5 universities in the West Midlands have jointly published a report raising awareness of the value and contribution they make to the Government's Industrial Strategy. Deborah Cadman, CEO of the West Midlands Combined Authority, said: "The West Midlands is the first region to work with the UK Government to develop a Local Industrial Strategy and the region's universities are at the forefront of the vital link between innovation and industry. Their research and development reaches far beyond the laboratory and lecture theatres. By driving the local economy and improving everyone's lives, they are already addressing the UK's future challenges."
Tags: anti-semitism apprenticeships Augar review Brexit careers hubs elections Further Education grade inflation Graduate Outcomes immigration industrial strategy international students mature students post-18 review poverty T levels technical education visas widening participation
HE Policy update for the w/e 11th January 2019
EU, Impact, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, policy jforster
Value for money (1) – cutting low value university courses
A report by Onward published on 7th January sets out some ideas for addressing the concerns about high student loans: A question of degree – Why we should cut graduates' taxes and pay for it by reducing the number of low value university courses. Not much surprise about what they recommend then….
"Onward is a powerful ideas factory for centre-right thinkers and leaders. We exist to make Britain fairer, more prosperous and more united, by generating a new wave of modernising ideas and a fresh kind of politics that reaches out to new groups of people. We believe in a mainstream conservatism – one that recognises the value of markets and supports the good that government can do, is unapologetic about standing up to vested interests, and assiduous in supporting the hardworking, aspirational and those left behind. Our goal is to address the needs of the whole country: young as well as old; urban as well as rural; and for all parts of the UK – particularly places that feel neglected or ignored in Westminster."
Its foreword is by two MPs: Neil O'Brien OBE MP and Gillian Keegan MP:
…at present we have a dramatically lop-sided system. University education dominates at the top of every profession, and every institution. In contrast, technical education and apprenticeships have been the poor relation for decades, neglected and underfunded. Until recently, these courses have not even provided any route to high level qualifications or top jobs. In recent years that has started to change, with the creation of higher level technical education, degree apprenticeships and the forthcoming Institutes of Technology. But still there's a long way to go. And a lot to change. Thanks to new government data we now know that there are many people for whom it is not worth incurring over £50,000 of debt to obtain a university degree – either for them, or for the government. This paper concludes it is between a fifth and a quarter of university students. We now know specifically which courses, at which institutions, see their graduates earning too little for their degree to have been worth it financially. That's not the only way in which the facts have changed in recent years either. New data on the dramatic imbalances of wealth between generations makes it clear that we need to take urgent action to help younger generations enjoy the same opportunities their parents had. ….
The challenges:
Graduates face some of the highest marginal tax rates of any taxpayers in England and Wales, compounding imbalances of wealth between the generations
In economic terms, university represents extremely poor value for money for some graduates, especially those studying certain subjects:
Earnings varies considerably by subject…. Graduates studying medicine, law, economics and the hard sciences ("STEM subjects") enjoy high returns.
Lower earning courses included degrees in creative arts, psychology, agriculture, combined studies, mass communications, English and social studies (excluding economics).
The lowest earning subjects of all were creative arts courses, which had the largest number of graduates of any course type despite the lowest earnings. Ten years after graduating, the median creative arts graduate does not earn above the £25,000 repayment threshold and is not paying anything back.
There is little evidence that market forces are driving students towards courses with high returns.
Low returns and high interest rates combine to ensure most loans are never fully paid back
Despite being neglected, technical education is already a better route to higher earnings for many students. If we invested more in higher technical education, it could be even better
Those with the lowest prior attainment are the most likely to be financial losers under the current system
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the public do not believe the current system of student loans is fair or represents value for money
Simply abolishing tuition fees does nothing for graduates, and is prohibitively expensive for taxpayers, including many who have not themselves attended university
Reducing tuition fees from their current level would do little to reduce the day-to-day repayment burden of graduates
Replacing loans with a graduate tax is simpler but is unlikely to lead to lower graduate repayments and would worsen 'brain drain'
Shifting the costs to employers would do little for graduates, and create significant distortions
Altering rates and thresholds might have the desired effects, but compound other issues with loan forgiveness and accounting
The recommendations:
Value for money (2) – no secrets revealed yet
The Education Committee published its report, Value for Money in Higher Education, on 5 November 2018. The government response to the Committee's report was published on 3rd January 2019
Interestingly it starts by setting the tone for what is to follow:
This document sets out the government's response to the Committee's report and clarifies the responsibilities of the Office for Students (OfS) and the Institute of Apprenticeships in respect of the issues raised. It also reflects that the government is continuing to develop policy in these areas alongside the Review of Post 18 Education and Funding, which will conclude in 2019.
That about sums it up. We've set out the responses below in summary with some comments.
Value for money for students and the taxpayer
Recommendation: Every higher education institution should publish a breakdown of how tuition fees are spent on their websites. This should take place by the end of 2018, and we recommend that the Office for Students intervene if this deadline is not met.
Response: [this is for the OFS to deal with]
Recommendation: Unjustifiably high pay for senior management in higher education has become the norm rather than the exception and does not represent value for money for students or the taxpayer.
Response: Universities receive significant amounts of public funding, so it is only right that their senior staff pay arrangements command public confidence and deliver good value for both students and taxpayers. We want to see senior staff pay in universities that is fair and justifiable.
[ie, this is for the OFS to deal with]
Recommendation: The current system of self-regulation for senior management pay is totally unacceptable. We call for the Office for Students to publish strict criteria for universities on acceptable levels of pay that could be linked to average staff pay, performance and other measures that the Office for Students sees fit. The Office for Students should take swift action if this is not the case.
Response: In addition to the requirement for providers to publish justifications for their pay levels as outlined above, the OfS requires providers to publish the pay multiple of the head of the provider's remuneration compared with that of all other employees. Universities are autonomous institutions and they are solely responsible for setting the pay of their staff, including senior managers. The government is not seeking to set pay levels within providers. These measures are designed to improve the transparency of pay levels for senior staff within HE providers.
Recommendation: Institutions must routinely publish the total remuneration packages of their Vice-Chancellors in a visible place on their website. Vice-Chancellors must never sit on their remuneration boards and this should be enforced by the Office for Students.
Response: The OfS requires universities to publish full details of the total remuneration package of their vice-chancellors, including bonuses, pension contributions and other taxable benefits. Similar requirements will be extended to cover all staff with a basic salary of over £150,000 per annum once the regulatory framework is in full force. The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) published its HE Senior Staff Remuneration Code in June 2018. This says that a provider's remuneration committee must be independent and competent, and that the head of the institution must not be a member of this committee. The OfS accounts direction already states that registered providers must have regard to this code.
The quality of higher education
Recommendation: The TEF is still in its infancy and requires further improvement and embedding to become the broad measure of quality that we want it to be. We look forward to the independent review of TEF and recommend that it focuses on how the exercise is used by students to inform and improve choice. The review must include an assessment of how TEF is used in post-16 careers advice. For the TEF to improve value for money for students it must play a more significant role in the decision-making process of applicants.
Response: [it's up to the OfS, but we have left some of the response here for you to read]
The OfS is planning targeted communications to improve awareness of TEF and will be undertaking specific research with applicants and students to understand how TEF ratings should be presented to ensure that they are meaningful to prospective students.
In June 2018, we published the findings of a report by IFF Research Ltd entitled 'TEF and Informing Student Choice'. Although we recognise that only 15% of prospective students in that survey had used or intended to use TEF to inform their choice, the OfS had only published the first set of TEF outcomes in June 2017. For future cohorts it is worth noting that 68% of those surveyed considered that information on subject-level TEF would be useful.
Dame Shirley Pearce has been appointed as the independent reviewer of TEF in accordance with Section 26 of HERA. We will bring the concerns of the Committee to her attention, but as this is an independent review, with the reviewer's obligations set out in statute, the department has no power to insist that her review addresses or excludes any particular issue.
Recommendation: Institutions should move away from a linear approach to degrees, and enable more part-time, mature and disadvantaged students to study in higher education. We recommend that the Government's current post-18 review develop a funding model which allows a range of flexible options including credit transfer and 'hopping on and off' learning.
Response: [it's all about the post-18 review and the OfS]
..Supporting arrangements for students who wish to switch provider or degree is already an important part of the reforms enacted by HERA. Section 38 of the act places a duty on the OfS to monitor the provision of student transfer arrangements by registered HE providers and the use of such arrangements by students, and a summary power to facilitate, encourage and promote awareness of these arrangements. Section 38 will come into force on 1 August 2019. In the meantime, the strategic guidance issued in February 2018 by the department asked the OfS to continue to collect data on student transfers ….
…Studying part-time and later in life can of course bring considerable benefits for individuals, employers and the wider economy. The OfS targets an element of the Teaching Grant to recognise the additional costs of part-time study. In 2017/18, £72 million was made available, and the same amount was allocated in 2018/19 for this purpose. Furthermore, within the strategic guidance, we have also asked the OfS and the Director for Fair Access and Participation to encourage providers to consider the different barriers that mature learners can face in their Access and Participation Plans. This covers access to, success in, as well as progression from HE.
….We launched a review of Level 4-5 technical education in October 2017, which is working closely with the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, to ensure a coherent vision for FE and HE. The review of level 4 and 5 education will examine how classroom-based level 4 and 5 education, particularly technical education, meets the needs of learners and employers. On the 6th December, the Secretary of State for Education set out his vision for why we need high quality technical education, and said – among other things -that we intend to establish a system of employer-led national standards for higher technical education. These will be based on existing apprenticeship standards and will provide progression opportunities for those completing T Levels from 2022.
Recommendation: More flexible approaches to higher education should be supplemented by the option for undergraduates of studying for two-year accelerated degrees alongside the traditional three-year model. The post-18 review should investigate potential funding models to clarify the benefits and costs of accelerated degrees, taking into account fees, living costs and post-study earnings.
Response: [we've already done this] …on 29 November 2018 government laid regulations to enable higher annual accelerated degree fee caps to be charged by providers. This change will enable potential course revenue of up to 80% of the standard equivalent, while still offering accelerated students a significant saving of 20% on the standard total fee costs. …
Recommendation: The introduction of two-year degrees must not create a two-tier system where students from disadvantaged backgrounds are encouraged to take them on the basis of cost. The Government's review of higher education should include an impact assessment of how accelerated degrees will affect disadvantaged students.
Response: We acknowledge the Committee's concern, which was also expressed by a number of respondents to the accelerated degrees consultation in 2018, where we asked specifically about access arrangements. Nevertheless, 74% of respondents still wanted accelerated degree fees to be treated the same as other higher course fees for the purpose of access.
We are not aware of any empirical evidence to suggest either that accelerated degrees are a qualitatively inferior form of degree study compared to their standard equivalents, or that the fees saving of an accelerated degree is seen as their most significant benefit by students. As noted above, the SLC Customer Insight surveys conducted in August 2018 indicated that both accelerated and standard students regarded the time saved on an accelerated course and the advantage of starting work one year faster than their peers, was the most significant benefit.
We know that the specific characteristics and challenges of accelerated study will not be right for all students. We will assess the effectiveness of accelerated degree funding and expenditure on access measures (compared to their standard equivalents), in the review to be undertaken three years after implementation of the higher accelerated degree fee caps regulations.
Recommendation: We are extremely disappointed by the response from the Institute for Apprenticeships to widespread concerns from the higher education sector on the future of degree apprenticeships. We urge the Institute to make the growth of degree apprenticeships a strategic priority. Degree qualifications must be retained in apprenticeship standards, and the Institute must remove the bureaucratic hurdles which universities are facing. The Institute and the Education and Skills Funding Agency must engage much more actively with the higher education sector and take better account of their expertise.
Response: …The department is already working with the HE sector and will continue to do so, including meeting quarterly with a cross section of HE representative bodies to discuss apprenticeship policy issues. …In the last 3 months, 10 HE providers have undertaken user research and we will continue to involve these institutions in our ongoing research.
Recommendation: Degree apprenticeships are crucial to boosting the productivity of this country, providing another legitimate route to higher education qualifications and bringing more students from disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education. We believe some of the money which is currently allocated by the Office for Students for widening access could be better spent on the development and promotion of degree apprenticeships and support for degree apprentices to climb the ladder of opportunity. All higher education institutions should offer degree apprenticeships, and we encourage students from all backgrounds to undertake them. We recommend that the Office for Students demonstrates its support for them by allocating a significant portion of its widening access funding to the expansion of degree apprenticeships specifically for disadvantaged students.
Response:…DfE have already provided the OfS with funding to support the expansion of degree apprenticeships and to widen participation through the Degree Apprenticeships Development Fund (DADF)
In March 2016 DfE launched a £10 million DADF to support the development and take up of degree apprenticeships over two years. In 2016-18, 18 projects were supported, involving over 45 universities and colleges. In 2017/18 funding was allocated to 26 projects…..
The government is looking forward to the forthcoming evaluation report of the Fund, which will help us and the OfS to consider how to focus spending on what has the greatest impact for students.
More widely, the National Apprenticeships Service has launched a number of projects to increase participation amongst underrepresented groups and to ensure apprenticeships are accessible to individuals from all backgrounds. This includes the '5 cities' project, a partnership with five major cities to improve black, Asian and minority ethnic representation, and 'Opportunities Through Apprenticeships', a pilot project working with four local authorities to raise the value of apprenticeships in disadvantaged areas. The 'Opportunities Through Apprenticeships' project was launched in November 2018. It aims to support social mobility by creating opportunities for more apprentices from disadvantaged areas to undertake high value apprenticeship with higher earnings potential and progression.
…The HE sector is supportive of Level 6 plus and degree apprenticeships and is involved in their development – with at least 60 providers offering or intending to offer degree apprenticeships during the 2017/18 academic year from a pool of over 100 on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.
The OfS will want to consider the Committee's recommendations regarding the allocation of its widening access funding.
Recommendation: The implementation of T-Level qualifications from 2020 could offer improved access to university for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government should engage with universities and UCAS in order to determine an appropriate tariff weighting prior to the introduction of T-levels. We also encourage universities to continue to accept BTECs and put in place additional academic and pastoral support to these students throughout their studies.
Response: The department expects T Levels to provide all students, regardless of their background, with a high quality technical offer that is valued as highly as A levels. With content designed by employers, T Levels will prepare students for skilled employment or progression to higher technical study. As we prepare for the first teaching of T Levels, we are working closely with a wide range of partners, stakeholders, schools and colleges to ensure successful delivery.
…Individual HE providers are responsible for determining the qualifications that they will accept for the purposes of entry to higher education. Whilst recognising the institutional autonomy of HE providers and, in particular, their freedom to determine the criteria for the admission of students, we would encourage them to consider the content of the qualifications they require before making offers. DfE committed in May 2018 to carry out a review of qualifications at level 3 and below (excluding A Levels, T Levels and GCSEs), so that all funded qualifications have a distinct purpose, are high quality and support progression to good outcomes…..
Recommendation: We recommend that universities look to include significant periods of work experience within undergraduate degree courses. This could be a year in industry, or shorter placements with local employers. We believe that practical experience of the workplace must become the norm in degrees and an integral part of making students 'work ready'. There should also be a greater focus on the extent to which universities prepare their students for work in the TEF criteria.
Response: The numbers of undergraduates who undertake work experience within their degree courses are growing and we would like to see more universities and employers offering students these opportunities.
….We are working to support and encourage high quality new and innovative provision that has a strong offer for students, helping providers to navigate the regulatory system and we will continue to work with new providers to tackle any barriers that might arise.
There is a strong track record of collaboration and joint working between universities and businesses. For example, more than two-thirds of businesses have developed links with universities and more than a third are looking to grow their ties in the future. For example, Aston University has strong links to employers, and more than 70% of students undertake a year in industry as part of their degrees. Teesside University's Digital City innovation initiative is helping local SMEs place graduate interns in their businesses by providing recruitment support and a 50% contribution towards their salary.
A traditional university course is not the only route to a successful career. Level 6 plus and degree apprenticeships allow universities to build partnerships with industry and professional bodies, working together to create a skilled workforce.
The Graduate Talent Pool is a government initiative designed to help new and recent graduates gain real work experience. This allows employers to advertise paid internships to new and recent graduates, free of charge. As of end of September 2018, 12,464 employers and 135,469 graduates had registered to use the service since the scheme's launch…..
Recommendation: Higher education institutions spend a vast amount of public money on access and participation. The results of this expenditure are not always clear to see. There must be transparency on what they are investing in, a greater focus on outcomes for students and a rigorous evaluation process. In response to the Director of Fair Access's new proposals we expect to see institutions focusing their efforts on value for money for the most disadvantaged students and facing penalties if sufficient progress is not made.
Recommendation: We recommend a move away from the simple use of entry tariffs as a league table measure towards contextual admissions, foundation courses and other routes to entry.
Response: The criteria for determining a HE provider's position in a league table is a matter for its compilers. The government would not want the use of entry tariffs as a criterion to undermine the efforts of providers to take greater numbers of disadvantaged students.
Recommendation: The Office for Students must clamp down on the rise in unconditional offers. Their steep increase is detrimental to the interests of students and undermines the higher education system as a whole.
Response: The department agree with the committee and we are disturbed by the recent large increases in the number of unconditional offers received by students and the potential impact these offers can have. In this respect we welcome the recent announcement by St Mary's University Twickenham that they will stop using unconditional offers, in the light of evidence that some students who had enrolled with them after an unconditional offer was made did not get the A level grades they expected.
[this is for the OFS to deal with]
Recommendation: The gap in entry rates between the most and least disadvantaged students remains too wide when it should be closing fast. We support the use of contextualised admissions to bring more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds into higher education. We recognise that this practice should not be used in isolation, and that more effective outreach should be followed by support for disadvantaged students throughout their degree. Institutions should state their contextualisation policies in their application information. By doing so disadvantaged students and schools in areas with lower rates of participation in higher education will have a better understanding of the entry requirements to different institutions.
Response: The department agrees that while good progress has been made in widening participation by under-represented and disadvantaged groups in HE, there is still more to be done. Control over admissions lies with institutions and this autonomy is protected under HERA.
Nevertheless, contextual admissions can play a role if they recognise the case for taking into account wider contextual factors in a student's level of prior attainment: these type of admissions justify providers making offers of places to those they anticipate have strong potential to succeed in HE. It is important too that providers are transparent in their use of contextual information in offer and admission decisions, publish the rationale for any use of contextual offers, and make clear to applicants the circumstances in which they would make such offers. A clear policy on the use of contextual admissions should work in conjunction with effective outreach work, which is properly monitored and evaluated.
Recommendation: We are deeply concerned by the fall in both part-time and mature learners, and the impact this has had on those from lower socio-economic groups going into higher education. We recognise that although the number of disadvantaged school leavers going into higher education has increased, the total number of English undergraduate entrants from low participation areas decreased by 15% between 2011/12 and 2015/16.
Response: [it's for the post-18 review]
Recommendation: The recent decline in part-time and mature learners should be a major focus of the Government's post-18 education and funding review. We support calls for the review to redesign the funding system for these learners. The review should develop a tailored approach which moves away from the one size fits all approach which has driven the dramatic decline in numbers since 2012.
Response: [see above on flexible provision]
Recommendation: Based on the overwhelming evidence we have heard during the inquiry, we recommend that the Government return to the pre-2016 system and reinstate the means-tested system of loans and maintenance grants.
Graduate employability
Recommendation: We are encouraged by the increase in graduate outcomes information and believe this can both support more informed choices for students and make institutions more accountable for the destinations of their graduates. However, there is still a long way to go before students have access to robust data on graduate employment which will inform their choices.
Response: [it's all about LEO]
Recommendation: Better information on graduate outcomes must lead to a greater focus in higher education on outputs and outcomes. Higher education institutions must be more transparent about the labour market returns of their courses. This is not simply a measure of graduate earnings but of appropriate professional graduate-level and skilled employment destinations. We recommend that the Office for Students instructs all providers to be transparent about levels of graduate employment and secure this through funding agreements.
Response: New sources of information such as the Higher Education Statistics Agency's (HESA) Graduate Outcomes survey, replacing the Destination of Leavers from HE, have an important role in improving information for students. ..
[plus TEF]
The OfS and its partners are developing options for a new resource to replace Unistats in 2019. This will ensure that data is presented in a way which supports students to understand and use the data in a meaningful and robust way
Recommendation: The reforms introduced by successive governments to higher education have caused a growing tension between the perceived value of study to a student, the funding and the wider economic value of higher education. This has been caused in part by the way that the system has changed incrementally and is widely misunderstood. The current system of tuition fees and repayments is more akin to a graduate tax. Promoting better public understanding of this should form part of the HE funding review.
Recommendation: Students lack sufficient high-quality information to make informed choices about higher education and the career paths which might subsequently be open to them. Decisions to take on a financial burden lasting most of a working lifetime are often made by students without adequate information or advice. The long-term implications of an adverse choice can leave students in a vulnerable position. Student choice is central to the debate over value for money in higher education. Our inquiry found a woeful lack of pre-application and career information, advice and guidance, particularly awareness of degree apprenticeships. The Government's current post-18 review must look at routes into higher education, and the quality of careers advice which students receive.
Response: DfE's Careers Strategy, published in December 2017, sets out a long-term plan to make sure that all young people have the information, advice and guidance they need to make informed choices about their education, training and employment options….
[It's all about the OfS and the post-18 review]
Value for money (3) – the OfS position
The Office for Students issued their own response on 10th January. They promise:
Work on transparency on value for money and calling for the sector to define best practice
More transparency on remuneration
Removing barriers to accelerated degrees
Supporting apprenticeships through the Access and Participation guidance [what will that look like?]
Gather and share evidence on work experience
Force the sector to improve assessment and evaluation of access and participation efforts and continue with fining and licence conditions
Raise concerns with league table compilers
Announce action on unconditional offers by Spring 2019
Challenge providers on mature students through access and participation guidance
Replacing unistats
The OfS have released the data for all institutions including those not actively participating in the new round of TEF. The data sits alongside a refreshed set of criteria and judgements, with specific definitions of the Gold, Silver, Bronze standards. The provider narrative looks to remain influential in the refreshed model and the significant emphasis on the data metrics continues (it is the initial determinant of award level). Wonkhe have crunched the data to make initial institutional judgements which are an interesting read (here). When contemplating Wonkhe's article remember the metrics comprise only part of the final award judgement.
Wonkhe's analysis results in less institutions receiving gold overall, with none of the Russell Group institutions reaching the top slot. The below chart shows the movement by displaying institutions with current Gold, Silver, Bronze, provisional, or no current award (-) as the colour of their Wonkhe calculated new award (based only on their metrics). The interactive tableau chart is here.
But it's all a bit theoretical as it is expected few institutions will enter year 4, as most don't need to again until 2021 – and by them it may all have changed after the Parliamentary Review and the subject level TEf pilot….
The House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee met to discuss the impact of the Horizon and Erasmus programmes and their future in a post Brexit Britain. Chris Skidmore, the Universities Minister, gave evidence. You can read the summary here.
Otherwise chaos continues – nothing has changed except that no deal looks a lot more likely…at least for this week.
Research England have launched their consultation on the Knowledge Exchange Framework. We'll be working with colleagues across BU to prepare our response. They are also running a pilot.
We wrote about the build up to this in our policy update on 23rd November 2018 The proposal is for a set of metrics plus a narrative that gives the local context including strategic goals, context and local growth and regeneration, and public and community engagement.
Read more on Wonkhe:
Wonkhe's Louis Coiffait breaks down the KEF consultation.
Richard Jones, Chair of the KEF Technical Panel and Professor of Physics at the University of Sheffield, hails the introduction of the KEF and its ability to recognise the economic contribution of universities.
Tamsin Mann, Head of Policy at Praxis Auril sets out a KEF wishlist for university staff working on knowledge exchange.
Widening Participation and Achievement
A lack of aspiration is not the problem is a new thought provoking blog in Wonkhe which shuns the traditional view that disadvantaged young people attend university less because they lack aspiration and knowledge about the HE sector. It views poor educational achievement at school, brought about by the young person's accumulation of multiple disadvantages through their childhood, as the crux of the problem. It highlights a study which recognises that these disadvantaged children are rarely exposed to the economic benefits that educational success brings. It suggests drawing on the psychological concept of 'possible selves' (considering what/how they want to be in the future to align thinking and motivation and kick start the attainment process needed to get there) as an alternative to aspiration raising in the future. (WP buffs will also want to check out this research on the topic.) Possible selves is a nice alternative to the deficit model approach to WP but it in isolation it seems unlikely to work. Broad and robust careers support would likely be needed to open the eyes of disadvantaged young people to the myriad of future employment possibilities they may not have been exposed to through their home and social environment. Yet careers support remains a long standing thorny problem that no Government has been able to resolve – it is costly, patchy, and cannot meet all needs. Ironically for a blog which favours Bourdieu's thinking it is this concept of lack of social capital and networks which means possible selves cannot be a neat solution all by itself.
Attracting Mature Students – the barriers
Coincidentally the ONS (Office for National Statistics) have analysed DfE survey data and report that the least qualified adults and vulnerable members of society have the least access to training to boost their employment opportunities and life chances. Lack of confidence was a factor in not accessing opportunities and there was an interesting finding that those without qualifications tended to focus on education or training as a way of improving their wellbeing, whereas those at the other end of the educational spectrum, with degrees or equivalent, seemed more driven by improving their job prospects.
The biggest barriers to adults accessing training were, unsurprisingly, cost, caring/family responsibilities, poor health, and the aforementioned lack of confidence. Interestingly a past negative educational experience was rarely a barrier. Below is the full chart.
The take up of education and training was exacerbated by a gender effect: Men responded more to incentives that were job or pay-related while women tended to choose more personal reasons such as meeting new people and building confidence. A higher proportion of men than women said an increased income would encourage further training and learning in the future and that their jobs and their ability to do them would be improved. Furthermore, more women than men said family and/or caring responsibilities would cause difficulties. Personal reasons, such as a lack of confidence also showed themselves as an issue for a higher proportion of women than men
It would be interesting to compare these barriers that prevent adults from accessing or aspiring to HE study with mature student drop out reasons. Similarities would provide clear signposting on how HE institutions could better attract, support, and retain mature students which, while important in itself, is particularly acute during this period of squeezed recruitment and the young population dip.
Care Leavers – LSE have released a blog explaining why the national figure that only 6% of care leavers progress to HE is inaccurate and that tracking care leavers (who are rarely in a position to perform well educationally at age 16) to age 23 bring the entry rate up to almost 12% (research here). The article goes on to explore other care leaver related factors such as the importance of alternative vocational routes into HE and warns against using the entry statistics as they mask the difficulties with retention of care leavers whilst studying.
Alternative Spending – Wonkhe's Let's go fly a kite series sees three bloggers come up with some alternative ideas by which to tackle Access and Participation.
Impact of Selective Secondary Education in progressing to HE
HEPI have published The impact of selective secondary education on progression to HE. It finds that grammar schools potentially contribute to social mobility by enabling better access to elite higher education. It considers the shortcomings of research which mainly utilise Free School Meals as the main data indicator.
The report highlights that:
A pupil from the most disadvantaged POLAR quintile is more than twice as likely to progress to Oxbridge if they live in a selective area rather than a non-selective area.
BME pupils are more than five times as likely to progress to Oxbridge if they live in a selective area. It notes that England's has 163 grammar schools which contribute 30% more BME students to Cambridge than all 1,849 non-selective schools combined.
The report calls for:
Government to expand the Select School Expansion Fund in disadvantaged areas where this is supported by the relevant local authority.
Non-selective schools to improve their efforts at enabling progression of high-ability pupils to highly selective universities and Oxbridge, working with grammar schools where appropriate.
Department for Education to commission research explicitly considering the impact of selective schooling on the social mobility of children from households below median income.
On the report Wonkhe state: The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has published a provocative new paper on grammar schools and selective university access…It argues that grammars increase the likelihood of progression for pupils from the bottom two quintiles of social disadvantage and for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) pupils. The analysis attempts to factor in the chances of children from different groups getting into a grammar school, and how those children who do get in perform.
It also examines the performance of new specialist maths schools and considers positive attitudes towards grammar schools among some of the public (compared to educational experts).
The report received much press attention:
The i – Grammar schools 'significantly boost chances of poor pupils attending top universities'
Schools Week – Poor pupils at grammar schools twice as likely to attend Oxbridge, study claims
tes – Grammars boost poorer pupils' chances of getting into top universities
The Times – Beacon grammars could take more poorer pupils
The Times – The Times view on grammar schools: they provide only part of the answer
Telegraph – Grammar schools send more ethnic minority students to Cambridge than all comprehensives combined
Sky news – Grammar schools benefit disadvantaged kids says think tank
The Daily Mail – Pupils from the poorest families are TWICE as likely to get into Oxbridge if they attend a grammar school, report finds
Nick Hillman, HEPI Director, stated:
'The debate on grammar schools has become very one sided. Researchers line up to condemn them for inhibiting social mobility, and the schools do not perform well on every single measure. But the full evidence is more nuanced and shows some pupils benefit a great deal.
Compared to other countries, we have a hyper-selective university system. Given so many people benefit from attending a grammar school, it seems what works for universities may also sometimes work for schools.'
Unconditional Offers: The OfS response to the Commons Education Committee's report on value for money suggests the review of unconditional offer making will be published in Spring 2019.
Knowledge Exchange: Explaining a PhD thesis to the public can be tricky. In this light hearted article read how Canada is tackling this through the medium of cake.
Essay Mills: the ASA banned online advertising by essay mill Oxbridge Essays – here is QAA's coverage of the judgement. The Independent also covered the decision.
Academic Freedom: Oxford law students have petitioned for a professor to be dismissed due to his opinions on homophobia. It is debated here on the Today programme and then featured in Parliament:
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): May we have a debate on the importance of academic freedom? Universities are about the free and frank exchange of ideas, even if they are unfashionable and unpopular. Is it not wholly unacceptable to suggest that a respected academic such as John Finnis, emeritus professor of law and legal philosophy, who has taught at the University of Oxford for some 40 years, should be removed from office simply for holding traditional Catholic views? Is that not the opposite of diversity and open, robust debate?
Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is essential that young people at university learn how to engage in robust debate and to challenge views with which they may not agree. The solution is not to silence those who make them. The Government said in our response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights' report that we have concerns about the culture in universities in relation to free speech, and we made it clear that all "education is a place where students should be exposed to a range of ideas, including those that may be controversial and unpopular—and where they learn to think critically and challenge those who they disagree with, not shut them down."
Accounting of student loans:
Q – Wes Streeting: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will ensure that the level of funding allocated to universities is not reduced as a result of the ONS decision on the treatment of student loans in Government accounts.
A – Chris Skidmore: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced a new treatment of student loans in the public sector finances and national accounts on 17 December 2018. The decision by the ONS relates to the recording of student loans in the national accounts and public sector finances. Prior to the announcement of the ONS review, the government had already launched the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding in which, amongst other features of the system, funding is being considered.The review is considering how to ensure that the education system for those aged 18 years and over is accessible to all, is supported by a funding system that provides value for money and works for students and taxpayers. In addition, the review is considering how the education system incentivises choice and competition across the sector and encourages the development of the skills that we need as a country.
Q – Wes Streeting: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the amount by which the deficit will increase in 2018 as a result of the ONS decision on the treatment of student loans in Government accounts.
A – Elizabeth Truss: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published estimates of potential impacts of the new treatment on the deficit in their October 2018 Economic and fiscal outlook. However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has made it clear that there is a lot to decide before their methodology is finalised. The ONS currently aim to fully implement the new treatment for student loans in the public sector finances in September 2019.
Immigration:
Q – Lord Goodlad: Whether they have conducted an evaluation of the Tier 4 visa pilot for masters students; if so, when it was completed; and what changes are now proposed in the Immigration Rules.
A – Baroness Williams Of Trafford: An initial evaluation of the Tier 4 Visa Pilot was published on gov.uk on 19 December. The evaluation supported the proposals set out in the Immigration White Paper: The UK's future skills-based immigration system.
Tags: academic freedom Brexit grammar schools KEF mature students post-18 review subject level TEF TEF value for money widening participation
HE Policy Update for w/e 26 October 2018
Knowledge Exchange, policy, Research news carters
To read the policy update in full with the infographics click here or continue to read below without the infographics for widening participation.
It's been a busy week for activity in Parliament along with several new reports published, including the subject level TEF details and a focus on part time and flexible provision. Meanwhile the sector continues to lobbying efforts in hope of influencing the forthcoming outcomes of the Review of post-18 Education and Funding. It's a bumper update this week so do scan through to read the sections of most interest to your role.
TEF and Grade Inflation
Sam Gyimah spoke on Monday to outline a new measure to discourage grade inflation within HE institutions which will be piloted through the second year of TEF subject level pilots. The DfE news story states:
Announcing a second year of pilots to move subject-level TEF a step closer, Sam Gyimah confirmed today that these will also look at grade inflation, with TEF panellists reviewing evidence to see whether universities are taking a responsible approach to degree grading and not awarding excessive numbers of firsts and 2:1s. It means a university's provider-level rating of gold, silver or bronze will take their approach to tackling grade inflation into account.
Grade inflation will be an important feature of the criteria considered alongside how a university is stretching its students through course design and assessment, and through their ability to develop independence, knowledge and skills that reflect their full potential. It forms a key part of the government's commitment to delivering real choice for prospective students.
This is one of the first measures taken by the government to tackle grade inflation, with the plans confirmed in the government's response to the subject-level TEF consultation.
In the last five years alone, figures from the Higher Education Stats Authority show the proportion of graduates who gained a first class degree has increased from 18% in 2012/13 to 26% in 2016/17, which means over a quarter of graduates are now securing the top grade.
Despite Gyimah's speech the grade inflation presence within the subject level TEF pilot will be light touch this year because of the level of opposition to the metric during the consultation process:
Grade inflation is an important issue and the Government is committed to ensuring it is addressed so that students and employers can have confidence in the value of higher education qualifications. It was one of the more contentious topics in the consultation. In response to the question posed, the consultation demonstrated support for our proposal to apply the grade inflation metric only at provider-level and we will therefore maintain this approach. We acknowledge however that challenges to the grade inflation metric were raised in both the consultation and pilot findings. While almost half of respondents agreed to our proposal, many respondents also stated that they did not support the continued use of this metric in the TEF at any level and the pilot found the metric was limited in its current form. To address these concerns, the OfS will use the second year of the subject-level pilots to test some refinements to the grade inflation metric, exploring how it can be improved. This includes presenting additional data such as trends in prior attainment alongside the grade inflation data to help panels better account for other factors that might influence grades. (Pages 6-7 of Government's response link.)
Research Professional write about the removal of the 'contentious' teaching intensity measure.
Conservative Women have an article by Chris McGovern supporting Gyimah's plans to address grade inflation. While the BBC considers: Does it matter what degree grade you get?
Subject level TEF
The Government issued its analysis and response to the subject-level TEF consultation. The first year of subject level TEF pilots have concluded (read the findings here). The second year pilots are underway; their design is based on the outcomes from the first pilots and the subject level TEF consultation.
While the second year of subject-level TEF pilots runs the Independent TEF Review (required by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017) will also take place. The Government expects this timing will allow full implementation of subject-level TEF for 2019/20. The subject-level pilots will trial the introduction of LEO (Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data) within the core metrics. And Wonkhe report that the teaching intensity metric has been removed and all the TEF awards currently conferred on Universities will cease by 2021 to dovetail the roll out of subject-level TEF.
There are a plethora of new TEF blogs and opinion on the Wonkhe website.
Yvonne Hawkins, Director of Teaching Excellence and Student Experience at the Office for Students, said:
"The TEF assesses the things that students care about: teaching quality, the learning environment that supports them; and employment and further study outcomes. The development of a robust model for subject-level TEF is progressing well…last year we tested and evaluated two different assessment models for generating subject-level ratings. This year we will consolidate this work, piloting a single approach that draws on feedback about the best elements from the previous models. The TEF's strength relies not on any single source of evidence, but in drawing together multiple sources and making holistic judgements. This ensures no one issue is over-weighted. The changes we will be piloting are designed to strengthen this approach, so that ratings are informed by comprehensive contextual information. The input of students to last year's pilot was invaluable, so this year we are also introducing ways to further strengthen their involvement."
The House of Commons debated the regulations surrounding the Transparency Condition (the requirement for HE institutions to publish data on access and success for disadvantaged and under-represented students). An Opposition spokesperson argued for the inclusion of data on students with disabilities, the age profile of students, and care leavers to be included:
We also believe that, if the transparency duty is to have any impact, it needs to include as many different dimensions of participation as possible by social background. That view was echoed strongly by the Sutton Trust, which did not believe that the Bill and the regulations went far enough in that area. It said, "evidence suggests many universities are favouring more privileged candidates even when levels of attainment are taken into account"…The Bill should be amended to require universities to publish their contextual admission policies clearly on their websites".
The Opposition spokesperson also raised the key workforce data that has the potential to impact on the quality of students' education, such as the use of insecure contracts and student-staff ratios as a potential measure to be included within the Transparency Duty. Finally he argued for the OfS to use broader measures and rely less on POLAR data to examine socio-economic disadvantage. The new MEM measure was highlighted (a multiple equality measure which combines various data sources including free school meals) for inclusion to prevent overreliance on just one data source.
Sam Gyimah responded: Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman brought up the subject of care leavers. Our guidance to the OfS asks it to monitor care leavers as a key target group, which it has done. We expect to see providers focusing on that in their access and participation plans. Whether to add age and disability is a decision for the OfS, but I am pleased that it has included that in its consultation, as we asked.
Further to Gyimah's show of support for care leavers mentioned above the DfE have launched the Care Leavers Covenant aiming to provide more opportunities and support for Care Leavers through work placements, internships and training sessions (supported by bursaries and accommodation provided by the local universities). Chris Millward, OfS Director for Fair Access and Participation stated: "Disadvantage goes on to follow care leavers through their adult lives. We need a collective effort to ensure that care leavers are not denied opportunity simply because they've had a challenging start in life". Read the Government's news story on this new post-care scheme here.
Graduate Premium – female living standards
The Institute of Fiscal Studies have released a new paper analysing the female graduate premium: The impact of higher education on the living standards of female graduates. As the title suggests it looks wider than just wages on the benefits that achieving a degree brings. It uses data from two longitudinal surveys providing a sample of 1,000 women born in 1970 (so all attended university before tuition fees were introduced) and quantifies the role of working hours, life partners, and tax liability. It finds a graduate premium (compared to female non-graduates) and demonstrates how the above mechanisms vary in importance over women's life cycles and have changed over time to impact on female graduates' living standards.
HE significantly increases the probability a women is in work and the number of hours they work, boosting labour market returns.
HE increased the likelihood women worked in their early thirties, but there was no impact on the likelihood of working in their early forties. This reflects the fact that higher education causes women to delay childrearing until later in their careers.
HE also increases the probability of a woman having a partner who also has a HE qualification, the degree qualified partner is typically more likely to work and earn more.
However, focusing on gross earnings returns overstates the private benefits of HE, as higher-earning graduates pay more in tax and receive fewer (family based) benefits. This reduces the net financial returns from a graduate wage.
The benefits of HE can also vary over the life cycle. While HE increases net family income by around 20% (£9,500 per year) for women in their early 30s and early 40s, the mechanisms change over time:
For women in their early 30s, the impact of HE on income primarily comes through their own labour market earnings;
By age 40 the importance of the impact on partners' earnings has increased, likely because at this age women have an increased propensity to work part-time.
It appears that, through the higher education level of partners, HE provides some insurance for women taking time out of the labour market after having children. The role of partners' earnings remains an important channel of returns, particularly at older ages.
You can read the research assumption caveats surrounding the impact of children (page 13/14), particularly their effect on the choice to work and the wage rate.
In summary, as a result of a degree, it is higher wages, more working hours and assortative mating (degree qualified life partner) that explain the graduate females higher living standards
Both the Times and Mail Online articles pick up on the report but mainly emphasise the aspect that female graduates are more likely to marry graduate men – boosting their joint earning potential. The Times go on to consider the male/female gender gap and report that after graduation, women are more likely to have a job or go on to further study than men, but they earn less from the very start of their careers. These figures, taken from The Times, show how the gender earnings gap expands:
When Male Female
At graduation (-£1,600 less than men)
3 years post-graduation £24,200 £21,800 (-£2,400 less)
5 year post-graduation £27,800 £24,500 (-£3,300 less)
10 years post-graduation £35,100 £27,100 (-£8,000 less)
Technological Innovation and Regulation
The Council for Science and Technology have written to the Prime Minister to make four recommendations on how to ensure Britain's regulatory landscape creates an attractive and welcoming environment for technological innovation. Greg Clark's (Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) response is warm and picks up on several of the recommendations. Furthermore, on Tuesday Greg chaired the new Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation. One of the aims of the working group is to transform regulation to support innovators to bring new ideas to market. Greg stated:
"We have a world-beating regulatory environment in the UK which has set standards that have been exported around the world. But we can't move forward by standing still and we must prepare for the technologies and industries of the future.
I am grateful to the work done by the Council and for their recommendations on how we can put the UK at the forefront of these industries. Through the Working Group on Future Regulation we are going to build on our exceptional foundations, ensuring our regulations keep pace with the technological advances that will reshape our economy."
Those with an interest in this area can read more on the new working group here.
Civic Universities – Mature Education
UPP Foundation has released a progress report from their Civic University Commission which aims to explore and understand what a modern civic university does and how it benefits local people. This additional report was released to inform the Government's review of post-18 tertiary education as the research uncovered a link between the decline in adult learning and universities' civic mission.
They found that adult education used to be an integral part of universities' civic activities but is now in major decline (non-degree courses for over 30's have declined by 42% since 2012). The Commission states the decline will become more acute as more professional jobs become automated forcing changes in the labour market structure and increasing the need for retraining. The conditions on part time loans for retaining are noted as a barrier:
Those restrictions mean, for example, that a mother returning to work after a prolonged absence from the labour market — but who might have a degree from 15 years earlier — cannot retrain unless she can just pay the fees upfront, and support herself, from her own resources.
The Commission argues for a better adult university education system:
This is precisely the wrong moment to have closed off adult education. Graduate jobs will change, and as we leave the European Union the need for a good domestic skills base will be greater. We have already lost long-term capacity in universities — courses have closed and they are difficult to re-open. Rebuilding this capacity will take effort and time. In our view, that work needs to begin now.
It is also too limiting to see this education in terms of immediate fulfilling of skills gaps. It is extremely hard to predict exactly what the future skills needs of areas are likely to be — many would not have predicted, for example, the size and growth of creative industries and their importance to the economic wellbeing of places.
And even outside pure economic benefit — short and long-term — the benefits of education for adults are huge. It passes down into how children are educated at home — which has a much greater impact on their future success than the school environment. It improves peoples' health and makes them more engaged in the labour market. It makes people more fulfilled and engaged in civic life. There is clear latent demand. A recent survey by Universities UK (UUK) found that as much as 24% of adults had seriously considered doing higher education, of which around half did not already have a post-A level qualification. …we believe it [is] important to offer education to existing professionals, women returning to the labour market and struggling to attend courses in intensity, and people who want to learn particular things rather than necessarily qualifications.
The report calls for the Government to:
Relax the ELQ rule so that graduates are able to do further learning;
Remove the 25% intensity rule so that both short courses, and longer-term learning, are eligible for loans and funding (they consider this particularly important for women with children);
Allow education that is not deliberately directed towards a qualification (such as a degree).
It also seems clear that the lack of direct public funding, and the funding of adult education mostly through traditional loans with RAB charges, is off-putting to many adults. Postgraduate provision and re-graduate provision, as well as first time undergraduate provision, needs to have some public subsidy. So the government should consider whether the apprenticeship levy has some part to play. Two options could be:
Hypothecating some proportion of the apprenticeship levy for courses that are shorter and more modular;
Having an additional, smaller levy for this particular purpose.
The Commission also favours greater pressure on universities to focus on widening participation initiatives that target adults, to be specifically monitored by OfS.
On Knowledge Exchange the Commission stated:
The new KEF metrics should have a strong weighting on knowledge transmission and knowledge exchange between universities and their local population. In our view it is as important that university staff spend time conveying ideas to the local population, and involving them in their activity, as it is to interact with traditional economic stakeholders.
Part time learning and Flexibility
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) are calling for more flexible routes to higher skills noting that the decline in part time students is of crucial importance to the UK's future economic prosperity. UUK and CBI have published a joint statement drawing on a previous report on the generation of 'lost learners'. The lost learners are those who are:
mainly 25-44 years old,
48% only have a level 2 or 3 qualification,
54% are in full time work
they are motivated to upskill and train to develop their careers.
However, the study found many of the learners didn't enrol or were unable to complete their studies. Familiar barriers are cited: unaffordability of tuition fees (44%) and managing cost of living whilst studying (42%), and an inflexible course that couldn't be managed against other life commitments (26%). Other difficulties were employer inflexibility and lack of employer financial support plus benefits challenges created by studying. Of those that did enrol but subsequently dropped out 33% stated lack of flexibility (even with part time study) was the cause.
CBI emphasise the need for flexible and part time provision is greater now than it ever has been because technological advances are creating different and higher level jobs for which re-training is essential. CBI states: "Meeting the needs of the economy, therefore, rests on widening access to higher-level education and promoting routes that appeal to people for whom a traditional, three-year university degree may not be the best option.
For a whole range of reasons – from family to work commitments, caring responsibilities and many more – if flexible study isn't accessible then many people don't study at all."
CBI and UUK's calls are very similar to that of the Civic University Commission (described above).
They urge the Post-16 Review of tertiary funding to:
Reform the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible skills levy so that it can cover a wider range of training (more detail on page 5 here).
Develop shorter and more flexible provision – enabling students to move between work and study across their lifetimes. Government and higher education providers should work together to consider how a modular or credits-based system for undergraduate study could increase flexibility in the long term.
Support collaboration between employers, HE and FE – helping learners progress into provision which falls between A levels and a university degree (level 4 and 5 provision). Government should support… through changes in the regulatory environment, funding new partnerships and collaborations and/or facilitating sharing of information on the need for level 4 and 5 skills.
CBI acknowledge that many universities already have extensive collaboration with employers but state this, alongside flexible provision, needs to shift up a gear.
UUK state:
While in the longer-term, the post-18 education system should move to a modular or credits-based system, we must also ensure higher education institutions can deliver more flexible options as soon as possible. Evidence from our project suggests that while institutions are developing innovative and more flexible methods of course delivery there is a limit on the extent they can test the market and/or roll these out due to financial constraints.
Therefore, Universities UK recommends greater government support being given to higher education institutions wishing to innovate, scale up activity or further develop systems for flexible learning in order to overcome financial barriers and future uncertainties relating to these activities. This could be through targeted funding by government. Targeted funding could help institutions achieve greater clarity on the extent of market demand and how best to tailor their courses to meet the needs of students, so that over time more flexible courses become a central part of the institution's offer.
Matthew Fell, CBI's UK Policy Director, stated:
"Investing in our skills base is the best strategy for growth a nation can have…The findings of this project are clear. We need to raise overall levels of education and skills in the workforce. Universities need to play a critical role in responding to the changing world of work by offering education and training for learners for whom a three-year bachelor's degree doesn't quite fit their circumstances".
Professor Julie Lydon, VC University of South Wales and Chair of the group that produced the study, stated: "For many years, discussion about higher education has focused only on the traditional route of school leavers heading away to study full-time at university for three or four years.
The evidence from this project shows there is significant demand from learners and employers for more flexible learning, where learners combine study with work, and other life commitments. Learning and improved life chances should not stop when you reach your 20s. It must continue over a lifetime."
Read UUK's news blog here, the joint statement here, and their previous publications: the economic case for flexible learning; the employer perspective of Skills Needs In England; report on 'lost learners'; and the report on flexible learning.
Finally, Research Professional provide their take on the statement here.
Recruitment – record applicants
UCAS report a record number of applicants at the early deadline for the 2019 undergraduate cycle. This deadline mainly covers medicine, dentistry, veterinary and Oxbridge applications, however of interest are the higher than usual rates of applications (+9% from 2018 cycle rates). There are also increases in English applicant rates (+9%) and an 11% rise in 18 year old applicants – despite the further 1.8% 18 year old population decrease. EU applications remained at 2018 levels. The Guardian covers the story and places the high rates within the context of the additional 500 places available through the newly approved medical schools. UCAS are careful to manage expectations in their press release and remind the sector that the recruitment boost seen by these programmes may not mean a corresponding rise in applications for the January 2019 deadline.
There is coverage in the Guardian and the Herald.
Widening participation – evaluating student outcomes
The Sutton Trust has published Student Destinations which looks at the successful impact of their outreach and participation programmes delivered over the 10 year period 2006-2016. They offer three programmes – UK summer schools, a US programme to visit and support applications to study in the US, and pathways to law. Drawing on destinations data from multiple sources and benchmarking progression against controls they have been able to boast excellent outcomes resulting from participation in the programmes.
See this link to view the infographics detailing the impact of the programmes.
Despite their success the Sutton Trust are keen to point out the difficulties in evaluating such programmes brought about by a lack of access to the needed data sources which are owned by multiple other organisations.
By no means is our work on evaluation complete. It will be years of ongoing work looking to refine our methods and working in collaboration with our partners to constantly improve the evaluation we undertake. It will be challenging.
Access to the data needed to evaluate interventions is inconsistent, disjointed and often expensive. Working with NPD, UCAS, HESA, HEAT and co. to negotiate and navigate data requests can be a full time job and typically there is a delay in receiving the data.
We are calling for access to data to become more coordinated and for outreach activity to have a broader definition of success than simply progression to a particular institution. Source.
The Sutton Trust believe their evaluation success lies partly within their unique position whereby they collaborate with groups of universities to deliver their programmes "…this has enabled us to act as a facilitator to outreach collaboration. This allows for larger data sets to analyse, and data sharing across institutions, which we believe ultimately leads to stronger evaluation."
A gaggle of parliamentary questions related to HE were answered this week.
On Brexit this answer covers the negotiation of science and innovation – excerpt: The White Paper set out that the UK is committed to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation accord with the EU as part of our future relationship. As part of this accord, the UK would like to explore association to EU research funding programmes, including Horizon Europe and the Euratom R&T Programme.
And another on participation in the Ninth EU Framework Programme.
A variation on a questioning theme that regularly surfaces with the House – how a Brexit no deal will affect universities
Q – Jared O'Mara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what plans he has to replace potential lost funding for universities as a result of the UK leaving the EU without a deal (link).
A- Sam Gyimah: We remain confident that we will agree a mutually advantageous deal with the EU – we do not want or expect a no deal scenario. It is, however, the duty of a responsible government to continue to prepare for a range of potential outcomes, including the unlikely event of no deal. Extensive work to prepare for this scenario has been under way for almost two years and we are taking the necessary steps to ensure the country continues to operate smoothly from the day we leave. We have now published 106 specific technical notices – including on Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ – to help businesses, universities, citizens and consumers prepare for a no deal scenario.
In the event of a no deal scenario the government's underwrite guarantee will cover funding for successful competitive bids to Horizon 2020 submitted before exit day. In July 2018, we extended this guarantee to cover all successful competitive bids by UK entities to Horizon 2020 calls open to third country participation submitted between exit day and the end of 2020. The guarantee will apply for the lifetime of qualifying projects, even where this extends beyond 2020.
The government will cover funding for successful Erasmus+ bids from UK organisations that are submitted while the UK is still a Member State, even if they are not approved until after we leave. The government will need to reach agreement with the EU for UK organisations to continue participating in Erasmus+ projects and is seeking to hold these discussions with the EU. The government has also extended the underwrite guarantee to cover the payment of awards under successful Erasmus+ bids submitted post-March 2019 until the end of 2020. The eligibility of UK organisations to participate in calls for bids once the UK is no longer a Member State is subject to agreement between the EU and the UK.
Student Loan Sale
Several questions from Angela Rayner delving into the cost effectiveness of both the prior and intended new student loan book sales – with little in the way of a clear answer given.
First a question requesting the estimated proceeds of the (new) student loan sale and for information shared to be accessed centrally.
Sam Gyimah's response: The government and its advisers are continuing to refine the range of estimates for the expected proceeds of the sale. A report on the sale arrangements, and the extent to which they gave good value, will be placed in the House Libraries within three months of the date of the transfer arrangements.
Followed by another on the book value of the new student loans sale.
Gyimah responded: The department calculates the book value for the pool of loans for any given sale after the sale has completed, and the fully audited number for the second sale will be available in the 2018-2019 annual accounts.
On the previous student loan book sales Rayner questioned:
This asking for the value for money evidence and assessment for the prior student loan book sale and this querying the minimum price for the sale.
Gyimah responded that the report is available within the Parliamentary libraries and disclosing the minimum price was counterproductive as it is commercially sensitive.
On the TEF it is promised there will soon be news on who will conduct the independent review:
Q – Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what progress he has made on appointing the Chair of the Independent Review into the Teaching Excellence Framework (link).
A – Sam Gyimah: We have made excellent progress in appointing an independent reviewer of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework and I hope to make an announcement shortly.
On Immigration
Q- Royston Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans his Department has to replicate the provisions of Tier 2 visa requirements for EU students studying in the UK after the UK has left the EU (link).
A – Caroline Nokes: The Government is considering a range of options for the future immigration system and we will publish a White Paper later in the autumn.
The independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published its report on the impact of international students in the UK in September 2018. The Government welcomes this report and thanks the MAC for their work. The report makes it clear that international students offer a positive economic benefit to the UK and offers a number of policy recommendations. We will be considering this report carefully and engaging widely as we develop proposals for the future system which will be implemented from 2021.
Q – Paul Blomfield: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether he has made an assessment of the potential implications for the Government's ambition to increase the number of BAME students going to university by 20 per cent by 2020 of implementing the recommendations in the University and College Union report entitled Investigating higher education institutions and their views on the Race Equality Charter; and if he will make a statement.
A – Sam Gyimah: I welcome the report from the University and College Union. Widening access to Higher Education is a priority for this government. We want everyone with the capability to succeed in Higher Education to have the opportunity to benefit from a university education, regardless of background, ethnicity, or where they grew up.
In 2017, 18 year olds from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to enter full-time undergraduate higher education than ever before. However, we still have more to do. That is why we asked the Office for Students to continue to ensure ethnic minority groups are supported to access, succeed in, and progress from higher education.
A new transparency condition will also require HE providers to publish application, offer, acceptance, non-continuation and attainment rates by socio-economic background, gender and ethnicity, which will provide greater transparency and help to shine a light on those providers who need to do more.
Finally, a question on artificial Intelligence (autonomous weapons).
Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. There aren't any new consultations and inquiries this week, however, there have been several outcome reports and Government responses to the consultations and inquiries we are tracking. Look out for the yellow highlighting to find the new information.
Free Speech: i news has an article reporting on the BBC's research stating universities are not restricting free speech. Here is the description of the BBC's research findings. The findings suggest there are only a small number of isolated cases where free speech is restricted. However, the article continues: A Department for Education spokesperson said while there was no evidence of widespread censorship, there were some "genuine problems", including the effect of the "complex web of rules and guidance", as well as the behaviour of protestors and student groups. The OfS Free Speech guidance is expected to be published before Christmas.
Science after Brexit: Fans of Radio 4's Today programme will have heard Sam Gyimah grasping for answers during a Brexit discussion with Nobel Prize winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse. Total Politics and The National both reported following the discussion.
Sexual Harassment: The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee published the outcome of their inquiry into sexual harassment of women and girls in public spaces. The report has a whole section devoted to women's safety at university. BU readers can access a summary of the report provided by Dods Political Monitoring Consultants here.
Cost of Post Study Work Visas: Wonkhe report on UUK analysis which estimates that the UK economy could have lost out on £8bn in export earnings from international students due to changes to student migration policy in 2012, which include the closure of the Tier 1 Post Study Work Route.
Simon Marginson, writing for Research Professional, also had much to say on the post study work visa this week:
"The notion that we beckon [international students] in through the narrow Home Office doorway, extract as much money as possible from them while they are here, and push them out the moment they graduate, is uncivilised, exploitative and counterproductive.
A mature country will recognise the connections between international education and skilled migration, and understand that while the primary purposes of international education are economic and educational, an important secondary purpose is attracting outstanding future citizens.
Post-study work visas are not only a cornerstone of education exports policy, they are a cornerstone of economic policy on skilled labour."
Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of UUK, stated:
"To keep up with competitors, the UK government needs to promptly develop a reshaped immigration system that recognises the value of international students as temporary visitors and tells the world that they are welcome here. This should include improved post-study work opportunities"
Students Union officers: Students Union officers are in the news this week with an article on the York University Students Union Working Class Officer and UWE's short lived men's officer, which was scrapped after the candidate withdrew citing harassment.
The Budget: The 2018 Autumn budget will be delivered on Monday 29 October. The House of Commons Library has produced a brief on the background to the budget. Political consultants have also been producing speculation documents detailing what has been leaked or is expected within the budget – so far there has been little content directly on Higher Education within the speculations.
Social economic comparators: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has released Equity in Education which tracks the impact of socio-economic background on the academic performance and outcomes of young people. It notes that high performance and more positive attitudes towards schooling among disadvantaged 15-year-old students are strong predictors of success in higher education and work later on. Furthermore, adults in England with tertiary-educated parents were 9 times more likely to complete tertiary education than adults with less-educated parents. However, this is still below the OECD average of 11 times more likely.
The Independent covers the report stating only 1 in 6 of the disadvantaged UK pupils surveyed report they are satisfied with their lives, socially integrated at school and do not experience test anxiety. The UK also trails behind in that only 15% of disadvantaged students are socially and emotionally resilient (compared to 26% average across all countries surveyed). Although the report does state: Disadvantaged students who are socially and emotionally resilient tend to do better academically which suggests that helping disadvantaged students develop positive attitudes and behaviours towards themselves and their education would boost their academic development. It also notes that greater school choice doesn't necessarily have a positive impact on disadvantaged pupils and that there can be a lack of sense of belonging amongst pupils. The Equity in Education report utilises PISA data (Programme for International Student Assessment). Click here for an interesting short set of infographics.
FE and Sixth Form Funding Crisis: Twelve associations that represent school and college leaders, governors, students, teachers and support staff in England have written to Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond urging him to increase funding for sixth form education in next week's Budget. The letter launched the Raise the Rate campaign which hopes to increase the funding rate for sixth form students that has been frozen at £4,000 per student, per year since 2013. In the letter, the associations claim that a combination of funding cuts and cost increases "has left much less money for schools and colleges to spend on the front line education of students at a time when the needs of young people have become increasingly complex (for example the sharp rise in students experiencing mental health problems)." The associations use recent research from London Economics to call for a "minimum" £760 per student funding increase. Without this the campaign states that minority subjects such as languages are at risk of being dropped and there will be decreased extra-curricular activities, work experience opportunities and university visits. As major funding decisions are not likely to be taken until next year's spending review, and would not take effect until 2020/21, the associations urge the Chancellor to introduce a "modest increase" to the funding rate of at least £200 per student in next week's Budget "to provide some much needed financial stability and ensure that schools and colleges can continue to deliver the high class education our young people deserve."
Geoff Barton, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders stated:
"It makes no sense whatsoever that the basic funding rate in sixth forms and colleges is a miserly £4,000 per student, while universities are charging tuition fees of up to £9,250, often for fewer teaching hours. Government cuts to 16-18 education have severely damaged a sector which is pivotal to the life chances of young people, and an immediate funding uplift is essential."
Emily Chapman, Vice President (Further Education) of the National Union of Students said:
"Successive budget cuts have left many colleges in a state of financial instability. The result has been course closures, cuts to student support, and reductions in teaching provision."
Bill Watkin, Chief Executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association said:
"Sixth form education is not just about exam results, it includes a host of essential wrap-around experiences. If we don't fund it properly, something must give and young people won't get the high-quality education they deserve. Every year, colleges are being asked to do more with less, and we must not sit idly by while young people are short-changed."
Student Opinion: Read this blog on the latest research from an amalgamation of students' unions: Asking the right questions on student lifestyle which covers wellbeing, living, eating and community identification. There are also previous research summaries giving the student perspective on Value for Money and Teaching Excellence.
Allied Health Professions: The OfS have published the blog Let's shine a light on the opportunities in allied health professions educating about the wider NHS careers opportunities and how the OfS is supporting growth in recruitment to these programmes.
Immigration salary threshold: Research Professional discuss how the proposed retention of the £30,000 salary threshold for skilled migrant visa will dissuade talented social science researchers from considering a career in the UK.
Unconditional offers: Unconditional offers continue to make headlines as UCAS confirm they will publish data highlighting which HE providers make significant levels of unconditional offers. The data will be shared when UCAS release the annual end-of-cycle data in January 2019. A spokesperson for UCAS stated: "Unconditional offers can be made for a variety of reasons… Universities may also need to provide necessary context of their figures when they are published for the first time." Research Professional state that UCAS will publish an analysis of unconditional offers during November to explore the different types of offers and how they are made.
Tags: allied health professions artifical intelligence Brexit care leavers Civic Universities evaluating student outcomes flexible learning free speech gender pay gap grade inflation Graduate premium immigration mature students MEM modules parliamentary questions part time study post study work visas Recruitment regulation research subject level TEF Technological Innovation TEF transparency unconditional offers widening access widening participation
HE Policy update for the w/e 6th July 2018
EU, Funding opportunities, international, NHS, policy jforster
The Government has announced that from 2019/20 EU nationals will continue to be eligible for home fee status for undergraduate, postgraduate and advanced learner financial support from Student Finance England for the full duration of their course as per current rules. Sam Gyimah said:
"EU students, staff and researchers make an important contribution to our universities. I want that contribution to continue and am confident – given the quality of our HE sector – that it will."
UK (home) student fees will remain frozen at £9,250 (full time) and £6,935 (part time) for 2019/20. The maximum fees for accelerated courses have not yet been confirmed. The student loan repayment threshold will remain at £25,000. These arrangements will be laid before Parliament for confirmation in early 2019.
Meanwhile the post-18 education and funding review continues. Jane attended the Wonkhe "Proceed with Caution" event on Tuesday, and it was a lively and stimulating affair, as you will have seen if you follow @policyBU on Twitter (if you don't, try it, we won't sulk if you later unfollow us).
Wonkhe were live blogging during the day and you can read it here. They have all the links to the materials referenced.
The first part of the day focussed on data and context for the discussion about fees.
Anna Vignoles, one of the authors of the infamous IFS report on LEO graduate earnings data that we reported on a few weeks ago, talked about what the research showed and why it was important. Anna acknowledged that the data told us something about government subsidy, might be useful to [some] students, and then more controversially, might highlight where programmes could be developed to improve employability. It does not tell us anything about current course quality [please take note, politicians and media commentators]. Anna also pointed out that, as the data was adjusted for prior attainment, and showed socio-economic gaps in earnings after graduation means that the expansion of HE has not consistently supported social mobility.
Our thoughts: importantly on the subsidy point, there are other relevant issues – the government may decide to subsidise courses because they do, or they don't, on average increase earnings – but they may also decide to do so because they meet a societal or economic need. Or they might subsidise people not courses – ie choose who to subsidise not what. Or they might of course choose which institutions to subsidise – as they do for research.
Andrew McGettigan gave a brilliantly clear exposition of the current accounting position for student loans and the perverse incentives for government that it creates, by hiding the true impact of the loan system on the economy – the "fiscal illusion". To quote Wonkhe: "Accounting conventions make it look like our loan system creates a surplus – flattering the headline deficit figures. In reality, it does not. And the terms of reference of the post-18 review precludes any modification of this practice".
This is going to change, because the Office for National Statistics are undertaking a review, after being told off by their EU counterpart. His main message is that this needs to be sorted out, because accounting should not drive policy – but he pointed out that an accounting change is more likely to leave the government with less, not more, money to spend on implementing the outcomes of the HE review. That change to the repayment threshold earlier this year suddenly looks even more like a strange way to prioritise government spending on HE.
In one of the most through provoking sessions of the day, London Economics presented a model and then moved swiftly on to some options for the HE review. Their slides are here and are well worth a look. The recommendations are controversial – some of this was prompted by the Diamond review of funding in Wales.
Up next was Philip Augar, Chair of the independent advisory panel to the review. He didn't give much away – positively declining to answer two questions and ducking or giving very general answers to many. Some potential leads:
He is very focused on simplifying the system so everyone can understand it. Or maybe improving the way it is explained so everyone can understand it. The first would require some major change. The second less so, it would be more about labels (graduate contribution not a loan)
He mentioned employers a lot. Might there be an apprenticeship levy type contribution for degrees? He did talk about skills shortages and graduates doing non-graduate jobs, and referred to strengths – and weaknesses – in the sector, but refused to be drawn on the latter.
What is most interesting is what he described as his remit – to come up with some interesting options for the government to pick from. They will be practical, realistic and simple and build on existing initiatives. And may be ignore by a government that in March will be stuck with the outcome of the ONS review and dealing with Brexit? The BBC review of the speech is here. There's another twitter thread from Rosemary Bennett of the BBC here
Later sessions focussed on a discussion about value for money – most of which has been well rehearsed in other contexts, but there was a good level of debate and some interesting points. Amongst them were the point that the government is with one hand telling students not to worry about student debt (because it is income contingent) and on the other hand raising concerns about responsible lending. The squeeze on living costs and cap on maintenance loans is driving students to take out other loans for sums or to work too many hours. The focus in the public debate on debt and interest, and on tuition fees, is unhelpful. Living costs are the real practical day to day challenge for students – which is why most of the panellists agreed that maintenance grants should be a priority
It does feel as there is a perfect storm coming – and while the timing might suggest that this review is headed for the filing cabinet, the costs involved will mean that something will have to be done.
Immigration – borders open for science
Sam Gyimah spoke at a science park opening on Thursday to announce a relaxation of the immigration regulations which will allow an influx of scientific talent to the UK. Gyimah stated
"it was only the first step towards a liberalisation of visa restrictions on scientific talent amid concerns that Brexit could damage the UK's ability to attract bright academics from overseas."
The Government coverage of the speech states the relaxation is Britain's new unique selling point and aims to establish Britain as the 'go-to place for science and innovation'.
The new scheme will allow non-EEA researchers, scientists and academics to reside in the UK for up to two years. It forms a new element within the Tier 5 (Government authorised exchange temporary worker) visa route. UKRI and 12 other approved research organizations (including Natural History Museum) have the ability to directly sponsor individuals to train and work in the UK.
Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes, stated:
"I recognise the crucial contribution science makes to the UK economy and society and I am determined that the UK will continue to welcome leading scientific and research talent from around the world…We must have an immigration system that makes sure we can attract leading international talent and benefit from their knowledge and expertise."
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will monitor this new scheme with UKRI regularly to ensure it meets the criteria for a Tier 5 scheme.
In his speech Gyimah stated:
"we…face a longer-term question: what should our post-Brexit economy look like? And we cannot wait till the Brexit deal is done to answer it… With the City less profitable today than it once was, and North Sea output naturally declining, the search is on for the next wave of world-leading British businesses… We need new sources of growth, and a vision of how to succeed. And we need to set a direction that will sustain us not just for the next 9 months, but for the next 30 years…The businesses of the future will be based on science, research and technology. The world is changing, and the UK needs to take advantage of this… To tackle the grand challenges our society faces, and to move up the economic league table, we need to double down on our strengths in science, technology and innovation.
This is partly a matter of investment. A decade ago, they idea that government investment had a role to play in fostering innovation was contentious, even controversial… investment is about much more than just public money. For every pound of public R&D in the UK, business contributes 2. And it takes more than R&D to build successful businesses. That's why we are also working hard to create the conditions for greater long term private investment.
Now is the right time to ask ourselves some big questions when it comes to our public R&D investment. How can we do more to ensure our investment crowds in private money? Have we struck the right balance between funding for basic and applied research?
We should be proud that so many of the best and brightest from other countries choose to bring their knowledge and skills to Britain, and we should recognise that our economy is stronger for it. I don't believe that the vote for Brexit was a vote for the UK to close ourselves off from the world.
We also need to make the most of our openness to ideas. We should learn from the sharp-eyed heroes of the Industrial Revolution and think not just how we commercialise our own technology, but what we can learn and borrow from the best research around the world."
Gyimah went on:
"It is also time to ensure our institutions are playing the most effective role they backing innovation…Our universities are an intrinsic part of our innovation economy. Our best universities are not just powerhouses of research – they are also deeply connected to their local and national businesses, and to their community. There is an important geographical angle to consider. It is no surprise that many of the UK's most successful publicly funded labs and institutions are in the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle, because we rightly fund research on the basis of excellence and not political patronage, and one corollary of that is that the most successful universities have consistently punched above their weight in winning further research funding. But it is important that we recognise that, when it comes to innovation, there is life outside the Golden Triangle. Indeed, sometimes the private sector seems quicker to realise it than public research funders.
I want to see to N8 Alliance of Northern Universities become powerhouses of economic growth in their area, and to ensure we back innovation wherever it may be… But universities are not the only institutions that are can drive innovation. We should also consider how our regulatory systems can encourage innovation, by making sure that our rules keep up with the pace of technology and business change."
Gyimah went on to:
Launch the new £10 million Regulators' Pioneer Fund, as an integral part of the Industrial Strategy. The fund will invest in initiatives to support businesses that are bringing innovative products to market
Announce the Government Office for Science will work with UKRI and the Better Regulation Executive to develop standards for new technologies and their applications (to build on work for self-driving car testbeds).
State: "We need to consider whether we have struck the right balance between encouraging spin-outs and maximising university revenues."
He concluded by stating: "By drawing on our national strengths of openness, entrepreneurship and strong institutions, we can make the UK a true platform for innovation. This in turn will help establish the UK's place in the world, and our future prosperity."
Gyimah's speech was covered in The Times: UK opens door to gifted foreign scientists.
Mature students and cold spots
UCAS published a report into admissions patterns for mature applicants: Full report
"Research published by UCAS shows that mature students are more likely to apply to universities and colleges close to home, primarily for a limited selection of vocational subjects, and when there are fewer jobs available. Our analysis also shows significant regional variations in entry rates to full-time higher education among mature students, and these differ notably from the patterns in entry to university among applicants of different age groups.
The report Admissions patterns for mature applicants (5.37 MB) compares the characteristics within groups of mature students aged 21 and over, to those aged 18, applying for full-time undergraduate courses. The key findings are as follows:
Living at home – mature students are more likely to live at home while studying full-time, and this likelihood increases with age. Half of 21 to 25 year olds live at home while studying, compared to nearly 80% of those aged 30 and over. In comparison, 18 year olds are more likely to attend a university over an hour away from their home, with over 50% having a drive time of 70 minutes or more.
Vocational subject choices – mature students are typically drawn to a small range of courses, with subjects allied to medicine (including nursing), education, and social studies the most popular. As more female students typically apply for these courses, this may explain why more than 70% of mature students over the age of 31, accepted to full-time degrees, are female.
Entry rates by region – in 2017, for mature students aged 21 to 50, entry rates to higher education by UK country and region are highest in Scotland, followed by London. However, due to differences in age distribution across the regions, entry rates vary by region for different age groups of mature applicants, with London having the highest entry rates for those aged 36 to 50.
Applications are higher when the job market is weaker – there appears to be a relationship between applications and the number of job vacancies. When the number of UK employment opportunities was at its lowest, between 2009 and 2011, application rates for full-time undergraduate courses from mature students peaked. Since 2015, the number of job vacancies has increased, while application rates for full-time study have declined. This suggests mature students look to the employment market when jobs are plentiful, and apply to higher education when jobs are sparse."
Clare Marchant, UCAS' Chief Executive, said:
'Mature students have different motivations, expectations, and needs compared to their younger counterparts. Entering full-time higher education as an older student is a life-changing commitment, reflected in the focused choices many older students make to pursue highly vocational subjects."
This was written up on Wonkhe by David Kernohan, and reported in the Times Higher a
The same day a report was issued by IntoUniversity at a conference looking at the geography of higher education, access and participation. Chris Millward, the Director of Fair Access and Particpation gave a speech:
So far, so not very surprising. So what were the remedies that he proposed?
"Strategic and sustained work to:
engage with local communities, schools and colleges on expectations, pathways and attainment before HE
recognise background within admissions and support transition into HE
develop skills and attributes for employment and absorptive capacity for graduates in local areas"
Meanwhile the OfS is going to ensure:
"Pressure for individual universities and colleges to:
demonstrate continuous, year-on-year improvement through their access and participation plans by:
reducing the gaps in access, success and progression for underrepresented groups among their own students
improve practice, including through better evaluation and sustained engagement with schools from early years and with employers.
Sector-wide support for:
availability and use of more common and rigorous data and evidence to target and evaluate access and participation work
collaborative working between different universities and colleges and with schools and employers, e.g. NCOP
advancement and sharing of innovative and effective practice, e.g. Barriers to Student Success"
And Chris Millward also wrote a blog:
'To ensure the benefits of higher education flow back into local economies and public services throughout the country, there need to be better opportunities and support for people who want to study close to home and later in life, as well as for young people who live on campus.
'The Office for Students is challenging higher education providers to reduce the gaps in access and outcomes for mature students through access and participation plans, which universities and colleges must have approved if they wish to charge higher tuition fees."
We were puzzled by some of the analysis of this – which seems to imply that mature students are first deciding to go to university and then choosing a course, which happens often to be a vocational one, and happens often to be close to home. And then of course the implication is that graduates of "vocational" courses are less well paid, see the headline story on fees and funding , and that by choosing local courses they may be choosing less good courses. This was the line taken by Chris Parr on Research Professional.
In our view, this analysis is upside down – if mature students are choosing vocational courses, it is likely to be because they have a vocation – and have decided that they want to pursue it. They may study locally because they may have family or other ties, or financial concerns that make it difficult to travel. And they may choose low-tariff courses – but in some cases that may be because one of the reasons they are mature students is that they didn't get very high grades at school but are now coming back to education. Those local, low tariff vocational programmes may be an important means of allowing mature students with potential to gain life changing experience and qualifications that will enable them to give back to their communities as well as improve their own lives.
So the OfS focus on access, participation and outcomes is important, but once again, we need to be careful to challenge views that success is only measured in terms of entry tariffs and graduate salaries. And too much focus on improving choice may miss the point for many mature students who can't take advantage of the options.
Part Time Students and ELQs
As well as the decline in mature students, the decline in the numbers of part-time students has also been widely discussed as a challenge for the Post-18 review, and of course many mature students will also be part-time, so the same issues may apply.
This week the House of Lords held a debate on part-time and continuing education. Criticism for ELQs featured heavily in the debate. An ELQ (Equivalent and Lower Qualification) is when a student already holds a qualification at the same or a higher level than the programme they intend to study. A student with an ELQ cannot access student maintenance loan or tuition fee funding from the Student Loan Company – meaning they, or their employer, has to fully self-fund. There are a small number of courses that the Government considers a priority where the ELQ rule doesn't apply and students can access student finance. Furthermore, a student with an ELQ can actually be charged above the £9,250, up to £13,000 (BU does not charge this higher fee for ELQ students).
Baroness Bakewell led a debate on part-time and continued education, in particular the future of the Open University (OU). She said the OU's purpose was to promote greater equality of opportunity and widen access to the highest standards of education. There had been a fall in part-time and mature students and the OU had been hit particularly hard by this drop. According to universities, she said, the cause had been the rise in the cap on part-time fees to £6,750 a year and the introduction of maintenance loans had not alleviated the issue significantly. The post-18 review were welcomed by the Baroness, but she warned that this should not be a missed opportunity. She urged the minister to ensure that the post-18 review addressed a major review of student finance and that it considered different policy responses for different types of students.
"It must reappraise the availability of maintenance grants and the restrictions on maintenance loans, and it must further relax restrictions on equivalent or lower qualifications, ELQs. I ask, above all, that it prioritises mature students and lifelong learning."
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) thought that the ELQ rule was a major cause in the decline of part-time education. Bakewell agreed this was contributing factor.
Baroness Bakewell spoke highly of Birkbeck University, of which she has been head for 10 years. She insisted the main cause of the decline in part-time students was the rise in tuition fees, which explained in part why mature students were no longer willing to take the risk of more debt. She asked the Government to provide a part-time premium to universities and colleges to promote the supply of part-time courses and stop relying on maintenance loans for part-time students, as the latter would increase their debt. She called for the reduction of fees in line with any premium provided for universities.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD) spoke highly of the work and the opportunities that the two universities offered. She called on the Government to release colleges from the tortuous and pointless demands of GCSE maths and English resits
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) suggested the establishment of a "learning nation fund" to go to the parts of the country where there are no opportunities.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB) thought that there was a need to build wider partnerships into different communities, with employers and with government, with the skills needed to build a modern and resilient society. She added she would do her best to ensure that OU was fit for the future and asked what funding plan the Government had.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean spoke critically about the ELQ rule, adding that at one point 50% of Birkbeck's students had an ELQ and now it was 5%.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab) noted that the Welsh Government was introducing a student support package to offer parity of support for full time and part time students alike and the university there was experiencing substantial increases in early registrations for study in the coming year.
Lord Addington (LD) argued that the Open University had a tremendous the capacity for credit transfer. "It is a conduit between different skills being credited in another institution.". He thought ELQ decision and fees should be removed.
Lord Haskel (Lab) asked about the national retraining scheme, which was promised by the end of the Parliament and talked about the importance of retraining and continuing the relationship between universities and their alumni.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab) spoke critically of the current offerings of FutureLearn – "threadbare and compare unfavourably with the traditional course materials of the Open University". He noted that large industrial enterprises were no longer as keen as they once had been to sponsor the education of their workforce.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford called for proactive investment in part-time, continuing, lifelong education, accessible in every place and to every part of society. "This new deal needs to be means tested, as we have heard, at the point of delivery, to prevent the stagnation of much of our economy".
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) criticised the current student finance system and interest rates.
Lord Shipley (LD) asked the Government to look urgently at whether it was justifiable for tuition fees for part-time students in England to be two and a half times higher than in the rest of the UK. He also reminded the Government that around 20 million adults in the UK did not have level 4 qualifications, which he considered a huge untapped resource.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) argued for more flexibility in education and spoke about the need to provide progressive pathways: "It is desperately important that people can move from one sector of education and one type of qualification approach, and we need credit accumulation and credit transfer to become an integral part of all we offer to part-time and mature students."
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) suggested a single national portal showing career opportunities with available jobs, apprenticeship options and links to training requirements and a strategy for retraining and upskilling at all levels. He also called for flexibility.
Government Whip, Viscount Younger of Leckie, talked about the steps the Government had taken to address the fall in part time students, such as the Higher Education and Research Act. He noted that in 2016-17, 47,000 OU students were able to benefit from a tuition fee loan for undergraduate courses and the Government had removed the so-called ELQ restrictions. He mentioned that HEFCE—now replaced by the Office for Students—targeted an element of the teaching grant in recognition of the additional costs of part-time study. He added that the Government had tabled regulations that would allow part-time students on higher education courses to access maintenance loans similar to those received by their equivalents on full-time courses.
Viscount Younger of Leckie noted that:
the Government was committed to seek to introduce maintenance loans for part-time distance learning courses.
on credit transfer, he said the Section 38 of the Higher Education and Research Act allows such arrangements
on the post-18 review, he said the panel would publish its report at an interim stage at some point this year, before the Government concluded the overall review in early 2019. He noted the word flexible "was very much in there".
according to the findings of the work that the Economic Affairs Committee, he noted the Government had overhauled apprenticeships to focus on quality and are fundamentally transforming technical education.
on the national retraining scheme, which would be set up by the end of the Parliament, he said that the strategic direction of the scheme was set by the National Retaining Partnership.
Motion agreed.
Digital Accord
On Thursday Matt Hancock (Secretary of State for Digital) visited Paris to announce a new agreement to strengthen ties between the UK and France's digital industries. The five-year accord aims to boost both countries' digital economies and forge closer links between the leading companies in France and the UK. It forges closer working between each country's leading digital research centres to deepen collaboration. The UK's Alan Turing Institute signed the agreement with the French institute DATAIA. The two organisations will pursue collaborative research in areas of shared interest, e.g. in fairness and transparency in the design and implementation of algorithms. They will share expertise and visiting researchers will spend time at each Institute and hosting joint workshops and funding calls.
At the UK-France Digital Colloque – a summit of more than 350 businesses, researchers and officials from both countries – Mr Hancock and Mr Majoubi signed an accord on digital government committing UK and France to extending their cooperation in the digital sector on innovation, artificial intelligence, data and digital administration.
Digital Secretary Matt Hancock said:
"The UK is a digital dynamo, increasingly recognised across the world as a place where ingenuity and innovation can flourish. We are home to four in ten of Europe's tech businesses worth more than $1 billion and London is the AI capital of Europe. France is also doing great work in this area, and these new partnerships show the strength and depth of our respective tech industries and are the first stage in us developing a closer working relationship. This will help us better serve our citizens and provide a boost for our digital economies.
Because throughout history, the nations who get the technology right in their era are the nations who succeed. And in our era, our challenge is these data-driven technologies that are transforming our economy and society beyond recognition. If we get them right, and work with other nations to do so, it will lay the path for productivity, prosperity, and a better quality of life. That is why this colloque is so important. Bringing together some of our greatest minds, to discuss the big issues and opportunities that lie ahead. So please keep creating, innovating and making the impossible possible. Because technology was forged by humankind. So we need to make it work for humankind."
Read Matt Hancock's speech in full here, it's a lovely opportunity to brush up on your French.
LEO data accessible through Unistats
The LEO (Longitudinal Education Outcomes) data is now available on Unistats through a user friendly interface. Applicants can access data on their chosen course to find out the national average salary for a graduate of that type of course. They can also select a HE institution and see the salary range of its graduates across all disciplines.
The OfS consulted prospective students on what graduate outcome information they would find useful. OfS report that applicants said they wanted to consider a range of factors when making decisions about future study and OfS expected earnings to play a role in decisions made by many students and be a key factor for some. The OfS expect to expands access to this dataset for prospective students in the future by incorporating responses from the new Graduate Outcomes record when this becomes available in 2020. Read the OfS press release here.
Conor Ryan, Director of External Relations at OfS, said:
"Adding the LEO earnings data to Unistats provides more valuable information to assist students in their course decision making. It comes as the Office for Students is developing our Information, Advice and Guidance strategy to help prospective students find and understand the information they need to make decisions about what and where to study…The Office for Students will take a leading role in ensuring the availability of unbiased information to help all students make informed choices. This should put students in a better position to make the most of their education experience and future careers."
STEM – Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether he has had recent discussions with the Minister for Women and Inequalities on increasing the number of girls who choose to study STEM subjects at school; and if he will make a statement. [158682]
Nick Gibb:
The Government has taken focused action to increase the take-up of STEM subjects amongst all teenagers, and since 2010 there has been an 18 per cent increase in the number of entries by girls to STEM A levels in England. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, plans to meet the Minister for Women and Equalities in the coming months to discuss how to build on this so that more girls are taking STEM subjects at all levels.
The Department funds the Institute of Physics to deliver an intervention to increase the number of girls studying physics at A level. The Department also funds a number of other programmes to improve the quality of teaching STEM subjects and to encourage take up. For instance, the Department is investing £84 million to improve the teaching of computing and increase participation in computer science. This includes a programme to identify effective approaches to increase participation in computer science amongst girls.
STEM: Equal Pay – Jim Shannon: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what steps she is taking to tackle the gender pay gap in STEM industries. [158753]
Victoria Atkins:
In 2017 we introduced ground breaking regulations requiring large employers from all sectors, including STEM industries, to report gender pay gap information annually.
This increased level of transparency highlights where women are being held back in the workplace, and is motivating employers to tackle their gender pay gaps.
Government will be engaging with businesses and educators over the coming months to understand more about the barriers for women in the STEM workforce.
Lord Watson Of Invergowrie : Further to the Written Statement by the Minister for Immigration on 15 June (HCWS768), what criteria were used to determine which countries were included in the expanded low-risk Tier 4 visa category for overseas students; and why India was not amongst them. [HL8807]
Baroness Williams Of Trafford :
Careful consideration is given to which countries could be added to Appendix H of the Immigration Rules, taking into account objective analysis of a range of factors including the volume of students from a country and their Tier 4 immigration compliance risk.The list of countries in Appendix H will be regularly updated to reflect the fact that countries' risk profiles change over time.
Q – Preet Kaur Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent discussions he has had and with whom on funding for mental health services at universities; and if he will make a statement.
A – Sam Gyimah:
Mental health is a priority for this government. This is why the Department for Health, together with the Department for Education, have published a joint green paper on Children and Young people, which sets out plans to transform specialist services and support in education settings and for families.
In higher education, there is already much work underway to improve the quality of mental health services for students, alongside services provided by the NHS, including through the NHS programme Improving Access to Psychological Therapies.
In addition, we are in the process of introducing a University Mental Health Charter, backed by the Government and led by the sector. This will drive up standards in promoting student and staff mental health and wellbeing.
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are autonomous bodies, independent from government. HEIs are not only experts in their student population but also best placed to identify the support needs of their particular student body.
Universities UK published its 'Minding Our Futures' guidance on 10 May 2018 which recommends: Links between NHS providers and student services to create 'student mental health teams' will help support students within the university provision and facilitate timely and seamless referrals for those who need specialist help.
NHS Recruitment Drive
NHS England has launched an £8 million recruitment campaign following their research which showed although nurses and doctors are the most trusted and respected professionals in society the majority of the public don't know the wider range of careers available. Under the banner 'We are the NHS' the recruitment drive aims to education and highlight the vast range of opportunities available to work within the NHS. It will initially focus on nursing, prioritising key areas (mental health, learning disability and community and general practice nurses) that are essential to deliver the long term plan for the NHS. While it will primarily target school children aged 14-18 aiming to increase the total number of applications into the NHS by 22,000, it also hopes to double the numbers of nurses returning to practice and improve retention of staff in all sectors.
The campaign hopes to improve the skills shortage the NHS is currently experiencing. In a 6 month period in 2017 there were over 34,000 nursing vacancies reported, with over 6,000 in mental health and 1,500 in community nursing. The campaign also hopes to work with parents to address gender stereotyping and address the perception that while nurses are 'caring' they can also be leaders, innovative and academic.
Professor Jane Cummings, Chief Nursing Officer for England, said: "The NHS is our country's most loved institution and that is down to the expert skill, dedication and compassion of its brilliant staff.
"There are over 350 careers available within the NHS giving young people an astonishing range of options. Nursing and midwifery make up the largest part of the workforce and as I know from personal experience, provides a unique opportunity to make a real difference to peoples' lives in a way that simply cannot be matched.
"Nurses and midwives provide expert skilled care and compassion, and they are highly talented leaders in the NHS. This campaign is all about inspiring young people and others who want a change of career to come and work for the NHS and have a rewarding and fulfilling career that makes a real difference."
The autumn will see the recruitment drive expand when the Department of Health and Social Care will run a national adult social care recruitment campaign to raise the profile of the sector and attract people to consider it as a career.
Applied Health Research – The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has announced £150 million of funding for applied health research aiming to tackle the key issues with the healthcare system. The funding will cover the pressures caused by our ageing population, the increasing demands on the NHS, and multimorbidity alongside the need to increase research in public health, social care and primary care. Of the new funding £135 million will be for new NIHR Applied Research Collaborations which will undertake applied health and care research and support implementation of research into practice.
Health and Social Care Secretary Jeremy Hunt said:
"As the NHS celebrates its 70th birthday, more people than ever before are living longer lives thanks to the dedication of hardworking staff. It is therefore vital we harness technology to develop the next generation of innovative treatments as part of the Government's long term plan for the NHS.
That's why I want our world-leading academics, researchers and technology experts to work with frontline staff to develop the innovations which not only allow people to live longer, but also to lead healthier lives, so the NHS can continue to provide world-class care to all."
Health Minister Lord O'Shaughnessy stated:
"With a growing and ageing population, maintaining a world-class NHS depends on harnessing the discoveries of cutting edge research and rapidly bringing them into every day healthcare…The UK has a proud tradition of ground-breaking medical R&D and this funding means our country can continue to lead the world."
Parliament enters recess on Tuesday 24 July so the volume of announcements and news will likely slow. We'll continue to send a shorter policy update through the recess period on the weeks when there is sufficient content to share. Parliament reconvenes on Wednesday 5 September.
A sustainable future for international students in the UK
Forensic gait analysis
Zulfiqar Khan is the first BU academic to submit an elevated pitch to the Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges. Read his engaging posts on Clean Growth and Future of Mobility. Log in and leave a comment on his research to promote BU and support his ideas.
There is still time to submit your ideas and research to the Grand Challenges – deadline 21 July. This could be your first step towards policy influence and societal impact! Contact Sarah if you need support.
There have also been outcomes published to several items:
The Government have issued a summary of responses and guidance to the HE decarbonisation
The EUA have shared a presentation of their findings with us on the doctoral education survey.
While the Science and Technology Committee's investigation into an immigration system that works for science and innovation remains open they have published a new tranche of the oral and written evidence here.
The Scottish Education and Skills Committee survey into young peoples' destinations (support and information) has reported already – see Learner Journey: Education, Training and Work.
Finance Education: 70% of students state they wish they'd been better education in managing their finances before starting university. 50% acknowledge that when they are short of money their diet suffers, and 46% said that their mental health suffers, with 78% worrying about making ends meet. Read more in The 2018 Student Money Survey. The BBC covered the survey noting that poorer families often contribute to their children's finances whilst at university than richer parents. Cosmopolitan magazine examines a student's outgoings and questions when the maintenance loan is generous enough.
Tags: Digital ELQ Fair Access Graduate Outcomes immigration industrial strategy Major HE review mature students mental health part-time students Review of post-18 education STEM student finance unistats widening participation
HE policy update w/e 14th August 2017
international, policy jforster
NSS results
HEFCE published the NSS results last week. In their press release they highlight the changes to the survey and the fact that the responses are not comparable with previous years – there were 10 new questions and wording changes to 9 questions. The NUS boycott linked to the TEF affected 12 institutions who did not achieve the necessary response rate.
THE covered National Student Survey 2017: campuses omitted after NUS boycott
Wonkhe – A bruising boycott for the Russell Group
Wonkhe – What have we learned from the new (and improved) NSS
Research Professional – Student satisfaction dips, but remains high
FT – Students at top universities snub survey in tuition fees protest
Jo Johnson had made an announcement a few weeks ago about student contracts as one way of addressing student concerns about quality and value for money – there has been a fair amount of comment and the latest from Jim Dickinson on Wonkhe suggests some practical action universities could take to improve their response to complaints.
Teaching Intensity
Teaching intensity hit the headlines in late July fuelled by the Fiscal Studies journal article on class size, the 2017 HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey, and the announcement that the TEF subject level pilots will contain a teaching intensity measure. The pilot TEF measure will collect data on class size and contact time and consider how these measures might be used to inform a subject-level assessment judgement.
A Times Higher article – Teaching intensity: the key to measuring student learning? – illustrates the diversity of approaches and opinion on class sizes. Applicant choice is a key factor and many also highlight that there is no interrelation between student experience of teaching intensity/quality and fees (yet).
A HEPI guest blog – Measuring teaching intensity: the authors respond to the critics – explains the limitations within HESA data and why the Dearing Report and Brown Review didn't go far enough.
"We felt that there was a need to collect information than enabled more precise comparison of how teaching is delivered across institutions, accounting for the many ways in which teaching is undertaken. Our findings imply that some students receive much better value for money than others. For a market to function properly, participants must be able to compare what is offered by different providers. The enormous variation in teaching intensity found in our data strongly suggests that in the market for teaching price signals are weak. It was always anticipated the tuition fees would be variable. One of the ways in which it was expected that the fee would vary was by subject (Greeneway and Haines 2000). If the data we have collected had been publically available the uniform fee would not have been possible."
"Unfortunately, in the absence of information about teaching intensity (as opposed to contact hours alone) school leavers have no way to choose between those universities offering more (or less) of the tuition service they are ultimately paying for. In turn, universities are not incentivised to provide more of the primary service (tuition) paid for by taxpayers and students."
The authors call for universities to publish teaching intensity data in additional to contact hours in the belief it will create a more competitive environment and therefore drive up teaching quality.
Sarah Stevens, Head of Policy at the Russell Group, responded on Wonkhe disagreeing with the proposal to include teaching intensity in the TEF.
POSTGRADUATE SUPPORT SCHEME – HEFCE published the 2015/16 postgraduate support scheme evaluation report. This was a one-off scheme designed to widen access to taught postgraduate students (within the first cohorts to pay higher fees) through a bursary of £10,000. This scheme has been superseded by the postgraduate loan scheme. The evaluation note:
The bursary did have a modest impact of demand but criticises the scheme's rushed design and implementation which meant only students already committed to PG study were likely to apply – it acted as an 'enabler' rather than a 'persuader'
Higher levels of students from certain underrepresented groups were recruited than in previous years. There was particular success in increasing students from Low Participation Neighbourhoods, NS-SEC groups 4 – 8, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups, disabled students and 'first generation' students. The scheme which was designed to remove financial barriers to PG study may have a particular meaning for these groups of students; it will be interesting to cross-reference these groups' take up of the PG loan scheme.
The evaluation concluded that the scheme did not led to substantial change in policy or practice for most institutions and structured obligations (e.g. requirements set by OfS) is needed for genuine change.
A Wonkhe blog Universities' shame – unpicking the black attainment gap discusses the attainment gap between black/white and Asian/white good degree classifications. While this isn't new news and the gap is acknowledge by the sector Wonkhe suggest the OfS ought to penalise institutions for attainment gaps and states:
Ultimately, TEF has failed in its aim to take account of any significant differences in the quality of teaching and learning experienced by different student groups if it has awarded universities Gold ratings when there are significant racial attainment gaps. The blog sparked a volley of comments from the sector which can be viewed at the end of the article.
Les Ebdon blogs giving advice to the OfS: A real step change for fair access.
I always say that good progress is being made on fair access – that it's a national success story. Well, I stand by that, but let's be clear, it's good progress made from a very low baseline, which means that the overall result is still quite low.
OFFA is publishing a summary briefing on the current situation in fair access – the gains made and the challenges that remain – and it makes sobering reading.
If the OfS is built with the right mission, values, staff and systems, it will be able to drive the transformational change that is needed…OFFA is a tiny organisation and, although we've punched a long way above our weight, our size has always limited what we've been able to do. The OfS will have much bigger resources – in data analysis, for example – that will enable it to take what we've done and do it even more and even better. That means focusing on outcomes, following evidence, and offering support and challenge in ways that respect the wide diversity of institutions.
The OfS must strive as hard as OFFA has striven to keep access and participation on the public agenda. These issues are now embedded in government policy and a key priority for Ministers, but nothing is ever permanent in politics
HEPI have published a collection of essays on widening participation and fair access. Suggestions include bolder contextualised admissions policies for highly-selective universities (with AAA+ offers typically being reduced to CCC), more support for people in care with the potential to benefit from higher education and new Personalised Learning Accounts to meet demand for more flexible lifelong learning.
The National Networks for Collaborative Outreach 2015/16 monitoring report has been published by HEFCE. This covers the final year of the NNCO scheme and reports 98% of academies, schools and colleges were covered by the scheme and 'genuine innovation took place'.
The Sutton Trust have published their annual Aspirations Polling 2017. They survey asks young people about their aspirations and worries for higher education, and their attitude to tuition fees and student debt. The Sutton Trust report this year's pool shows a falling trend in likelihood to attend university and an increase in financial concerns. Headlines:
The proportion of young people who say they are likely to go into higher education as fallen to its lowest level since 2009.
51% intending to study at university worry about the cost of HE – this is an increase on previous year and is the highest level the Sutton Trust has ever captured through their polls.
Young people low affluence households who intend to attend university is the lowest in seven years with the socioeconomic gap in likelihood between high and low affluence households at the highest level it has been.
In expectations BAME young people (82%) are more likely than white (71%) to plan to attend HE.
Of those not intending to apply to HE 64% cited a financial reason (this was 57% in 2013)
OFFA issued this press release and a quick facts briefing.
Parliamentary Question – MATURE STUDENTS
Q – Mr David Lammy: What plans she has to increase the number of individuals aged 24 and over in part-time and full-time education.
A – Joseph Johnson: The Government is committed to ensuring all individuals have the opportunity to make the most of their potential. The Industrial Strategy Green Paper, published in January, outlined some of the challenges that adults face when considering re-entering education. This year's Budget therefore committed £40million to fund pilots to test ambitious, new approaches to remove these barriers.
We want to increase participation in higher education by older and part-time students, and we have taken action to support those who choose to study part-time. These measures include: From 2012, the offer of up-front fee loans for eligible part-time students, to level the playing field with undergraduate study. From academic year 2018/19, the introduction of undergraduate part-time maintenance loans, to bring greater parity of support between part-time and full-time. From 2015, the relaxation of Equivalent or Lower Qualification rules, so students who already hold an honours degree qualification and wish to study part-time on a second honours degree course in engineering, technology or computer science, have qualified for fee loans for their course. This is being extended for academic year 2017/18 to graduates starting a second part-time honours degree course in any STEM subject.
In addition, we are extending undergraduate maintenance loans to distance learners from academic year 2019/20, subject to the development of a robust control regime.
We are also removing barriers to accelerated courses. Evidence shows that accelerated courses appeal particularly to mature students who want to retrain and enter the workplace more quickly than a traditional course would permit. We have already made provisions in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to remove a key barrier to the growth of these courses, and will now consult on implementation and setting a new fee cap specifically for accelerated courses in secondary legislation.
The Office for Fair Access has also asked universities to consider the different barriers mature learners may face in accessing, succeeding in, and progressing from higher education, and to consider what more they can do to attract and support part-time learners across the whole student lifecycle as part of their Access Agreements.
Alistair Jarvis has been appointed as Chief Executive of UUK replacing Nicola Dandridge who is now CEO of the Office for Students. Prior to appointment Alistair was the Deputy Chief Executive at UUK and a member of the Wonkhe Board. THE describe his background and reasons for appointment. Janet Beer, UUK president, said:
"The challenges and opportunities afforded by the current economic, social and political climate mean that UUK was seeking a chief executive with a strong track record in campaigning, political advocacy, and the ability to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders."
FEES – VALUE FOR MONEY
Q – Lord Myners: Whether they intend to take action to limit university course fees which do not represent value for money for students; and if so, on what basis they intend to determine which courses provide value for money.
A – Baroness Sugg: The Government has introduced the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) assessment, to tackle concerns about value for money in Higher Education. Only providers who successfully achieve a high quality rating under the TEF will be permitted to maintain their fees in line with inflation.
The results of the TEF assessment gives students clear information about where teaching quality is best and where students have achieved the best outcomes. This will promote student choice and encourage a stronger focus on the quality of teaching, as higher education providers will need to ensure they are giving students, their parents and the taxpayer value for money.
Furthermore, the Office for Students, once established, has a general duty under section 2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to have regard to the need to promote value for money in the provision of Higher Education by English Higher Education providers.
Q – Alex Burghart: What estimate she has made of the cost of abolishing university tuition fees.
A – Joseph Johnson: The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated that abolishing tuition fees would increase the fiscal deficit for the 2017/18 student cohort by around £11bn, with the long-term cost of student funding increasing by around £6.5bn.
The major reforms to English higher education in 2012 have significantly increased average per-student funding. Graduates do not start repaying loans until their annual incomes reach £21,000, and loans are written off after 30 years. By enabling English universities to charge current tuition fees, the Government no longer has to ration access to higher education via a cap on student numbers. This enables it to offer more places, including to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are now going to university at a record rate – they are 43% more likely to go to university than they were in 2009 (LINK).
Graduates earn, on average, substantially more than people with A levels who did not go to university. Various pieces of research show that Higher Education graduates earn, on average, at least £100,000 more over their lifetimes than those without a degree but with 2 or more A-Levels. The most recent BIS commissioned research shows that, on average, a male graduate could expect to earn £170,000 more and a female graduate £250,000 more over their lifetimes, than someone without a degree but with 2 or more A-levels, net of tax and other costs (2012 prices). Abolishing tuition fees would be socially regressive: as well as unfairly burdening the general taxpayer, it would benefit mainly those students going on to well-paid jobs, who repay their loans in full.
CAPPING THE STUDENT LOAN
Q – Lord Myners: Whether they intend to place a cap on student loans, in order to prevent any increase in the total debt arising as a result of the interest paid being less than the interest accrued in any one year.
A – Baroness Sugg: The student funding system removes financial barriers for anyone hoping to study and is backed by the taxpayer. A key feature of the scheme is that outstanding debt – including any interest accrued that has not been repaid by the end of the loan term – is written off after 30 years. This means that borrowers are protected if their repayments are less than the interest accruing on their accounts.
Monthly student loan repayments are linked to income, not to interest rates or the amount borrowed. Borrowers earning less than the repayment threshold (£21,000) repay nothing at all.
Once borrowers leave study, those earning less than £21,000 are charged an interest rate of RPI only. Post-study interest rates are variable based on income, tapering up from RPI for those earning less than £21,000 to RPI+3% for borrowers earning £41,000 and above. The system of variable interest rates based on income makes the system more progressive, as higher earners contribute more to the sustainability of the higher education system.
We have a world class student finance system that is working well, and that has led to record numbers of disadvantaged students benefiting from higher education. As ever, we will keep the detailed features of the system under review to ensure it remains fair and effective.
Q – Mr David Lammy: What assessment she has made of the implications on individual testing entitlement for her policy of the recommendations of Professor Alison Wolf's report, Remaking Tertiary Education, published in November 2016. [5482]
A – Joseph Johnson: We welcome contributions to our thinking from experts on, and from within, the education sector. We are committed to delivering high performing further, technical and higher education, which represents good value for people throughout their lives.
For example, we have legislated to remove the barriers to the provision of two-year degrees. We are also introducing a new maintenance loan for part-time undergraduate study for academic year 2018/19 and intend to offer maintenance loans to support students on further education courses at Levels 4 and 5 in National Colleges and Institutes of Technology. This year's Spring Budget committed £40million to fund pilots that will test ambitious, new approaches to removing barriers adults might face when considering re-entering education.
Q – Lord Jopling: How any higher education provider that does not obtain a Bronze status or higher in future Teaching Excellence Frameworks will be categorised.
A – Baroness Sugg: All providers who successfully meet the eligibility criteria, including the rigorous quality assessments by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, and which have sufficient metrics to be assessed, will achieve a Bronze award, or above, in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Those providers which have met the eligibility criteria but do not have sufficient metrics will instead receive a provisional award.
As noted during the Higher Education and Research Bill process some providers do not meet the eligibility requirements noted for TEF. Providers who do not meet the eligibility requirements, or who chose not to participate, will appear without a TEF award on Unistats and on the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.
In last week's HE policy update we gave statistics on the value of transnational education. This week THE reports that Offshore students are 'no substitute for UK-based learners'. THE explain that UK universities delivering education overseas accounts for less than 5% of the foreign student income. Dominic Scott, chief executive of the UK Council for International Student Affairs, stated that transnational education could never realistically replace lost income if the number of overseas students studying in the UK declined dramatically. "It has often been argued by government that the UK should, in the face of tough visa restrictions, seek to grow foreign student numbers overseas, largely as an alternative to UK recruitment." However, HESA 2015/16 figures confirm there are only 701,000 offshore students compared to 450,000 international students studying in the UK. Furthermore, of the 701,000 45% are all on a low-fee accountancy distance learning course at one UK university.
HEFCE respond to last week's controversial Sunday Times article Universities take foreign students ahead of British. Mario Ferelli, HEFCE's Director of Analytical Services, explains what the UCAS data really shows and why the statistics the Sunday Times used weren't appropriate for the young UK population.
Tags: contact hours Fair Access international students mature students NSS student fees teaching intensity TEF tertiary education tuition fees widening participation