text:
Tagged / teaching excellence framework
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 TEF awards have been extended, but are so out of date for some (most) institutions that the OfS has told the HE sector to stop promoting their awards.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
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 11th Feb 2021
COVID-19, EU, humanities, innovation, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
Lots to talk about this week as we look in some detail at the Education's Secretary's latest guidance to the OfS and what it means and doesn't mean.
We're taking a break next week but will be back with a round-up of the essential news the following week.
HE Strategic Priorities – Williamson's letter to OfS
The Secretary of State wrote to the OfS on 8th Feb 2021 with a new set of strategic priorities.
Interestingly, he also said "apart from my guidance letters on 14 September 2020, 14 December 2020, 19 January 2021 and 2 February 2021 which related to delivery of particular time critical issues, this letter replaces all previous guidance." So what are the priorities now, and the context for them? and what is no longer a priority? We quote chunks of the text from Williamson's letter for colleagues to scan through because the tone of the wording is quite insightful. We cover those other 4 letters below as well as what is now "off the table".
Williamson states: my strong view that the OfS should focus on driving up quality, being risk based, minimising bureaucracy, and ensuring that it delivers on equality of opportunity in higher education…this letter replaces all previous guidance [apart from the 4 other letters he mentions which he states relate to delivery of time critical issues of course]..…The OfS will, of course, still need to deliver its functions under HERA and its operational responsibilities, but the replacement of the majority of previous guidance will, I hope, provide clarity on my priorities and allow the OfS to focus its energy and resources on these. Bottom line – this is an instruction to the OfS to crack on (and crack down on) the sector to ensure progress is made on his top issues.
But before we get to what they are, this made us try and guess what the biggest "problems" are for the SoS:
A student (particularly one from a WP background) who takes a degree in a creative subject at a "lower quality" university and goes on to pursue a career in creative arts which is relatively low paid compared to the average earnings of students studying that subject.
A student (particularly one from a WP background) who studies anything and then struggles to find a "graduate level" job, but particularly if it is a humanities, or media course at a "lower quality" university.
A student who doesn't complete their degree.
Why might these be a problem? In each case the answer is the same: they should never have gone to university at all, and specifically the one they chose. They should never have incurred loans they probably won't repay; they should have studied, say, plumbing, on an FE course, because:
there is no social mobility – these students have not improved their relative financial position;
there is no benefit to the taxpayer – as they have not increased their earnings, they will not make higher tax contributions and are unlikely to repay their student loans – so the subsidy was not value for money;
there is no alignment in terms of the UK's productivity or strategic priorities – given their choice of courses these students are not contributing to the "build back better" vision for the future which is all about STEM, and they are not contributing either to public service and the nation as nurses, teachers or social workers or working in social care (although they might be, but it doesn't count for this purpose because their first degree wasn't in those things);
the students who fail to complete must have done so because the course was poor quality or there was insufficient support.
Of course this all ignores the fact that many students can't or don't leave their local region for employment, that there may be challenging local economic circumstances, and that the jobs and average salaries of their contemporaries at other "better quality" universities may also be influenced by the social capital, school experience, and non-WP background of the majority of their students which makes it easier for them to become lawyers, bankers, captains of industry, politicians (although a minute ago we were only counting careers directly linked to the first degree subject). Of course the SoS wants these issues to be considered (he mentions socio-economic status and geographical inequality) but only to the extent that more students affected by those issues should go to high tariff institutions. Because then they will presumably get the same outcomes as every one else who goes there. Won't they?
And it ignores the fact that those who dropped out may have done so because of financial pressures, or caring responsibilities, or mental health issues or a whole range of other reasons.
So if those are the problems, and the reasons for them, here are some possible answers. Then we'll look at the SoS's priorities. You'll be amazed how aligned they are.
outcomes are what count, so define quality by looking at outcomes metrics, and cut funding or close down those that don't meet your baseline (already in hand but worth reinforcing);
link funding to strategically important subjects (that's only hinted at here, but there has been more before and is more to come);
students should really only study arts or creative subjects at prestigious specialist institutions and only study humanities at high tariff institutions (linked to outcomes, see above), and so it might make sense to stop some universities from offering those courses or find another way to reduce the government subsidy for them (there are several ways of doing that and some feature below);
ration places at university so that the system costs less but try and level the playing field for applicants including finding a way to ensure that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get into high tariff universities (where they will surely get better outcomes….yes, that is here too).
Of course there is more, on pet political issues like free speech, and reducing bureaucracy. There is more on mental health and helping students to complain. And there is a lot on getting the OfS to support the big skills agenda (i.e. technical education, lifelong learning etc.).
You can read the Wonkhe take on it here. And Wonkhe also have a blog by Susanna Kalitowski of the University Alliance which sets out another view, considering the conflict between quality = outcomes and flexible learning.
So here we go.
Quality and Standards: The biggie.
One of my highest priorities and an important manifesto commitment is to drive up quality and standards in higher education, which is a fundamental part of our levelling up agenda. This is in addition to the work outlined above on the quality of online learning…. would like the OfS to progress rapidly to ensure that a robust enhanced regulatory regime can be operational as soon as possible.
I fully support the OfS desire to ensure that decisions on regulatory intervention and registration can be made in relation to minimum absolute standards of quality which apply across the whole of higher education provision. I firmly believe that every student, regardless of their background, has a right to expect a minimum standard of education that is likely to improve their prospects in life…I note that these standards are likely to take account of, though not be confined to, quantitative measures, including measures relating to student outcomes.
And he means business:
The OfS should not hesitate to use the full range of its powers and sanctions where quality of provision is not high enough: the OfS should not limit itself to putting in place conditions of registration requiring improvement plans for providers who do not demonstrate high quality and robust outcomes, but should move immediately to more robust measures, including monetary penalties, the revocation of degree awarding powers in subjects of concem, suspending aspects of a provider's registration or, ultimately, deregistration. It is also my view that the OfS should not be registering providers without rigorous quality and a commitment to robust graduate outcomes, which should be closely monitored once registered.
And related to quality:
TEF: He asks the OfS to interpret the Government response to the Independent Review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework. Sub text: sort it out and make it do/measure what the Government want it to do.
Student complaints: the phrasing suggest that OfS may be expected to play more of a role in students' complaints. Using the OIA as the complaint ombudsman has been both a blessing and curse for the Government during the pandemic. Blessing because they can offload it to a different body, and curse because it left them without an arrow to shoot the sector with. Williamson asks the OfS to continue to monitor this closely, and to take swift action where it is clear that quality and academic standards have dropped. I would like the OfS to communicate the findings from their monitoring work and ensure students are aware of the notification process that they can follow to raise any issues.
Death knell for NSS: Minister Donelan also asked the OfS in her 14 September letter to carry out a radical review of the National Student Survey (NSS). I can confirm that this remains a high priority, in order to address the downwards pressure that student surveys of this sort may exert on standards. I would like the OfS to take the time it needs to ensure this review is genuinely radical, consider carefully whether there could be a replacement that does not depend on a universal annual sample, and ensure that a replacement does not contribute to the reduction in rigour and standards. It is my strong view that the NSS should play at most a minimal role in baseline quality regulation. It's interesting to juxtapose this with the paragraph above – don't ask students about their experience or use that feedback in a quality framework or the TEF – but do encourage them to complain and take action on their complaints.
Fairness and admissions (lumped together, which is telling – concerns about admissions are all in this document about fairness, except minimum entry standards, which are about quality.)
2021: to ensure that admissions this year run as smoothly as possible and students' interests are fully taken into account.
PQA: Central to my plans to improve equality of opportunity is…post qualification admissions…we believe it has the potential to contribute towards improved student outcomes in the longer-term. He asks the OfS to support the Department's work to develop the evidence base and implementation. And makes the main intent behind the change clear: We want to ensure that any move to post qualification admissions genuinely improves the prospects of disadvantaged students and, in particular, facilitates greater numbers of them accessing the most selective universities.
Supporting WP while controlling numbers: It is very important that the OfS' work on access and participation focuses on delivering real social mobility: ensuring students are able to make the right choices, accessing and succeeding on high quality courses which are valued by employers and lead to good graduate employment. Encouraging more and more students onto courses which do not provide good graduate outcomes does not provide real social mobility and serves only to entrench inequality
I would like the OfS to continue to consider broader factors, including socio-economic status and geographical inequality, which are likely to impact on access and participation in higher education. This should include a focus on white boys on free school meals who are currently the least likely group to progress to higher education
I would like the OfS to encourage universities to do much more to work with schools in a way which meaningfully raises the attainment of disadvantaged children. Theresa May's agenda still hasn't gone away, policy recycling at its best. What does this mean? It's interesting though, when funding for UniConnect has just been cut (see GW's letter of 19 January 2021)
I would like to remind the OfS that it has a statutory duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The OfS must be a champion for the importance of academic and technical excellence in all aspects of the student lifecycle, from selection to graduation. [Again a reminder that there are other routes than HE and Ministers want to see technical education rise in prominence.]
I would therefore like you to make arrangements to change the name of the Teaching Grant to the Strategic Priorities Grant…[this of course builds on the earlier letter in which he "slashed" the teaching grant allocation for media courses and archaeology (see our 21st Jan 21 policy update here)].
Remember the interim response to Augar also said that the upcoming consultation on further reforms will include consideration of minimum entry requirements, which it is expected would restrict the availability of government funding for students who do not meet the requirements. This proposal was mentioned in Augar as a possible step to take to address concerns about low value courses. It was widely condemned as a cap on ambition and a regressive step against social mobility when it was first discussed in December 2018. But it also is a way of rationing the government subsidy.
Skills agenda, lifelong learning: The OfS also has to work on the Lifelong Loan Entitlement and reforms to occupationally focused higher technical qualifications.
I would like the OfS to work with DfE and other stakeholders to consider how to support the accumulation and transfer of credit and to develop a regulatory system that is fully equipped to support radically different, flexible arrangements, measuring quality using metrics that are meaningful in the new system and interact positively with our admissions regime. Delivering our vision will require action from providers to adapt to this new model and providers will need to work towards delivering greater flexibility in the courses they offer. Alongside that work by providers, the OfS should ensure that it, too, is considering how all aspects of its regulatory approach will need to adapt to and support this new model. e. adopt it or else.
[Note there is an interesting HEPI blog from 5th February on this: " Although flexibility is important in the support of learning, a shift in approach will need real care to manage step off to ensure it becomes step off with purpose, at an appropriate time for the learner and as an integral part of the lifelong learning journey".]
[Also note an interesting blog on BTECs by Graeme Atherton of NEON on Wonkhe]
Mental Health: OfS to continue to support initiatives in relation to mental health in the short and long term. This should be through distributing funding to providers in line with my January guidance, and developing and funding challenge competitions to enable providers to develop innovative practice in mental health support. This funding should target mental health support for students transitioning from school/college to university and prioritising the most disadvantaged learners.
Sector stability: OfS to continue to monitor the financial sustainability of the sector – It is important that the OfS maintains a close understanding and oversight of financial issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and shares information where appropriate so that the OfS and Government can work together to provide timely support for providers through the Restructuring Regime and ensure effective protection of students..
All this whilst reducing the regulatory burden:
…providers delivering high quality provision and strong outcomes for students should not be adversely affected by additional unnecessary bureaucracy or reporting in relation to quality: I would like the OfS to take a risk-based approach to quality assessment and regulation, focusing its efforts on lower quality providers. [Remember quality measures are going to be linked to absolute measures of outcomes]
In Minister Donelan's guidance letter to the OfS on 14 September 2020, she set out a number of areas where she expected the OfS to reduce the bureaucratic burden on providers. Those areas included enhanced monitoring, termly data collections under data futures, random sampling, student transfer arrangements, estates and non-academic staff data and a review of TRAC and the OfS' transparency condition… In addition to reducing bureaucracy in the areas outlined in Minister Donelan's letter, I would like the OfS look across everything that it does to identify further opportunities to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and reporting requirements for providers.
Tut tut: In my view, to date, the OfS has not been sufficiently risk-based. A risk-based approach to regulation should consider the overall regulatory burden faced by providers, including data gathering, reporting and monitoring, not just the application of conditions of registration. It is my view that there are further opportunities for the OfS to ensure that providers with consistently strong performance face minimal regulatory burden. I would like the OfS to implement a markedly more risk-based model of regulation, with significant, meaningful and observable reductions in the regulatory burden upon high quality providers within the next 12 months. [Remember quality measures are going to be linked to absolute measures of outcomes]
Free speech & Academic Freedom:
We knew free speech would get a mention however its tone is critical of the OfS. While I welcome your powerful speech, Sir Michael, on 20 January on this subject, to date there has been little regulatory action taken by the OfS in relation to potential breaches of the registration conditions relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom, despite a significant number of concerning incidents reported since the full suite of its regulatory powers came into force. This is interesting because sector press states that there are few real incidents where free speech has been curtailed and previous universities ministers have been unable to evidence their claims that there is a problem. Yet the Education Secretary states that OfS is aware of a significant number of incidents.
Furthermore, Williamson states: I intend to publish a policy paper on free speech and academic freedom in the near future and I would like the OfS to continue to work closely with the Department to deliver this shared agenda and ensure our work is closely aligned. I would also like it to take more active and visible action to challenge concerning incidents that are reported to it or which it becomes aware of, as well as to share information with providers about best practice for protecting free speech beyond the minimum legal requirements. So Williamson wants the OfS, already known for its bark, poor comms and reputation within the HE sector, to develop far more bite. So far there has been no mention of caning wayward VC's.
…university administrators and heads of faculty should not, whether for ideological reasons or to conform to the perceived desires of students, pressure or force teaching staff to drop authors or texts that add rigour and stretch to a course. The OfS should robustly challenge providers that have implemented such policies and clearly support individual academics whose academic freedom is being diminished.
Antisemitism: Williamson is determined to champion a specific definition of anti-Semitism. In 2020 he gave universities until Christmas to conform and adopt the definition with the threat of action taken against those that didn't. This stops short of that, but assumes a match between non-adopters with higher levels of incidents and suggests financial penalties.
Following my letter to the sector on 9 October 2020 on anti-Semitism and adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism across the HE sector, we have seen positive progress, with at least 31 additional institutions adopting the definition.
I would like the OfS to undertake a scoping exercise to identify providers which are reluctant to adopt the definition and consider introducing mandatory reporting of anti-Semitic incident numbers by providers. This would ensure a robust evidence base, which the OfS could then use to effectively regulate in this area. If anti-Semitic incidents do occur at a provider, the OfS should consider if it is relevant in a particular case whether the provider has adopted the definition when considering what sanctions, including monetary penalties, would be appropriate to apply.
Of course, there are several ways to adopt the definition, including subsuming it within a wider, more comprehensive, policy. It could result in protracted semantic debates as the OfS and a university argue whether decisions were made within the spirit of the definition.
International recruitment:
When the sector starts to move past the difficult circumstances created by COVID-19, a key focus of UK higher education providers will understandably be how to sustainably and responsibly recover international student recruitment, given the importance of this group to the financial health of the sector. The Government has updated its International Education Strategy to support that objective, restating its commitment to the IES' original ambition to increase international higher education student numbers to at least 600,000 by 2030. [see more on this later]
In addition, we are doing our utmost to raise awareness within the sector that, where there are international opportunities, there are also risks, including overdependence on income from a single source and security-related issues. At the request of the Minister for Universities, Universities UK produced important guidelines and recommendations to help providers manage risks in internationalisation. I would like the OfS to monitor the adoption of these recommendations by providers and continue to support the sector to manage these risks to the reputation, integrity and sustainability of individual institutions, as well as to the sector as a whole.
Those other letters:
14 September 2020 – this was a long one
set out £10m of additional teaching grant funding for high cost subjects to accommodate additional students as a result of the admissions issues in 2020
asked the OfS to reduce its enhanced monitoring because of the burden on providers and suggested using specific licence conditions instead – and asked for a report within 3 months
supported reduced requirements for data futures and ending random sampling, stopping the collection of non academic and estates data in HESES, reviewing TRAC and ending TRAC (T), and reviewing the transparency data
requested the "radical, root and branch review" of the NSS by the end of 2020 and "It is my strong view that the NSS should not be carried out in again in the same format as it was last year." [oops, it has been]
instructed that no further action be taken on student transfer arrangements. That is fine, but of course the relevant issues all come back up again in the context of credit transfer and lifelong learning. This was originally in an earlier letter in September 2019.
Asking the OfS to review its own efficiency and save registration fees by 10% in 2 years.
14 December 2020 – this one was about £20m in hardship funding
19 January 2021 – this was about the teaching grant – including reducing it for some subjects, removing the London weighting, cutting UniConnect etc.
Parliamentary question in which Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, defends the decision to remove the London weighting in the HE teaching grant: …it is right for government to re-allocate public money where it is most needed. Universities should not receive additional investment for teaching simply because of where they are located: excellent provision can be delivered across the country. London already has, on average, the highest percentage of good or outstanding schools, the highest progression to HE, and more HE providers than in any other region in England. This government is firmly committed to the levelling up agenda and this reform will invest more money directly into high quality institutions in the Midlands and the North.
2 February 2021 – this one was bout the £50m hardship funding
What he didn't mention in any of these letters and so is off the table?
Accelerated degrees- from an earlier letter in September 2019
Student protection plans – this was in the letter in February 2019 (from Damien Hinds, not GW) "I would like the OfS to continue to focus on student protection and consumer rights. In particular, to evaluate and report publicly on the strength of student protection plans and advice available on students' consumer rights."
Student contracts – from an earlier letter in September 2019. You will recall the proposal was for template student contracts with initial recommendations to the government by Feb 2020.
Contract cheating and essay mills – this featured in the letter of 7th June 2019 (from Damien Hinds, not GW) which asked the OfS to work with the sector and take firm and robust action
Grade inflation –
VC pay
The September 2019 letter also asked the OfS to make "public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students, including those studying wholly outside the UK, such as it does for domestic students"
Place Strategy: In September 2020 the Council for Science and Technology wrote to the Prime Minister to explore how science and technology can contribute to addressing regional disparities and promote equality of opportunity. The Government have published both the letter and the PM's response here.
The letter proposes 6 recommendations focused on 4 areas:
Leveraging research and development funding for regional growth by scaling up collaborative funding opportunities to foster and enhance partnerships, within and between regions, where there are research and innovation synergies with the potential to contribute to local growth.
Further incentivising the contribution of research, innovation and technology centres to regional growth in funding agreements and in organisational strategies.
Enhancing the availability of information on local innovation strengths and needs, for local and national decision makers to inform effective investment strategies and to evaluate outcomes.
Supporting wider measures needed for research and development investment to act as a driver for local growth, including measures to support skills and to support local leadership and decision-making.
The PM's response welcomes the Council's recommendations (which sit well with current Government policy) and mentions BEIS development of the UK Research and Development Place Strategy:
The Place Strategy will set out how the Government can build on existing initiatives (such as the Strength in Places Fund) to support research and innovation excellence, and build new centres of high-value economic activity outside of the South East… We also need to get the local governance and delivery structures right so that responsibility and accountability sit at the right level for delivering local growth priorities.
And: BEIS and UKRI will continue to engage widely with industry, the scientific community, and civic organisations from across the country to help develop a strategy that supports the priorities of areas and communities across the UK. The new Ministerial R&D Place Advisory Group, which had its inaugural meeting last month, will propose, challenge and test potential policy options.
Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: The National Audit Office has published a report on UK Research and Innovation's management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund examining the Fund has been set up in a way likely to optimise value for money. By January 2021 the Fund was supporting 1,613 projects, contributing to one of the 24 approved challenges. To date, UKRI has spent around £1.2 billion of the Fund's eight-year budget of £3 billion.
The report examines:
the establishment of the Fund, in particular whether it has attracted sufficient good-quality bids, whether the selection processes have been efficient and whether the budget is managed effectively (Parts One and Two); and
the approach to monitoring and evaluating the Fund's performance, as well as its performance to date (Part Three).
The report finds that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) have worked well to generate interest from industry and academia in the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (the Fund). However, more needs to be done to reduce the time taken to consider requests for support, so applicants are not deterred from bidding for funding and projects are not delayed.
Over the period, government has enhanced its engagement with industry to seek out challenges which might benefit most from taxpayer support.
UKRI's own assessment shows that the Fund's key components – challenges and projects – are broadly performing well. To sustain this position, the Department and HM Treasury, working with UKRI, need to place more emphasis on the outcomes and impact its funding secures at the Fund level. The increasing number of challenges supported by the Fund, each with their own objectives, and range of different objectives at Fund level risk obscuring priorities and will make the assessment of value for money in the longer term more difficult
R&D Roadmap: Catapults: The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report asserting that the Government's ambitions for research and development are not supported by a detailed plan or sufficient investment in innovation. It details how the Government needs to provide more detail about how it will deliver its R&D Roadmap, including how it will attract substantial private sector investment to meet its target of 2.4% of GDP by 2027. It states the UK's research and innovation system has the necessary components to be successful, but there is insufficient collaboration between organisations and insufficient scale to deliver the required levels innovation and commercial success.
Commenting on the Catapult Network it states it is an integral part of the UK's innovation system. And that the Government should expand the Catapult Network to support technologies in which the UK excels and that can bring substantial economic benefits – including to assist in the levelling up agenda.
Changes are needed to remove barriers that limit the Catapults' effectiveness: universities, Catapults and industry need to be encouraged (and permitted) to interact more deeply; and rules governing innovation funding should be reformed, to allow greater flexibility for Catapults and their partners.
The Committee set out a range of recommendations for the Government, UKRI and Innovate UK to help deliver the UK's R&D ambitions, including the changes to enable the Catapults to more effectively achieve their objectives:
A clear plan for how public sector resources and private investment can be made to match the scale of ambition in the R&D Roadmap.
Prioritisation of scaling up the Catapult Network.
Assurance of long-term continuity for the Catapults—including longer-term certainty over funding and a commitment that reviews will be limited to once every five years, to match the five-year funding cycle.
Enabling Catapults and universities to work together more easily on innovation projects, and fostering closer links between industry and universities to assist researchers to work at the interface between the two.
Allowing Catapults to bid for Research Council funds where there are clear advantages in terms of both research and innovation; more flexibility in permitting public sector bodies to have a larger share of collaborative R&D funding; and supporting translational research and transformative innovation more effectively, including by reducing risks to industry.
Supporting the levelling up agenda by developing a more strategic approach across policies for innovation and regional development—such as broadening access to the Strength in Places Fund.
UKRI has advertised for a new Chair of UKRI. Given the recent spate of appointments where the Government has been criticised for lack of impartiality this, by Research Professional, raised a chuckle this week: The way public appointments have gone under this government, you may be forgiven for wondering if the post might go to the spouse of a Conservative MP who once owned a chemistry set. It will be up to the assessment panel to come up with a shortlist from the applications.
The Times dug up an article on research degrees from the depths of their archives. It's a short and light read. The similarity to a current theme is surprising – that of other nations squeezing out 'natives' by taking up their university places: British universities since the war have had much ado to find room for native-born students, but it is to be hoped that they will make all efforts to attract the graduate research students for whom the new degree was instituted.
Healthcare knowledge provider the BMJ, and technology provider Jisc, have agreed a publish and read pilot as part of their commitment to help promote knowledge and speed up discoveries to improve healthcare across the UK. It grants Jisc members full read access to the BMJ's standard collection (28 specialist journals) and offers researchers at the member institutions the opportunity to publish funded articles on an open access basis in the standard collection journals. Under the agreement, research funded by UKRI, Wellcome, and key medical charities in the UK can be published open access, to help to make the research more accessible and sustainable.
The Government has set up a new independent body, the UK Cyber Security Council to boost career opportunities and professional standards for the UK's cyber security sector. Funded by DCMS the organisation will provide a single governing voice for the industry to establish the knowledge, skills and experience required for a range of cyber security jobs, bringing it in line with other professions such as law, medicine and engineering. The council was developed following a 2018 consultation on Developing the UK cyber security profession which showed strong support for the government's proposals to define objectives for the profession to achieve and to create a new, independent UK Cyber Security Council to coordinate delivery. Digital Infrastructure Minister Matt Warman said: The fact we are launching an independent professional body for cyber security shows just how vital this area has become – it makes a huge contribution to our thriving digital economy by safeguarding our critical national infrastructure, commerce and other online spaces. The UK Cyber Security Council will ensure anyone interested in an exciting career tackling online threats has access to world-class training and guidance. It will also champion diversity and inclusion, driving up standards while helping the nation to build back better and safer.
2021 Admissions juggle: Research Professional has a good romp through the exam related admissions issues for 2021. Here are some excerpts but there is more content in the blog (e.g. on over recruitment).
Setting aside for a moment the challenges involved in running an appeals process based on evaluating a teacher assessment without recourse to an externally validated examination, this raises an issue: If students achieve their results directly and the university hasn't had confirmation through the awarding bodies and Ucas of what those results are, how long will it be before those students are on the phone, email or turning up on campus to request confirmation of a place? And what does the university do? Take each student's word for it? Ask for validation from their school? Wait for the results to eventually arrive through Ucas?
As things stand, we risk receiving Welsh, English, Northern Irish and international A-levels on different days (and several weeks apart), with BTEC and other vocational awards also somewhere in the mix. While we typically get international qualifications over a span of several weeks (from late June through to mid-August), the relatively small numbers are manageable. But to receive the main bulk of the results in a haphazard fashion raises important questions about the fairness and transparency of admissions decisions.
The danger is an outcome in which the fastest nation to get its results out will gain a significant advantage in securing places. It is notable that in the many discussions about a post-qualification admissions process, one of the prerequisites for an effective system will be an alignment of UK results; without having a common date for receipt of results this year, we run the risk of having a fragmented and unfair admissions process.
No-one underestimates the challenges we face in this admissions cycle to run a system that is fair to applicants and also ensures that students avoid considerable uncertainty and stress in a situation over which they have no agency.
Student Numbers Cap: Towards the end of last week Research Professional also asked if the student numbers cap should have remained in place for the 2020/21 intake.
The data show a 13 per cent rise overall in numbers of students recruited by high-tariff universities—way more than the 5 per cent (plus forecasts) rise that would have been allowed under the proposed number controls, even allowing for generous forecasting. Some research-intensive institutions accepted a third more UK and EU students than they had the previous year, while other institutions saw recruitment slump by more than 15 per cent.
Several non-Russell Group institutions also grew their recruitment significantly: at Leeds Trinity University, Buckinghamshire New University, Liverpool Hope University, the University of Buckingham and Soas, University of London, increases in UK and EU student numbers topped 20 per cent. More than 50 universities increased their UK and EU intake by more than the magic 5 per cent.
There were no high-tariff institutions among those that saw major falls. And while overall recruitment was up nearly 30,000, for more than 30 institutions it was down—for some substantially.
…The original idea for introducing student number controls last year was to protect post-1992 institutions from exactly this kind of trouble. The controls were dropped not because the danger had entirely gone away—as the Ucas figures show, it hadn't—but because the government had made such a mess over A-levels that it had little choice.
…needs are likely to be substantial in September as students arrive at university without normal levels of learning and social interaction and, in some cases, traumatised by an exceptionally tough year.
That will put pressure on some high-tariff institutions whose welfare systems are likely to creak under the strain of larger-than-planned-for numbers of students with multiple issues.
But there will also be different kinds of pressures on those institutions that would normally be dealing with a proportion of these students but have missed out because of the knock-on effects of the pandemic. It will be ironic if both groups end up struggling to cope because of government-sanctioned grade inflation.
You can read the full blog here.
You may recall that about this time last year the OfS launched a consultation on preventing and addressing harassment and sexual misconduct. This was paused during the pandemic and won't be reopened. Instead the OfS are considering this matter alongside their wider work to review and reset our regulatory requirements. They intend to
Publish a statement of expectations relating to providers' systems, policies and processes to prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct by Spring 2021. The statement will set out the OfS' expectations and give universities and colleges the opportunity to review and renew their systems, policies and processes before the beginning of the next academic year.
Right now the OfS are engaging with student and sector representative bodies and other stakeholders…to understand specifically how the events of this past year may affect the proposed statement of expectations. e. the additional challenges faced by some students because of the pandemic, including online harassment and domestic abuse.
Turing – Student Mobility
The Turing website is live. Research Professional cover the basics:
Applications for bids to Turing will open in "the spring", which in Whitehall speak can run as late as the end of June, although the website promises a March announcement with a window of six weeks for submissions and results known in July. The call will include "higher education projects", with funding available for "placements during the period from September 2021 to August 2022".
Any student at "an officially recognised higher education provider registered in the UK"—which we assume means registered with the Office for Students—can participate in the scheme, regardless of nationality. The students will be able to attend a non-UK university as well as "any public or private organisation active in the labour market or in the fields of education and training".
This includes businesses, public bodies, research institutes, foundations, non-governmental organisations and "a social partner or other representative of working life, including chambers of commerce, craft and professional associations and trade unions". Beyond that, details of the scheme are relatively scant, with visitors to the website encouraged to sign up for email alerts
We do know that "successful applications will receive funding towards delivering placements and exchanges" and "the rates provided will be broadly in line with what has been on offer under Erasmus+". Placements can be of any length between 4 weeks and 12 months. Further guidance on specific elements of funding and a list of destination country groupings for cost of living will be published shortly, the website says.
Destinations with a high cost of living will attract a £136-a-week or £380-a-month maintenance grant. Countries with a medium or lower cost of living will be funded at the rate of £120 a week or £335 a month.
Students who can demonstrate a disadvantaged background will be funded at a higher rate of £490 a month for expensive destinations and £445 a month for less expensive ones. There will also be tariffs for travel based on distance, ranging from £20 a head for projects less than 100 kilometres away to £1,360 for those taking place over 12,000km away.
…Some £315 a head for the first 100 participants will be made available for the administration of projects, with that declining sharply to £180 for the 101st student. It would seem that each individual exchange project should be applied for annually, in contrast to Erasmus+ in which partnerships are rolled over from year to year.
Turing is being described as an "outward student mobility scheme"…What Turing does not seem to do is fund exchange students to come in the opposite direction, which makes it a hard sell to prospective international partners while also reducing diversity in UK classrooms.
More details are expected in March.
Wonkhe have a Turing blog: For Janet Beer, it is time to accept the opportunities and flexibility that the new Turing scheme can offer.
International Education Strategy
The DfE published the 2021 update to the International Education Strategy including measures to boost international study and global opportunities. Press release here. It includes attracting more overseas students, boosting access to global student exchanges for thousands of people, and supporting international education partnerships. reaffirms the Government's commitment to increase the amount generated from education exports, such as fees and income from overseas students and English language teaching abroad, to £35bn a year, and sustainably recruit at least 600,000 international students to the UK by 2030. For research and development, the strategy confirmed that the UK will participate in Horizon Europe, as part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) with the EU, subject to finalisation of the programme regulations. The Turing social mobility scheme is also mentioned (more on Turing here). Lastly the Secretary of State's recent guidance letter also warns institutions to balance recruitment with thought for national security and not to develop an overreliance on recruiting from particular groups or countries.
The Strategy update proposes several areas to help increase the value of education exports and international student numbers:
The International Education Champion: this update sets out the priority countries and regions in which the International Education Champion, Sir Steve Smith, will focus his activity. Sir Steve's immediate priorities are India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Nigeria. His role will focus on growing export opportunities in these countries. Other important regional markets for the International Education Champion will include: Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Europe, China and Hong Kong. The government will also work with Sir Steve and the British Council to identify and resolve barriers which prevent the recognition of online and blended (a combination of offline and online) learning internationally
Building lasting global partnerships: there is an important role for the government to facilitate partnerships across the world, including in the Champion's priority countries, but also beyond these. This includes Europe, the Indo-Pacific region, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. Our new Turing scheme will also help ensure we improve mobility between UK students and all regions of the world
Enhancing the international student experience from application to employment: the government will work with sector bodies such as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA), the Office for Students (OfS), Universities UK International (UUKi) and the Confederation of British Industry on areas such as:
the student application process for international students
graduate outcomes and employability
the academic experience of international students
alternative student finance
A new international teaching qualification, 'International Qualified Teacher Status' (iQTS): the UK government propose to work with teacher training providers to establish a new teaching qualification that will provide an opportunity for teachers around the world to train to world respected domestic standards. There's a consultation on it here.
Increase export opportunities for UK chartered professional bodies and UK special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) providers: DIT will support UK chartered professional bodies and SEND providers to find opportunities to increase their education exports
Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan stated: In these unprecedented times, having a proactive global education agenda is more important than ever so we can build back better from the pandemic. Our world-class education is a vital part of our economy and society, and we want to support universities, schools, colleges and all aspects of the education sector to thrive across the globe…I am also pleased to launch initiatives to enhance the experience of international students at our universities, from the moment they apply, to the first steps of their careers.
Vivienne Stern, Director of Universities UK International, said: I am very supportive of the International Education Strategy, which represents the next step in a joint effort by Government and the education sector to build on the international success of our education system and our attractiveness to international students. This approach has delivered real benefits already, including the introduction of the graduate route, and improvements to the visa system. Despite a very difficult year, interest in UK study has grown as a result…We look forward to continuing to be partners, working with our members, Government and others across the sector, to deliver the strategy.
HESA data: Colleagues with an interest in international matters will be interested in the HESA 2019/20 HE Student Data release mentioned above. There is a sub section exploring recruitment areas for incoming HE students here with useful charts. The transnational data is here.
Left behind white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Education Committee continued to take evidence for its inquiry into Left behind white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Ministers Nick Gibb and Vicky Ford were questioned. While much of the content focussed on schools it was interested as it touched on several aspects of disadvantage. I was interested to learn that academic resilience (the ability of a child to excel academically regardless of their socio-economic background) has fallen for students from a disadvantaged background. You can read a summary of the session by Dods here.
Meanwhile the Public Accounts Committee have launched a new inquiry into Covid-19: Education. They intend to question DfE Officials on how well the DfE managed its overall response in the first lockdown, including whether it effectively supported schools and pupils in England during this period, whether it managed the move to mainly home-learning effectively and whether it effectively supported vulnerable and disadvantaged children. Questioning revolve around the current National Audit Office assessment.
Care leavers: TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE) published an evidence review: Supporting access and student success for learners with experience of children's social care.
The literature review finds that activities and interventions aimed to support care leavers are not robustly evaluated: From the 57 studies under review, about half focused on the evaluation of actual support activities while the other half explored potential barriers and facilitators affecting the target group's trajectory into post-secondary education. However, the small numbers and gaps in data involved with this target group mean establishing causal impact is trickier than evaluating other inventions. Classification of who to include and exclude were also a problem (such as interlinking because care leavers likely to enter HE as mature students). Many studies relied heavily on self-reported evidence through focus groups and interviews (which leads to a self-selecting sample), however, the review concludes that these approaches to support care leavers into and whilst at HE seemed promising:
Mentoring activities which also provide positive role models and build a sense of belonging with peers
A social network to support, guide and advise care leavers considering HE: A key part of this network is often a trusted adult or mentor who can provide encouragement towards academic and personal goals and emotional support on the journey into and through HE. Several interviewees emphasised the importance of building relationships with a trusted figure, especially in the context of a group of learners who have often built an innate distrust in large bureaucratic institutions.
A single point of contact within a provider who can help learners navigate the institution and access the support they need pre-application to post-graduation. The review mentions that HEIs with higher progression and success rates for care students had this role as their sole focus.
Links between local authorities, carers, schools and HE providers. In studies where this collaboration was felt to be successful, staff and carers reported better managed transition support, relevant sharing of information between inter-organisational staff and learners who reported of feeling less alone and isolated.
Equality Remit: The Government's new Equality Hub is explained following a parliamentary question asking about the relationship between the new Equality Hub and the Equalities Office:
The new Equality Hub, in the Cabinet Office, brings together the Disability Unit, Government Equalities Office, Race Disparity Unit and, from 1 April, the sponsorship of, and secretariat to, the Social Mobility Commission. The Government Equalities Office's remit related to gender equality, LGBT rights and the overall framework of equality legislation for Great Britain. The Equality Hub reports to Ministers who have other portfolios outside of the Cabinet Office, led by the Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss.
The Equality Hub has a key role in driving Government priorities on equality and opportunity. The Hub has a particular focus on improving the quality of evidence and data about disparities and the types of barriers different people face, ensuring that fairness is at the heart of everything we do.
Key to this is looking beyond a focus solely on statutory protected characteristics to ensure we understand how different issues interact, including in socio-economic and geographic inequality. In this way, the Equality Hub is key to driving progress on the Government's commitment to levelling up opportunity and ensuring fairness for all.
Other recent care leaver relevant resources
Rees Centre has a video – Care-Experienced Students in HE: What we know…and what we don't. Don't be put off by some blurring in the video, it is to protect participants' anonymity.
Buttle UK has put out a podcast relating to care experience – All in the Same Boat? Tackling the impact of the digital divide and whether putting more tech into homes for education jeopardises children's safety.
OIA – Complaints
In related news the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) has published revised draft Rules for Large Group Complaints. Undoubtedly driven by Covid, the proposed Large Group Complaints process builds on their existing approach to group complaints by developing a bespoke approach to handling complaints from large groups of students. The proposed process is intended for complaints from large groups of students at a single provider where there is a high degree of commonality between the complaints and where the complaints could be considered collectively.
However, while the process the OIA proposes would be more streamlined than the current process for group complaints, they say their approach to decision making would be the same. I.e. they would still consider what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The changes require an amendment to their existing Rules and additional Rules for Large Group Complaints so final comments are invited before the change takes place (deadline 12 March).
Wonkhe have a blog by Jim Dickinson.
HESA (the Higher Education Statistics Agency) published the 2019/20 HE Student Data (which includes the first five months of the coronavirus pandemic). Here are HESA's headline findings:
UK students from ethnic minorities made up 27%of all students studying for a first degree in 2019/20 – among students studying for a postgraduate taught qualification (such as a Masters) this proportion was 24% and for postgraduate research qualifications (such as a PhD) the figure was 19%
6% of all students were from a Black African background, but this group represented only 3% of postgraduate research students
Students from an Asian Pakistani background were also less representedamong postgraduate research students (2%) compared to representing 4% of all students
17% of UK domicile students reported having a disability, including 5% who reported a mental health condition – within these statistics there was also a difference at different levels of study, with 18% of first degree students reporting a disability compared to 15% of postgraduate taught students
41% of UK domicile students studying medicine and dentistry subjects were from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds compared to only 6% in the veterinary science and agriculture, food and related studies groups
5% of all students were studying psychology, and that 81% of psychology students were female
The subject groups with the most students in 2019/20 were business and management with 412,815 students (52% male) and subjects allied to medicine with 295,520 students (79% female)
Colleagues may be interested to delve further into the HESA data which includes some great charts and visualisation to break down the student data in these areas:
Who's studying in higher education– the personal characteristics of students
What students are studying– the subjects and courses that students take, including a subject breakdown at the most detailed level available
Where students come from– includes the numbers of non-UK students by country of origin.
Where students study– full HE provider level breakdowns
Student progression rates and qualifications– including degree classifications by HE provider
David Kernohan of Wonkhe doesn't think the data answers the big question about continuation this year.
Students – urgent questions: Michelle Donelan, the Universities Minister answered 39 questions relating to HE students as part of an urgent question session on Support for University Students: Covid-19. It covered familiar topics such as rent rebates and tuition quality. The Minister stuck to the party line and there was no new news.
Poor ratings for SoS: Secretary of State Gavin Williamson continues to be perceived negatively by Conservative Party members, according to Conservative Home. His net satisfaction rating is -48. We think he'll be hanging in there though. Changing now would be unlikely to change much substantively in policy terms anyway, although you have to think that it might improve the ways of doing things and if nothing else, communication (although that's a problem for the Universities Minister as well as the Education Secretary).
OfS Chair
As expected and following the Education Committee green light, the DfE officially confirmed Lord Wharton's appointment as Chair of the OfS replacing Michael Barber. He starts on 1 April for a four year period (approximately 2 days per week). Wharton has declared his Conservative interests and party membership within his role as a Peer but not resigned the whip.
The Education Committee endorsed the appointment just before it was confirmed. You can read the report here. Rt Hon Robert Halfon MP, Chair of the Education Committee, said: The Chair of the OfS has a vital role to play in standing up for the rights of students and ensuring opportunities for all. I congratulate Lord Wharton on his appointment. I look forward to seeing the new Chair use his position to genuinely open doors for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, ensure that the access and participation funding delivers real change, use his independent voice to rocket boost degree apprenticeships and guarantee everyone has access to high quality skills that benefit both themselves and employers. Halfon's statement highlights several of his own passions for education, such as the expansion of degree apprenticeships. He seems to be giving Wharton a public steer – interesting as the appointment process wasn't without controversy.
Responding to the appointment, Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green, said: This latest appointment adds to the Conservative Government's growing catalogue of cronyism. Students have been forgotten by this Government which is more concerned about securing jobs for their friends. It's ridiculous to think James Wharton could make independent decisions while continuing to sit as a Conservative Peer. He must resign the whip without delay. It's vital for public confidence that concerns surrounding senior appointments are urgently looked at.
While Wharton doesn't commence until April Williamson has written to both Wharton and outgoing Chair, Sir Michael Barber, vehemently stating his strategic priorities for HE.
Research Professional interview Paul Blomfield MP, (Labour, Sheffield Central, Chair of the APPG for Students) who doesn't mince his words.
The Guardian report that the Government plan to allow some additional university students back to campus when the schools reopen, so potentially from 8 March onwards.
The education secretary is expected to announce on 22 February that final-year students in practical subjects will be able to return to face-to-face teaching, with students taking other subjects to follow soon afterwards…Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, said universities would follow the same roadmap as schools for reopening
Priority is expected to be given to final-year students on undergraduate courses or taught postgraduate degrees in practical subjects including performing arts and lab-based science courses. But many students may struggle to be allowed back before the Easter holidays at the end of March, when teaching in effect ends for many courses before exams.
It is likely this is part of a move to damp down on fee and rent complaints with the Government shifting the onus onto HE providers.
While the new higher education timetable was welcomed by senior leaders, they also fear that the education secretary's waning influence with Downing Street means the Department for Education's plan may be ignored in favour of other concerns.
Some institutions, such as the London School of Economics, have already said students will be taught remotely for the rest of the academic year, but Donelan said the government "will be giving them the option to alter those plans".
The University and College Union stated: The priority right now must be to keep as much teaching as possible online for the rest of the academic year, and putting staff and student safety first.
And the article suggests that some students are returning anyway:
In defiance of the government's orders to stay at home, several universities report that students are "returning to campus in droves", even without the prospect of face-to-face teaching or the use of university facilities.
One university is said to have about 70% of its usual student numbers on or around campus, in part due to high numbers of students on exempt courses such as nursing. Most others estimate that 30% to 40% of students are back, and some have more than half.
"Some students have voted with their feet, it's been reported by just about all the universities I've heard from, Russell Group and elsewhere. It's interesting, it reflects the fact students start to identify university as their new home," he said.
Wonkhe ran a feature on TEF this week with a blog written by Dame Shirley Pearce (who led the TEF review). Wonkhe say:
… the government, while claiming to have accepted the majority of the Pearce review's recommendations, has failed entirely to engage with the spirit of that review, which posits enhancement of the quality of teaching as a delicate balance and interplay of accountability between regulators, providers, and students, and between nationally comparable data and locally produced evidence of quality. Today on the site, Shirley Pearce urges the higher education sector and the Office for Students (OfS) to engage with the recommendations the review makes, and to take seriously the review's finding that far from being merely burdensome, the subject TEF pilots have sparked useful conversations inside universities, and offered levers to drive enhancement.
The Pearce review is grounded in a theory of change that says that if there is to be public confidence in quality, providers must evidence it, but that providers and their students must be empowered to do the enhancement work on the ground according to their distinctive mission and, importantly, at subject level. The elegant proposal that institutions be provided with subject-level data, split by demographic, and be asked to account for differences in outcomes, but that the subject data would not be published as rankings, is characteristic of the balancing act the review executes.
The government does not evidence its grasp of this balance in its response, instructing OfS to ground TEF ratings in nationally comparable data, while at the same time taking account of the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) critique of the limitations of said data in drawing accurate conclusions about the quality of learning and teaching in higher education providers – and good luck to the English regulator in squaring that circle.
In the relatively few years of its existence, the TEF has won few friends, and many enemies. There may be satisfaction to some in seeing the TEF reduced and downgraded. But the version of the exercise that appears to be currently on the table, as Paul Ashwin argues, risks rendering the TEF entirely irrelevant. Better, then, to have a larger exercise that directly engages with the processes of enhancing learning and teaching quality, than a light-touch exercise that does not – and redirects institutions' energies to gaming the metrics.
Three Wonkhe blogs tackle TEF:
The TEF will serve public and student interests best if it drives teaching enhancement in universities. Shirley Pearce, independent reviewer of the TEF, sets out what that could mean in practice.
The government's failure to seriously engage with the Pearce review's proposals sets the TEF on a course towards irrelevance, argues Paul Ashwin.
Shirley Pearce's review of TEF was supported by a superb analysis of the statistical issues from the Office for National Statistics. David Kernohan has a read.
As you'll have read in the section covering the Secretary of State strategic priorities letter to the OfS Williamson has tasked the OfS to resolve how the TEF will move forward.
Dods have summarised the DfE's research on the effect of Brexit on HEIs in the UK. EU exit: estimating the impact on UK higher education looks at:
the effect of changes in the level of tuition fees on international student enrolments at undergraduate and postgraduate level
the potential impact on EU student enrolments and associated tuition fee income resulting from:
the removal of tuition fee loan and grant support for EU students
harmonisation of tuition fees charged to EU and non-EU students
changes to post-study work rights for EU students
changes to the rights to bring dependants
Across all HEIs, the analysis suggests that:
Removing the tuition fee support for EU-domiciled undergraduate students would reduce demand for UK higher education by approximately 13,090 (21%34 of all EU student enrolments) first-year students per year, equating to a loss of £80.7 million in tuition fee income.
Removing the Home fee status for EU-domiciled (undergraduate and postgraduate) students would generate additional fee revenue of approximately £114.6 million. That is, the increase in fees charged to EU-domiciled students would more than offset the loss in fee income due to falling demand amongst EU students (15,220 students, 24% of EU-domiciled student enrolments in 2016/17).
Restricting the right to work in the UK post-graduation for EU-domiciled students would potentially result in 6,640 (11% of EU-domiciled student enrolments) fewer EU student enrolments, corresponding to a reduction in fee revenue generated by UK HEIs of £88.0 million.
Restricting the right to bring dependants for EU-domiciled students would further reduce tuition fee income by approximately £8.4 million, with 590 (1% of EU-domiciled student enrolments) fewer enrolments.
Taken together, the estimated combined impact of all of these policy changes would be to reduce tuition fee income from EU sources by approximately £62.5 million, with 35,540 (57%) fewer first-year EU enrolments. However, the aggregate impact on fee income masks significant variation by university cluster (and level of study). In particular, HEIs in Clusters 1 would benefit in aggregate; whereas institutions in Clusters 2, 3 and 4 would be worse-off.
The results on student enrolments are insensitive to changes in classification of HEIs by clusters, with the reduction in demand varying from 34,555 (55%) to 35,750 (57%). The total financial loss ranges from £42.5 million to £66.5 million.
There is also the impact assessment here, which Dods summarises below:
The DfE have published an assessment of the effect that changes made to higher education student finance regulations will have on groups with relevant protected characteristics.
Expect the proposed amendments will most likely have a negative impact on EU nationals on the basis of their nationality, if they are domiciled in the EEA and Switzerland
They will also have a negative impact on older EU national students who are not covered by the Withdrawal Agreements, with those studying at postgraduate level proportionately more affected
Do not expect EU students who are female (who are slightly overrepresented as a result of these changes) or who have declared a disability to be significantly impacted by these changes
There is a lack of data to predict the impact on other EEA (Norwegian, Icelandic, Liechtenstein) and Swiss students
Other EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who do not fall into this category (or one of the other eligibility categories), and who do not have settled status, are not eligible for home fee status and student finance
While those not covered by the Withdrawal Agreements will therefore be impacted on the basis of their, or their family members' nationality, the number of those currently benefiting from student support is very small and as such, the equalities impacts are assessed to be insignificant
With regard to EU nationals resident in the overseas territories, their assessment is that although protected groups of EU nationals who will be affected by our proposed position are slightly over represented, namely gender/sex (females), the impact of the amendments will not differ on the basis of these protected characteristics
Given the limited numbers of students involved, the equality impacts are likely to be insignificant
Concluding, they say that since these amendments will remove access to student finance for EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals not covered by citizens' rights, there are number of routes such individuals may choose to adopt:
Proceed: Undertake HE study in England without receiving home fee status or any student support from Student Finance England, but potentially in receipt of funding from other sources such as their own Governments.
Go elsewhere: Take up HE study outside the UK where access to education can be obtained on the same basis as domestic nationals e.g. their own, or another state within the EEA or Switzerland, or the EU overseas territories, or other international countries.
No go: Choose not to participate in HE study
Intergenerational Fairness: Dods published an interesting briefing on intergenerational fairness.
Games degrees: The number of UK graduates in computer games subjects has risen for a seventh consecutive year.
Fee Variability: You may remember that last year Australia changed the Government support and fee regime to prioritise support for certain programmes (such as STEMM) and charge more for lower priority courses. The change attracted much interest in the UK because the current Government has long been flirting with the idea of differential programme funding stemming all the way back to Jo Johnson's tenure as Universities Minister and the introduction of the Higher Education and Research Act legislation (including TEF). Interestingly this week the Guardian have reported that demand for arts and humanities courses is still high in Australia despite fee increases,
LGBT+: UUK have a blog: Going the extra mile to embrace LGBT+ equality in higher education.
Pensions: HEPI have a trio of blogs on university pensions and in particular on the USS.
Dementia Research Funding: The latest news on dementia funding from a parliamentary question response: The Government's Challenge on Dementia 2020 contained the commitment to spend £300 million on dementia research over the five years to March 2020. This commitment was delivered a year early with £344 million spent on dementia research over the four years to 31 March 2019. We are currently working on ways to significantly boost further research on dementia at all stages on the translation pathway including medical and care interventions.
Paramedics ELQ rules: The debate on whether to waive the ELQ rules for paramedical science continues. The Government response states: A decision will be dependent on business planning for the 2021/22 financial year following the outcome of Spending Review 2020.
Mental health animation: UKRI report that academics have partnered up with Aardman to tackle the current mental health crisis with the campaign: What's Up With Everyone? funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The press release states: Although around half of all lifetime mental health problems start by the mid-teens, intervention typically starts much later. Issues include rising suicide rates among young people and unprecedented challenges for young people at school, university, college or the workplace. This points to an urgent need to rethink mental health education to reach and engage young people.
What's Up With Everyone? is a series of five new animated films created with and for young people about dealing with life's challenges before they impact mental health… the films link to vital information and signposting for how young people can help themselves or seek help for the issues raised through the project's website. One wonders if it will link to the OfS' mental health platform.
Tags: academic freedom accelerated degrees admissions anti-semitism Arts and Humanities Brexit bureaucracy care leavers Catapult contract cheating dementia equality essay mills fees and funding financial sustainability flexible learning free speech harassment industrial strategy international students lifelong learning mental health NSS Office for Students OFS OIA Place PQA quality regulatory burden skills social mobility student complaints student contracts student protection plans teaching excellence framework TEF Turing scheme UKRI widening access widening participation
HE policy update for the w/e 21st January 2021
Business Engagement, COVID-19, EU, HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, NHS, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
After a long wait the sector received a landslide of HE policy interventions on Thursday. The FE Skills White paper, PQA consultation, the Government's take on Augar, publication of the Pearce TEF review with the DfE's response, and significant changes to the HE recurrent grant, alongside some far less exciting stuff! And it wasn't a quiet week before all that.
Some of it is good, some of it is very ominous indeed. Some of it is very high level and vague and so could go either way. There are a lot of new consultations to come and there will be lots to talk about in 2021. It will keep Sarah and I busy!
Boil that kettle, locate your reading glasses, and get comfy on the sofa ready to enjoy a bumper policy update!
Skills White Paper
This is the biggy because it's a White Paper, However, most of it is not about HE. The Government has published the Skills for jobs: lifelong learning for opportunity and growth white paper setting out their ambition for reform to the post-19 technical education and training landscape.
Gavin Williamson spoke in the House of Commons (see this link at 13:08 pm)
White paper on skills for job published today (see below)
Enormous challenges ahead to rebuild the economy. Support packages already announced (etc). Strong and independent trading nation (etc).
Lifetime skills guarantee, flexible digital skills bootcamps (etc).
April – kick start Higher Technical Education by making it easy to get a loan. Pilots on modular learning. Lifelong loan entitlement running from 2025.
Employers at the centre of technical education. Supporting local economy. German style local skills improvement plans led by Chambers of Commerce. Strategic development funding for FE.
New courses – trailblazer areas this year. Fund of £65m in 2021-22.
$1.5bn of capital funding for FE. Announced next phase for FE and T-levels.
Longer term – more coherent longer term funding model that will collaborate on with the sector. Principles of high value, greater flexibility and greater accountability. By 2030 nearly all technical courses will follow employer led requirements.
Continue with apprenticeships and T-levels.
Network of Institutes of Technology will expand across the country.
Top quality teaching staff in FE – recruitment campaign, more support etc, training and development and industry experience.
We've done a separate 6 page summary for BU readers, because it's long (and repetitive and full of the usual patting on the back about other good things already announced).
RP say (amongst many other things):
It's almost as if there is a good news story to be told about further education, while the government hopes its lack of decision-making on higher education falls off the news agenda…
It's actually called the Skills for Jobs white paper, which in fact takes the story away from underfunded further education and pivots towards post-Covid economic recovery. You will have seen much of the content before.
…So modular funding is on its way, but 2025 is a long way off—that takes us into the next parliament. Perhaps the Treasury has costed the commitment and decided to kick that particular can down the road.
The Skills for Jobs white paper… will seek to justify both disinvestment in higher education and funding of technical education on the cheap. It will play to the prejudices of the Conservative base and the idea that too many people are going to university and that decades of regional inequality can be resolved by more plumbing courses at local further education colleges.
From Dods: The Department says that the measures announced today "will put an end to the illusion that a degree is the only route to success and a good job, and that further and technical education is the second-class option."
The White Paper is being pitched as forming part of the Plan for Jobs
As expected, the Paper enshrines the Lifetime Skills Guarantee, providing a clearer idea of what the programme looks like in practice – adults without a full level 3 qualification (A-level equivalent) to gain one from April 2021 for free in a range of sectors including engineering, health and accountancy.
The long-touted Lifelong Loan Entitlement is also fleshed out in more detail, representing significant reforms to student finance. [Actually, there is very little detail and there is going to be a consultation on this "in early 2021".]
Measures include:
The Government is investing £1.5bn in further education colleges, to allow for high quality buildings and facilities
Employers will have a central role in designing "almost all" technical courses by 2030, to ensure education and training reflects the skills needed in the job market, supported by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education
Business groups, including Chambers of Commerce, will work alongside colleges to develop tailored skills plans"to meet local training needs"
This will be supported by a £65m Strategic Development Fund to put said plans into action, and establish new College Business Centre
New approved qualifications from September 2022, supported by a Government-backed brand and quality mark, to boost the quality and uptake of Higher Technical Qualifications(levels 4 and 5)
From 2025, people can access flexible student finance so they can train and retrain throughout their lives, supported by funding in 21/22 to test ways to boost access to more modular and flexible learning.
Nationwide recruitment campaign to get more teachers into further education and supporting professional development including a new Workforce Industry Exchange Programme
An "overhaul" of the funding and accountability rules, so funding is better targeted at supporting high-quality education and training that meets the needs of employers
An introduction of new powers to intervene when colleges are failing to deliver good outcomes for the communities they serve, and strengthening of Education Secretary's powers to intervene in corporations and local areas with persistent weaknesses. [The sales pitch on this is a good bit of spin, it is presented as an opportunity to have a strategic discussion with the department and pitch the strengths of the college, but….]
The next phase of the FE Capital Transformation Fund has also been launched today, and further education colleges across the country are invited to bid for funding to upgrade buildings and campuses.
The Augar report stressed the need for impartial and quality careers advice and guidance, so more people can be support to make the right education, training and career choices. There will be an expansion of Careers Hubs and other infrastructure in line with the Gatsby Benchmarks of Good Career Guidance. Furthermore, Dods tell us that, as part of the Skills White Paper reforms, Professor Sir John Holman has been appointed as Independent Strategic Advisor on Careers Guidance, and will oversee the local and national alignment between The Careers & Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service. Sir Holman is currently an Emeritus Professor in Science Education at the University of York, and is also Senior Adviser to both the Gatsby Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.
The Department for Education says: "The measures announced today will put an end to the illusion that a degree is the only route to success and a good job, and that further and technical education is the second-class option. Instead, they will supercharge further and technical education, realigning the whole system around the needs of employers, so that people are trained for the skills gaps that exist now, and in the future, in sectors the economy needs, including construction, digital, clean energy and manufacturing."
The government may be hoping that first sentence becomes true; it surely knows that the second sentence lacks credibility. The white paper proposals are accompanied by a £65 million Strategic Development Fund to put the plan into action and to "establish new College Business Centres to drive innovation and enhanced collaboration with employers".
To put that in context, the much-mocked Turing one-way exchange scheme has a budget of £100m, which is a reduction by nearly half of its Erasmus predecessor. The £65m fund is not going to reverse decades of underinvestment in skills, while College Business Centres sound like a classic ministerial vanity project doomed to irrelevance when their limited funding dries up.
There is going to be a lot of that sort of thing today, including the Workforce Industry Exchange Programme, aimed at coaxing talented individuals to teach in further education. It is not thought to involve basic incentives such as a competitive salary or security of employment.
RP also pick apart the percentage comparisons in the DfE's criticism of the sector.
Wonkhe did a special email update at lunchtime: Debbie McVitty runs through the highlights so that you don't have to.
On the proposals for funding lifelong learning, Debbie says: If the government can crack this policy Holy Grail, it will have a genuine claim to having radically transformed post-compulsory education. But this white paper marks an intention to start developing the answers rather than concrete proposals.
Commenting on the government's interim response to the post-18 review of education and funding, Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said:
'An increased focus on lifelong learning will help develop the highly skilled graduate workforce needed to support our economy, nationally, regionally and locally. The OfS plans to work with students, the sector and employers to explore how higher education can be made more attractive and responsive to mature learners, and ensure that mature students are aware of the breadth of options available to them in both further and higher education.
'The focus on quality and the need to tackle poor quality provision is a strategic priority for the OfS as we consult on new proposals to enable us to anticipate and respond to poor quality, while ensuring that our approach is proportionate and targeted where it is needed.'
Robert Halfon, chair of the Education Committee:
"The proposals from the prime minister and department for education mark a sea-change in government thinking on skills.
"It will help address our skills deficit by boosting the accessibility of technical qualifications alongside the lifetime skills guarantee. It meets the needs of businesses in building an employed-led system, working with FE, to design employer qualifications and ensure funding follows employer requirements. It will give those from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to climb the skills ladder of opportunity, through the skills guarantee and easier access to finance. It is good that new funding will be made available in areas where colleges work with employers to transform their skills offering.
"'Build back better' clearly means building back a skills nation. I am really excited by these plans."
Policy Exchange blog – Alun Francis and Andy Westwood preview the forthcoming FE White Paper.
There are some relevant blogs on HEPI:
an interesting blog on HEPI here by Chris Husbands: Universities must be critical delivery agents of the Government's levelling up fund.
Unintended Consequences: How Level 3 reform could damage progression to higher education – looked at through the perspective of nursing
a report on the graduate contribution scheme.
The Research Excellence Framework team have announced some flexibility to support universities with their REF submissions now the country is back within lockdown. Prior to the announcement on an LSE's Impact of Social Sciences blog there is a call for REF2021 to be postponed until the end of the year.
Research Professional: Covid-19 has revealed flaws in the management of postgraduate research students.
Science Minister Amanda Solloway announced a UK-Japan robotics deal for fusion energy and nuclear decommissioning research
Research Professional analyse UKRI's Ottoline Leyser's statements to pick out future priorities for UKRI action.
Academic spinouts: Wonkhe review: The Royal Academy of Engineering's Enterprise Hub has published a report on academic spinouts. Just four universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL – account for a third of UK spinout companies, with all such companies raising £1.30 billion in investment in 2018. While the impact of the pandemic is not yet fully known, indications point to increased investment in spinouts dealing with medical technology and pharmaceuticals. The Scotsman has the story.
Parliamentary Question: The potential merits of extending funding for all PhD students who have faced disruption as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.
Changes to HE Teaching Grant
So alongside all of this it is not surprising that we see some "rebalancing" in funding away from HE. And given that "low value" courses have been a focus for some time, it is not surprising to see how this has gone.
Proposed reform to teaching grant will allocate funding to deliver value for money for students and the taxpayer. Strategic priorities. Engineering and medicine. Will "slash" taxpayer funding for subjects such as media studies.
Will provide additional support for specialist arts institutions.
Will consult on introduction of minimum entry requirements and addressing the high cost of foundation years. We cover this in more detail with the rest of the Augar content below, the minimum entry requirements bit is a cost saving measure, of course.
Full response on Augar and post-18 review with next spending review (well maybe).
There's more (a lot more) in the response to Augar, which we cover below, but let's get down to brass tacks and immediate changes to 2021/22 funding first.
Gavin Williamson has written to the OfS to set out new guidance for the allocation of the £1.48 billion HE teaching grant for the 2021/22 financial year.
Strategic reprioritisation of high-cost funding towards the provision of high-cost, high-value subjects that support the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost STEM subjects and/or specific labour market needs, reducing funding initially by 50% for high-cost subjects that do not support these priorities (with further decreases in subsequent years).
Remove weightings for London providers from across the T-Grant, including the students attending courses in London supplement, and weightings within the student premiums. (This saves the Government £64 million.)
Allocate £5m to providers in order to provide additional support for student hardship – This is to mitigate the rise in student hardship due to pandemic impacts on the labour market which particularly affect, for example, students relying on work to fund their studies, students whose parents have lost income and students who are parents and whose partner's income has been affected. The OfS should establish exactly how this is distributed but the funding should be clearly targeted towards disadvantaged students. The £5m will be a drop in the ocean across the national provider base but provide another support statistic for the Government to trot out when asked how they are addressing the issue.
Allocate £15m to help address the challenges to student mental health posed by the transition to university, given the increasing demand for mental health services. OfS to establish how to target those students in greatest need of such services, but likely through a Challenge Competition.
Protect the £256m allocation for the student premiums to support disadvantaged students and those that need additional help [yes, that £256m]
Reduce the allocation for Uni Connect to £40m (losing £20m). With the lost £20m redirected towards mental health and student hardship (as per the bullet points above) – so it's not really new money, more robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Back to Uni Connect – the letter says: Funding for Uni Connect was originally agreed until July 2021, and so this is an appropriate moment to consider the scope and objectives of the programme. We welcome the current [OFS] consultation on the future of the Uni Connect programme… we believe that future investment is best directed to support the core infrastructure of partnerships, and funding targeted activities to fulfil specific policy objectives.
Increase funding for specialist providers, particularly those who are world leading and specialise in the performing and creative arts, by approximately £10m to £53m. This will help to support and/or expand the provision at those providers best equipped to secure positive outcomes for graduates, boosting outcomes for the sector. Note the wording there – positive outcomes, boosting outcomes…so specialist providers without the right metrics might be disappointed! Again the OfS is to decide who is eligible.
Deliver capital funding to providers through a strategically targeted bidding process and target funds at specific projects and activities aligned with the high-quality, skills-based education agenda – not the old formula model (because: The extent to which we can assure ourselves that funding is adding value and investment is focussed on key government priorities is, therefore, limited.) Jisc and HESA's Data Futures Programme can still be supported too.
If you are willing to delve far enough you'll spot that Annex C allocates £28 million for Turing outward mobility in 2021/22 from the teaching grant.
The letter also instructs OfS to consult with the HE sector given the impact on the HE sector anticipated from the proposed changes. With all the other special allocations to iron out and their regular workload the OfS will be busy!
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said about the Department for Education's statutory guidance for the OfS's approach to funding:
'Distributing funding is an important part of our regulatory work. Our annual grant funding for universities and colleges plays a critical role in ensuring the availability to students of high quality, cost-effective higher education across the country. We intend to consult on the government's proposed changes to how we distribute this funding, and have written today to universities outlining our proposals for consultations and a revised schedule for distributing next year's grant allocations.'
Wonkhe: Gavin Williamson has set out his strategic priorities again to OfS including changes to the teaching grant that will hit London universities the hardest.
HEPI also has a blog piece on the case for the Office for Students to be a strong regulator, working closely with universities and sector bodies.
Post-18 Review of Post-18 Education and Funding and interim response to the Augar report
The Augar report from 2019 has been gathering dust for a long time following the (2018) Post-18 Review of Education and Funding (one of Jo Johnson's legacies). The Augar Review made 53 recommendations for the reform of the FE & HE sectors including a more coherent unified post-18 system. You might want to look back at what Augar actually said (way back in May 2019).
The Government's response to Augar has been long promised and many times shifted further down the road due to elections, Brexit, the pandemic, and the further postponement of the comprehensive spending review.
While the sector may approach the Government's response to Augar with both anticipation and trepidation – alongside a healthy dose of just tell us! – it seems we'll still have to wait for the real decisions. The DfE's interim conclusion of Augar has been released, the main points are below. Much is inextricably tied in with the Skills white paper and FE decisions. The Government also plan to consult on further reforms to the system in spring 2021, before setting out their full response. The full conclusion of the review is promised to sit alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review. Augar: the sequel, we can't wait!
The TEF will continue to play an important role in driving improvement in HE provision. The OfS will consult on a more, streamlined, improved, low-burden TEF exercise, and in an aim to reduce bureaucracy, the Government will not be introducing subject-level TEF. There is a lot more on the TEF below.
The Government are considering further reforms for tackling 'low quality provision' and will set out a response in due course.
The report highlighted the significant taxpayer subsidy in the HE student finance system. The Government intend to freeze the maximum tuition fee cap to deliver better value for students and to keep the cost of higher education under control, initially for one year, with consideration of further changes before the next Comprehensive Spending Review. It appear the reduction in the fee cap to £7,500 may still be on the table.
Wonkhe have a blog: editor in chief Mark Leach argues that the government's chronic failure to resolve the Augar recommendations on reducing home undergraduate fees is storing up serious problems for later this year – Holding the threat of reducing fees over the sector will not help universities or students.
Research Professional (writing before the response was officially released): What will be presented as an interim response to Philip Augar's review of post-18 education and funding will be little more than a holding position, with all the big financial decisions put on hold until the comprehensive spending review…It is also, no doubt, a way of putting pressure on universities so that the government gets its way on other policy priorities, such as low-value courses. Time will tell whether these interim findings will be a sword of Damocles held over universities or part of a process by which the Augar review is finally put out to pasture.
Autumn 2021 is the earliest the next CSR is likely to take place.
Some extracts from the response – but at 13 pages it is worth reading in full:
The Government's focus on the response to the coronavirus pandemic means that now is not the right time to conclude the review in full. However, we remain committed to introducing further reforms that will ensure a just and financially sustainable student finance system, drive up the quality of higher education provision and promote accessibility for students. This will include consideration of elements mentioned in the Augar Report, including student finance terms and conditions, minimum entry requirements to higher education institutions, the treatment of foundation years and other matters. [note the minimum entry requirement piece. You will recall the outrage about this proposal which was going to be in Augar – the discussion at the time about the impact of a 3Ds minimum level. Augar actually stopped short of recommending it but threatened it as a response to the sector not sorting out issues relating to "low value courses". See more detailed section below.]
We plan to consult on further reforms to the higher education system in spring 2021, before setting out a full response to the report and final conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review. [and how many times have they said that – the last two spending reviews at which we were promised this were cancelled]
As a further part of our Lifetime Skills Guarantee, and informed by the recommendation of the Augar panel, we will move to a system where everyone has a Lifelong Loan Entitlement, giving them access to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education. This flexible entitlement will bring technical and academic education closer together and will help people to train, retrain and upskill throughout their lifetime. The Lifelong Loan Entitlement will provide fairness of opportunity by making the same funding system available regardless of the route you choose and when you choose to study. We will consult on the scope and detail of the entitlement in early 2021, including seeking views on objectives and coverage.
This is potentially huge: We will move towards modularisation of higher education in order to provide a truly flexible system that provides more opportunity for upskilling throughout people's careers, as recommended by the Augar Report. We will consult widely about the changes that are needed to enable universities and colleges to provide a modular offer.[doesn't say when they will consult on this]
Our vision is that the substantial majority of post-16 technical and Higher Technical Education will be aligned to employer-led standards by the end of this decade
We will set out how the higher education teaching grant will be used next year to ensure that more of taxpayers' money is spent on supporting provision which aligns with the priorities of the nation, such as healthcare, STEM and specific labour market needs. This gives reassurance to potential students that incentives are aligned to encourage courses with good job outcomes and reinforces the Government's commitment to safeguarding the UK's high-quality research base.
As recommended by the Augar Report, we will create a system that stimulates demand for technical education, improving the nation's skills and encouraging growth…..
…We need a better balance between academic and technical education – we are currently too skewed towards degrees above all else
.. We want every student with the aptitude and desire to go to university to be able to do so and we want technical, employer-centric training to be a viable option for many more people.
We will ask the OfS to consult on a more streamlined, improved, low-burden TEF exercise that will ensure that the drive to improve the quality of provision applies across all providers, not just those at the lower end. In line with the ambition to reduce bureaucracy, we will not be introducing a subject-level TEF. [that is a fascinating nuance – see the TEF section below]
We are considering what further reforms may be needed to tackle low-quality provision and will set out a full response on this issue in due course. [So what is that, then? More than what the OfS are already doing with their quality and standards work, presumably. Augar also looked at, in the same way as it looked at minimum grade requirements, (i.e. "we aren't recommending but you could look at"), targeted number caps on courses offering low value for money. Is that what the government response is hinting at?. We look at this in more detail below as well].
The Augar Report highlighted the significant, and growing, taxpayer subsidy in the higher education student finance system. It is important that the student finance funding systems remain sustainable and that those who benefit from their higher education should make a fair contribution. We intend to freeze the maximum tuition fee cap to deliver better value for students and to keep the cost of higher education under control. This will initially be for one year and further changes to the student finance system will be considered ahead of the next Comprehensive Spending Review. [There you are, postponed again to another spending review. Which is surely unlikely to happen this year, for the same reasons as it hasn't happened the last two years.]
HEPI has a blog "The Government's emerging vision for universities: labour-market need at the heart of the system."
The Government might be determined to put short-term labour-market need at the heart of our higher education system – determining the subjects that people are encouraged to or able to study… If enacted, these proposals will lead to (i) a weaker student voice, (ii) an un-benchmarked metric that equates professional-level employment fifteen months after graduation with success, and (iii) connecting university courses' conditions of registration to a pass/fail rule about successful outcomes that takes no account of the social backgrounds of different students. This would be a very significant change in how universities are held to account and, by implication, a philosophical shift on what the fundamental purpose of university is considered to be. Short-term labour-market need, not student choice, will be at the heart of the system. The Government is perfectly entitled to do all this but it will have ripple effects. The current funding model puts primary responsibility on the individual graduate to pay for their education. Young people might wonder whether they should pay in a system that steers their choices in a direction someone else has judged appropriate.
So what's coming next on Augar?
So, the response to Augar says there will be a consultation on minimum entry requirements and one on "further reforms" – and more work on low value courses. We remind you about the previous debates about minimum entry requirements, and what Augar said about them, as well as what it said about further action on capping student numbers for low value courses.
Minimum entry requirements: This suggestion was made in Augar the context of this:
Our preference is for the HE sector, through the OfS, to resolve the problem of students being inappropriately recruited onto low value courses.
We believe that the sector should have three years – until the start of academic year 2022/23 – to put its house in order
If not, Augar said, then the government should do two things – impose minimum entry requirements and cap numbers on low value courses.
To remind you about the arguments:
The story about 3Ds first broke in December 2018 in THE. We covered it in our policy update on 21st December 2018 and Wonkhe also covered it.
from March 2019: two blogs on HEPI, one by Iain Mansfield (architect of the TEF), and a response by Greg Walker of MillionPlus.
David Willetts wrote for the Times Higher in April 2019 and wasn't keen either.
Augar was published in May 2019 and actually said this on minimum entry requirements (see pages 99-101)
We have considered the introduction at some future date of a contextualised minimum entry threshold for access to Level 6 student finance for students under the age of 25, to be used if the measures outlined above did not deliver the scale and pace of change needed. Students under 25 with tariff points below a certain level would be ineligible for student loans for tuition at Level 6. To repeat, this policy would need to be implemented such that disadvantaged students were not unfairly penalised.
The choice of threshold would be critical. As Figure 3.14 shows, there is no clear drop-off point in graduate earnings by attainment. To be effective, a threshold would need to be both high enough to address the issues of drop-out and lower wage returns set out earlier; and low enough to ensure that the impact could be managed across the sector and would avoid disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups.
Were a minimum entry requirement introduced, it should apply only to students under the age of 25, after which work experience, rather than Level 3 qualifications alone, would be the appropriate entry criterion. The policy should apply only to Level 6 courses: any young person with Level 3 attainment below the threshold would still be eligible for student finance to study at Levels 4/5, and could then use their qualification at those higher levels to progress on to, and therefore receive finance for, Level 6 in the future. Introducing high-quality alternatives to degree study will be crucial to addressing the problems of low-value degrees set out above. Students recognise the value of higher-level study but they must have these alternatives available to them or they will continue to enrol for poor-value degrees. We are aware that even with contextualisation the impact on some HEIs would be significant. Some of them might wish to focus on the new higher technical provision discussed in the previous chapter; if they chose to do so, this would be a positive outcome [ouch]
We consider a minimum entry threshold contextualised for socio-economic background to be feasible and that it could address the problems of low returns for graduates in a socially progressive way.
However, such a threshold would be a significant intervention into what has been designed as a competitive autonomous market. It could be seen as a reversal of the principle of allowing all who are able to benefit from HE to attend, a principle that has underpinned HE policy in recent years and was first pronounced in the 1963 Robbins Report.
It might be objected that the contextualisation process breaks the clear link between attainment and entry established by a minimum entry threshold. For example, it could result in a position where two students at the same school with the same grades holding the same offer from the same university would have different outcomes; one would be moderated over the threshold and attend university while the other would not. In so doing, it could be presented as an example of social engineering – and breach of concepts of fairness – that do not fit comfortably within a meritocratic education system.
There was a lot of debate about this idea before Augar was published – because it was leaked as a possible recommendation. Chris Skidmore, who was Universities Minister at the time, did not like the idea. In the end it was watered down as a threat if the sector did not sort out "low value courses" by 2022/23. The current government look to be a bit more impatient and have assumed that these issues will not be sorted out by then. And it may not be just this that they are considering – we look at the other Augar threat on targeted number caps below.
Targeted number caps on courses offering poor value for money
This was in the same context as the minimum entry requirements proposal:
..and if not then: Augar said this on capping numbers (see pages 101-102)
If recruitment practice has not improved by 2022/23, discussed further below, an alternative or complementary option for the government and OfS is the imposition of a cap on the numbers admitted to courses that persistently manifest poor value for money for students and the public. The existing regulations give OfS the power to implement such caps where that is justified in accordance with their regulatory aims, at institutional or subject level.
The government has made it clear that it will not re-impose a cap on student numbers at national level. It would be out of scope for us to propose this and we would not wish to do so, even if it were within our terms of reference. However, we are mindful that the government does exceptionally place a cap on numbers, notably on university places for Medicine, because of the very high cost of a medical degree and of the professional training that follows it, and have considered whether this practice could be extended.[this looks interesting now in the light of the attempt to apply student number caps in the pandemic which was abandoned so quickly when the extent of the 2020 A-level results mess-ups became apparent].
We therefore invite the government to consider the case for encouraging the OfS to stipulate in exceptional circumstances a limit to the numbers an HEI could enrol on a specific course, or group of courses.
Where there is persistent evidence of poor value for students in terms of employment and earnings and for the public in terms of loan repayments, the OfS would have the regulatory authority to place a limit, for a fixed period, on the numbers eligible for financial support who could be admitted to the course. The institution in question would remain free to recruit to all other courses without restriction. Such a cap system would clearly target the institutions that are offering poor value, rather than altering the entry criteria for individual students.
International and mobility
Wonkhe have new content: Ahead of the British Council's international education virtual festival this week, Director Education Maddalaine Ansell takes stock of the state of international recruitment.
Parliamentary Question: Ensuring the UK remains an attractive destination for education for international students
Wonkhe have a blog on what is needed for Turing to be a success. Here are some of the recommendations:
Monitor the graduate outcomes of Turing on a longitudinal basis so we can measure its benefit not just as a snapshot six or twelve months from graduation but over an individual's lifetime
Be global in principle but trade oriented in focus because the rise of the Asian Century means giving our students as much opportunity to travel to Asia and learn Asian languages/culture as engaging with Europe and North America.
Ensure more industry and employer engagement which will require universities to understand their international graduate destinations and form alliances and partnerships with international companies that can host students on work placements overseas. With robust country specific data on international graduate outcomes institutions can focus employer engagement where it will have the most impact.
Attribute value to soft power because global goodwill is essential for the UK's future economic success particularly during and following the global pandemic. Mapping the careers of those that take part in Turing will put the UK in the driving seat when it comes to having alumni with a wide network of contacts with the authority to invest and trade.
Demonstrate excellence through international employability by showing the value to an individual's future career if they take part in Turing. Evidencing the outcomes from the scheme must be part of the hearts and minds approach to ensuring that UK students are motivated to take part in outward mobility.
Meanwhile Wonkhe report: Welsh education minister Kirsty Williams is reported to be in discussions with her counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland about the possibility that the three nations could rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme. Nation Cymru has the story.
HEPI have a blog: Five questions to ask about the Turing scheme
Whether UK students will be liable for fees in their host countries under the Turing programme. Answer – students taking part will receive grants to help them with the costs of their international experience…On tuition fees, we expect these to be waived for Turing scheme participants consistent with the arrangements for Erasmus+.
Will Turing involve a competitive bidding element? Answer: We will be making further information available very shortly to enable providers across the UK to prepare to bid for funding when applications open in the coming weeks for placements to take place from September 2021. This will include information on how applications will be assessed, and funding allocated and we plan to have a call for bids much like Erasmus+. Successful applications will receive funding for administering the scheme and students taking part will receive grants to help them with the costs of their international experience.
This scheme will be demand-led and will be open to bids from providers across the UK. As such, there is no projection as to the number of students from each nation or specific limits for any specific region.
Whether the UK remains a partner country of the Erasmus Mundus+ masters degree scheme.
Turing admin costs; and another angle – proportion of £100m for admin costs
Plans to ensure that people from EU member states due to participate in the Erasmus+ scheme in the UK have access to the Turing scheme.
Turing – In terms of direct income to higher education providers, we expect tuition fees to be waived for Turing scheme participants consistent with the arrangements for Erasmus+.
The Independent (Pearce) Review of the Teaching and Student Outcomes Framework (i.e. the TEF Review) has been published. This was completed and submitted to government (in August 2019) but hibernated in the Ministerial in tray (election etc…) whilst Governmental focus and priorities shifted.
the subject-level Teaching Excellence Framework looks to be heading for the highest shelf in the cupboard of abandoned higher education policy initiatives. It seems as if the Office for Students is to be sent back to the drawing board to come up with something less burdensome and more in keeping with government priorities on low-value courses.
… As ever, higher education should be careful what it wishes for, as the replacement for the subject-level TEF might be even less rigorous and more intrusive. The absence of benchmarking in the Office for Students' consultation on quality has spooked some, who fear the imposition of a less sophisticated assessment process for universities.
Here are all the links:
Pearce review
Government response to the Pearce review
Consultation outcome on the Independent review of the TEF
Survey of HE applicants
Survey of HE careers advisers
OfS finally publish the findings from the 2018-19 subject level TEF pilot
ONS evaluation of the statistical elements of the TEF (for the people really keen on data).
Overall: Is it worth it?: Given the value of HE to the UK, we believe it is firmly in the public and student interest for TEF to have, as its primary purpose, the identification of excellence across all HE and to encourage enhancement of that provision.
We'll set out the Pearce recommendations and the government responses together so you can compare.
Statistical analysis:
Pearce: Improvements are needed in the management and communication of:
statistical uncertainty at all levels of the process, including multiple comparisons
small numbers ( small providers and/or small datasets ) and non-reportable metrics
relative versus absolute comparisons
These have a significant impact on flagging and generating the initial hypothesis.
Appendix B sets out the essential ONS recommendations that address these concerns.
Government: …we would like the OfS metrics group to take into account and address the concerns raised by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) when reviewing the robustness of its metrics and data.
Subject level exercise:
Pearce: The process and statistical risks become exacerbated at subject level where the impact of problems due to small numbers becomes greater. This, in addition to the problems with subject categorisation and risks of inconsistencies at scale, mean that ratings at subject level risk undermining the successful development of TEF as a whole.
There is evidence however, that a subject-level exercise has value for driving internal enhancement. For this reason, we recommend that while TEF should not progress to ratings at subject level at this stage, a subject-level exercise should be incorporated into the provider-level assessment and inform provider-level ratings.
Work is needed to develop the most effective way to do this. We propose that all providers receive a full set of subject-level metrics and that failure to sufficiently address variability in subject performance should act as a limiting factor on ratings of the aspects of assessment and the overall provider rating.
Government: …we do not want to move to subject-level TEF ratings, because we do not consider at this stage it can be achieved without significant burden
Metrics:
Pearce:
Teaching and Learning Environment: Institutionally determined evidence addressing 'how we create an excellent environment for teaching and learning and how we know we are doing this well'. Subject variability in teaching and learning environments should be addressed.
Student Satisfaction: Evidence to address 'what our students think of our educational provision'. National comparisons should use National Student Survey (NSS) metrics. In the submission, institutions should address their performance in the NSS metrics and may also add their own data. Subject variability in satisfaction should be addressed.
Educational Gains: Institutionally determined evidence addressing 'what our students gain from our educational experience and how we evidence that'. Educational gains might include knowledge, skills, experience, work readiness, personal development and resilience. This will be conceptualised differently in different institutions. Since there is no single nationally comparable metric of 'learning gain', each provider would be expected to demonstrate how, within their own particular mission, they articulate and measure ( quantify if possible ) the educational gains that they aim to provide for their students. Subject variability in those gains should also be addressed.
Graduate Outcomes: Evidence to address 'what our students do as graduates and how we have supported these outcomes'. In addition to the existing TEF employment metrics, measures beyond employment should be used and regional differences in labour markets should be controlled for. Continuation and differential degree attainment should also be part of this aspect. Institutions would use their submission to respond to the metrics and add their own data. Subject variability in graduate outcomes should also be addressed.
Government:
….the Government does not consider 'Student Satisfaction' to be an appropriate measure of excellence, as satisfaction can, potentially, be too easily obtained via a reduction in quality or academic rigour – we believe 'Student Academic Experience' to be a more appropriate aspect
…we would like the OfS to ensure that the TEF ratings are based on an assessment of high quality, nationally gathered metrics and data (e.g., Graduate Outcomes, Longitudinal Education Outcomes and non-continuation data) and contextual qualitative information.
It should use more than just earnings and should take account of regional variations
OfS will also need to consider if and how educational gain can be reliably measured
The outcomes of the NSS Review will be important in considering the role the survey plays in the TEF assessment. We recognise that there is a place for students' feedback on the quality of their teaching and learning experience and we will work with the OfS to develop how this aspect of quality could be included
Plus, new: For this reason, the Government considers it essential that student outcomes should act as Limiting Factors, such that a provider should not achieve a high TEF rating if it has poor student outcomes. We will work with the OfS to determine how the Limiting Factors should work. [so they will be a baseline in the quality framework and a limiting factor in the TEF -they are doing a lot of work here]
Pearce: …a standard structure should be developed which incorporates a subject level exercise. The student body should also be given the opportunity to provide direct input in an independent structured submission.
Government: We agree with the Independent Review's recommendation that provider-level ratings should be derived from robust data and structured submissions from providers and students.
Pearce: Greater granularity in the rating system would provide more information about excellence and reflect the complexity of educational provision. We therefore recommend providers are awarded both an institutional rating, and a rating for each of the four proposed aspects.
We also recommend that the names of the ratings should reflect the level of excellence identified. We propose the following names:
Meets UK Quality Requirements
Commended
Government: We agree with the Independent Review that there should, in future, be four TEF ratings overall, with the top three being signifiers of excellence to varying degrees.
The new bottom category will capture those providers failing to show sufficient evidence of excellence, and it will be made clear that these providers will need to improve the quality of their provision. We will work with the OfS to confirm the names for the four ratings in due course. [this is really interesting – the OFS quality consultation has a whole thing on using the bottom TEF rating as a reason to investigate a provider, which suddenly makes sense].
The name of the scheme
Pearce: We heard much frustration that the name 'Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework' does not adequately reflect what the TEF really measures. Teaching is only assessed via proxies and the student learning experience is dependent on more than just teaching. We recommend that the name should reflect more accurately what a revised TEF will measure and assess. Of the options we have considered, we propose the Educational Excellence Framework (EdEF).
Goverment: The Government would like the scheme to continue to be known as 'the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) This name has a well-established brand value, and is increasingly understood, in the UK and internationally, to mean a rating on teaching, learning and student outcomes.
And in terms of the practical question about what happens next, the government have said:
… we will end the current approach of TEF running each year and expect the TEF to be a periodic exercise, taking place every 4 or 5 years.
Its costs should also be kept proportionate and for each exercise the costs, for both providers or the OfS, should, at an absolute maximum, not exceed the costs per provider of the TEF exercise that has taken place to date
And the OfS have told us (Letter to universities):
We are developing proposals for the TEF to be an integral part of the overall quality system in England. The role of the TEF is to continue to incentivise excellence above our baseline requirements. In developing our proposals for the TEF, we will take into account the Independent Review recommendations and the government's response to these, and the evidence from the subject-level pilots. We expect to consult on these proposals in the spring, aligned to more detailed proposals on our approach to the regulation of quality and standards through the conditions of registration.
We do not expect a new TEF framework to be in place before the current TEF awards expire in summer 2021. We are considering the options for the interim period until a new TEF framework is in place and expect to consult about this soon.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said:
'Students invest a significant amount of time and money in higher education and should expect a high-quality academic experience. The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) plays an important role in driving up the quality of provision in universities and colleges – we welcome the publication of Dame Shirley Pearce's review and the recommendations she has identified for developing the scheme further.
'We are committed to raising the bar on quality and standards across the English higher education system. As we refine our overall approach to regulation, the TEF will continue to incentivise improvement in areas that students care deeply about: the quality of teaching and learning, and how well their courses set them up for success after their studies.
'We will develop proposals on how best to take forward the independent review recommendations and the government response to these, as well as evidence from our own subject-level pilots. We expect to consult on proposals for the future TEF in the spring, aligned to more detailed proposals on how we regulate quality and standards through conditions of registration.'
On Wonkhe: TEF – Big changes lie ahead and David Kernohan is here to walk you through them.
The DfE launched a consultation on their proposed changes for post-qualification admissions (PQA) in HE as part of Thursday's deluge. The consultation explores whether student's receiving and accepting university offers after they have achieved their A level grades would ensure a fairer higher education admissions system.
Brief overview of rationale from the documentation:
There is evidence that disadvantaged students 'undermatch' in relation to the grades they actually achieve
A PQA system might encourage disadvantaged students to be more aspiration in their choices and identify courses they are better matched to
Use of conditional unconditional offers and other undesirable admissions practices such as material inducements to persuade students to enter certain courses has increased in recent years, dramatically in the case of conditional unconditional offers
The current system is complex and difficult to navigate
Post-Qualification Admissions (PQA) has been proposed as a reform that could help alleviate some of these issues by a wide variety of groups and commentators across the political spectrum – including The Sutton Trust, The Universities and Colleges Union (UCU), The UCL Institute of Education and Policy Exchange
UCAS and Universities UK have concluded that now is the time for admissions reform to be considered, following months of engagement with students, schools, colleges and universities. This consultation will build on these findings, working across education sectors, to agree how reform could be delivered.
The consultation document states: We believe that it is time to explore whether a PQA system could address some of the challenges posed by the current HE admissions system: namely, that it is complex, lacks transparency, works against the interests of some students, and encourages undesirable admissions practices. Key delivery partners, as well as those across the education sector, have signalled that this is the right time to review the system. The experience of having completed full Level 3 qualifications, and knowledge of their actual results could put students in a better position to decide on their best options for further study. PQA could allow them to consider the full range of available qualifications, including higher technical qualifications as well as degree level study. Hence, it may lead to more students making better informed decisions, improve continuation rates in higher education and potentially lead to better career outcomes for students.
Prior to publication Research Professional said:
while a consensus seems to be gathering that post-qualification admissions are the right thing to do, a rearguard action is being mounted by vice-chancellors of low-tariff and medium-tariff universities who think that their institutions will be disadvantaged by the change.
The feeling is that there are some universities that need to spend more time building a relationship with applicants, and post-qualification admissions will see school leavers migrate towards established brand names. This, of course, may be what the government is hoping for.
Wonkhe have: A consultation from DfE on post-qualification admissions landed and Jim Dickinson has everything you need to know.
Exams in 2021:
Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards, issued a written ministerial statement on exams. There was no new content or updates, all remains as we outlined in last week's policy update, the consultation closes next week.
Meanwhile Sammy Wright, a Social Mobility Commissioner, has stated that:
fair A level results are impossible and calls for a fully funded foundation year at university to avoid "catastrophic unfairness" among this year's cohort.
Wright said disadvantaged students would not face "a level playing field" because they had missed out on more digital learning than their peers, and he warned that asking teachers to be objective in their grading could result in "a worse disaster than last year". He also stated that no matter how grades are awarded, many students will be embarking on courses in September 2021 at a lower level than they may have done in a normal year
Wright was in favour of the Government's proposal for clearing to take place after students have had time to appeal their grades. Wright states: At all costs we must avoid the chaos of clearing in 2020—and as such, we again call on UCAS and universities to ensure that clearing does not happen until all appeals have been responded to.
HEPI have a blog: How to be 'innovative' in school exam assessment – fewer grades
The Sutton Trust has published a report on how teachers and parents are responding to the second period of school closures.
During 2018 the debate over Free Speech in HE was a frequent topic in the policy update. While the HE sector agrees free speech is essential many were baffled by the Government's dogged pursuit of the topic and the lack of evidence of its prevalence. This week we were transported back to 2018 – but on steroids – gone are the Ministerial speeches and push for the HE sector to sign up to 'agreements', now some Parliamentarians want a law and the ability to fine universities if they fail to uphold free speech. Conspiracy theorists might hypothesise that it all feels like another step towards a different agenda of tighter Governmental control over these (pesky) semi-autonomous university organisations. But back to this week…
David Davis (Conservative MP, currently an under-secretary of state for Wales and assistant Government Whip) presented a Ten Minute Rule motion on Freedom of Speech (Universities). In essence the Bill aims to: place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech and to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty. Davis' introductory speech included:
Today, there is a corrosive trend in our universities that aims to prevent anybody from airing ideas that groups disagree with or would be offended by. Let us be clear: it is not about protecting delicate sensibilities from offence; it is about censorship. We can protect our own sensibilities by not going to the speech. After all, nobody is compelled to listen. But when people explicitly or indirectly no-platform Amber Rudd, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, Peter Hitchens and others, they are not protecting themselves; they are denying others the right to hear those people and even, perhaps, challenge what they say.
…views expressed in a recent survey commissioned by Britain's biggest university academic union showed that Britain has the second-lowest level of academic freedom in all Europe. Just last month, a report by Civitas found that more than a third of our universities impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech—including, I am ashamed to say, Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews. The fact is that a number of our international allies today protect freedom of speech much better than we do.
Although in the UK we theoretically have laws protecting freedom of speech, in practice they are buried in education Acts, resulting in the protections not being widely known and universities not always upholding their duties.
… speech that is illegal—incitement to violence, for example—would of course be forbidden, but speech that is merely unpopular with any sector of the university would not be proscribed. Controversial views and the challenging of established positions would not be proscribed.
Ten Minute Rule motions are an opportunity for backbencher MPs to float an idea for a new Bill to the House, a 'vote' at the end of the (roughly) 10 minutes decides whether the Bill passes to the next stage. Similar to Private Members Bills the Ten Minute Rule motions rarely pass into legislation. However, some are introduced as a plant for the Government (perhaps to judge sentiment and support within the house without Cabinet embarrassment). This Bill was supported by 11 other Conservative MPs and it passed the initial 'vote' meaning it can progress to the second reading stage.
In theory Davis' Bill should now stall – because time for all private bills has been paused due to Covid – but Davis knew this before he presented the Bill. Furthermore, if the Government wishes to back the Bill they can allocate it some of the time set aside for the Government's agenda to progress it through the legislative stages. It will be an interesting one to watch.
Wonkhe take issue with the content of Davis' speech: David Davis' speech in support of his Ten Minute Rule motion to introduce a Freedom of Speech (Universities) Bill was passed unopposed in the House of Commons. His speech took in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the "no-platforming" of Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, "professional iconoclast" Peter Hitchens, and Amber Rudd – none of which were actually denied a platform.
Free Speech was one of the landmarks within Sam Gyimah's tenure as Universities Minister in which he seems to have made several unsubstantiated claims that he later had to row back from. This BBC article stated the committee found little evidence that such censorship was "pervasive" – but instead found that a relatively small number of incidents were being widely shared. Research Professional dismissed another of Gyimah's claims about overegging a safe space culture – With the Department for Education unable to confirm this latest claim about safe-spaces in universities, there remains little documented evidence of a culture of censorship in UK higher education. And an Oxford Professor states the obvious elephant in the room about lack of evidence in this Guardian article – When it comes to Sam Gyimah and Jo Johnson's warnings that free speech is threatened, I've never seen either of them produce any evidence to support those statements. In education you're supposed to be able to back up what you say, and they just don't. The same article has Amatey Doku speaking within his 2018 role at NUS: There is vigorous debate every single day at universities. If there really were a censorship problem we'd hear about it. What we actually find are isolated instances blown out of proportion. There are a couple of reasons why ministers exaggerate: politically it plays well for their voter base.
iNews provide up to date coverage of the issue highlighting that Free Speech has continued as a hotspot for the Government, they state:
Concerns about freedom of speech on university campuses have grown in recent years, although some commentators have said the problem is exaggerated.
The 2019 Conservative manifestopledged to "strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities".
Last summer the Government said that any university which gets into financial trouble because of the pandemic would have to "demonstrate their commitment" to freedom of speech in order to be eligible for bailout funds.
Michael Barber (outgoing Chair of the OfS) made a farewell speech on Wednesday evening in which he mentioned free speech. Research Professional pick it apart in their inimitable manner:
Referring to high-profile cases of "no-platforming", Barber said: "I am often told that the vast majority of such possibly controversial speaking engagements do in fact go ahead. I am willing to believe that this is the case, but I would love to see the data. It is hardly a job for a regulator but if I were a university administrator or an influence at Universities UK, I would be collecting the data."
England's higher education regulator-in-chief seems to be unaware that the organisation he has chaired for the past four years gathers precisely these data, asking universities to return figures on the number of speakers approved or rejected as part of the Prevent legislation. In 2017-18…53 speaker requests [were] rejected. Of those 53, how many were to do with extremist views and how many were to do with a failure to complete the onerous paperwork properly? We are willing to bet on the latter for quite a few.
The Prevent statistics do not capture the Amber Rudds and Germaine Greers, but they do capture the reality of free speech in UK universities, rather than the issue imagined by some who mistake inherited privilege for inalienable rights.
Barber said: "My critique of the current free speech debate is not that it is too extensive but that it is too limited. After all, the conceptual rule for such events is surely clear: a university should be a place that actively promotes and protects the widest possible freedom of speech within the law." At which point he should have sat down, or turned off his Zoom, because nobody ever, anywhere, has disagreed with that.
So will the Bill progress or fizzle…? I'm not sure even the Government know right now. Wonkhe's irreverent interpretation (written before the Bill was presented) made me smile: There's little chance of whatever's in it becoming law all on its own – so we'll have to wait and see to work out whether an extension of the culture war that the public looks increasingly bored with will take off this time around.
Education Oral Questions
Gavin Williamson took centre stage for Education Oral Questions and the Topicals on Monday breezing through content asking about:
the end of the Brexit transition period for HE,
Turing – Question: how will the Secretary of State ensure that the Turing scheme, a poor replacement for Erasmus, is as effective in encouraging inward student mobility? Answer: The Turing scheme is not a poor replacement…It is about us looking around the globe as to how we can expand opportunities for students. No comment on inward student mobility was made.
Research investment
Students paying rent for accommodation the Government have mandated they may not use (Answer: hardship funds)
Wonkhe covered the HE questions: Education Questions in the House of Commons saw Gavin Williamson once again reiterate that support for students remains under review – but apart from the £20m put towards hardship funds just before Christmas there has been no action.
Specific questions from Labour's Emma Hardy and the SNP's Stuart McDonald on support for rent where students are unable to use the property if following government guidelines saw no substantive answer.
Remote education (for pupils). Williamson states problems should be addressed with the school first before resorting to Ofsted complaints. Live lessons for SEN pupils was also covered as was laptops for disadvantaged pupils and internet access and free school meals.
Technical and vocational exams
During topicals:
Q – Bim Afolami: Many students have suffered as a result of inadequate teaching and pastoral care at their universities, in addition to unfair costs for accommodation that they are not even allowed to stay in. What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the Government are a voice for students, that they stand up for students and that they allow them to be compensated in some way by their universities when those universities fail them and let them down?
A – Gavin Williamson: There can be no excuses when universities are not offering the type of remote teaching and educational support that is expected. That is why it is so critical that, where that remote teaching and support is not happening, students' rights are upheld. We saw at the tail end of last year that students' rights were upheld and universities had to redress that. That is the right approach. We recognise how important it is to support students, which is why we will continue to look at how best we can support them through programmes such as the hardship fund.
This week's Education Committee session focussed solely on the impact of COVID-19 on education and children's services. There was no HE content. Do get in touch if you would like to receive Dods' summary of the Committee session.
Case for Commons Reform
UCL's Department of Political Science have an interesting publication: Taking back control – Why the House of Commons should govern its own time. It highlights that much of the time within the Commons is directed by the Government ministerial agenda and that several of the reforms recommended 10 years ago have not been implemented – some of its central concerns about the management of time in the House of Commons went unheeded… whereby MPs [despite coming from the majority party] have inadequate say over the running of their own institution. The report makes recommendations for change such as allocating more regular opposition and backbench business days, that the weekly agenda be put to members in an amendable form for decision (as happens in other parliaments) which would make ministers more responsive to the Commons majority (particularly their own backbench MPs). Also: that there should be a wide-ranging formal review of the extent of government control of House of Commons business.
In conclusion: As the Wright committee pointed out more than a decade ago, the extent of government control of the House of Commons is both unusual in international terms, and problematic for the functioning of Westminster. This was already true under periods of single party majority government, but it became even more obvious under minority government, as applied between May 2017 and November 2019. At present, House of Commons rules too often explicitly privilege the government rather than privileging the parliamentary majority. But these two will not always be the same thing. The core principle guiding House of Commons functioning should be majority decision-making, not government control.
Strategic Education Recovery Plan
Previous universities minister, Chris Skidmore, writes Thinking, fast and slow. Why we need a long-term Education Recovery Plan for Conservative Home. The article begins with humble words acknowledging the reality of home schooling whilst working. He recognises the disruption to all children's learning and calls for an all through long term education plan from nursery to university. He states: We cannot afford to simply react to events, waiting to see what happens with the spread of the virus and its containment, before we decide the next stages of an entire generation's future. The impact of the pandemic will emerge like the widening ripples in a pond when a stone has been thrown: its impact, in particular its educational impact, will be with us for years, a fact which we must come to terms with and have a strategic plan to help counter.
Already the Chair of the Education Select Committee and educational leaders have called for a redesign of the examination system. What is needed foremost, however, is a definitive understanding of the outcomes that we wish to achieve, before moving onto the processes to deliver this.
He highlights with two years' worth of key stage assessments cancelled a system is needed to monitor individual pupil progress, so that pupils at risk of educational failure due to the pandemic can be rescued as quickly as possible, and given the individual support and tuition that they need to get back on track. This should be viewed as the critical mission. Identifying those pupils at risk of educational disadvantage means new forms of assessment, and data collection, will need to be considered. Above all, there must be transparency and a common approach to what is being measured. And this is the crux of his point. While schools will all be tracking and assessing the individual pupils without a national approach where is the policy push and additional funding. Remember the year 7 support funding – for pupils below year 6 SATs standards has been sucked into the coronavirus catch up fund – with different criteria for access.
He also talks about exams and HE admissions – I'm cautious about re-inventing the wheel at a time when stability and certainty is needed. Pupils deserve exam results to show for all their hard work, and existing systems that have held their own as a standard over time should not be thrown out for the sake of change. But we do need to address the issue of admissions to university, and how results and assessment are used to deliver this.
Post Qualification Admissions have been proposed as a way forward, yet with the qualifications themselves under review, we need greater long-term certainty of how we can achieve an equitable admissions system that encourages disadvantaged pupils to reach their potential.
Reforms to post-18 education to ensure lifelong learning and flexible qualification structures have taken on a fresh urgency in light of the pandemic, especially with the likely need for retraining and reskilling of a large number of people seeking new forms of employment.
Ultimately, a long-term education recovery plan must start not from what is convenient for existing systems and vested interests of the organisations that operate in this space. To do this would mean that those with the loudest voices, and greatest lobbying efforts, win out. What is needed instead is an approach that defines the "points of contact" at every stage of a child's educational journey — and defining how these have been adversely affected by the pandemic, and what can be done to resolve this.
Defining and delivering a long-term plan, with the investment needed to achieve this, will be hard work: easier, more tactical approaches, may seem more attractive. Yet to achieve an effective recovery, the longer term, strategic planning is now essential… With all the immediate talk of laptop provision as the instant solution to current learning problems, we must not forget that now is also the time to prepare all pupils for their educational recovery, encompassed in a long-term strategic approach.
HE Staff Statistics
HESA have released HE sector staff statistics and data for the (pre-Covid) period to 1 December 2019.
Much media content has focussed on the lack of improving diversity, particularly at professorial level (see BBC). Some headline points from the HESA analysis.
Staff ethnicity – 18% BMC – an increase of 1 since 216/17; 11% of professors are BME
Staff nationality – 17% EU (excluding British), 14% non-EU
Gender – Men are more likely to work full time (52%) and academics are more likely to be male (53%); Females make up the larger proportions of part time staff (66%) and work in a non-academic role (63%).
Age – 19% of academic staff are aged 56 or over; almost half of all professors are aged 56+ years.
78% of academics' salaries were paid in full by the institution. The other 22% were financed in part by research councils, UK branches of multinational companies, the NHS and/or UK and overseas charities.
44% of academic staff held teaching and research contracts. 32% held teaching only contracts. Teaching only contracts are increasing steadily each year, in 2015/16 teaching only contracts were held by 26% of staff.
Wonkhe have a good analysis delving into more detail (with understandable interpretations) here. Their blog specifically looks at Black underrepresentation too. The blog concludes by looking forward and reminding us that today's issues will all have an impact on future figures. The pandemic has resulted in redundancies without appointing replacements, Brexit and the new immigration system may affect the diversity of nationalities employed, and, Wonkhe: A lot of what happens depends on government decisions as well as those made by providers – in particular institutional managers will be watching the decisions made by the Office for the Independent Adjudicator that could have a wider impact on student fee refunds. Other decisions made about university funding, for example as part of the response to the Augar report, will have an impact on university liquidity too.
Welsh support for students
The Welsh Government announced an additional £40m for universities to support students facing financial hardship. The fund aims to help the students most affected by the pandemic with expenses such as accommodation costs and addressing digital poverty. The £40 million is in addition to the previous £40 the Welsh Government provided to support students and universities. Kirsty Williams, the Welsh Education Minister, said:
This year, due to reasons beyond their control, many thousands of students have not been able to return to campus yet. In some cases, this means some students might still be paying for their accommodation while they are unable to use it. We recognise how difficult this is, which is why we are announcing this additional funding.
Our universities have worked tremendously hard to support their students, ensuring learning has continued, while putting measures in place to protect their students, staff and their local communities. This funding will allow them to build on that good work.
The Welsh Minister's tone differs substantial from her English counterpart Michelle Donelan (who is still under fire on her Twitter feed). This week Research Professional dissect and comment on Donelan's 6 'student' Tweets, and they offer MP and leading HE sector figures censure on her simplistic slogans.
HEPI have two blogs:
Reaching Beyond the School Gate: Making University Outreach More Meaningful asks if outreach teams are primarily working with students who are going to University anyway, and whether youth work embedded within the socio-cultural community and family context would be a fruitful new approach.
Rethinking fair admissions
Digital Poverty
At the end of last week Jisc, Universities UK, GuildHE and ucisa wrote to Gavin Williamson, Education Secretary, calling on the Government to lift higher education students out of digital poverty to avoid a lost generation of learners. By ignoring university students while helping other disadvantaged learners to study online, the government and telecommunications companies risk creating a 'lost generation' of young people who are missing out on their education. They state:
Half of higher education students are digitally disadvantaged
Many families are at risk of slipping into poverty and cannot afford the data costs required for online study
Digital and data poverty is the main issue that prevents effective delivery of online learning
Demand for hardship funding from universities has doubled
Indicating that around half of HE students are digitally disadvantaged, the letter cites the learning and teaching reimagined research project conducted by Jisc with sector partners, which found that digital and data poverty is the main issue that prevents delivering online learning effectively.
The letter goes on to highlight that, despite the welcome extra government funding to alleviate hardship for HE students, the demands on hardship funding have doubled, putting significant strain on university resources.
In conclusion, the letter, which calls for an urgent meeting with government and telecoms companies, states: Universities have moved mountains to provide learning and teaching online since the first lockdown and are now much better equipped to deliver a quality curriculum online. However, without urgent action to ensure students can get online affordably, the government is risking creating an even deeper and more long-term digital divide in education. We urge you to take action now on behalf of all higher education students experiencing digital poverty, or risk creating a lost generation of young people who are missing out on their education.
The Guardian cover the story here.
Disabled Students Commission: Wonkhe summarise the new report: The Disabled Students Commission has published its annual report, Enhancing the disabled student experience. The report outlines how the commission approached supporting disabled students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Going forward the Commission plans to adopt a student lifecycle model to inform its research and recommendations, with considerations including the intersection of disability with other characteristics such as race and gender, the diversity of disabled student experience, and greater consultation with disabled students.
Access to post-16 education for asylum seekers is governed by funding rules in further and higher education.
What proportion of people (a) applying for and (b) securing places at higher education institutions were from (i) working class and (ii) disadvantaged backgrounds for the academic year 2019-20.
The effect of the covid-19 lockdown on the attainment gap (pupils). Answer: The Department has commissioned an independent research agency to analyse catch-up needs and monitor progress over this academic year. This research is based on a large sample of pupils and will identify whether particular groups of pupils have been more affected by time out of school – including the most disadvantaged, those with historically poor outcomes, and those in particular areas.
What assessment the Government has made of the report by the Social Mobility Commission Changing gears: understanding downward social mobility, published in November 2020; and what plans they have to address the Commission's finding that one in five people move into a lower occupational group than their parents.
Wonkhe have two student focussed blogs:
Isabella Enoizi sets out the case of a national student campaign calling for academic mitigation during Covid-19
Fleur Nielsen explains why an idea that looks good on paper – isn't the government's plan to move healthcare students onto paid placements is burdensome and inequitable.
Sharia compliant alternative student finance product (no update yet); but this one on potential barriers to Muslim students has been answered
Additional support for HE students who have caring responsibilities for children and who are engaged in university studies alongside home tutoring. Government response: it's up to the university but we expect them to be supporting student welfare
What support the Government plans to provide for undergraduate students whose university education has been disrupted by the covid-19 outbreak. Answer (as you'd expect): we are working with the sector to make sure that all reasonable efforts are being made to enable all students to continue their studies and provide the support required for them to do so. Our expectation, during these challenging times is that universities should maintain the quality and quantity of tuition and the Office for Students (OfS) will continue to actively monitor universities to ensure that quality of provision is maintained and accessible for all. And yes, Donelan also mentions the £256 OfS Student Premium funding which can go towards student hardship funds and the £20 million of additional hardship funding expected by providers soon
Student Finance – Illness/shielding: Students who suspend their studies for a variety of reasons, including shielding, can apply to Student Finance England for their living costs support to be continued while they are absent from their course. Students who suspend their studies due to illness automatically receive living costs support for the first 60 days of their illness.
Supporting students who have paid rent for accommodation at university but are unable to use it as a result of covid-19 restrictions. Answer: The government plays no direct role in the provision of student accommodation. However, the government encourages all providers of student accommodation to review their accommodation policies to ensure that they have students best interests at heart. We also urge them to communicate their policy clearly and be fair.
Emma Hardy, Shadow universities minister has been asking some emotive questions about students nurses such as whether they'll have to pay extra tuition fees because Covid has prevented them from completing their placement hours and similar on course extensions
Private rented student accommodation – no Government support for release from contracts, use of hardship funds mentioned
While the parliamentary question asked about the mental health taskforce the minister sidestepped to respond: it is for higher education providers as autonomous bodies to identify and address the needs of their student body and to decide what mental health and wellbeing support to put in place…the government has asked universities to prioritise mental health support, and continue to support their students, which has included making services accessible from a distance…Many providers have bolstered their existing mental health services, and adapted delivery mechanisms including reaching out to students who may be more vulnerable. You can read more on the Government's response here.
Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you'd like to contribute to any of the current consultations or inquiries.
Consultations to look forward to from today's pile of announcements:
OfS consultation on a new TEF (in the "Spring")
OfS consultation on interim arrangements for the TEF because the current awards expire in the summer ("soon")
DfE consultation on further reforms to the higher education system in spring 2021, before setting out a full response to the report and final conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding alongside the next Comprehensive Spending Review.
DfE consultation on the Lifelong Loan Entitlement – "we will consult on the scope and detail of the entitlement in early 2021, including seeking views on objectives and coverage."
DfE consultation on the changes that are needed to enable universities and colleges to provide a modular offer – doesn't say when they will consult on this.
DfE: We will set out further plans to use the National Skills Fund in due course, consulting on the details in spring 2021 to ensure that the investment from the Fund helps to meet the needs of adults, employers and providers
DFE will consult on the proposals to reform FE funding and accountability
The OfS say: We are aware of the sustained pressure on providers as the impact of the pandemic continues to be felt and of the additional burden that may be caused by these proposed additional consultations. We have extended the deadline to our quality and standards consultation to 25 January 2021 and will continue to monitor the situation regarding current and future consultations.
Remote teaching: Wonkhe: Matt Jenner led a popular online course about teaching online – here's what he learned from the experience about how to support educators in adapting to remote teaching.
On Monday Boris Johnson launched a new business initiative – the Build Back Better Council. Details including the Council members are here.
Teach online this year: UCU (the University and Colleges Union) are calling for teaching to remain online for the rest of the academic year to protect the wellbeing of staff, students and their communities. UCU state they fear staff will be forced to return to work in unsafe and unpredictable working conditions. UCU have warned they are considering balloting members for action against an unsafe return to in-person teaching.
Student rent strikes: The BBC cover student rent strikes in Wales. Politics Home also have an article on rent strikes.
Asynchronous learning: From Wonkhe – Asynchronous learning gives students the chance to treat modules like box sets, bingeing or skipping as they see fit. Tom Lowe wonders what this might mean for learning.
Academic misconduct: Contract cheating is well known however this (short) Times article explores the perspective of the innocent who was wrongly accused of cheating. It is written by lawyers who represent students appealing against academic misconduct.
Tags: academic misconduct accommodation admissions Arts and Humanities Augar review erasmus free speech freedom of speech hardship funding HE staff lifelong learning maintenance loans mental health minimum entry requirements mobility modular learning Pearce review post-qualification admissions PQA Review of post-18 education skills student number caps subject level TEF teaching excellence framework teaching grant TEF tuition fees Turing scheme
HE Policy Update for the w/e 27th November 2020
COVID-19, EU, hate crime, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, parliament, PG research, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
The spending review was quiet on HE and heavier on research spending commitments. A UUK publication tackles racial harassment in HE and the OIA provides examples of what will and won't be upheld from student Covid complaints. We wonder about the TEF. See you in December!
Driving home for Christmas?
Today's news is all about tiers. Dorset and BCP are in Tier 2 and we thought we would help you with the links. There are 3 sets of rules which all apply at once:
All tiers
Tier 2 (same link, lower down the page)
Christmas rules
If you are hoping to see family or friends outside the local area, The full list is here. As has been widely reported, only Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly are in tier 1, so cafes and pubs will be hard hit across the nation. The full reasoning area by area has been published.
And our local MPs are not all happy about it. The Bournemouth Echo have spoken to MPs
Michael Tomlinson (MDNP) and Chris Loder (West Dorset) have just retweeted the guidance without comment and in the Echo article Michael Tomlinson says he will support the government.
Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Robert Syms and Tobias Ellwood will oppose it.
Simon Hoare will support the government.
It is not clear from their piece whether Conor Burns will oppose it or not although he is critical.
Spending Review – highlights and research focus
Phew – that was a lot of bad news and attempts at good news. Headlines: no big announcements on university funding or progress on the TEF. Lots of research news and lots about investment in education.
The documents are here. Press release here. The full content of the Spending Review session is available on Hansard here.
RP makes interesting points on the forgotten aspects of impending HE policy which the (3 year) comprehensive spending review was expected to tackle. We cover the TEF separately below.
The words 'university' and 'universities' do not appear. Nor does the term 'higher education'.
Add to this the fact that neither the independent review of the Teaching Excellence Framework nor the government's response to the Augar review of post-18 education was published alongside the review as promised, and it starts to feel very much like a snub.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and it is safe to say—as Fiona McIntyre reports on our site—that the no-show of the TEF and Augar was no surprise. They've been kicked so far into the long grass now that they can barely be seen. And with rumours of a Lord Agnew-led Treasury review of higher education costs, Augar's recommendations—some of which Augar has all but disowned himself—seem more likely to become footnotes in whatever plan eventually befalls university financing.
On the spending review Wonkhe say:
Yesterday's spending review left key questions over tuition fees and teaching funding for the sector unanswered, though there was limited good news on research funding. An overall £740m uplift in the BEIS research and development budget included promised increases in funding flowing through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) over the next four years. And it now appears that the ARPA-like "high-risk, high-payoff" research funding long seen as a Dominic Cummings's pet project will also sit under UKRI.
There was plentiful recurrent and capital funding allocated to FE, in line with previous announcements, but there was little mention of the HE sector. The Student Loans Company will receive an extra £64m of capital linked to a transformation programme, and there's an unspecified amount of funding (if required) to support the preparation of a domestic alternative to Erasmus+.
Other points of interest included the news that the promised phasing out of the RPI inflationary measure (as used in student loan interest calculations) will not begin until 2030, and an odd mention of "defending free speech" in the Chancellor's statement. David Kernohan summarised what we could find on Wonk Corner
We cover the R&D sections here and the rest in a separate section below. In the main document the scientific super power section starts page 58.
Research Professional have a good summary in A game of two halves.
The headline figure, as Sophie Inge reports, was a pledge of "almost £15 billion for R&D over the next year" with the aim of making the UK a "scientific superpower".
…. the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been awarded £11.1bn in R&D funding for the year ahead, which is up from £10.36bn this year and includes a boost of £400m a year, on average, until 2023-24 for core UK Research and Innovation budgets.
It is notable that the chancellor—who had abandoned plans for a full multi-year spending review following the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak—opted to make a four-year commitment to funding research. The argument that R&D is now simply too important to the future physical and economic health of the country to be managed on a short-term basis appears to have won. UKRI chief executive Ottoline Leyser summed it up, saying the spending review "signals a clear national ambition for research and innovation".
Another £350m went to UKRI to support "strategic government priorities, build new science capability and support the whole research and innovation ecosystem". This chunk of cash includes the "first £50m towards an £800m investment by 2024-25 in high-risk, high-payoff research"—which seems like a very strong hint indeed that any cash going to the UK Advanced Research Projects Agency will be distributed via UKRI.
The business department's settlement includes a healthy £733m to allow the UK Vaccine Taskforce to purchase Covid-19 vaccines, which is part of the £6bn provided to procure vaccines. Of this money, £128m will go towards UK vaccine R&D and funding for the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre.
Meanwhile, there will be up to £17m in 2021-22 to establish a "new unit and fund that will focus on the last mile of innovation to help ensure that public sector knowledge assets…translate into new high-tech jobs, businesses and economic growth". These assets include R&D, the spending review document states, along with intellectual property and other intangible assets.
Dods have a nice summary of the research announcements
Cement the UK's status as a global leader in science and innovation by investing nearly £15 billion in R&D in 2021-22 (page 53)
Up to £17m in 2021-22 to establish a new unit and fund that will focus on the last mile of innovation to help ensure that public sector knowledge assets (page 53)
£450m in 2021-22 to support government priorities, drive the development of innovative ways to build new science capability and support the whole research and innovation ecosystem (page 54)
Raise economy-wide investment in R&D to 2.4 per cent by 2027 (page 54)
£280 million in 2021-22 for net zero R&D, including an £81 million multi-year commitment for pioneering hydrogen heating trials (page 56)
£695m of additional R&D funding between 2021-22 and 2024-25 to support the development of cutting-edge capabilities (page 56)
Other research news
Wonkhe have a new blog – The proportion of PGR students recorded as "writing up" in HESA data has been creeping up over the years. Is this a sign of a growing crisis? We don't know, and that is the problem. Rebecca Teague and Billy Bryan take stock.
HEPI have a new blog which comments on the rise in numbers of PhDs but it also asks who and what are PhD's for and references the recent Government and UKRI decisions on PhDs extensions as telling.
If you somehow managed to miss last week's clamour – doctoral students were told to adjust projects for Covid-19. UKRI announced an additional £19m available to support doctoral students who are finding it most difficult to adjust their project and training plans. There is a report and policy statement advising students to speak to their supervisor about adjusting projects to complete a doctoral-level qualification within their funding period. And an interesting fact on the scale of the issue – 92% of final year students already requested an extension, with the average extension request of 4.6 months. Research Professional reported the announcement received a negative reaction from doctoral students, particularly around the lack of clarity it brought We're still waiting to hear what involvement BEIS had in the UKRI decision.
This week's parliamentary questions:
PhD students' extensions, and the same support for those on low incomes & other factors.
Calculating SURE (the Government's research rescue fund)
Diversity in peer review process and advisory groups
Forgotten Priorities Part 1: What is going to happen to the TEF?
Everyone expected that announcements on the Pearce review of the TEF and announcements on the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding – promised with the spending review – would not be forthcoming, once it was announced that it would not be a "comprehensive" spending review but a one year look, with a focus on the response to the pandemic. Then there were rumours that there might be after all- but there wasn't. Universities and HE are not mentioned at all, although there is a fair bit about research (as we discuss elsewhere).
So what is the situation with the TEF? The current awards were all extended to 2021. The OfS announced in January 2020 that they would not run a TEF exercise this year. But what is going to happen when those existing awards run out at the end of this academic year? It's all a far cry from September 2019 when the Secretary of State was encouraging the OfS to get on with things and run an extra TEF in 2020. And read this on Research Professional from February 2020 (BP – before pandemic).
Meanwhile, the OfS are advertising for a Head of TEF (closes early December). So something must be going to happen?
The OfS website says:
The new framework will take account of the forthcoming recommendations in Dame Shirley Pearce's independent review of the TEF, the government's response to it, and the findings of the latest subject-level TEF pilot.
Following these publications, we will consult on the new framework.
All assessments under the current TEF scheme have concluded, and the results will be replaced in the future by results from the new scheme. We will not conduct a TEF Year 5 exercise in 2020.
This is a bit confusing. There is no TEF year 5 exercise in 2020, but what in that case will replace it when the awards run out in summer 2021? Will there be a gap? Or will the existing awards be extended again – at which time the year two awards given in Spring 2017 based on data from the three previous years start to seem a bit long in the tooth.
The documents published (in 2018) for the last subject level pilot said:
The final provider-level exercise with published outcomes (TEF Year Four) will take place in 2018-19 and will operate completely independently from the subject-level pilots.
So that subject-level TEF produces comprehensive outcomes to inform student choice, the DfE has decided that published awards from provider-level TEF Years Two, Three and Four should no longer be valid when subject-level TEF awards are published in 2021.
At that point, all awards from provider-level TEF will expire, and be replaced by awards made through the first full subject-level TEF exercise (these awards will be at both provider and subject levels).
.. Up to now, each TEF exercise has been completed within a single academic year. However, given the scale of the first full subject-level TEF exercise, it will be conducted across two academic years, 2019-20 and 2020-21, to enable it to produce robust outcomes. This will ensure additional time for providers to make submissions and for panels to conduct the assessments.
We expect the application window to open in early 2020, and to publish the outcomes in spring 2021. This will also allow more time for the findings of the second pilot and the independent review to be fully considered before moving to full implementation.
So it certainly looks like there will have to be an extension. And if the new exercise really is going to take two years, it will be quite a long extension – because with the Pearce review not released, and the NSS consultations ongoing, they won't be able to start a consultation on what the new TEF looks like until 2021. The earliest surely is that we start preparing responses in summer or autumn 2021 – and with a nearly two-year period for preparation, submission wouldn't be before spring 2023? With outcomes in summer 2023 at the earliest? That's another two-year extension.
Two alternatives – just let them expire and have a gap, blaming COVID. Or, run a much quicker exercise in 2021 with a view to getting results out in late 2021 or early 2022 (with a short extension in that case). This is certainly possible. Could we get an announcement and consultation straight after the quality one, in March, say, with preparation to do from July, submission in October/November, results in January 22? Institutional only with subject level to follow during 2022 building on the institutional and then next round in 2025?
And what do we know about what it might look like when it does come out?
There is a good chance that the NSS won't be included any more – to be replaced by some narrative in the submissions about how each university has engaged with the student voice and how we are sure that we have mechanisms in place and have identified and addressed any concerns about student experience?
What about the Royal Society of Statistics: Ultimately, the RSS judges it to be wrong to present a provider/subject as Gold/Silver/Bronze without communication of the level of uncertainty. The current TEF presentation of provider/subjects as Gold, Silver, Bronze conveys a robustness that is illusory. A prospective student might choose a TEF Silver subject at one provider instead of a TEF Bronze at another institution. If they had been told that, statistically, the awards are indistinguishable, then their choice might have been different and, in that sense, TEF is misleading. The uncertainty is likely to be higher for subject-level assessment than for provider-level assessment….
We know from the recent consultation document (covered last week) that continuation/completion and employment outcomes will still be important – as they were in the last pilot (TEF 2019 subject level TEF pilot guide)
Will they get rid of the gold/silver/bronze institutional labels? They have little meaning now that hardly anyone is bronze, after the TEF's own structure led to rampant grade inflation. The OfS had indicated potentially moving away from the annual grading to a less frequent one to address that problem. But maybe the labels themselves are now devalued?
We know that it is unlikely that subject level assessment will be abandoned. But how will they label subject level awards? Jim Dickinson on Wonkhe: 5/3/19: – but how on earth would students interpret a Bronze course at a Gold institution when the latter uses almost the same metrics, only less specific to your course? You could argue that both should exist, but with completely separate metrics – but given there's no magic blueprint for what is devolved to academic departments and what's run centrally, that won't work either.
We know from the quality consultation document that the TEF will expect performance above the new outcomes baselines. The original TEF was based on benchmarks and relative performance not absolute levels. They may abandon or change benchmarks completely. If that is the approach for baselines, will you have a different approach for measures of excellence? There was a flirtation with absolute values in the pilot schemes, as you may recall, which was said at the time to be a nod towards Russell Group universities who performed well in absolute terms but not so well when benchmarked against others with similar student demographics.
They may not use all the data splits in a new TEF, or at least not at subject level. The consultation on quality and standards proposes using the demographic splits (gender, ethnicity, social background etc) only at an institutional not at a subject level, and recognises that there is an existing mechanism to manage these via the APP. So presumably the data will not be split along these lines for the TEF at subject level either. Rather than have us all look at all this again, perhaps a new TEF, with an eye on reducing bureaucracy, will just have "meeting (most or all of) your APP targets" as a threshold for application or for an award at a certain level?
Will they have listened to any of the grumbling about subject level definitions? Jim Dickinson on Wonkhe: 5/3/19: You could pursue subject level on its own, but the more you look at benchmarking, and statistical significance, and the basket of measures' relevance to all courses (let alone its relevance to all students), the more you think the hassle outweighs the effort – not least because newspapers do a better job at remixing the metrics than you do. And then it dawns on you that some academic departments in some universities will straddle your subject groupings, and you'll realise that there isn't the room in their school office, their messaging or their accountability systems for all three medals to apply to that school all at once.
RP makes interesting points on the forgotten aspects of impending HE policy which the (3 year) comprehensive spending review was expected to tackle.
…it is safe to say—as Fiona McIntyre reports on our site—that the no-show of the TEF and Augar was no surprise. They've been kicked so far into the long grass now that they can barely be seen. …
As for the TEF, it simply doesn't have the political capital with the general public for the government to hurry its publication. The review was mandated in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 but the publication of its findings was not, which has given the government infinite wiggle room that it continues to exploit.
So what is going to happen? We don't know. And we don't know when we will know. But we know it will be a lot of work when we do know!
On Tuesday UUK published new guidance on tackling racial harassment in HE, and executive summary here.
The context: The 2019 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report 'Tackling racial harassment: universities challenged' highlighted the prevalence of racial harassment within HEIs. Events of 2020, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the increased prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement, brought to the fore the extent of racial inequality in the UK and reinforced the urgency to act.
UUK build on their Changing the culture framework in the new guidance. There is a focus on strong leadership and a whole-institution approach, as well as engaging with staff and students with lived experience of racial harassment. UUK call on the sector to hold open discussions on race and racism, to educate staff and students and make clear that tackling racism and racial harassment is everybody's responsibility. The guidance asks university leaders to acknowledge where there are issues in their institutions, and that UK higher education perpetuates institutional racism. It cites racial harassment, a lack of diversity among senior leaders, the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic student attainment gap and ethnicity pay gaps among staff as evidence.
The guidance also showcases emerging practice from HEIs making good progress in tackling racial harassment.
Recommendations include:
Publicly commit priority status to tackling racial harassment
Engage directly with students and staff with lived experience of racial harassment
Review current policies and procedures and develop new institution-wide strategies for tackling racial harassment
Improve awareness and understanding of racism, racial harassment, white privilege and microaggressions among all staff and students, including through anti-racist training
Ensure expected behaviours for online behaviour are clearly communicated to students and staff, as well as sanctions for breaches
Develop and introduce reporting systems for incidents of racial harassment
Collect data on reports of incidents and share regularly with senior staff and governing bodies
OfS – value for money
OfS has reported against key performance measure 19 which looks at students' perceptions of value for money from their university education. 37.5% of undergraduates and 45.3% of postgraduates stated it did provide value for money when considering the costs and benefits.
OfS also published their Value for money annual report on how they have managed the funds they were allocated. They are still working on plans as to how they'll reduce the registration fee for HE providers by 10% over the next two years.
The Lords Communication and Digital Select Committee inquiry into Freedom of Expression Online received evidence this week. There were some interesting points raised within the topics of free speech online Vs offline, public attitudes, protected characteristics, the narrowing impact of algorithm use and the role of the state in regulating. Platform moderation and take down rules on social media sites were also discussed. Dods provide a summary of the discussion here.
The British Universities & Colleges Sport (BUCS) launched The Value of University Sport and Physical Activity: Position Statement and Evidence highlighting the role which sport plays within the student experience. It includes a focus on how sport contributes to students' physical and mental wellbeing. The report itself divides into six key strategic drivers for universities – recruitment, transitions and retention, health and wellbeing, graduate attainment, graduate employability, and the civic and global agendas – outlining how sport contributes to positive outcomes in each.
And on graduate employment: Whilst graduates also earned more than non-graduates, those who took part in sport earned a higher salary irrespective of educational level, thus showing a positive correlation between sport and earnings that cannot be explained by level of education.
The authors state the report is a 'call to action' for universities to review how they position sport and physical activity; especially at this time when students are isolated and anxious, and universities are concerned about the retention of students with the current restrictions.
There was a relevant parliamentary question on university sport this week outlining what is and isn't permissible during Covid.
The Commons Education Committee continued their inquiry into the educational outcomes of white working-class pupils. Dods have summarised the session here.
This parliamentary question on DSA paperwork/online applications clarifies the pre-population of information and that help is available by phone if the student's disability causes difficulty in completing the paperwork.
Wonkhe report: A report from Civitas argues that a belief has developed around the university system that students from ethnic minorities are likely to underperform academically, and that the available data does not back this assertion up. Report author Ruth Mieschbuehler calls for a reexamination of the practice of disaggregating student data by ethnicity
The Sutton Trust has scoped how leading universities in different countries are addressing inequalities in access for those from low income and other marginalised backgrounds in Room at the top: Access and success at leading universities around the world. The report looks at the issues based on five themes:
Actions and commitment at the strategic and institutional level
Financial support for low-income/marginalised group students
Non-financial support at the pre higher education level (outreach)
Support to enable student success
The role of national/regional policies
The recommendations (they call them key messages) are on pages 5& 6 of the document.
Unpaid student placements
Placements are big at BU. Every undergraduate honours student is offered the opportunity to undertake a work placement as part of their course and BU has an excellent reputation nationally and internationally for the quality of the placement opportunities. Covid has been a significant disrupter to students on placement. Internships were cancelled in some sectors and for some of those that were able to move to remote and online versions the richness of the face to face placement experience elements were curtailed. Pre-Covid individual parliamentarians regularly flirted with the notion that everyone on a work experience opportunity of over 4 weeks should be considered a worker, and therefore paid for the work they undertake. This would make a significant difference to students undertaking the traditional sandwich year, yet the impetus for this change has stalled. This week Sarah wrote for Wonkhe to continue to argue the case for students to be paid. The blog also suggests alternatives which employers could offer to reduce the financial pressures on students when they are offered an unpaid placement.
Children and Families Minister Vicky Ford spoke during the APPG for Assistive Technology launch event for their new research aiming to bridge the gap between education and employment for young people with SEND. The Minister praised schools, colleges and the technology sector for their response to the 'historic challenges' during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially for vulnerable students with the most complex needs, but urged companies to make sure all their products and practices are fully inclusive.
She said: Assistive technology can be life-changing and for many it is vital to communication, learning and overall independence…In recent months, the importance of Assistive Technology has been demonstrated like never before. The essential collaboration provided by groups such as this APPG is vital to ensure that we make policy which is informed by as much research and evidence as possible…Our review will give schools and colleges a helping hand by providing greater transparency in what tools and interventions can improve outcomes of SEND students and bridge the gap from education into employment. It will also support the technology sector in embedding accessibility features – such as text to voice tools – as part of their service development, and policymakers to better embed inclusion into their policies and services. This will lead to real, meaningful differences in the quality of education for children and young people…This is key, because we need to be clear: accessibility should never be an add on, it should be the norm.
Dovetailing the event the DfE released a series of rapid literature review reports on assistive technology in educational settings. The reports summarise the evidence on assistive technologies use and outcomes in education and cover when, where and for whom assistive technology works. The report are split by policymakers, administrators, educators, researchers and developers of assistive technologies and products.
Student Complaints – case studies
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE (OIA) has published case summaries of complaints arising from the impact of Covid-19 on their HE learning and experience. So far the OIA have received nearly 200 complaints from C-19 disruption..
Summary of case studies arising from Covid complaints (only available to internal readers)
Individual Case studies (all of them)
OIA Guidance on the approach to case studies and public interest cases
Wonkhe blog by Felicity Mitchell – OIA Independent Adjudicator
Wonkhe say:
While the OIA does not underestimate the challenge of sustaining teaching during the pandemic, "some providers have done more than others to mitigate disruptions to students' learning opportunities."
Where universities have rescheduled missed teaching, or made a broadly equivalent alternative available, or where students have been unable to cite a specific academic or material disadvantage, complaints have not been upheld. However, where universities have failed to engage properly with students' concerns, or relied on too broad exclusion clauses in student contracts, complaints have been justified or partly justified.
2021 GCSE & A/AS level Exams
The Joint Council on Qualifications have announced that, following consultation with schools and colleges, the final level 2 and 3 exams timetables are confirmed. The compulsory education sector are still waiting for further information on how the Government intends to facilitate Covid-safe exams, and what 'Plan B' will consist of. The announcement demonstrates the Government's determination for the exams to take place in England during summer 2021. This is expected new as Monday's Covid Winter Plan announcements mentioned their commitment to a 'full set of exams' in England.
Meanwhile, YouGov have an interesting series of polls on exams – see our polls special here.
Finally, Ofqual published a new research paper on the Sawtooth Effect. The Sawtooth Effect is the pattern in student performance that can be seen when assessments, such as GCSEs and A levels, are reformed. Performance tends to dip, then improves over time as students and teachers become more familiar with the new content and the new assessments. Research by Ofqual in 2016 highlighted this post-reform effect, and enabled mitigation to level out fairness for students. This week's release covers the impact of Covid-19 on student performance. The research suggests the same methods could be used to ensure fairness during the pandemic. Wonkhe review the Sawtooth paper (worth a read) and also manage to mention why predicted grades are useful too.
Participation in Education
The DfE have released the latest participation in education statistics. Summary also covering FE and apprenticeships here. DfE HE statistics
9% of 17-30 year olds enter HE
41% of 18 and 19 year olds
1% females, 45.1% males (by age 30)
9% entering to do full-time study
0% to do part-time study (only 1.5% 18-19 year olds study part time)
Learning intention (undergraduate):
Full degree (46.6%)
Foundation Degree (2%)
HNDs/HNCs (1.8%)
other undergraduate quals (1.4%)
8% aged 17-30 enter postgraduate study
Wonkhe report: New researchfrom QS, covering 887 prospective international students found that nearly a quarter felt that the introduction of a potential Covid-19 vaccine made them consider starting their studies earlier than planned. 43 percent said that the vaccine news had made no difference to their plans.
Also a parliamentary question – Student visas are not a route to settlement
Spending Review – the rest
Research Professional on Erasmus:
….the Treasury did reveal that its settlement with the Department for Education "provides funding to prepare for a UK-wide domestic alternative to Erasmus+, in the event the UK no longer participates in Erasmus+, to fund outward global education mobilities".
This seems good, on the face of it, since any alternative scheme will need money. However, Erasmus's main purpose is to provide student exchanges—and by definition, any effective exchange requires not only the outward movement of students from the UK (which is covered in the spending review costing) but also the inward movement of students to the UK (which it seems is not).
"Budgeting to replace Erasmus+ for outward students only is disappointing, if predictable, and is clearly inferior to full association," Daniel Zeichner, Labour MP for Cambridge and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Universities, told Playbook last night.
Dods have a nice summary of the announcements which we're re-ordered and edited
Provides funding to prepare for a UK-wide domestic alternative to Erasmus+ in the event that the UK no longer participates in Erasmus+ (page 63)
Further financial support will be provided to the British Council to reform and invest (page 70)
£64m for the Student Loan Company, including for its transformation programme (page 63) [this is mainly to help them prepare for providing student loans to FE students and adult learners]
£291m for Further Education in 2021-22, in addition to the £400m that the government provided at SR19 (page 62)
Investing £375m from the National Skills Fund in 2021-22 (page 62) including:
£138m to fund in-demand technical courses for adults, equivalent to A level, and to expand employer-led bootcamp training model
£127m to build on Plan for Jobs, fund traineeships, sector-based work academy placements and the National Careers Service
£110m to drive up higher technical provision in support of the future rollout of a Flexible Loan Entitlement
£162m to support the rollout of T Levels waves 2 and 3 (page 63)
£72m to support the commitment to build 20 Institutes of Technology (page 63)
Almost £100m to deliver the National Citizen Service (NCS) and invest in youth facilities. The government will review its programmes to support youth services including the NCS in the spring (p81)
£2bn Kickstart Scheme to create hundreds of thousands of new, fully-subsidised jobs for young people across the country. This settlement confirms funding for over 250,000 Kickstart jobs (p85)
Confirm changes to support employers offering apprenticeships by delivering further improvements to the system (page 45)
Made available £2.5bn of funding for apprenticeships and further improvements for employers (page 62)
A £2.9bn cash increase in core resource funding from 2020-21 to 2021-22, delivering a 3.2 per cent average real terms increase per year since 2019-20 (page 62)
The department's capital budget increases by £0.5bn in cash terms next year, taking core total DEL to £76.4bn (page 62)
Pre-Spending Review this is what was MillionPlus asked for (but didn't get):
Introduce a maintenance grant of up to £10k for all students in England to encourage them to train in key public services subjects
Invest in high quality placements in NHS, social work and teaching
Offer loan forgiveness for those remaining in relevant professions for at least 5 years
Establish a new Public Services in Higher Education Capital fund to support universities in England and partners to invest in high quality simulation equipment and other vital infrastructure
Create a new professional development programme to underpin the NHS volunteer reserve force in England
Increase skills and expertise by enabling individuals in England to access loan support for short courses and modules at levels 4 and 5
Place employers in England at the centre of apprenticeships policy and encourage them to partner with universities to support regional skills development and productivity growth
There's more detail on specific areas in the links below:
Dods summarise all areas of the spending review with the key announcements in bullet points.
National Infrastructure Summary, full strategy here. The full strategy is high level (yet still 100 pages long). There is very little on the specifics of research investment, just lists of priorities, no mention of universities.
Teaching Tech
Jisc published the Teaching staff digital experience insights survey 2020, They report that 79% intend to use technology in their teaching.
95% of teaching staff have a positive attitude to using technology
79% are motivated to use it in their teaching
Only 20% said their organisation had offered support to them in using new technologies
37% of teaching staff had worked online with learners during the survey period, and 43% had created online teaching materials to adapt to the situation
When asked what more their organisation could do to improve the quality of digital teaching and learning, staff cited
Training and CPD (33%)
Software, infrastructure and systems (31%)
Organisational culture (13%)
68% of respondents said they'd had support to develop their basic IT skills
Only 14% reported having time to explore new digital tools, and only 7% spoke of receiving reward and recognition for the digital skills they developed
29% stated their organisation provided guidance about the digital skills needed in their job role
Retraining by sector
Also within our polls special are the YouGov surveys on retraining for workers disrupted by Covid-19. There are views on whether the Government should be encouraging retraining and new careers – the national hasn't forgotten the ballet/cyber retraining advert yet but it hasn't had the negative effect that might be expected! Plus specific indicators show the popularity of industry's skills gap areas (look out for cyber!).
Covid Parliamentary Questions
The Government is considering mass testing students before they return to university in January.
No news on whether students will be required to self-isolate on their return in January the Government is working on it and will provide further guidance in due course.
No plans to carry out asymptomatic testing for students before exams commence.
How the travel window applies to students on placements or employed as a key worker.
Covid impact on student suicide not assessed.
Bias in HE: Wonkhe report that Advance HE has published the first in a new series of literature reviews on bias in higher education. The review tackles bias in assessment and marking, bringing together literature on the topic and current good practice among universities. The next in the series – covering bias in the curriculum and pedagogy and bias in decision making – will be published next year
Online end assessment: Wonkhe have a blog on online digital assessment as an alternative to taking exams in person.
Alumni: BU's own Fiona Cownie writes for Wonkhe on how alumni may be key in building a student community during the pandemic
Medical: Wonkhe tell us that The Medical Research Council has published a review of its units and centres portfolio. The report has identified research areas where MRC investment could have a significant impact, including the development of new tools and technologies, interventional approaches to population health, and research into health needs from anthropogenic effects such as urbanisation or climate change.
LEP: Cecilia Bufton has been confirmed as the new Chair of the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership from 1 December 2020.
Degree apprenticeships: Sums consulting have a blog on degree apprenticeships: Understanding the Apprentice Lifecycle in Universities.
Apprentices are not standard learners; there are material differences in terms of the application process, progression, breaks in learning and withdrawals, data reporting and the amount of time spent working, learning, and training. Apprenticeships are not standard programmes; there are material differences in terms of the adherence to standards, the endpoint, cash flow, audit, and risk profiles.
The success or failure of any individual apprentice will be down to a three- or four-way relationship between the apprentice, their employer, the main provider, and any sub-contracted training provider.
The blog also advertises their services in this area.
Tags: access and participation apprenticeships ARPA Augar review Brexit Digital Edtech erasmus fees and funding free speech international students Office for Students OFS placements racial harassment Review of post-18 education SEND social mobility spending review sport student complaints teaching excellence framework technical education TEF value for money widening access
HE Policy Update for the w/e 23rd October 2020
COVID-19, EU, Funding opportunities, Impact, international, Knowledge Exchange, parliament, policy, Public engagement, Research communication, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
Some fresh news and reports but overall a quieter week HE wise as the Government continues to focus on the rise in virus numbers nationally. Much of the media interest has focussed on familiar topics such as student complaints and white working class students. HEPI looked at future demand for HE study and UUK surveyed about modular study, have a new vision for the HE sector and talk international research partnerships.
The Policy Update is taking a break next week to coincide with the Parliamentary recess. See you all in November!
The Treasury has confirmed that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will cover a one year period to set Government department's resource and capital budgets for 2021-22 due to the constraints of the pandemic. The Devolved Administration block grants will also be set for the same period. The exact date the CSR will be delivered hasn't been confirmed but it is expected towards the end of November. The CSR focus is expected to cover:
Providing multi-year NHS and schools' resource settlements and priority infrastructure projects at full funding.
Providing Government departments with the certainty they need to tackle Covid-19 and deliver the Government's Plan for Jobs to support employment.
Enhancing the vital public services to continue to fight against the virus alongside delivering first class frontline services.
Investing in infrastructure as part of the levelling up agenda and to drive economic recovery and Build Back Better.
Rishi Sunak, Chancellor, said:In the current environment it's essential that we provide certainty. So we'll be doing that for departments and all of the nations of the United Kingdom by setting budgets for next year, with a total focus on tackling Covid and delivering our Plan for Jobs. Long term investment in our country's future is the right thing to do, especially in areas which are the cornerstone of our society like the NHS, schools and infrastructure. We'll make sure these areas crucial to our economic recovery have their budgets set for further years so they can plan and help us Build Back Better.
Factors that will be of interest to HE that were meant to be included within the spending review are the Government's response to the Augar review, response to the Pearce review of the TEF, and implications impacting on HE resulting from the Government's already announced intentions for FE.
It isn't clear whether the announcements over the last month on skills and technical education are it or whether there is more to come on FE. There was a debate on the role of colleges in a skills-led recovery from the Covid-19 outbreak this week. During the debate Robert Halfon (Education Committee Chair) welcomed the recently announced increases for FE funding and called for a long-term plan for FE, specifically a 10-year plan for college funding. Speaking about a previous Education Committee report he said:
We found that sometimes initiative-itis was standing in for long-term vision and the sector needed more money going into the base rate of funding, over small pots of funding.
He also said:
There is a social justice case for a pupil premium to support disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds. We have to get the basics right.
I urge the Minister to consider whether the apprenticeship levy pot could be fine-tuned so that companies can use more of their levy if they hire younger people from 16 to 19 years, people from disadvantaged backgrounds and people who are going to meet our skills needs where we have huge skills deficits.
We need to ensure that there is much closer collaboration between further education colleges and universities, because further education can play a major role in promoting degree apprenticeships—my two favourite words in the English language. Part of the £2.5 billion skills fund should be spent on covering training costs for small and medium-sized businesses taking on young apprentices.
Finally, it would be very special to see institutes of technology across our landscape. We have done this before, with national colleges and other schemes. I urge the Minister to ensure that they are properly integrated into further education, and that they are further education institutes of technology, not just some brand new shiny buildings. Why not help them to build the prestige of further education?
A vision for universities
UUK also published Recovery, Skills, Knowledge and Opportunity – a vision for universities. It sets out what universities do now and do well and how as a sector we contribute to the economy, communities, the nation's wellbeing, innovation and research. It also sets out a wish list series of reforms and recommendations for the future vision.
Below we list some of the recommendations within each section. As you read the recommendations you'll spot several touch on the Augar Review's recommendations and recent Government priorities and announcements such as FE & the Skills agenda.
Economic recovery and levelling up
Relax the eligibility criteria for financial support for higher education to enable greater access to short courses from level 4 and level 5 up to postgraduate study, specifically removing the requirements to i) study at an intensity of 25% or greater of a full-time equivalent course; and ii) follow a full course for a specified qualification.
Modernise the regulatory system to recognise the level 4 and level 5 components of an undergraduate degree, not just as non-completion of level 6
Make it easier for higher and further education providers to collaborate and deliver more flexible opportunities for upskilling and re-skilling locally
address Sector Deals and integration with local Skills Advisory Panels,
ongoing support for Institutes of Technology,
ensuring that reforms at levels 4 and 5 allow learners to progress to technical, apprenticeship and more academically focused provision
remove regulatory obstacles that hamper innovation and block partners working together
Support a national graduate paid intern scheme, getting highly-skilled graduates into companies to help those businesses to thrive.
Ensure that research funders meet more of the cost of research, and significantly grow flexible, excellence-driven and low-bureaucracy research funding for universities (known as quality-related research).
Grow the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) in England. The removal of the lower thresholds in the fund should be considered to enable small, research-active universities to drive growth and support economic recovery in their localities.
Equal chances: equality, diversity, inclusion and transforming lives
Continue funding for collaborative partnerships between higher and further education providers and schools. This should include expanding opportunities for the most high-need schools to engage
Introduce targeted maintenance grants for those students that need them the most and remove the financial barriers for those wanting to study flexibly, such as part time and mature students. Extend support for the additional costs of study via Childcare Grants and the Parents' Learning Allowance to all students.
No cut in real-terms funding per university student. This includes maintaining remaining government funding per student and the premium for supporting those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds
No imposition of student numbers caps in England. Any government-enforced number caps would create new barriers to access and a cap on aspirations.
A high-quality university experience for all students
Work with students and universities on proposed reforms to the National Student Survey (NSS) to ensure that student feedback continues to play a role in driving up quality and providing useful information to students, while keeping the administrative burden to a minimum.
Bureaucracy:
not proceeding with subject-level TEF until the limitations of the methodology, its costs to universities and the taxpayer, and the actual value of its contribution to student decision-making in the wider student information landscape, have been fully considered
using data and intelligence already available through other sources (e.g. UCAS) to minimise reporting demands
OfS should not increase the bureaucracy burden when it adds new conditions or expands the regulatory framework
The UK's globally competitive position
Prioritise full Association to the Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes
Ensure that funded contingency plans are in place should Association not be possible. Any funding to replace Horizon Europe should be additional to current research and development (R&D) spending commitments set out in the 2020 Budget, including providing guarantees for third country participation in Horizon Europe. A national replacement mobility scheme should also be fully funded.
Ensure that the UK's visa and immigration system offers a 'best-in-class' service to international talent in terms of cost, accessibility and ease of navigation
See other recommendations listed on pages 13-14
Secure the sustained growth of healthcare programmes to meet the government's ambitious targets through funded expansion of medical and health/social care placements and investment in teaching capacity, including support for digital innovation and simulation.
Commit support for clinical academic roles and career pathways that provide teaching and research capacity, and instil research-informed practice that is shown by evidence to improve patient outcomes, quality and safety.
Target support for whole-university approaches to the mental health and well-being of students and staff to build on the lifetime well-being gain for graduates, enhancing their resilience and health literacy.
Tackling climate change – see page 18
Culture and community – Support our creative economy by reviewing R&D definitions to ensure that these are not narrower than those of competitors, and do not neglect R&D in the UK's internationally strong creative industries, which have been hit hard by Covid-19 measures.
The Minister writes: Amanda Solloway has written to Greg Clark (Chair of the Science and Technology Committee) on the stages of consultation and discussion the Government has taken in the development of the new ARPA style body. She also responded to the Committee's questions on university research funding and Horizon Europe and alternatives.
Reforming the REF
Amanda Solloway spoke of reforming the REF in the Research Landscape speech for the Education Policy Institute webinar on Tuesday.
She said that the Government recognises the importance of science and innovation for the future and mentioned the commitment to increase public spending on R&D to £22 billion per year by 2024/25. On the Roadmap she said there was a duty to spend that money wisely so it can make the biggest difference possible. Key to this is evaluation… And evaluation can be a powerful incentive – and it can change behaviours. Through linking evaluation to funding, we have introduced policies intended to drive greater impact and openness from our research… But, if implemented in the wrong way, or in a way which doesn't evolve, evaluation can drive negative behaviours. She said culture was at the root of the challenges with conducting research.
Researchers tell me they feel pressure to publish in particular venues in order to gain the respect of their peers, which wrongly suggests that where you publish something is more important than what you say. That just can't be right.
People talk to me about "REF-able publications" – a total distortion of the value of research and a constraint on the diversity of research objectives. Despite the rich variety of outputs that can come from research, over 97% of outputs submitted to REF 2014 were text-based. Just think about that. And it is surprising how commonplace it is to talk about the UK's leading position in "citation impact" – an odd phrase, actually, which confuses a process with an outcome. Indeed, the processes researchers use to communicate with each other have now become so ingrained into the recognition and reward system that publication and citation seem to have become ends in themselves…. people feel pressured to show significant results from their work, to get it published, just to justify the effort and investment involved…This could be having a profound effect on the very integrity of science itself – leading to questionable research practices and evidence of a growing crisis in the reproducibility of research.
We have created this situation, in part because of the way we evaluate success.
Although intended for simple purposes, universities have turned the REF into a major industry, with rising costs and complexity. Lord Stern also commented on this, but I am not convinced that the changes introduced have gone far enough. There are now very few parts of academic life in the UK that are not affected in some way by the REF.
…a risk-averse compliance culture risks stifling creativity and diversity.
… we know that 4 in 10 surveyed researchers believe that their workplace puts more value on metrics than on research quality.
…it's really important that I say clearly up front. I have absolutely no intention of disrupting the important work of the current REF. It is vital that this work continue as planned, delivering robust outcomes which will inform significant funding decisions over the coming years. And, perhaps even more importantly, we must protect our dual support system, which is a key strategic advantage for the UK research base.
However, we must be prepared to look to the future and ask ourselves how the REF can be evolved for the better, so that universities and funders work together to help build the research culture we all aspire to. We need to work together to build an evaluation system that achieves our goals.
More quality time spent on research.
A positive culture which recognises all contributions to research.
A culture which motivates people to do diverse, creative and risk-taking work.
Institutions improving in ways that align to their diverse missions.
And clear accountability for public funding without layer upon layer of complex bureaucracy.
We should not shy away from asking the tough questions.
We need to be prepared to take bold decisions.
We need to consult widely… Culture change doesn't happen overnight – and this is equally a conversation which we must not rush. I have today written to Research England to ask them to start working with their counterparts in the devolved administrations on a plan for reforming the REF after the current exercise is complete. Recognising the importance of protecting the current REF and valuing it. But being clear that we need to continue the journey towards building that better system we need.
Research Professional cover the speech here and Wonkhe pick apart the speech in a very short (and worthwhile) blog, read the comments too!
REF2021 – Research Professional have a piece on getting REF 20201 'done'.
Horizon Europe – Politico raises concerns of 'long-term consequences' if UK does not participate in Horizon Europe following a leaked scientist letter.
Funding News – Wonkhe tell us:
The Wellcome Trust has launched a new vision and strategy for the research they fund. Wellcome's current funding schemes will close over the course of 2021, to be replaced by three new discovery research schemes. These will cover work done in the fields of mental health, global warming, and infectious disease. The exact closing date for specific schemes can be found on Wellcome's website. Applications for the new schemes will open in summer 2021.
UKRI has announced details of support and facilities available to Natural Environment Research Council grant holders. This consists of specialised equipment, analytical facilities, and expert advice for researchers.
Race Equality: Advance HE have a short video by PhD student Daniel Akinbosede on race equality and why it is important for HE to mark black history month. He covers the research funding awarding gaps and he urges HE institutions to use Black History month to reassess their policies and processes rather than 'just hosting a few cultural events'.
Prolific Publishing : Times Higher profile a gambling studies academic who publishes a paper every two days
EU / UK Research & Education: You can watch a session on the future UK-EU relationship on research and education. The Committee intends to address these questions during the session:
Should the UK seek third country affiliation with the EU's Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ programmes at the end of the transition period?
What should the priorities be for future domestic research funding if the UK does not affiliate with Horizon Europe?
How might the lack of a positive data adequacy decision at the end of the transition period affect the UK's research and education sector?
What would the impact of a 'no agreement' scenario be for UK universities and research bodies?
Are research and education organisations, including universities, research institutes and businesses, well prepared for a 'no agreement' scenario at the end of the transition period?
Answering the Committee's questions will be:
Professor Sir Richard Catlow, Foreign Secretary and Vice President, Royal Society
Catherine Guinard, Policy and Advocacy Manager, Wellcome Trust
Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, Vice President for Higher Education, National Union of Students
Vivienne Stern, Director, Universities UK International.
Parliamentary Question: how much funding the Government plans to make available in grants during the second stage of the university covid-19 research support package that was announced in June 2020. Amanda Solloway answered: …it will depend on income losses which at this point remain unclear – each university's allocation is the lower of 80% of losses in international student income or the value of non-public research funding.
Future International Research Partnerships: UUK published Future international partnerships: putting the UK at the heart of global research and innovation collaboration. They state it
…proposes a wide-ranging set of policy recommendations to enable UK universities to grow and diversify their international research and innovation collaborations. Specifically it sets out a clear plan for how the UK can expand and capitalise on researchers' international links to attract talent and business investment from overseas.
Over the next decade, universities will pull their weight to ensure that the UK is able to meet global, national, regional and local needs…Universities…will be instrumental to make the government's vision a reality through their international networks of excellent partners (Chapter 2) , their critical contribution to building innovation capacity in their local economy (Chapter 3) and their institutional partnerships with universities across the world (Chapter 4) provided that their role as global collaborators becomes a feature of the domestic system in the future (Chapter 1).
… However, this requires taking a strategic system view in which international connections are hardwired into the structure of the domestic funding system, rather than treated as an add-on or an afterthought
Recommendations for each area are peppered throughout the text and cover responsibilities for both Government and HE institutions.
Scottish Shake Up
Wonkhe succinctly report on a FE/HE review commencing in Scotland:
The first phase of what amounts to a major Scottish Funding Council review of the shape and scope of the HE and FE sectors hints at a unified funding model by level of provision, and a range of potential collaborations. The report – "Coherence and sustainability: a review of Scotland's colleges and universities: phase one" – focuses on the "emergency period" of 2020-22, but recommendations are made with an ear to existing trends and likely future societal needs.
An associated financial projection highlights the varied impact of Covid-19 on sector providers. The report suggests a number of potential measures – including a cut in student numbers, consolidation of courses across providers, and "fee-only" places for providers that can afford to take the loss. Of interest around the UK will be potential measures to include regional demographic and economic skill demand data in planning and funding higher education. This first stage report follows a period of consultation with stakeholders – further such consultation will take place before the phase two report is released in February 2021.
The Times has an opinion piece from Anton Muscatelli, Principal of the University of Glasgow, which welcomes the review and calls on the universities of Scotland to work together.
And a blog: A Scottish Funding Council review is supportive of the sector as it stands, but ambitious in rethinking tertiary education post-Covid.
Parliament's Petitions Committee considers all e-petitions which achieve over 10,000 signatures. Decisions on all are here. Of most interest are:
Cancel GCSEs and A Levels in 2021: The Committee agreed to consider scheduling this petition for debate at a later point.
Lower university tuition fees for students until online teaching ends: The Committee agreed to debate this petition along with other petitions about tuition fees on 16 November.
Extend Tier-4 visas and waive third-term tuition fee for international students: The Committee noted the Government's responses.
Modular learning
UUK have published a summary of results from a poll they commissioned with English adults aged 18-60 who were interested in future university study and either unemployed (or at risk) or wanting to up or re skill.
82% were keen to study individual modules of a degree and this would make them more likely to undertake university study. (Currently learners have to commit to 25% of full time equivalent to access financial support/loans.)
Earning whilst learning and maintaining a good work-life balance were important and the top benefits identified for modular learning.
UUK say these findings come as universities call for the introduction of loans for more flexible study, which would unlock opportunities for those with caring or work responsibilities.
Business management was the most popular subject individuals would select; engineering was second (a skills shortage area in industry), then teaching and nursing/allied healthcare
13% who were interested in university education said they were not likely to study part-time, but would consider modular study. UUK say this finding means that modular study has the potential to increase the number of people with high level skills in the UK
93% of those likely to undertake modular study, if loans were introduced, placed value on being able to gradually build up to a full qualification
Over one third of those unlikely to undertake modular study, even if loans were introduced, were concerned about repayment.
UUK say: The polling also revealed concerns over how financially accessible university study is, highlighting the need for a comprehensive government-funded national education campaign on student finance… The lack of clear information on the student finance system is holding back individuals of all ages that could benefit from higher education. Targeted maintenance support should also be explored to ensure flexible learning opportunities are truly open to everyone who would benefit.
UUK Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis, said:
With one million more job losses forecast by the end of the year, it is more important than ever to boost people's skills and maximise their job prospects in a flexible way.
The government should change the eligibility criteria for financial support for higher education to allow more people to benefit from access to shorter courses, and it should make information about the student finance system more accessible.
The recent announcement of a Lifetime Skills Guarantee is welcome, but it is not yet clear how much flexibility will be built into the system at undergraduate and postgraduate level.
Providing more people with the opportunity to upskill and retrain will be crucial to meeting the country's skills needs, rebuilding the economy and levelling up.
Growth of HE by 2035
HEPI have published Demand for Higher Education to 2035 which considers the country's changing demographics and participation rates. It finds that England will need an additional 350,000 more places, whilst Scotland will need fewer places despite increased participation in HE.
The report explains the findings:
In England –
if demography were the only factor, without any increase in participation, there would be an increase in demand of 40,000 full-time higher education places in England by 2035 due to rises in the 18-year old population;
if participation also increases in the next fifteen years at the same rate as the average of the last ten years, then this increases to a demand of 358,000 full time higher education places by 2035;
the greatest growth in demand will be seen in London and the South East, due to both demographic changes and patterns of participation. Our projections suggest that over 40% of demand for places will be in London and the South East.
In Scotland –
if demography were the only factor, without any increase in participation, there would be a decrease in demand of 18,000 full-time higher education places in Scotland by 2035 due to a decline in the 18-year old population;
if participation also increases in the next fifteen years at the same rate as the average of the last five years, then we can expect the decrease in demand to shrink to close to nil full-time higher education places by 2035;
these projections suggest Scotland will be able to accommodate a growth of participation in higher education without increasing student numbers, due to a decline in the 18-year old population.
This is ambivalent news for Scotland who are already struggling with the financial effects of Covid and the impact on their HE institutions. However, whilst expansion seems unlikely it means the cost to the Scottish Government is less. Wales isn't covered by the report and Northern Ireland is expected to be similar to Scotland but precise calculations are not possible because of data comparisons would be inaccurate.
Although the report does cover how some in Government would like the student numbers cap on HE places to return it doesn't really tackle the effect of the Government's intention for technical education demand to increase, with a likely resulting shrinkage in traditional HE degree route. Although written for another topic Sarah likes the below by Wonkhe which summarises the Government direction:
Developing government rhetoric on "low-value" or "low-quality" courses in higher education seems to be evolving to address a concern that too many students do not progress into graduate jobs when they take those courses. The hope seems to be that creating more technical routes at levels four and five and – potentially – reducing the availability of degree-level courses that might cannibalise demand for these new routes will funnel at least some of those students in a more economically productive direction, as well as create new education opportunities for those who are less likely to progress to degree-level higher education…white working class young people…
Research Professional also make interesting comments in the same vein:
Previous incarnations of the Conservative government imagined that a growing demand for higher education in England would be met by the private sector. That was the whole point of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which sought to create favourable conditions for supply-side reform in higher education. That spirit seems to have been abandoned… The Johnson-Cummings-Williamson way seems to be to funnel that demand into further and technical education… the government is… listening to its skills tsar Alison Wolf. Wolf is a devotee of the eccentric notion that the UK's productivity problem is the result of too many graduates working in non-graduate jobs, and that the cure is to boost the number of people with subdegree technical qualifications. Of course, the increased demand for higher education that Hepi identifies does not necessarily translate into a corresponding rise in graduate job opportunities, but it does reflect a competitive dynamic in the workforce whereby higher education is the perceived path to successful employment.
Wolf's emphasis on technical education will not address the country's productivity woes. It may, however, go some way to addressing the UK's reliance on immigrant labour to fill technical vacancies in the labour market. The two things should not be confused.
UK productivity issues are not caused by its higher education participation rates but by the massive imbalance in the UK economy between services and manufacturing, the uncompetitiveness of sterling against currencies in emerging economies, and being slow out of the gates on the fourth industrial revolution. None of which can be solved by sending fewer people to university.
Returning back to the HEPI report…
However, while FE intentions and the growth of technical alternatives may direct young people aware from the traditional academic degree the HEPI report highlights how we are entering a global recession and that student numbers tend to increase during a recession as people choose to avoid entering an unstable labour market or look to retrain. On page 40 of the report HEPI also ponder a growth in mature numbers (again due to need to retrain and the intended flexibility in the loan system) and page 41 looks at the impact of Level 3 attainment increases and decreases on HE admissions. HEPI conclude that the growth in demand for English HE
should not make the higher education sector complacent. All these projections could be over-estimations if government policy were to change to restrict the number of students entering higher education. Assuming there is no significant change to the student loan charges and repayment terms, the projections set out in this report will be seen as a significant additional cost to the Government. The response to this could be to limit the overall numbers of students entering higher education by setting student number caps, limiting the provision of courses that are deemed 'low value' or by introducing minimum entry standards. All of these would limit the number of people able to enter higher education. It is likely that the effects of any of these changes would be felt most by those students from disadvantaged backgrounds. If we want to see all those who www.hepi.ac.uk 45 wish to enter higher education able to do so, we will need to continue to make the case to Government of why, now more than ever, continuing to educate our population to higher levels is so critical.
Rachel Hewitt, HEPI Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:
There have been declining numbers of 18-year olds in the population in recent years, which has impacted the way universities have operated. However, 2020 is the last year of this trend and universities are set to see a significant rise in student numbers over the next fifteen years. Among focusing on their recovery from the current pandemic, universities will need to consider how they can scale up to incorporate this level of demand. Government will also need to consider how to best prepare for this increased level of demand.
There are those who would like to see a cap on the number of students entering higher education. However, these projections show clearly that if trends in participation continue as in recent years, capping student numbers in England would deprive a growing group of students who will be looking to enter higher education, which would likely be detrimental to the push for greater equality of access to higher education.
Our projections suggest the greatest growth is likely to be seen in London and the South East, partly due to their existing higher levels of participation. If government is committed to levelling up across the country, perhaps the focus should be on the disparity of participation rates across England, rather than debating national targets.
For policymakers in Scotland, these projections suggest an easier path to tread…Scottish universities should be able to take on more students without having to expand the number of places available, limiting the cost to the Scottish Government.
Research Professional have their take on the HEPI report here.
While the discussion of how to get students home for Christmas still hasn't abated this weekend the media are asking whether – once the majority are back home – how feasible it is for students to return to campus in January. Guardian article here; BBC here.
Research Professional:…what happens when they all need to head back to their university campuses again. Can Covid Britain condone not one but two mass movements of people in the space of less than a month? We are already witnessing the fallout from just one student exodus
From the BBC article:
…options are under discussion about whether next term should be fully online – or maybe for the initial weeks – or for delayed or staggered starts, rather than risking triggering a fresh wave of campus outbreaks.
Students could "amplify" the spread of coronavirus, said the SAGE advice, and movement around the Christmas holidays posed "a significant risk to both extended families and local communities".
Unlike the autumn term – when university starting dates in the UK are spread across about a month – the January return is much more concentrated. And it leaves the universities and the government with a decision about whether to press ahead with bringing students home and then straight back again, including across areas where travel is being discouraged – or finding a different way of starting the new term.
university leaders are pointing to the idea of a greatly expanded testing regime – and say privately that campus outbreaks seem to have peaked and are subsiding.
The BBC article also states decisions on the process for students who wish to return home for Christmas will be published next week (commencing 26 October). Among the issues to be clarified will be how, if in-person teaching stops in the week beginning 7 December, what would stop students disappearing home in the days before that, rather than remain confined for a fortnight's isolation. They're adults and it isn't boarding school. The DfE is expected to publish a specific date that face to face tuition should cease by.
And whether students will even want to return is covered by the Guardian:
The growing fear, meanwhile, is that disillusioned students may simply drop out – a decision with consequences for the rest of their lives. Some struggling freshers have already fled, while others have quietly started commuting from home. Academics still teaching in person talk of lecture theatres emptying out, with students either self-isolating or too frightened to show up.
Boris Johnson has vowed to get students safely home for Christmas, but some in academia are beginning to worry more about getting them back in January. What if some decide they'd rather not risk getting trapped in locked-down cities once again? Before long, the government may be forced once again to choose between pumping more cash into universities or trying to craft a solution on the cheap. Let's hope this time it doesn't fail the test.
Wales: Welsh universities will continue to deliver blended learning during the two week fire-break lockdown. It has been stated that it is safer for students to remain on campus during the firebreak and to avoid travelling home.
Covid Cases: Wonkhe have a very short analysis.
It states: This…is not an absolutely reliable indicator – but it does look like the days of extremely rapidly growing case numbers among students might be behind us…Universities have been particularly good at testing, and fairly good at managing student self-isolation…What we don't know…is the number of symptomatic cases, or the severity of those cases.
None of this is to downplay the huge number of cases in student-heavy MSOAs, or the utter foolishness of bring students back to campus this term. We need to think about next term very carefully…We are by no means leaving the second wave, though the student-based initial spike may be coming to an end.
The Times also reports a slow down in young case numbers.
Covid related parliamentary questions
Whether the Government have formed a COVID-19 response University stakeholder advisory group; and if not, why not.
Limiting the charges universities can make on students
Training for university students to help them access their online tuition
What compensation is available to university students who have their online tuition cancelled
Steps to ensure students have access to digital and online learning during Covid-19
Emma Hardy, Shadow Universities Minister, asks when the plans for safe return of students home from universities at the end of the autumn term will be published
Steps to increase C-19 testing capacity and reduce wait times for students and staff at universities
The Welsh move has reinvigorated media debate concerning whether all HE teaching should be online or face to face continue where it is essential. We've all been around this discussion wheel many times now. Research Professional bring it up again and highlight that an (unnamed) Vice Chancellor has sensibly said [That] there were three main reasons to keep in-person teaching going:
universities have worked hard to make campuses and classrooms Covid-secure;
depriving students of face-to-face teaching could exacerbate mental health problems; and
putting all teaching online could lead to the risk of students moving around the country and spreading the virus.
And Research Professional (RP) add (you're allowed to sigh here): A fourth consideration not mentioned by the vice-chancellor could be the need to deliver what was advertised and avoid complaints—and more calls for tuition fee refunds. They mention the new OfS intention to monitor universities with significant numbers of students being required to take all their courses online and the pre-pandemic strike action.
In addition, RP made freedom of information requests to research-intensive universities finding that during lockdown the number of complaints about teaching or course…grew in 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. RP continues: At King's College London, for example, complaints rocketed from 17 in 2019 to 567 in 2020. Cardiff's response to the FOI request sums it up: the past two years had been "some of the most difficult for our students and their university experience". While the spokesperson pointed out that the "vast majority" of Cardiff's 30,000 students had not complained, the university recognised that there had been a "disappointing" increase in complaints… The cumulative impact of two periods of industrial action on some, and the current global pandemic, have presented unprecedented challenges and impacted on the delivery of teaching and learning.
What is interesting to note is that quite a volume of complaints relate to the strikes rather than the vast majority on Covid related online teaching and learning, as the media would have us believe. And RP highlight that Not all universities that responded to our request reported a rise in complaints, and not all complaints will translate into requests for tuition fee refunds. Anyone who has ever written an online review knows that the act of complaining can be cathartic enough. If you have the will you can read more from RP on complaints here.
The Guardian have an article too capturing the student voice amongst the reporting.
Research Professional highlight the parental role in student complaints:
Beware, too, the wrath of the helicopter parent.
"In Facebook groups and WhatsApp circles, parents furious that their children are racking up debt in order to be banged up in Covid-riddled halls of residence are beginning to organise," Hinsliff wrote in her Guardian op-ed. "One group of parents, using the hashtag #Fees4What, has started an online petition urging parity with Scotland, where students have the right to end university tenancy agreements early owing to Covid; others are plotting legal challenges."
Playbook has followed the threat of mass student actions closely, as you will know. We have spent less time considering the possibility of parents and guardians mobilising to bring legal action against a provider. It is a scary thought.
Smita Jamdar writes for Research Professional to suggest how universities can mitigate the risk of student demands for refunds. Smita writes:
routes are available to students to secure what are, in effect, partial or full refunds—but to do so, they would have to identify specific assurances and promises made by institutions that had not been fulfilled, or alternatively show that the service they received was not of a reasonable standard.
Smita suggests that To mitigate the risk of claims universities can:
Ensure that information for students and prospective students is accurate and up to date
Changes to provision and services should be kept under review to ensure that wherever possible, the impact on students is continually monitored and appropriate remedial action is taken as promptly as possible. Particular attention should be paid to those courses and students where the risk of adverse impact is especially high: practical and laboratory-based courses and students with disabilities, for example. Communication of changes needs to be accurate, clear and regular.
Universities should comply with the provisions of any force majeure clause carefully. There may be obligations to give notice or to consult students that must be discharged or the clause may not be enforceable.
Low-level complaints and social media storms can be useful indicators of where future legal claims may lie, and institutions should ensure that quick action can be taken in response to emerging problems. It may be helpful to have an escalation process that ensures problem areas within specific schools and faculties are logged at a central point, which considers whether there are lessons for the wider institution.
introducing a bespoke, simplified complaints process, so that every effort can be made to address complaints without the need for external consideration…This should be accompanied by clear guidance for decision-makers so that there is a consistent position across complaints, and consistency of findings and outcomes, without the different facts and circumstances of each case being overlooked.
Wonkhe have a guest blog on fee refunds urging universities to explain things better.
White Working Class: Following last week's NEON publication Wonkhe have a blog on not treating white working class as a homogenous group.
…exactly who are we talking about? Are we all talking about the same group when we discuss the white working class?
Any comparison between ethnic groups has to grapple with the fact that the white working class far outnumbers any other ethnic group. And they live all over the country, from deprived fishing villages in Devon, rusting seaside resorts on the Essex coast, former pit villages in Cumbria, and on council estates in Toxteth, Kilmarnock, Aberdare, or Romford.
These structural questions, about who lives where, with what infrastructure, and what opportunities, these are the things that come to mind when I think about what my chances of getting in higher education were.
I have no doubt that most who use the term mean well, just as I know that there are many people across the UK who find that the term suits them well. But if we're going to solve the issue of so few white working class boys and girls entering higher education, then we need to be more precise and engage with the country as it exists.
Britain is still a country shaped by wealth and class. The way we start to fix that is by looking seriously at how working class people actually live, and that begins by talking to us, not just about us.
There is a great comment to the blog which highlights that the past measures of social class were withdrawn and there hasn't been a replacement:
A big issue is that there is virtually no official data on social class collected and reported on meaning that we are stuck with poor proxies such as free school meal eligibility or living in a disadvantaged area. The first narrows the debate a lot – it confuses being from a working-class background with being in poverty and so only includes a sub-set of people from working-class backgrounds. The second captures a lot of people from advantaged backgrounds and, for POLAR and similar measures, ignores ethnically diverse working-class areas including (virtually) the whole of London and large parts of other cities.
HE data by social class used to [be] reported until HEFCE decided to abolish it a few years ago despite the pleas of the Social Mobility Commission on the basis that data quality was poor (I think it's still collected though – just not available publicly). The planned replacement measures appear to have been canned, meaning we're left with two measures of disadvantage, neither of which are good proxies of coming from a working-class background: going to a state school and living in POLAR/TUNDRA Q1…
This lack of data needs to be resolved…[if] the UK Government wants to get serious about tackling the inequalities faced by those from white working-class backgrounds. Enacting Section 1 of the Equalities Act 2010 to impose a duty on public bodies to "when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage" would also help – it's been lying around on the statute book for over a decade now…
Recycling spending again and again: Wonkhe have a blog – Jim Dickinson took to Wonk Corner yesterday to count the number of times that DfE has reallocated £256m of Student Premium Funding since the start of the pandemic. It's a lot.
Education: Equality of Opportunity: An oral question within the Commons on ensuring equality of opportunity in education took place this week.
Michelle Donelan (Universities Minister): … talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not. This Government have made it our mission to rectify that, and equality of opportunity lies at the heart of the work by the Department for Education, including opportunity areas, access to higher education work and reforms to further education such as the flagship T-levels. We recognise that education has an unparalleled ability to create and unlock opportunities across the nation.
White working class, the levelling up agenda, and raising school standards were also mentioned.
Care leavers (not specifically HE related) – what proportion of funding available to young people leaving care announced in 2019 has been allocated to initiatives which provide dedicated support for girls and young women as a named group; and what steps he is taking to monitor and evaluate the effect of that funding on girls and young women leaving care and experiencing poor mental health. The answer talks about a pilot scheme for certain groups.
Supporting care leavers and estranged students during C-19.
Secondary school careers advice and effect on social mobility (again not specifically HE related). Also a question on whether there are plans to incorporate the monitoring of the quality of careers advice in schools into the OFSTED inspection process.
Gaps: Advance HE have published their annual analysis of students by equalities characteristics LINK. Wonkhe have a blog by Advance HE introducing the key points. Numbers of students with declared disabilities have more than doubled since 2003-04, and the participation gap between the genders continues to increase. The blog also highlights that at the current rate of progress the awarding gap between white and BAME students would not close until 2070-71, and that between white and black students until 2085-86.
SEN: A parliamentary question on when the Government expect to publish the outcome of their review of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The answer should pop up on this link from 3 November onwards.
Non-continuation
There has been speculation whether the difficult study circumstances in 2020/21 will lead to an increase in the student drop out rate. Students who leave university within (roughly) four weeks of first commencing are not liable for their tuition fee loan. This week Wonkhe have been talking about the official measures – the Higher Education Statistics Agency's UK Performance Indicator on non-continuation – which captures data on students who leave more than 50 days after the start of their course (but not before). This leaves a hole round about days 28-50 where student drop out is not monitored nationally. Wonkhe state:
So even in three years' time, when this data is released, we will never know exactly what happened at the start of the autumn 2020 term. Another unknown and unknowable number is of the students who enrolled and never turned up, or that left within two weeks…In 2020, an empty room in a hall or an unanswered Zoom call might be the only indication that something has gone wrong.
Wonkhe have a blog cobbling together a data source to show attrition. On non-continuation they highlight that it is often a drawn out withdrawal:
When a student "leaves" higher education they tend not to make a sudden decision and then immediately notify everyone that needs to know. The process is best understood as a gradual disengagement. A student may stop attending lectures first of all, or find themselves unable to continue to support themselves financially, or find themselves with other responsibilities and other constraints that stop them being able to participate.
International & Mobility
The DfE updated guidance on UK students intending to study in the EU after the transition period. The information relates to those who are planning to study in the EU, and those who are continuing their studies in the EU. The links also contain information on travel insurance, making changes to Erasmus+ placements and support when students are abroad.
SUMS Consulting published a short briefing paper: Crystal Ball Gazing: What is the Future for Handling Exceptional Circumstances? Highlighting the changes that were made to exceptional circumstance policies to account for the pandemic disruption but also addressing the exponential increase in the volume of requests for exceptional circumstances in recent years. There is more content here. The paper concludes:
The combination of Covid-19 and the learnings from the last few months have led many universities to significantly change their approach to exceptional circumstances. Over the next few months, it is inevitable that further adaptions may be required to accommodate events such as local lockdowns or students being sent home. There is a move to divert resources from approaches that add little value, to those that benefit the student. Universities are adapting their evidence requirements, introducing self-certification and focusing on consistency across academic disciplines. The OIA is due to publish the final version its Good Practice Framework later this year, and there is no doubt that this too will incorporate many of the lessons from universities in operating the process during Covid-19. The pandemic has accelerated the rate of change in so many aspects of university life – the exceptional circumstances process is proving to be no different.
In thinking about their exceptional circumstances process this year, universities may wish to consider:
How coherent is your overall policy framework? When were related policies last updated?
How recently have you reviewed the evidence required to support exceptional circumstances?
How recently have you reviewed the list of examples of circumstances that are likely to be accepted and those that are likely to be excluded?
How do you ensure that there is consistency and equity in determining exceptional circumstances across different disciplines and academic units?
Have you decided whether to introduce self-certification with safeguards, if you have not already taken this step?
Analysing your data over an academic year in the way that UWE has done, to discover the impact of your present process.
Whether or not your existing processes are inclusive?
Young unemployment
The Alliance for Full Employment (AFFE) have published Youth Report: A Million Reasons to Act on the impact of the pandemic on young people's employment prospects. Under-25s suffered 60% of the post-March redundancies, and male youth unemployment is at 16%, more than three times the UK adult rate. They call on the Government to convene a jobs summit of UK nations and regions to address to impending issue.
The report also states that Kickstart, the Government's main youth unemployment programme, will not provide anywhere near enough places for those in need of support. The report estimates that over 1m young people will be unemployed by November, and are likely to "fall through the net."
They identify four new groups who will require the Government's attention and help as we head into winter:
Many of this summer's 500,000 school college and university leavers
Young people who lose their jobs on or before October 31as a result of Covid, as furlough ends
Young people in partial lockdown areas where businesses are closed down and where young employees not eligible for furlough are being laid off
Young people made unemployed because of the general turnover of staff, which is highest among the young, and including those on temporary contracts, who will now struggle to get new opportunities.
The report, which features a foreword by former PM Gordon Brown, recommends the following priorities for the Government:
Provision of quality work experience – not a return to the Youth Opportunity Programmes (YOPs) or Youth Training Schemes of the 1980s
Training geared to new jobs, like in care sector It and logistics, jobs linked to the recovery from lab technicians and contact tracers, to care worker and teaching assistant not training for continued unemployment.
Help with job searches – a vital element of getting into work, as demonstrated by the 2009 Future Jobs Fund.
A wage subsidy in the order of a £100 a week for six months for employers to take a young person on full-time.
Prof. Gregg (author) concludes: The recession in the UK has only just started, in terms of the impact on jobs, consumer confidence and firm planning. Yet because firm profitability was already low and the trading block under Lockdown, the wave of job losses will be incredibly condensed and intense between now and next April. This means that the need for getting intervention on the ground is urgent and hard to get to scale in time.
The Guardian cover the above report and report on a call from former PM Gordon Brown for employers to be given a wage subsidy of £100 a week to hire workers under 25 as part of a plan to prevent youth unemployment exceeding levels seen in the 1980s.
Graduate unemployment was also mentioned in this week's Department for Work and Pensions topical questions:
Q- Tim Loughton (Con): With forecasts showing that there may be as many as 1 million young people without a job, I urge the Minister to think outside the box. I have long argued that we should use graduates and gap-year students to help some of those pupils who have missed out on schooling to catch up. Can we devise, with the Department for Education, a scheme to pay them a variation of JSA to provide such a service, or at least offer greater flexibility for claimants who volunteer to help in such a way or to take the pressure off other public services?
A – Dr Coffey: One element of the kickstart scheme, a £2 billion investment in the future of our young people, is designed to help people to get on the first rung of the ladder with a proper job. It is a way for those people who have recently left school or university and are at risk of long-term unemployment to get experience and financing, which does not just have to be through private organisations and could be through local government or charitable or other sectors. It is a specific way to ensure that those people get not only a job but the extra training and wraparound support that they need to help them further on in their lives.
As we're on a break next week some of the parliamentary questions cover the two week period, you may have to check back on them in early November to see the response.
HE sector
What steps the Government is taking to increase the accessibility of counselling and support services for HE students.
Introducing an immigration checking service for Student Finance to check student eligibility similar to that of the employer checking service. (Answer: the SLC already ask the Home Office for this information when necessary.)
What steps the Government is taking to ensure that jobs involving recruiting, retaining and supporting students in their studies are protected in higher education (answer: nothing additional to the national schemes)
The Erasmus replacement questions have started up again here is one example
Gender diversity: what assessment the Government has made of the potential effect on gender diversity of university (a) students and (b) teaching now Silver Award of the Athena SWAN charter for Women in Science is not required. And: what steps the Government is taking to assess the effectiveness of UK research bodies and university departments in working to and achieving gender diversity.
HNC & HND student loan uptake (2017-2019)
Shadow Education Secretary – Kate Green has been in post as the Shadow Education Secretary for 3 months already. There is a good background and profile on her in Schools Week which suggests she is committed to slower policy making with sufficient time for research and evidence based formulation.
Historic Statues: Colleagues following the debate surrounding the removal of historic statues may be interested in this Lords discussion on the topic. It is not specifically HE or education focussed, although the matters covered do have some application.
Groceries: While it isn't policy news, if you were interested in the reasons behind the price increases for your food shopping during lockdown the Institute for Fiscal Studies have a paper on it. In short: less promotions were available and there was a reduction in product variety. They're unsure if the autumn restrictions will see the return of grocery inflation.
HE numbers: The House of Commons Library has published a research briefing on HE numbers. It finds that: Headline student numbers have increased to new records following a short dip after to the 2012 reforms. There are however ongoing concerns about numbers outside this group where trends have not been so positive, including part-time undergraduates, some postgraduates students, overseas students from some countries, especially Nigeria and Malaysia, mature students and some disadvantaged groups. There is also considerable concern about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and student numbers, particularly those from overseas and uncertainty about the impact of Brexit on EU student numbers.
Physics: The Institute of Physics is railing against the limiting words of others which are influencing young people from continuing to study physics post-16. Report here.
many young people who want to pursue physics to improve their future are being denied the opportunity by those whose opinions they trust.
many young people are put off studying physics from age 16 by misconceptions about what physics is
They are told "physics is too difficult", "it's not creative" or "it's boring"… They are told that physics is not for the likes of them based on their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their disability and their social background.
People of Black Caribbean descent: In England, young people of Black Caribbean descent represent the ethnic group least likely to pursue physics post-16, with only 0.5% choosing to study physics A-Level despite making up 1.4% of all young people in England aged 16 – 19.
People from poorer backgrounds: Young people from poorer backgrounds are much less likely to study physics than peers from wealthier backgrounds. In England, only 2.7% of students from the most deprived backgrounds choose physics post-16 compared to 8.1% of the least deprived.
Girls: Latest figures show that girls are far less likely than boys to choose to study physics post-16. In 2020, physics was the second most popular A-level subject for boys in England and Wales and the fifth most popular in Northern Ireland. In 2019, only 3.59% (1,869) of girls in the Republic of Ireland chose Leaving Certificate physics, compared to 9.91% (5,884) of boys.
People with disabilities: According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, in 2017/18, 13% of physics undergraduates in the UK had a known disability, much lower than the percentage for all working age adults (19%).
The House of Commons enters recess next week and the policy update will take a break. We'll be back on 6 November.
Tags: access and participation admissions Augar review climate change Continuation COVID-19 Devolved government employability equality and diversity exceptional circumstances FE fees and funding health and wellbeing horizon 2020 international students lifelong learning modular learning ref social mobility student experience student numbers teaching excellence framework technical education TEF widening participation
BU research, COVID-19, EU, innovation, international, parliament, PG research, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
Has anyone else been shouting at the radio last week and over the weekend, or muttering aloud while reading social media posts? Or is that just me? There has been nowhere to hide from negative and badly informed stories about students, universities and the virus this week. Then you add in the news that lorries will need permits to enter Kent in January and things start to feel a bit bleak. So to cheer you all up for the weekend we have the usual wide and varied selection of policy news. If it carries on like this we might need to start including recipes or knitting patterns to lighten the mood (we're not knitters, BTW).
Another delay to the big #HEpolicy announcements?
With the Autumn budget scrapped we start to wonder what will happen to the Comprehensive Spending Review and the associated announcements on the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, and the Augar report that informed it. And the other things we are waiting for, which may or may not be linked, i.e. the response to the Pearce report on the TEF and a subsequent OfS plan for the TEF going forwards. The link being that the outcome on fees may be a link to "quality" which may link to the ambition for the TEF as an indicator. The BBC article we linked to above says that the CSR will still proceed but last year's review was downgraded to a one year update. This year's was meant to be a 4 year review but may go the same way. In which case, we may be heading for another delay on big changes to fees and funding.
That would be consistent with other things – we reported last week that Nicola Dandridge had said that the OfS admissions review would stay on pause until we had got through this year's recruitment cycle, with continued uncertainty about the timing of A levels and other assessments next year and the potential for other disruption.
The OfS have also not rushed to radical change on the NSS, despite the government's request for a "root and branch review" by the end of the year. They announced this week that the review will take place in two stages. The first stage will
Assess the bureaucratic burden the NSS places on providers and how this could be reduced.
Explore the unintended consequences of the NSS for provider behaviour and how these could be prevented, including whether the NSS drives the lowering of academic standards and grade inflation.
Examine the appropriate level at which the NSS could continue to provide reliable data on the student perspective on their subject, provider and the wider system, and what could be done without depending on a universal annual sample.
Examine the extent to which data from the NSS should be made public, including the implications of Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation.
Ensure the OfS has the data it needs to regulate quality effectively.
Ensure the NSS will stand the test of time, and can be adapted and refined periodically to prevent gaming.
Ensure the UK wide role of the survey is considered in any recommendations.
The second stage of the review will look more widely at the role of the NSS, including which questions should be asked to support regulation and student information across all four countries of the UK. OfS intend to consult students, providers and employers in their review.
The contract for the 2021 NSS has already been awarded, and the OfS intend to continue with the survey next Spring, however, providers will not be required to promote it. Also: given the significance of the review, the board agreed on a number of measures to amend the 2021 NSS. First, any decision on what to publish from the NSS and at what level should await the outcome of the review to ensure that the 2021 published results were aligned with the new direction of travel resulting from the review.
There is a Wonkhe blog questioning the assumptions and Government concerns over the NSS, and another by David Kernohan which asks really good questions.
Research Professional had a lot to say this week:
How likely it is that the Government's R&D budget promises can be realised
Several universities are unofficially jostling to host ARPA
UKRI have asked for more funds to deliver the place based levelling up agenda
An article speculating whether UKRI may fall to the Government's cull during their consideration of the making the research system more efficient
They also covered the Industrial Strategy Council's report highlighting strikingly uneven distributions across the UK of research and innovation funding. Meanwhile over on Wonkhe a new blog asks whether focussing state R&D spend at regions which are not currently research-intensive is a levelling-up solution and provides examples from the UK and overseas. And the Royal Society explore the contribution of public and non-profit research organisations to the research and innovation landscape.
New UKRI Chief Executive Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser spoke this week: Science and Society, 20 years on: legacy and lessons for a post-Covid world at an online event marking the 20 year anniversary of this report. The report was credited with triggering a policy and institutional shift towards public engagement, dialogue and deliberation. Dame Ottoline spoke of the lasting significance of the Science and Society report and emphasised the continued importance of public engagement in research and innovation:
We have made good progress. But despite efforts to engage the public in research there remains a significant gap between those who feel able to make informed choices, to question, challenge and influence research and innovation, and those who feel disconnected, underrepresented and disenfranchised…For this group, science is something that is done to you, not something in which you have a voice.
In the next 20 years, we need to make the next step in the evolution of the place of science in society…science IN society. Science needs to be a normal part of cultural life…An expanded research and innovation concept that includes all the participants, not just the researchers and innovators, can build science capital, connecting a much wider range of people with the system, making it familiar and part of their world.
This approach would build the research and innovation system out into society, at the same time as continued development of public engagement to include much more embedded co-creation would bring a wider range of voices in to the system.
Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, also spoke at the event. The UKRI press release for the event is here.
Commons Science & Technology Committee : Wonkhe report on this week's session of the Science and Technology Committee:
Giving evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, William Bonvillian of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Peter Highnam of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) set out the working model of DARPA, including potential avenues for the commercialisation of research and innovation, and spoke to the challenges of replicating DARPA's success outside of the defence context. Regina Dugan of Wellcome Leap suggested that the life sciences could be a potential focus of a fledgling agency, while Antoine Petit of French National Centre for Scientific Research spoke on the relationship between researchers and government in the French system. You can watch the entire session here; or ask us for a more comprehensive summary (Ref: D24/09-10:05)
PhDs: Oxford University was recognised by the media this year as making inroads into improving the diversity of the undergraduate students it admitted. The Telegraph report on a pilot approach they are testing to address diversity within PhD admissions. Oxford intend to take into account a student's socio-economic background as well as their academic credentials.
The proportion of transport-technology research innovation grants awarded to (a) female entrepreneurs (b) companies led by women (7.4% awarded to teams led by women); and the proportion awarded to disabled entrepreneurs (not known – no disability data collected).
Any obligation & timescale that organisations in receipt of R&D tax breaks are required to publish their research within; and preventing duplication
In 2020/21 enrolments were expected to drop as Britain hit the lowest point of the population demographic dip for young people. However, nationally admissions numbers have been good (for home, international and disadvantaged access) suggesting that the limitations of Covid have not hampered recruitment as much as feared (although enrolment may be a different story). The UCAS clearing analysis statistical releases are available here.
Wonkhe highlight a record 515,650 students with a confirmed place, up 4% from last year, and an 8% increase in the numbers of disadvantaged students. There has been a 12% increase in numbers of students accepted into higher tariff institutions, attributed partly to an increase in overseas applicants, and partly to the effect of the late adjustment of centre assessed grades. The Guardian, i News, and Tes have the story. The UCAS press release gives more information here.
UCAS Chief Executive Clare Marchant said:
This has been one of the most momentous of undergraduate admissions cycles in living memory. The dust certainly hasn't settled – our end of cycle reporting in the winter will provide the definitive account of the year.
Predictions that the lower and medium tariff providers could have their numbers decimated haven't come to pass… While there has been little (medium tariff) or no growth (lower tariff) in overall acceptances for the two other groups, they have not fallen off a cliff edge for these groups as a whole; though recruitment in the weeks following A level results day didn't benefit them to the extent in previous years as students used their raised grades to move (back) to higher tariff
Courses that will educate the next generation of frontline workers have been incredibly popular. The inspiring and welcoming healthcare sector is currently due to have a record 34,190 new nursing students, a huge increase of more than a fifth on last year. Demand for teaching courses has also risen during the pandemic. These courses are particularly popular with mature applicants, and previous UCAS research has shown the link between these subjects and periods when the economy and job market is in decline.
… the demand for UK HE is still palpable, testament to all those who work in the sector.
Read more from Clare here.
Parliament has not broken for party conference recess this year. Labour opted to run four days of virtual contact for party members including the popular fringe events which normally discuss a wide range of matters significant within the policy sphere.
HE Fees: Earlier in the week Research Professional reported there wouldn't be an announcement on Labour's fee policy: Playbook understands that following discussions on that topic last week (covered in last Monday's edition), progress was made—but not enough for Labour to nail its colours to the mast on university matters. The smart money is on an official policy line in mid-to-late October.
Too many graduates?
Tuesday saw an event led by Policy Exchange (who describe themselves as a centre-right think tank): Too Many Graduates, Too Few Workers: How should higher education adapt to a shrinking knowledge economy? Dods 'attended' the event and have summarised the discussion here; it is worth a read with the party divisions clear behind the thoughts expressed.
Wonkhe also suggest indicators of Labour's emerging HE attitude were present at the event:
there were hints of a developing Labour policy that seemed keen to improve technical routes within and around universities, and on providers being even more closely linked to ideas of place and space. And: Shadow Minister for Further and Higher Education Emma Hardy enumerated her benefits of higher education – soft power, individual aspirations, and public good.
There's a good (and slightly humorous) Wonkhe blog on the event and it expands more on the Labour education hints:
The ideas in the earlier policy of higher level education without leaving your locality, and the support for higher technical education, appears to suggest a developing policy position that takes the best of the NES thinking and marries it with some of the more sensible parts of Augar.
We are pleased to introduce Roshana Wickremasinghe, Policy Adviser for SUBU! Roshana has been with SUBU since February. Previously she taught secondary level English in Poole as part of the Teach First Leadership Development Programme. She has an MA in Transformational Leadership in Education, and hopes to undertake a PhD examining the impact of government policy on public perception of HE.
Do look out for Roshana's contributions to this week's policy update and more from her on the student perspective in future editions.
Student Matters – SUBU guest blog
Roshana covers the new student fees parliamentary petition and an Advance HE report on student transition.
Petition: In addition to the popular petition that gained 352,658 signatures over the summer, another petition asking for a partial tuition fee refund has appeared with 191,000+ signatures. Rather than a total refund, the petition is calling for a partial refund due to the implementation of online teaching. The government's response to the previous petition was that universities should review complaints issued by students receiving poor quality learning, with vague wording not directly addressing the issue. With many universities in America already reversing any plans for in person teaching despite historic promises, it will be interesting to see how this will impact consumer rights in the UK system if our universities make similar U-turns.
Transition: AdvanceHE have published a report on the 20/21 transition process back to university for new and returning students. The document explores how universities can support students by managing expectation, awareness of student concerns, addressing digital poverty, supporting wellbeing and supporting academic study. The report comes in response to the increased concerns of students during this typically stressful time of year (money, socialising, campus safety measures and timely advice). Whilst the report does not reach any 'stand out' conclusions, it does stress the need for clear and personalised communications to students during the full transition process.
The Adam Smith institute published: State of the Unions: How to restore free association and expression, combat extremism and make student unions effective critiquing the student union model of today.
Roshana summarises the briefing paper: The highly critical report proposes that student unions currently cost taxpayers £165 million per annum, with an average spend of £75 per student per year. The report goes on to state that unions undermine freedom of association and expression through compulsory membership, lack democratic legitimacy, limit free speech and pursue a narrow political agenda (the list is much longer than this). Despite the almost humorous tone of the report, criticising SUs for banning sombreros and clapping, it has been well received in government by figures such as Sajid Javid and a foreword written by the Chair of the House of Commons Education Committee.
On the day of issue both Wonkhe and Research Professional dismissed the report.
RP: The report…is nothing if not provocative…It is available online if you wish to read more. However, if you want a nuanced take on what is undeniably a legitimate area of interest then you needn't bother. Much of the report will already be familiar to Playbook readers. It turns out that when trying to give cast-iron examples of where students' unions, which host many thousands of events every year, have a problem with "cancel culture", it's the same old tired examples that get dragged up. Nonetheless, the paper certainly provokes debate, if you like that sort of thing.
Wonkhe: When the Department for Education published its proposed restructuring regime for higher education providers back in July, many were surprised to find that expenditure on students' unions – and in particular their sabbatical officers and "niche activism" – had been identified for scrutiny. There didn't seem to be any anchoring evidence for the assertion that funding for such things was "disproportionate" and "not focused on serving the needs of the wider student population", but now, courtesy of the Adam Smith Institute, some background has emerged…[It] contains a long list of culture war stories about students, and some inaccurate and misleading figures on expenditure and voter turnout, but very little on student welfare, student voice, or the good work that students' unions have been doing to support students during the pandemic. It proposes that students' unions be split up, with the National Union of Students required to collect individual subscriptions from students. Of course Wonkhe have a blog on it too: Do students' unions waste money?; and one for data buffs.
The report is easy to dismiss. However, the Chair of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon, a particularly influential parliamentary figure, stated the suggestion of a split model was "intriguing". He continued:
By making the political part of student unions voluntary, ordinary students would no longer be required to finance political activities of which they did not approve… money could be focussed on those functions that students do appreciate, such as decent social and recreational facilities, better student sports, and more effective academic representation.
Research Professional report that Halfon stated:
student unions had to choose whether to represent members or become "bastions of obsessive political campaigning. Across our universities and colleges, far too often, freedom of expression and intellectual curiosity on campus are being deeply eroded because of minority political activism."
The same RP article mentions NUS' immediate refutation of the briefing paper (poorly researched, outright misinformation, OfS concluded no evidence of free speech being systematically suppressed), alongside the Adam Smith Institute's response which maintained the integrity of their report and findings.
HEPI have a story New polling shows students' support for the Labour Party has grown under Keir Starmer and students have become more politicised since the start of 2020
Students & Covid
The flurry of commentary and blogging surrounding Covid and the influx of students to their university area continued this week. Here is a selection mostly from Wonkhe:
Not enough whack for the moles: The press seems to frame students in lockdown as some kind of mild inconvenience, but…if students are in lockdown without enough money to cover essentials, away from support networks and unable to work or return home, what happens next?… universities are going to want to do all they can in the coming days to avoid misery for those that follow the rules, and misery for those that don't. (Wonkhe)
What data is useful for responding to C-19 risks? There is very little useful "real time" data on student activity or the presence or absence of a Covid-19 outbreak… But we can track cases which may have an impact on students, staff, and local communities, at a high resolution but with a time lag – using public data. (Wonkhe)
Keeping student data safe through Covid (Wonkhe)- University staff and students must be aware of what happens to their data; this means processes must be completely clear and transparent. Institutions should also bear in mind that the only acceptable circumstance for health or track and trace data to be shared in the case of Covid-19 is if a public health body, for example Public Health England (PHE), requests it. It is therefore essential that processes are in place to avoid mixing or aggregating it with other data that might be shared elsewhere by mistake.
We know that online fraud and scamming ramped up during lockdown. In recent weeks this has given way to greater numbers of cyber attacks. This Wonkhe blog anticipates the university sector is particularly vulnerable and makes recommendations of how to prepare.
Wonkhe examine the SAGE minutes here, and state: what we have is more evidence that lazy or in some cases dangerous assumptions about student behaviour have clouded the advice given to DfE which has then re-emerged as advice to universities.
iNews features a student's reflections on his return to university: We no longer have that lively ebullient feeling we once had. The sense of collectiveness is simply absent…. Not being able to go out and live the student life is peculiar, but I know it is best for our safety. My peers and I are fearful of contracting the disease, but we also fear our education will be significantly impacted too. The messaging from the Government is also incredibly confusing. Reopening institutions will inevitably result in people interacting through lecture theatres, seminar rooms and public transport. I'm worried this could cause an astonishing escalation of Covid-19 cases across the country and lead to more blame being put on the shoulders of young people.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, was quick to shift the accountability to young people. This blame game is profoundly unfair.
Similar themes on lacking the sense of belonging, which we know is so important to students, is raised in this Wonkhe blog, and it also reminds about commuter students.
On Wednesday the PM confirmed that schools, colleges and universities should remain open despite: the recent rise in coronavirus cases. There was mention of students in the C-19 debate on Tuesday:
Boris Johnson – The most important thing is that the students who are now back at university in large numbers should, like everybody else, follow the guidelines. It is also important that, where there are outbreaks in universities, students should not be going home to infect their older relatives.
The above touches on one of this week's major themes that rose in the publics' consciousness: fear that students may infect relatives when they return home at vacation times (with Christmas being particularly celebrated) alongside fear students won't be allowed home for Christmas. iNews cover it here: Ministers have yet to draw up plans to prevent students from spreading coronavirus, but will be desperate to avoid telling students to celebrate Christmas away from their families. And Wonkhe reiterate that SAGE did not say students cannot return home at Christmas and debate whether the concept of 'household' will allow students to pop home at the weekends.
Finally Wonkhe tell us that Advance HE has released"Safe for Staff", a report into the equality implications of reopening university campuses.
What research is being done on younger students spreading covid-19 into the wider community. (Focuses on schools/colleges.)
Still no answer to what additional support will be provided to universities in areas where there is no campus or local walk in covid-19 testing centres.
What discussions the Government has had with universities about the steps taken to prevent new outbreaks of C-19 when students return home.
Steps to ensure foreign students are quarantined upon entry to the UK & oversight of the process
HESA have published: Higher Education outcomes: How career satisfaction among graduates varies by ethnicity. Wonkhe cover the report and – yes, you guessed it – they do have a blog dissecting it further:
A new report from HESA finds that UK domiciled Black mature graduates were less likely to report career satisfaction than their peers.
An analysis of Longitudinal Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (LDLHE) data dating back to 2013 found a nine per cent difference in career satisfaction between Black graduates aged above 26 and their White peers. For younger graduates the gap was around 2.6 per cent, in both cases after controlling for personal and study characteristics.
These findings also highlight the lack of a current career satisfaction measure for graduates – there's no measure in the new Graduate Outcomes survey, though it is suggested that HESA are looking at addressing this.
Graduate Career Recruitment
The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS) has published: Evaluating the effectiveness of employer engagement (shorter summary report here). It explores the range of careers or employability-related interactions taking place at universities between students and employers through surveys with AGCAS members and 8 interviews with graduate recruiters. Key findings:
The careers fair is not dead. In face-to-face interactions, careers fairs are still seen as one of the most effective employer engagement activities for both universities and employers.
Employer-led skills sessions/presentations were the most commonly offered activity, and rated one of the most effective activities according to employers.
Work-based learning such as placements, and embedded curricula activity are considered most effective by universities, despite the majority of employer engagement activities being extra-curricular.
From a university perspective, generic advertising services are considered to be the least effective employer engagement activity
Before March 2020, a minority (only 21%) of careers-related employer engagement was delivered virtually and only 30% was embedded. Virtual was also not considered to be as effective as face-to-face delivery.
To measure effectiveness, universities tend to focus on experiential feedback, while employers look for quantitative numbers of hires or applicants and return on investment.
Employers want to know that the information they are sharing will reach students, so they are often keen to speak to student-facing staff as well as employer engagement professionals/their account manager.
The majority of careers services have specialist employer engagement teams with some form of employer engagement strategy, and most use an account management model to personalise the service they offer employers.
The final page considered graduate recruitment activities in the post pandemic world:
The pandemic has had a severe and signification impact on students, graduates and the wider population and it is unlikely that things will ever fully return to normal. Whilst appreciating the damage caused by the crisis, it is also important to acknowledge where it has influenced positive changes. For employer engagement, we may see the use and effectiveness of online activities increase dramatically. The flexibility resulting from increased remote working may see employers targeting a wider range of universities more sustainably. Students who struggled to afford the costs of travel to interviews and assessment centres may find their access to opportunities improved.
AGCAS plan more 'short pulse surveys' to understand how C-19 has changed employer engagement moving forward into the future from now onwards.
HEPI have a relevant blog: Isolation Generation – looking ahead to the sector's unique recruitment challenge which highlights that this year's Year 13s have an almighty catch up to achieve on top of contemplating their next steps. The article paints this year group as an even bigger challenge than the lockdown-exam-cancellation generation because of the lack of face to face contact that can be delivered. Excerpt:
Almost 90% of next year's applicants are already in the advanced research stages of their application but only 27% have already chosen their final five higher education courses.
We might have expected that number to be higher, but with 59% reporting that they do not have enough information to make their decisions, it is clear there is an immediate need for more targeted information and advice. As pre-applicants undertake their research, they are casting their net beyond friends and family to find new opinions. There is obvious growth in virtual Open Days and virtual school events, but university websites are now seen as more important by 57% of all students. UCAS, too, by more than 40%.
At the other end are parents and the recommendations from friends, which are comparatively less influential. Only 1% of pre-applicants told us their parents were now more influential when making their choices and just 9% said the same about friends. Applicants are now placing their trust directly with first parties. For the higher education sector, it means more scrutiny of their messaging, but also more demand.
Next year's applicants are very aware of what is coming for the economy.
More than half of all Year 12s said since the lockdown they now assign more importance to 'high graduate employment rates'. A fifth, think the same for placement years. This year's applicants are looking for recession-proof degrees more than ever, and the onus is on universities and colleges to convince them of their own efficacy.
Today's students are Gen Z and the sector should base their assumptions on the fact that they are the most agile and digitally-focussed customers they have come across. They want the answer to everything in their pocket – and they expect it now.
Does the Government intend to mandate universities to publish their C-19 risk assessments.
Providing support to university students unable to provide a guarantor to secure their accommodation; the number of students unable to provide a guarantor
What additional funds will be made available for universities for deep cleaning after cases of C-19
Whether NUS representatives will be invited to join the taskforce on university capacity
Any plans for a new immigration route to allow international students to undertake a work or study based placement of between 6 & 12 months.
Social Sciences: HEPI blog: For employers, the Social Sciences stand up to the STEM obsession
OfS Board: David Palfreyman and Simon Levine will continue as non-executive board members on the OfS board for a three year period.
Student skills survey: Wonkhe are running a survey about student skills following their Secret Life of Students conference last week. They are working to understand current thinking on the skills students should be acquiring during their time at university. There's no national consensus on what these skills should be, or even what they're called – we've heard soft skills, life skills, employability skills, transferable skills – but employers want students to be able to demonstrate them. We know that whatever you call them, it doesn't make sense to think about "skills" as distinct from subject knowledge, so we're asking academics and those in academic-adjacent roles such as education developers, careers advisors, education technologists, and librarians to share your views about the state of student skills in 2020 via this short survey. As an incentive, once you complete the survey, you will be offered the chance to enter your name into a draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers and a £100 donation to the charity of your choice.
Different times: The Guardian states universities are expecting unprecedented demand for student hardship funds as the part time job market collapsed under Covid. It also covered concerns that online learning will lead to higher drop out rates as students struggle to adjust to digital study and curtailed socialisation. Monitoring engagement online is also a concern. The article ends with a comment from Jacqueline Stevenson at Leeds: for some students, taking a break from their course will be the best thing, rather than a catastrophe. "Dropping out can be a pejorative term and is caught up with the idea of failure. But if someone makes a sensible decision to leave, and may come back later to finish their course, that should be celebrated. A student can carry that feeling of failure with them for a very long time."
Study UK: The British Council's 'Study UK' event (including 65 UK universities) will promote the benefits of studying in the UK to UG & PG prospective students across Europe during October and November. 13,000 students from Europe are expected to join the education events. This event aims to give students direct contact with UK universities, which the students cited as the most influential source for making their study abroad decisions. Maddalaine Ansell, Director of Education at the British Council said: '
Our research shows that European students view the UK as the most attractive overseas study destination for teaching quality and employability. However, misconceptions about the application process, fees and requirements – particularly after the UK's withdrawal from the EU – may be discouraging some from applying. Study UK Europe: Gateway to the UK aims to address this through a unique mix of information sessions and one-to-one conversations with higher education institutions. We will enable UK universities to reach European students directly – and to provide them with the information they need to start what we hope will be a life changing UK study journey.'
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU's intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account – BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.
Tags: admissions ARPA Augar review employability Graduate Outcomes Review of post-18 education student numbers students' unions teaching excellence framework technical education TEF UKRI
HE Policy Update for the w/e 15th April 2020
Business Engagement, COVID-19, Impact, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, parliament, policy, Research news jforster
Hi all, a short update this week, with a couple of important updates
Office for Students update
The Office for Students issued another update to providers on 14th April.
They confirm the on-going uncertainty on access to government schemes for HE providers – there are hopes that this will be resolved (in a positive way) later this week. The update says:
We understand that the two coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Schemes and the COVID-19 Corporate Financing Facility are open to higher education providers, although final confirmation about eligibility for these schemes has still to be determined. We will continue to work with the Department for Education and HM Treasury to get further information about eligibility and will provide further information as soon as we can.
And this on the TEF:
As you will be aware, we were previously planning to develop and consult on a new framework for the TEF during the first half of 2020. The impact of the coronavirus crisis means that we do not currently have a date for the next TEF exercise. We will provide further information as soon as we can. We intend to consult on the future TEF scheme after the government has published the Independent Review and its response to the Review's recommendations. Publication of the subject-level TEF pilot reports has been delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
Some commentators (see Johnny Rich here) are seeing this as a major step – an indefinite postponement of TEF using the virus as cover. After all, there are rumours that the Pearce review is not very positive about the TEF.
But this could be over-egging things. The OfS has postponed all its consultations and hasn't yet set new deadlines for any of them – so this is just the OfS being consistent. Don't read too much into the postponement, folks – we would be very surprised if TEF goes away, even though the 2020 data will be weird.
There is comment from Wonkhe here:
From the looks of the scant paragraph we get it would seem that this is a temporary measure, and that there would be every expectation that we would get a new date in time. But it is not hard to imagine this indefinite pause as a quiet death for a basket of metrics that has failed to capture the imagination of the audience it sought…..
It could, of course, be argued that the current situation suits everyone involved perfectly well. The Government seems in no hurry to publish a review of TEF that is likely to have been less than glowing, the OfS doesn't need to respond to it or consult on it (making it easier to integrate TEF into the mainstream of regulation), and TEF remains on pause forever. Nobody loses face, the decision to cancel TEF is never explicitly taken (so the government never goes back on a manifesto promise) but it is quietly understood that no future work will be done on an indicator that signally failed to indicate anything.
[PS there is still no news from UKRI on the KEF deadline extension]
The Office for Students has a webpage which brings together all their guidance, FAQs and the Ministerial letters, which is a useful resource. They keep adding to the FAQs – what we are all waiting for now is the next news on admissions, due on 20th April
We have created a provider guide to coronavirus which includes information about our regulatory requirements, FAQs, and links to all letters and guidance issued by the OfS. There is also a student guide with FAQs and signposting to sources of information beyond the OfS.
Support for Universities
Universities UK issued a package of measures to address concerns in the sector – and shared it with Gavin Williamson in a telephone call.
They highlighted the many challenges to the sector, the work that we are doing to support the national effort and our staff and students. They asked for specific confirmation that confirmation that universities are eligible for the Job Retention Scheme (furloughing staff), and the Business Interruption Scheme and the Corporate Financing Facility and recommended a range of actions, including:
increasing funding for research and covering the full economic cost for UKRI funded research;
introducing a one year "stability measure" in the form of a student number cap equal to the number of UK and EU students forecast for 2020-21 plus 5% and a new sector agreement on fair admissions practices that would, amongst other things, restrict unconditional offers at volume;
provide further funding for courses that support key public sector services, including nursing and healthcare and some short and part-time courses;
a transformation fund to support universities to reshape and consolidate through federations and partnerships or mergers;
bridging loans and support for changes in lending terms, reprofiling funding allocations including the student finance payments towards the beginning of the academic year, and halting the planned cuts in teaching grant; and
mitigating the impact on international recruitment by providing flexibility of visa requirements and delaying changes that would apply to EU students after Brexit who would join in the 2021 academic year.
We don't know when there will be a response, if at all.
The Opposition view
Research Professional has an interview with Emma Hardy, shadow Universities Minister. It's an interesting read:
The model of intense competition is failing. Having read Universities UK's submission to the government, letters from the University and College Union and other higher education organisations and interest groups, what is not surprising is the amount of consensus there is. If we continue down the same path of "unseemly competition" as UCU has warned, then some universities will face financial failure and as it stands the Office for Students has been clear that it will not bail them out.
As highlighted by UUK, the likelihood is that 'cold spots' will develop, exacerbating the regional inequalities and putting already disadvantaged students at a greater disadvantage.
There is a consensus around the need for change, and we should look to create a more collaborative system. UUK has already acknowledged that changes need to be made and that these could include "federations and partnerships". Labour believes there should be greater collaboration between higher education, further education and adult community learning, to anchor those institutions in their communities and reform their governing structure.
Institutions offering similar academic courses in the same region could cooperate with the aim of staff development and educational improvement to benefit students and our national interest.
There needs to be a collective acknowledgement of the unpalatable idea of asking mature students who find themselves unemployed as a result of this crisis to commit to a lifetime loan of over £27,000 for a degree which the government knows they will never repay. Labour will continue to argue for free education for all as we face of challenge of upskilling our country in a post-Covid-19 world.
A higher education system funded by government, industry and commerce has the power to hold universities to a higher standard, and it should use this power to radically reform the terms and conditions of university staff and in particular the use of insecure contracts.
If we wish the UK to maintain its reputation as a world leader in research, then research grants must be balanced and distributed regionally to create regional institutions of excellence.
The Research Excellence Framework has been discredited nearly as frequently as the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework and the space provided by the suspension of the REF due to Covid-19 opens the discussion on what makes for effective accountability. If we are to build a future based on cooperation, and universities acting in the national interest, then market-based accountability measures serve no purpose.
This follows an intervention by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the new shadow Education lead, who wrote to Gavin Williamson last week, as reported by Research Professional
In a missive dated 9 April, that also addresses schools and further education policy, Long-Bailey—who finished second to Keir Starmer in the recent Labour leadership election—asks Williamson if he believes universities are "likely to require additional financial support" as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, and how decisions on such support will be made? She also asked the Department for Education to protect institutions from closure "for the duration of this crisis".
She also asked if overseas staff working in universities would be offered the same one-year visa extension available to NHS staff and sought reassurances that international students' visas will be extended where required.
"I believe in the current circumstances some additional support should be given to students," Long-Bailey writes. Specifically, she calls for ministers to immediately suspend all interest on loans, waive tuition fees for the period that students are not receiving full tuition, and give students the opportunity to "defer to next academic year without needing to pay extra tuition fees".
There should also be an assurance that students do not have to pay for accommodation that they are no longer able to use, Long-Bailey wrote, while those in receipt of a maintenance grant should be able to return all or part of it in exchange for it being written off.
The shadow education secretary also calls for clarity on student assessment practices during the Covid-19 outbreak and asks the government to "urgently consider" creating a student hardship fund for those who encounter financial difficulty as a result of the pandemic.
Finally, we are delighted that two members of academic staff have submitted evidence to an All Party-Parliamentary Group this week and we are very proud of the work that staff across BU are doing to support the national effort, and to contribute to the national debate.
If you haven't done so before, now may be a good time to explore the APPGs active in your area of expertise and see if they are doing interesting work – the full list is here. Look under subject groups and follow the links Some APPGs don't update their websites very often (or have them at all) but some are very active.
And if you have a news story or a plan for research, or a solution to a practical problem linked to the virus, speak to the M&C press team or Becca Edwards.
Tags: admissions APPGs consultations financial stability financial sustainability impact inquiries KEF knowledge excellence framework Minister for Universities Student loans teaching excellence framework TEF
With Parliament suspended until 14th October (despite calls for a recall, pending the outcome of this week's Supreme Court hearing on the lawfulness or otherwise of the prorogation), things are a little quieter in policy circles, although there is likely to be plenty of news from the Labour and Conservative party conferences over the next couple of weeks Labour kick off first, and the Tories next week.
Two things struck us this week – a much bigger interest than usual in the Lib Dem conference, with the national press streaming lovely views of the Bournemouth sea front all week, and the level of blow by blow coverage of the Supreme court hearing. With an election now inevitable, probably before Christmas, and a Lib Dem surge predicted, the first isn't surprising, and the second is just the latest in the Brexit/Boris soap opera. We are taking a break from making predictions about what will happen on Hallowe'en. It's all too difficult to call.
OfS urged to act on 'quality' matters
Secretary of State Education, Gavin Williamson, has written to the OfS setting out his priorities and giving support for the OfS to use a big stick to push for progress (e.g. on the attainment gap) and curb unpopular practices (e.g. conditional unconditional offers). The letter is a very long wish list (including the kitchen sink) in which the Minister basically asks the OfS to solve all perceived ills in the name of safeguarding the sector's reputation and encourages them (in bold type) to use their regulatory sharp stick boldly.
The Government press release has the Minister urging the OfS to: "set as high a bar as possible on quality in the sector, so universities are focused on reducing dropout rates and ensuring the best possible value for money. We have to fight to keep the public trust and respect in our world-leading universities and to me that means a relentless focus on quality. That's why I want the OfS to go even further on this, developing more rigorous and demanding quality requirements, and I give my full backing to boldly use its powers to ensure value for money."
Excerpts from the letter (use of bold type reflects the letter, a new style approach in these letters):
Value for money – OfS must attach "the highest priority to this work" and make sure that it is reflected in its forthcoming value for money strategy.
Exercise your powers boldly to ensure you are an effective regulator. Refers to refusals to register, Suggests using powers where there are "courses and providers that are not delivering value for students", such as "unacceptable levels of drop-out rates or failure to equip students with qualifications that are recognised and valued by employers, falling short of what is required…under the registration conditions"…
Develop "even more rigorous and demanding quality requirements". This means apparently, raising current baseline requirements to ensure that providers deliver successful outcomes for all students. Supports the "OfS intention to revisit the minimum baselines"…
Be ambitious for the TEF in both scope and timing. That means publishing subject level TEF in 2021 alongside the implementation of a new TEF following the Pearce review. Those hoping that subject level was going to be abandoned will be disappointed, and presumably subject level will also be continued in the "new model" otherwise it would an orphaned measure with weird reputational consequences.
Consider running a further provider level TEF assessment with results published in 2020. If they are going to do that, having already said everyone's TEF is extended and we don't have to, they need to get on with it.
Refers to the "injudicious use of unconditional offers" and other inducements "that could have an adverse impact on the access and success of students in HE". Other than the OfS working with the CMA on enforcement of consumer law, no particular action here.
"Prioritise work supporting students as empowered consumers" – complaints, Ts and Cs, free speech, harassment, etc. The OfS are to review current practice and consider standard contractual templates by Feb 2020. He commends their plans on student protection and urges "action in this area to be as ambitious as possible"
Focus on part-time and flexible learning, mature learners, "regulatory and funding arrangements surrounding flexible provision" (including how performance metrics support and incentivise flexible provision) – plan by end Nov 2019 and interim report by end of March 2020. Also a Challenge Competition for that.
Raising awareness of accelerated degrees.
Monitoring schemes and arrangements for student transfer –institutions to develop a plan for how they will use regulatory powers to promote greater student choice.
Explore how international students can be better supported and integrated, in line with Global Britain's efforts to strengthen relationships around the world.
The Sec of State also tasked the OfS Review of Admissions to fully consider a Post Qualification Applications system (note application not admission – so students would apply after their level 3 results).
The TEF stuff has caused a little stir – there is not supposed to be a TEF this year, and the idea of running a subject level TEF in 2021 alongside the development of a new TEF seems like a lot of work to produce a set of outcomes that would not be very useful for anyone, as they would not be comparable with what has gone before or what will come after. As there is no link to fees etc. (yet, we still think that this might re-emerge as one outcome from the Post-18 Review), and students are not using TEF, what is the point? See Wonkhe on this.
Access, Participation & Success
HEPI have published The white elephant in the room: ideas for reducing racial inequality in HE. It consists of a series of essays by national HE figures recommending how to reduce a range of racial inequalities including the attainment gap. Some recommendations:
All Higher Education Institutions should participate in the Race Equality Charter (56 are members). Funding bodies should consider creating financial incentives behind them doing so – such as making research grants conditional on participation. This proved effective when applications for the gender equality focused Athena SWAN Charter went up 400% after the British Medical Research Council made funding conditional on holding a Silver Athena Swan Award.
Kalwant Bhopal, Professor of Education and Social Justice, University of Birmingham: 'Work on gender is seen as worthwhile and contributing to an equalities agenda. Race, on the other hand has always been seen as a secondary priority. If higher education is serious about social justice, then race equality must be seen as a priority – linking the Race Equality Charter to research funding would be a good start.'
Do groundwork to facilitate conversations about race within institutions. Do not underestimate the obstacles faced in doing this and the need for ground rules.
Professor Shân Waring, DVC, London South Bank University: 'In a room of people talking about race, there will be people confused about which words are okay and which are not. And there will be people in the room who will not join in the conversation, for fear of appearing racist, of being called racist, and perhaps of finding out when it comes down to it, they are racist.'
Make sure that work done by BME staff and students to tackle racial inequalities is recognised and rewarded. Being an informal mentor to BME students, or giving up time to help with racial equality initiatives, should not become another form of disadvantage.
Amatey Doku, former Vice President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students: 'Universities are under more pressure than ever to address the 14% attainment gap between BME and white students. Some universities are responding positively, but end up putting a disproportionate burden on BME staff and students. Ultimately it is the institutions themselves that need to fix the problem."
Academic faculties should look to their curricula and to other ways of addressing inequalities in their subject, such as Studentships for BME candidates.
Margot Finn, President of the Royal Historical Society: 'A third of black and minority ethnic historians have faced discrimination or abuse – twice as many as for white historians. That tends to shock white historians, but it has never surprised BME historians with whom that I've shared our findings.'
Diversity practitioners within institutions need senior management diversity champions to rely upon. For instance, inclusion networks should be sure they have the resources and the remit to make changes. (Sanchia Alasia)
Avoid well-meaning but vague actions which are unlikely to effect change. For instance, implicit bias training should be used in a targeted way to map how biases are playing out in an organisation and to tackle specific issues. (Srabrani Sen)
Access Gap – FE news have published a news article by UCAS highlighting that 20.4% of students from the most disadvantaged communities (polar 4 quintile 1) have a confirmed HE place. The Daily Mail have coverage too.
Brexit and Parliament
Apart from the battle over prorogation and the focus on who said what to the Queen when (which is getting David Cameron as well as Boris Johnson into trouble this week), there is ongoing speculation about what will happen in October.
An interesting YouGov poll revealed that 52% of Leave voters believe the PM should break the law by refusing to ask the EU to extend the Brexit deadline. 28% believe Boris should follow the law despite his ongoing insistence personal campaign that the 31 October exit deadline is non-negotiable, with 21% undecided.
Speaker Predictions – YouGov have also reported that according to a Jan 2019 poll Lindsay Hoyle (current deputy speaker) is the MP's favourite candidate for the next Speaker of The House of Commons. YouGov state:
He [Lindsay] was the only potential successor nominated by a substantive number of MPs, with a further 41% saying they didn't know who the next Speaker should be. Hoyle's fellow Deputy Speaker, the Conservative MP Eleanor Laing, came in a distant second on just 6%, with former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman in third on 5%. Both have announced that they will run for the Speakership.
4 year study in only 3 years leave to remain – Gavin Williamson tackled the conundrum of EU students who are studying 4 year courses (e.g. in Scotland) but will only be afforded 36 months of temporary leave to remain post Brexit. The Education secretary said "the UK Government would find a solution".
Education Spending
There is a new Institute for Fiscal Studies report on education spending.
The HE highlights are (our emphasis added):
Universities currently receive £27,500 per full-time undergraduate student to fund the cost of teaching for the full course of their studies (usually three years). This has fallen by 5% since 2012, but is about 50% higher than at its low point during the mid 1990s.
While per-student funding is similar today to its early 1990s levels, total resources for teaching undergraduate students have doubled in real terms over that period. This was driven by a near-doubling in student numbers. The nature of that funding has changed significantly, with it now coming primarily through tuition fees rather than through teaching grants.
The overall cost of the current system is about £17 billion per cohort entering higher education. More than half of the cost is expected to be paid for through graduate contributions (£9.0 billion), particularly from higher-earning graduates. The long-run cost to government is expected to be about £8.0 billion, about £7.4 billion through unrepaid student loans and £700 million in up-front grants.
The Augar Review proposed cutting fees to £7,500, reintroducing maintenance grants and changing the terms of repayment. This would give policymakers greater control of spending on different subjects, which they have little control over at present due to funding being dominated by tuition fees and to a lack of controls on student numbers. The proposals would reduce repayments amongst higher earners and increase repayments amongst mainly middle earners. But there is no good reason to say the current distribution of repayments and incentives is the 'correct' one.
Labour's policies of abolishing fees altogether and bringing back maintenance grants would come at a cost to the public finances of just over £6 billion per cohort of full-time students over the long run. This policy would give the government even more control over the distribution of spending on certain subjects or institutions, but would benefit the highest-earning graduates substantially. The policy is significantly cheaper now as a result of the 2017 increase in the repayment threshold on student loans from £21,000 to £25,000.
Considering part-time students adds approximately another £1 billion to the cost of Labour's proposals at current student numbers. However, the cost of this policy could increase rapidly if the large decline in part-time student numbers since 2010 were reversed.
The Guardian and the BBC cover the report.
Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you'd like to contribute to any of the current inquiries and consultations.
Graduate Outcomes: The Telegraph has an interactive comparator to accompany their article stating that Oxbridge doesn't always result in the highest salaries, and that some subjects at 'lesser known institutions'. Engineering, computer science and business graduates 'from a wide variety of universities' are said as 'punching above their weight'.
Money Mules: The phenomenon of targeting students to act as money mules has been around for several years but the Telegraph has teamed up with Barclays to publish an article warning what to watch out for. Staff working directly with students may be interested in reading about this fraud scam.
Arts & Heritage: The Taking Part 2018/19 survey statistics have been released. It is a continuous face to face household survey of adults and children in England providing reliable national estimates of engagement with the arts, heritage, museums, libraries, digital and social networking. It is a key evidence source for DCMS. In 2018/19:
77.4% of adults had engaged with the arts at least once in the last year. The rate of adults engaged in the arts has remained relatively stable since 2005/06.
72.4% of adults reported having visited a heritage site in the last 12 months, similar to 2017/18, and an increase from 69.9% in 2005/06.
50.2% of adults reported having visited a museum or gallery in the last year. This is similar to 2017/18 and a significant increase from 2005/06 (42.3%).
59% of adults reported being aware of UK events to commemorate the Centenary of the First World War. This represents a significant increase from 2017/18 (50.5%).
35.2% of adults had used a public library service in the last year for any purpose, similar to 2017/18 and 32.9% had used a public library service in the last year for voluntary work or in their own time, this is similar to 2017/18 but a decrease from 2005/06 (48.2%).
Marketisation: HEPI have a new blog – Changes to student entry quality in a marketised English higher education system. It concludes Universities appear to have been adopting different strategies with many focusing on growth in volume, at the expense of entry points, and a smaller number prioritising quality.
Trading Up: iNews have an interesting article regarding students who undertake a foundation year (and therefore an extra year of debt) with the aim of completing it successfully and transferring ('upgrading') to another university. The article carries the tone that this is a risky manoeuvre and Geoff Barton, Association of School and College Leaders, said "we advise students against trying to use foundation years to 'trade up'." Instead the advice is that it is cheaper to retake their A levels. The article is interesting because while the Government is very keen that universities support students and proactively facilitate transfers to another institution they didn't have this in mind – yet the young population seem to have found their own solution. There was also recent negativity stating that universities were capitalising on Foundation Years (because of the fee income received) and that students would be better off taking Access to HE courses. Despite this, foundation courses have increased in popularity in recent years. Perhaps, not least because of the different way in which students are treated and expected to learn between FE and HE. Furthermore, retaking A levels suggests failure, whereas a foundation year allows the individual to move away, be independent, and experience and learn the skills needed to succeed in HE study.
Tags: academic quality access and participation Brexit Education spending equality and diversity foundation years freedom of speech Graduate Outcomes lifelong learning OFS parliament post qualification applications PQA Race Equality Charter student protection plans students as consumers teaching excellence framework TEF unconditional offers
Doctoral College, ECR Network, EU, Fusion, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, policy, Research Concordat, Research news jforster
The Universities Minister, has delivered the first in a series of four planned speeches on how the UK can best achieve its ambition to invest 2.4% of GDP in R&D by 2027. It was a surprising speech in some ways, short on announcements, although there were some, and long on wishful thinking. We've pulled out some bits below. For a healthy dose of cynicism/realism we recommend the annotated version by HE for Research Professional.
Investment – To achieve our target of 2.4%, total UK R&D investment would need to rise to around £60bn in today's money. More than double our current investment levels. This would require us to have invested an additional sum of over £80bn cumulatively each year from 2017 across the public and private sectors.
People – It doesn't matter how much money we pump into R&D over the years ahead, it won't make the intended difference if we don't have the right people in place. Ensuring a strong pipeline of talent will be essential for bolstering the UK's research prowess. We are also going to have to substantially increase the numbers of people we have working in R&D in the same period – perhaps by as much as 50%. To put that in figures, that means we need to find at least another 260,000 researchers to work in R&D across universities, across business and across industry.
International staff and students – We are making it easier for international graduates to move into skilled work. International students studying for undergraduate level and above will be able to apply for a visa three months before their course finishes – enabling them to take up skilled work after their degree. They will also be able to apply for a skilled work visa out-of-country under the same preferential conditions as they would experience if they were to apply for a visa in-country. In addition, a reformed sponsorship system will provide a simplified and more streamlined system. This will be less burdensome for employers and will enable businesses to harness the talent they need more easily. We set out a clear ambition in our International Education Strategy earlier this spring: to grow the numbers of international students studying in UK universities to 600,000 by the end of the next decade.
Supporting Researchers
Our current research culture relies on dominant power structures, where doctoral candidates and post-docs are largely dependent on supervisors or PIs for references and progression. This puts the power firmly in other people's hands. Is it any wonder, then, that less than half of doctoral researchers report they would be likely to disclose any mental health and wellbeing issues to their supervisors? This closed culture urgently needs to change. So, I hope future joint work by the Office for Students (OfS) and Research England into the mental health and wellbeing of doctoral researchers can identify good practice to take forward in this area.
….the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, first launched in 2008. …I am pleased that an independent review of the Concordat has just taken place to ensure it is up-to-date to meet the needs of today's researchers. And I look forward to seeing the revised version of the Concordat when it is published later this summer. As Universities and Science Minister, I am serious about taking the Concordat forward. And I am pleased to be hosting a high-level meeting with the Chair of the Concordat Strategy Group, Professor Julia Buckingham. Alongside Sir Patrick Vallance and other key sector leaders, to discuss how we can further improve research careers in the UK.
I also encourage the OfS, Research England, and UKRI as a whole to look more widely at how the implementation of current policies affect researchers on the ground. The three higher education excellence frameworks – namely the REF, TEF and the KEF – are all integral to the way we govern and fund higher education, science, research and innovation. But we need to make sure they are not disproportionately affecting early career researchers and putting extra strains on their work. The recent headlines about universities spending around £87m on non-disclosure agreements since 2017 doesn't help us to project an image of a sector that cares for its employees.
Academia in industry
For too long, there has been a stigma in this country around pursuing non-academic research careers. So, we should never look down on early career researchers if they opt for a career outside academia. Rather, we should actively encourage our PhDs and post-docs to see the merits of pursuing an R&D career in other sectors and industries. For one, we need to stop talking about jobs outside academia as being 'second choice careers' or 'Plan B options'. For our 2.4% target to work, we need people to be actively considering research careers across the entire science and innovation system.
So, isn't it high time we start to better connect graduates with the evident skills gaps we are experiencing right across our labour market? Yet, this isn't going to be easy when many of their main role models inside universities know very little about careers in industry. And are themselves either unaware or unconvinced of the strength of research positions outside academia. There are schemes that aim to address this issue – such as the Royal Academy of Engineering's Visiting Professors scheme. This funds senior industry practitioners to participate in course development, face-to-face teaching and the mentoring of Engineering undergraduates at a host university. It is a great programme, but it is not widespread practice. The difficulties aren't just on the side of universities. Some employers are unused to recruiting PhDs and don't fully understand the benefits that those with higher academic qualifications can bring to their workforce. I think of this as the 'graduate paradox' – the higher the academic qualifications you have, the less professionally qualified you may seem. This, I feel, is a particular UK problem we need to address.
Gaps – We still have some way to go to eradicate gender pay gaps in the sector and increase the proportion of women in academic and research leadership. Not to mention the number of Black and Ethnic Minority role models that will inspire others and show them a research career can really be for people like them.
Additional points:
The 41 winners of the first ever Future Leaders Fellowships have been announced. The fellowships aim to develop early career researchers who will become world-leaders in their fields, intending for their research to maintain the UK's reputation for being at the forefront of science and innovation. The winners share £40 million, with the scheme costing £900 million over 3 years. The projects funded include using cloud computing to monitor changes of all glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic and how children's adventurous play can lower levels of anxiety in young people.
First call for the new Stephen Hawking Fellowships issued. Working with the Hawking family, UKRI will support up to 50 postdoctoral scientists in theoretical physics over the next five years.
Italian Partnership – Research England have announced their partnership with the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Systems, ANVUR, which will support research assessment and the evaluation of knowledge exchange in English and Italian universities. David Sweeney, Executive Chair of Research England commented: "ANVUR is at the leading edge in the international landscape of knowledge transfer assessment and it was very helpful to discuss Italy's research evaluation."
Master's Loans
The DfE have published the Postgraduate Master's Loan evaluation. The Master's Degree Loan Scheme was launched by the Government in June 2016, and was the first time that Government provided finance to contribute to costs for postgraduate master's study. The aims of the loan were to:
Increase take up of master's courses
Enable progression onto master's courses for those who could not afford to self-finance or would have to delay starting to save up for a master's course
Improve the supply of highly skilled individuals to the UK economy
The evaluation follows up the first cohort of master's students who started in 2016/17 with the new loan and found positive outcomes.
Data from the HESA Student Record shows that there was a substantial increase in the overall number of Master's students enrolling at English HEIs. This growth was driven by a 36% increase in enrolments from England-domiciled loan eligible students. (However, these figures may be overinflated as 2015/16 master's students may have deferred starting their study a year to benefit from the loan in the following year. The report notes BAME students were particularly likely to do this with 61% reporting they deferred entry specifically for this reason.)
Most HEIs interviewed (75%) said the number of enrolments from students onto courses eligible for postgraduate loans increased in 2016/17. Among those which reported an increase in numbers, the majority (84%) attributed this at least in part to the introduction of the Master's Loan.
Students themselves confirmed the importance of the Loan in enabling them to study. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of students starting their course in 2016/17 felt that they would have been unable to undertake their specific Master's course without the Master's Loan, while around a third (36%) agreed that they would "never even thought about studying a Master's" if the Master's loan had not been available.
While there were no substantial changes to the age or gender profile of students, the proportion of Black students increased substantially between 2015/16 and 2016/17 (but see above).
Quicker – Analysis of the HESA student record indicates a trend towards a greater proportion of full-time study. While the proportion of loan-eligible England-domiciled students studying full-time remained relatively constant in the period prior to the introduction of the loan (at 54-56%), this proportion increased to 62% in 2016/17.
Sooner – 90% of master's loan recipients "agreed that the Master's Loan had enabled 14 them to begin postgraduate study sooner". Students in receipt of the Loan were more likely to have progressed from undergraduate to postgraduate study within a year (48%) than those not in receipt of the Loan (23%). The main reason for this given by students in the qualitative interviews was that without the Master's Loan, they would have had to spend several years building their savings in order to afford it
Students in receipt of the Loan were more likely to say that their main reason for studying was to improve their employment prospects (20% compared with 12% of those not in receipt of the Loan). Prior to loan introduction (2013/14 cohort) more stated their main motivation was interest in the subject.
Almost all students (94%) expected to receive at least one benefit as a result of their programme, five years after completing their study. 74% believed they would be earning more money, and a similar proportion (73%) expected to have more job choices. Being in a more senior role and being in a more specialist role were each mentioned by 70% of students, and 68% anticipated they would be in a higher pay band.
There was no change in the proportion receiving either funding from their HEI or funding from their employer to pay for tuition fees. Hence, so far, there is no indication of the Master's Loan 'crowding out' other sources of funding.
70% of Master's starters in 2016/17 also worked (35% FT, 35% PT) – it was only 58% that worked in 2013/14. The evaluation notes a higher proportion of starters in 2016/17 funded all or part of their tuition fees through employment than the comparator group of 2013/14. 52% of students stated that without the loan for their living expenses or fees they may not have been able to undertake the course. However, 46% would have self-funded or found other methods to fund their course leading to questions on whether the loan is providing funding for those who could have afforded the course anyway.
Interestingly (messages for UG differential fees perhaps?) were that 41% of loan students would have changed their study to afford a masters (a) 25% choosing a cheaper course, (b) 19% choosing a different course, (c) 22% choose same course but at a different institution. BAME students were most likely (33%) to change their plans.
The master's loan contributes up to £10,000 towards the fees/living expenses of master's study. However, most respondents stated it was not enough and the difficulties of working coupled with the intensity of master's study meant they had to rely on parents to top them up financially. There are potentially messages in here about inclusivity, hidden barriers to disadvantaged students, and potentially an influence on dropout rates.
The evaluation suggested there is evidence that the Loan will help the sustainability of the HE sector. Most HEIs benefited from increased student volumes in 2016/17 and half reported that they believe the Loan will lead to increased revenue for them. There is evidence to suggest that it has benefitted medium-tariff institutions in particular.
There is some evidence that the Loan has had an effect of increasing fees for Master's courses (HEIs more likely to report increases on these courses (57%) than on courses not eligible for fees (41%)). DfE note this may warrant further investigation.
TEF update
Do you know your pilot from your parliamentary review? What are the metrics used in the latest version of TEF and did you know that the criteria have changed? We've been updating staff at BU on the latest on the TEF, and on the staff intranet policy pages you can find links to our latest slides and a more detailed briefing note, as well as a link to BU's submission to the Parliamentary review call for views.
Election fever
Everyone has a view on what happened in the local elections and what it means for national politics – it means get on with Brexit, it means abandon Brexit, it means everyone is just fed up and protest voting for smaller parties and independents…. Your policy team are a bit idealistic sometimes (despite watching a lot of politics), and we are subscribers to the "people are probably generally voting on local issues locally" theory. We hope so – because these local politicians will be responsible for things that will happen locally for the next 4 years. So feelings about the council mergers and hospital changes, for example, will have had an effect in Dorset and BCP.
Of course national politics will have had an impact. There may be a general dissatisfaction with the Conservatives and some of that may be Brexit-related, but it could also be driven by concerns about social care and local authority funding more generally. It doesn't seem to make sense that across the country many people abandoned the Tories for the Lib Dems if they genuinely want a no-deal Brexit. They may have been formerly disaffected Lib Dem voters going home – but in that case they almost certainly don't want a no deal Brexit. The focus on climate change recently will of course have helped the Greens – people voting for green candidates who will drive local changes.
If you want to look at trends, the Commons Library has a lovely map. Otherwise we suggest there is a huge risk in leaping to too many conclusions and we recommend everyone turns their mind to who they will vote for in the EU elections. There is still a chance that MEPs will take their seats and keep them for some time so they could have a voice in the EU Parliament. And here in the South-West we have some sparkling candidates. You can't vote for them, though – because of the list system (see this Research Professional illustration if you missed it before). Tactical voting will be a thing in these elections.
Brexit is still missing
The impasse continues. It seems unlikely that there will be a breakthrough in the short term. It could be a long summer of speculation and not much happening until another frenzy of last-minute-itus breaks out in September ahead of the Halloween deadline.
Last weekend Theresa May came under further pressure to resign, or to state a specific date for her departure. TM at least thinks that the local election results were a verdict on how she (and Parliament) has handled Brexit. She apologised for poor Conservative local election results (the Conservatives lost 1,300+ seats) stating: It is clear that the voters delivered their judgment in large part based on what is happening – or not happening – at Westminster. And, as Prime Minister, I fully accept my share of the responsibility for that. Meanwhile Jeremy Hunt and Dominic Raab appeared in high-profile newspaper profile pieces over the bank holiday weekend with their families – not too subtle positioning for an upcoming leadership contest. The PM continues to refuse to set out a timetable for her departure and is unlikely to step down until the Withdrawal Agreement is passed. Her spokesperson said she is here to deliver Brexit in phase one and then she will make way for phase two.
It has been confirmed that the UK will participate in the EU elections. However apparently Theresa May intends to make a fourth attempt to pass her Brexit deal through Parliament ratifying the deal by end of June so that UK MEPs do not take their seats in July. Maybe.
Theresa May is expected to offer a customs union offer to Labour (for a temporary period); however, the Labour/Conservative front bench talks have extended beyond the original timescale and the issue of a second referendum continues to be a sticking point. There has been no breakthrough with the Government insisting the negotiations have been constructive and detailed, however, Rebecca Long Bailey (Labour) was critical stating the Government had made no movement on their red lines. Talks continue…
In the meantime:
The UK Government has signed a deal with Ireland to guarantee reciprocal Irish and British citizens rights are retained in each country in the event of no-deal.
EU Settlement Scheme: The EU settlement scheme is now fully open and live. The Home Office communications state that during the testing phase 95% of EU citizens were able to use the mobile app to prove their identity remotely within 10 minutes. The application link is here.
HEPI have issued a policy note Measuring well-being in HE covering HE staff and students. They argue for a differentiation between mental health and well-being so that the sector can better consider and understand the broader overall health of staff and students. They recommend more data is collected and published, ideally the markers being consistent across the UK and multi-year for applicants and graduates (as well as students and staff):
"Consistency across the UK allows for comparison in well-being between the different regulatory and funding systems across the four countries. International measurements would similarly allow for comparison between different models of higher education. Data collectors should work together to enable tracking of cohorts, allowing us to track the same cohort of students and staff over time."
Rachel Hewitt, HEPI, author of the Policy Note said: 'If we are to get a grip on the mental health crisis in young people that is heavily impacting on universities, we need to be collecting the right information to understand it. At the moment statistics on well-being and mental health are often combined, despite these being two separate issues with different ways they can be tackled. For universities to take the necessary action to address this issue, they need to better understand what they're dealing with.
It is shocking that we have no public information on the well-being of staff that work in our universities. If universities are collecting this information, they are not being open about what the results are showing. This is at a time when staff in universities continue to be under pressure, with increasing workloads and insecure contracts rife. We need a consistent, public dataset on the well-being of university staff.'
In the meantime, the role of sport at university has been highlighted: Wonkhe has two articles on sport via its new Student Union service. Ben Vulliarmy, CEO of the SU at the University of York, writes about their Varsity programme with Lancaster (by the way, congratulations to BU for this week's resounding win against Solent in our own Varsity event – well played all). And Richard Medcalf of the University of Wolverhampton writes about the need for evidence if sport is to be taken seriously as a contributor to student (and staff) outcomes:
At Wolverhampton we're trying a few small steps to make this happen. We've developed a university sports board to connect this agenda into the decision making bodies of the university. We've combined the academic provision of sport with the participatory and performance arms of our offer to students and staff, to align the intentions of both under one organisational framework. And, importantly, we're attaching student sport engagement to our student records system so we can see if there's any relationship between students who participate and the wider university KPIs.
Care Experienced Students
The Centre for Social Justice have released 12 By 24 revealing that despite 10 years of intervention still only 6% of care leavers are attending University. It states: Looked After Children aren't less clever than other children they are just less lucky and a care leaver is more likely to end up in a prison cell than a lecture theatre. The publication aims to increase care leavers at universities to 12 by 24.
This report shows that too many young people growing up in care feel university isn't for them. They told us it is simply not what happens when you leave the care system…Improving attainment at school will always be the best thing we can do to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds get on. This report sets out the extent to which care experienced children still fall behind their peers. The message from a roundtable of experts conducted during this report was clear: If we want to see more children from disadvantaged backgrounds accessing university and higher education, we need to engage our young people in care much earlier to ensure that where they have fallen behind, they are given the help they need to catch up. The evidence contained in this report shows that if we act early enough, we will see more young people leaving the care system and entering higher education. Among all the facts and figures, this report presents a simple challenge to government and the higher education sector to do more to help young people who have had the worst start in life to have the best future. Many universities are working hard to improve these figures, but this report shows that barely a third of universities have set out detailed plans to take action to change the number of care leavers on their courses.
The report goes on to state there is too much variability in the focus and efficacy of Universities care leaver support schemes. Pages 15 and 38 are key reading, chapter 6 sets out what support mechanisms universities are currently offering and chapter 7 describes the 'gold standard' the Centre propose and call on the DfE to endorse. Read more here.
There's a HEPI blog by Steven Spier, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University about their approach to care leavers (and estranged students).
Still no news from the Augar team
A Parliamentary question this week confirms (again) that it will be released "shortly". We predict (based on our own speculation rather than inside knowledge) that it won't be until after the EU elections. It could come quickly as a major distraction from the mess after that. Or not.
Q – Gordon Marsden: whether postgraduate (a) loans and (b) other financial assistance will be included in his Department's response to the review of post-18 education.
A – Chris Skidmore: The government's review of post-18 education and funding is looking at how we can ensure there is choice and competition across a joined-up post-18 education and training sector. The review's focus includes how we can encourage learning that is more flexible (for example, part-time, distance learning and commuter study options) and complements ongoing government work to support people at different times in their lives. The independent panel will report shortly, and the government will then conclude the overall review later this year. We will not speculate about potential recommendations, as we do not wish to pre-judge the outcome of the review.
Welsh PG student finance: Wonkhe report that postgraduate students domiciled in Wales will benefit from the most generous postgraduate student finance package in the UK, according to a Welsh Government announcement this morning. The variable mixture of loans and grants available has risen from £13,000 last year to £17,000 from August this year. All eligible students will receive a non-repayable universal grant of £1,000, plus a means-tested grant of up to £5,885 for students with a household income of up to £18,370. A loan will also be available, taking the total support up to £17,000, and funds will be available pro-rata for part time students.
Consultations and inquiries
Click here to view the updated consultation and inquiries tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you'd like to contribute to any of the current consultations or inquiries.
New consultations and inquiries this week: UUK and Guild HE consultation on the draft Knowledge Exchange Concordat, linked to the KEF. RDS will be leading on preparation of a BU response.
Financial Deficit: BBC report that the number of English universities in financial deficit increases.
Unconditional Offers: The Times reports that some universities have taken legal advice following Damien Hinds' calls to stop "conditional unconditional" offers and reduce the number of unconditional offers made overall. HE policy legal commentator Smita Jamdar confirms that Ministers can guide but not instruct the OfS in this area and that guidance must not relate to the criteria for student admissions – something Sarah has heard the Universities Minister confirm in person. Some Universities are calling on UUK to seek a judicial review. The Guardian story is here and includes a defence of the practice as well as attacking Damien Hinds for his intervention.
Industry input: The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has announced that employers are being surveyed on what sorts of courses and skills they wish to see as part of ongoing plans to develop the University of Peterborough. The vision for the University is to be a trailblazer for other higher education institutions by embedding advanced technical learning within the curriculum. The aim is for the University to provide both the skills that local businesses urgently need, while also giving young people better access to well-paid, secure jobs and improved career prospects.
Mayor James Palmer said: "For the University of Peterborough to deliver on its ambition to be aligned with the needs of the local economy, we need to ensure we are reaching out to the business community to see what their demands and skills challenges are. The Combined Authority and its partners want the University to be turning out the kinds of skills that will allow our young people to hit the ground running in the 21st Century workplace. We know our economy has significant skills shortages, and a productivity gap, and so the input of local employers will be crucial in shaping the future of the University".
Economic Justice: The Institute for Public Policy Research has published their economic justice report Prosperity and Justice – A Plan for the New Economy. It sets out a 10 point plan for economic reform and argues that economic policy should aim for both prosperity and justice. You can read a short summary of the report here. There are four recommendations relevant to the HE sector:
The government should introduce a 'Technology Displacement Fund' to support workers displaced by technology to be retrained and supported back into the labour market. diffusion of digital technologies across the economy.
Apprenticeships are important, but firms need to be able to deploy funds for a broader range of approaches to develop the skills of their workforces. They therefore propose that the current apprenticeship levy is abolished, and replaced by a 'productivity and skills levy'
At the same time, there is an important opportunity to give workers a better means of increasing take-up of skills training by giving them more autonomy. They therefore recommend the introduction of Personal Training Credits, to provide low-paid workers and unemployed adults with up to £700 a year to invest in their own skills.
The adoption of a new immigration framework aimed at supporting the UK's economic strategy as well as the vitality and cohesion of our communities and the dignity of migrants
Tags: Augar review Brexit care leavers early career researchers Fusion international staff international students local elections Mental Health and Wellbeing Post-graduate loans R&D investment Review of post-18 education teaching excellence framework TEF unconditional offers
HE policy update for the w/e 8th March 2019
EU, international, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
And it's a bumper version this week, with a lot of really interesting new data, a super-critical TEF response from the Royal Statistical Society and we continue the speculation on fees and funding and Brexit.
Damian Hinds, Secretary of State, for education has launched a new taskforce to help students with the transition to University within these areas:
independent living (budgeting, cooking, managing living independently)
healthy relationships (including new peer groups)
The taskforce will be known as the Education Transitions Network and Universities UK, the Association of Colleges, OfS, NUS, Student Minds, and UCAS are all expected to be involved. Sky news covers the announcement. UUK have a blog from UWE's VC, Steve West, on supporting students through the transition and risk factors. This excerpt highlights resources available:
The more that universities can do to get students prepared before they arrive, the better. Student Minds, in partnership with Southern Universities Network, has published a guide to the first few weeks of term, designed to help students prepare through workbook activities and practical case studies. At UWE Bristol we have developed an enhanced induction programme for new students, which signposts available support and includes a new parent and carer advice section on our website, to advise on how best to support loved ones while at university.
And Wonkhe have several blogs to contribute to University Mental Health Day:
Building resilient com unities rather than resilient individuals
The time for mindfulness in universities has come
"Thank you" seem to be the hardest words [thanking front line staff]
Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, has been tweeting about a mental health charter with Student Minds and acknowledge the student voice is essential as universities look to improve the provision from student mental health. Welsh Education Minister, Kirsty Williams, announced £2 million new funding for Welsh Universities to support mental health initiatives. And there is new guidance out on preventing student suicides.
IFS report on the cost of HE
An IFS report was issued on 4th March on the cost of different degrees. There's an IFS blog here with the predictable headline "Creative Arts degrees cost taxpayers 30% more than engineering degrees". It's long but it is complicated and important, so worth setting out in some detail (sorry):
These are among the results of new analysis which for the first time estimates the distribution of government spending, taking account of grants and unrepaid student loans, across subjects studied and institutions attended. It is important to understand these are not estimates of returns to the different degrees: some subjects and institutions may therefore receive large loan subsidies even if they are positively impacting the earnings of their graduates, because they happen to attract students that have very low earnings potential. Since the final costs will depend on actual earnings over the next 30 years, there is inevitably uncertainty about these estimates. But they are based on new administrative data giving precise details on actual earnings of previous cohorts of graduates and are likely to be the best estimates possible at the current time.
Our main findings include:
There is considerable variation in loan subsidies by subject. For many subjects the government expects to write off around 60% of the loans it issues. For economics, however, write-offs are likely to be just a quarter of loans issued and for medicine and dentistry only a fifth. For creative arts, write offs are likely to amount to around three quarters of the value of loans issued. This variation in loan subsidies is primarily driven by differences in repayments rather than differences in loan sizes.
The highest government spend typically goes towards graduates of the subjects with the highest loan write-offs, as loan write-offs account for more than 90% of total government spending on undergraduate HE. The cost to government is around £11,000 per economics student who borrows from the government to help with tuition fees and maintenance loans, while it is more than £35,000 per creative arts borrower. Medicine is an exception – despite its graduates repaying most of their loans, it is one of the highest-cost subjects, at £45,000 per borrower, due to large teaching grants.
The government cost per student also varies by institution type. While total funding received by universities is extremely similar, the government contribution per student at each institution varies massively. Each borrower at Russell Group institutions – where graduates are typically high earning – costs the government less than £25,000. Costs are more than 20% higher for 'post-1992' and 'other' universities, where the average graduate earns much less.
The reforms since 2011 have shifted the allocation of spending from high-cost degrees to those with the lowest graduate earnings. Spending per borrower on students doing economics and engineering degrees is likely to have fallen by around £8,000 as a result of reforms between 2011 and 2017, while increasing by more than £6,000 for creative arts degrees. Similarly, spending on borrowers at Russell Group universities – which tend to offer more high-cost subjects – has fallen by £6,000, while increasing by more than £2,000 for borrowers at 'post-1992' and 'other' universities.
Consequently, the share of total government spending on science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) courses has fallen from 57% to 48% as a result of policy changes between 1999 and 2017. If we had the 1999 system in place today, only 30% of spending would go to arts and humanities (AH) subjects. Under today's system, this figure is 37%, and roughly 13% of the £9 billion the government spends on HE per cohort now goes to creative arts courses.
The report also considers what these figures mean for policy options:
Lowering the fee cap from £9,250 to £6,000 could give the government more flexibility to target spending. This would free up around £7,000 per borrower to be targeted more directly towards priority areas, with the savings coming mostly from subjects that have low-earning graduates. Any cuts to tuition fees would, however, benefit the highest-earning graduates most.
Variable fee caps would be another option to regain flexibility in targeting spending. Reducing the fee cap for AH subjects to £6,000 would reverse some of the increase in funding these subjects have seen over the last couple of decades. This policy may, however, increase demand for those courses, or perversely reduce funding for STEM achieved through within-university cross-subsidisation.
One policy that might resolve some of these issues would be for government to charge universities a fee for charging tuition fees above a certain level in areas where it wants to reduce spending. A 'negative teaching grant' of £3,000 for AH courses would mean government allocates less money to those courses, without affecting the fees students face or their repayments. Savings could be targeted towards priority areas. However, the impact on, and responses of, universities are unpredictable.
You can find the full report here.
It is important to keep in mind that this variation in government subsidy is not the same as variation in funding levels. This is because graduates also contribute to the cost of their education by repaying their student loans. Once this is accounted for, the variation in overall funding per university is very small due to the lack of variation in tuition fees.
Fees & Funding – what is the state of play?
With the Chancellor's Spring Statement due on 13th March, which might give more detailed timing for the Comprehensive Spending Review (he said "summer" on Radio 4 on 7th March), we thought it would be helpful to summarise the state of play…like Brexit, this is getting harder and harder to call….although the IFS report noted above will no doubt be considered carefully.
We don't know when we will know more, because the advisory panel chaired by Philip Augar, originally due to report in November 2018, has delayed its report again – the latest official statement is "Spring" – which could be anytime from now (according to the Met Office, although 21st March is the usual first day of Spring) to June. Research Professional suggest June and cite a BBC insight that it the final outcome could be in the Autumn.
One of the challenges is that this is a two stage review – the "independent" advisory panel report and then the DfE led review itself. The final DfE report (in the form perhaps of a green or white paper, accompanied by a consultation) will be when we see what the outcome really might be.
Philip Augar has said that he wants to make recommendations that will be accepted (presumably by the department/government, rather than the sector?) and it may be getting that consensus which is causing the delay. Research Professional today report that there is a draft doing the rounds in government but not everyone likes the recommendations.
The timing of other things is important – when it was originally announced, the Augar recommendations were due in November 2018, with the final report due out by the end of March – even at the time that sounded unlikely given the coincidence with the UK leaving the EU. Now of course Brexit may be delayed until May or June, and the effort involved in Brexit may be one of the reasons for the delays with the review. It has also been suggested that the government may be waiting because they want some big policy announcements to make after Brexit.
The most relevant dependencies are linked to government funding priorities. The outcome of any review of fees and funding needs to be affordable. The terms of reference say "its recommendations must be consistent with the Government's fiscal policies to reduce the deficit and have debt falling as a percentage of GDP". The first delay to Augar was because of the Office for National Statistics review of accounting for student loans that came out in December 2018 (You can read about this in more detail in our analysis in the HE policy update for the w/e 21st December 2018). The latest delays may be linked to the Chancellor's Spring statement (due on 13th March 2019 – a day when other things are happening). But the Spring statement is only a holding position – partly because Philip Hammond has said it might all change depending on what happens with Brexit, and partly because the real story about spending is the comprehensive spending review. This is a full review of all government spending but the dates have not been confirmed. They may be confirmed as part of the statement on 13th March.
All this matters because while there are lots of other things at stake, including the "young vote" and perhaps more importantly, the votes of parents and other contributors to student budgets and the government's social mobility agenda, this review is largely driven by money. Many have called for investment in FE, in support for disadvantaged students and, in particular, for maintenance grants. Against the other pressures on the economy, and a narrative of bad news about the sector (grade inflation, pay differentials, free speech, poor quality courses etc.), an overall increase in investment in HE looks unlikely. The ONS accounting changes on student loans don't change the cost of HE but they increase its visibility in the deficit.
So just a quick reminder – what are the possible recommendations of Augar and/or the final DfE report, whatever form it takes?
Tuition fee cuts – widely trailed as a leak from Augar, repeated again last weekend. Apparently the original figure that Augar will propose of a cap on tuition fee loans of £6500 a year has been increased to £7500 because of sector resistance. Such a cut would be likely to have far reaching consequences in terms of services and SSR. It might mean drastic cuts in spend on WP activities, now financial targets will not form part of the OfS review of access and participation. It could mean changes to the profile of programmes offered across the sector as institutions abandon high cost subjects in favour of lower cost subjects, increasing competition in these areas at a time when we are still approaching the bottom of a demographic dip (and when EU student numbers are falling).
Of course there might be top ups. If they happen at all they would almost certainly be conditional. They might be linked to certain subjects or meeting access or other targets. They might be linked to student outcomes (defined in terms of employment, probably), or to regional needs (such as value add in regions of low employment or access). It may be that there would be continued support for STEM subjects, for example, or additional grants to institutions seen to be making a substantial difference to their regional economy by helping social mobility. After all, the terms of reference for the review say that it must "support the role of universities and colleges in delivering the Government's objectives for science, R&D and the Industrial Strategy".
It might be that employers could provide top-ups to the capped fees – directly to institutions or through some sort of centrally organised fund. Again, if organised centrally, this funding would most likely be conditional – probably linked to certain subjects and outcomes. If done directly it would essentially mean growth in employer sponsored degrees. There is a real conflict with the apprenticeship agenda there – how do employers choose? And how do small and medium sized businesses get involved?
Student numbers cap/limit – another way to reduce long term costs is to reduce numbers. The terms of reference for the Post-18 review rule out a direct cap on numbers. But there are other ways of doing it. Alleged leaks about the proposal to stop students with grades lower than DDD at A-level from accessing student loans have been widely discussed. See our policy update for 21st December 2018 when this story first broke. Current comment includes a blog from Nick Hillman on the HEPI website.
The headline focusses on A levels. Many students enter HE with other qualifications. Unless, as some have commented, there is a plan to not only have a floor on a-level results but also say that only students with A-levels can go to university then there would have to be an equivalent system for BTECs and other qualifications. Messy but surely possible. Given the government focus on technical education, it is not impossible that they would try to force more people down a technical route – but using entry to university as a lever would surely have the opposite effect, pushing students back to A-levels, at least in the short term if only to keep their options open.
The big focus has been on how this (like a reduction in the fee cap) would be bad for social mobility. It is also potentially bad for some universities with a large proportion of lower-grades students – ironically, these are likely to be the universities with a big impact on their region and on social mobility. This sort of rationing as social engineering just doesn't seem to make sense, but of course it plays well with those who like to talk about "mickey-mouse courses", "bums on seats", and "too many people at university" – whose conclusion is usually that "other people's children should do technical qualifications".
So what next?
The Minister was on Twitter over the weekend to say: "Worth stating today that the Augar post-18 review is an independent one which will reach its independent conclusions. We will then consider these when published—working with HE/FE sectors on an evidence-based approach to deliver a joined-up post-18 education landscape."
He went on to say: "But I have always been clear that the government's priority is to ensure that we focus efforts on widening participation and access, across all communities and WP groups, centred on value and outcome for the learner journey. We want to build bridges—not pull up drawbridges."
So back to where we started – we don't know what or when. But the story will run and run and provide a distraction from Brexit in the meantime…
And more lobbying on fees
Alistair Jarvis (Chief Exec) wrote a UUK blog expressing his belief that Augar is finished – but awaiting a good launch date:
"I have good reason to believe that the ink is rapidly drying on the Augar panel's recommendations, though the date of publication of the report itself is subject to the ongoing vicissitudes of political events.…when parliamentarians and educational experts judge the panel's recommendations it must be on the basis of what is most likely to enable Britain to thrive, not on political ideology or electoral expedience. With Brexit mere weeks away, and our collective economic future uncertain, the country simply cannot afford to risk damaging universities, our most reliable source of innovation, skills and global connections."
He goes on to say there are five tests that can be applied to the Augar recommendations – all of which highlight elements of strength, excellence or aspiration within the current HE system. In short the tests are:
Whether Augar's proposals will enhance or impede access to HE (widening participation and social mobility) – whereas the talk of reintroducing student number caps or perhaps a minimum DDD grade threshold would create access barriers
Graduate skills gaps – Jarvis argues Universities need to expand and provide more highly skilled workers, not cut back and downsize.
The combination of in-depth subject knowledge, co and extra curricular provision, 1:2:1 academic support, online learning, engagement in current research, all backed by robust regulatory system are strengths that should be maintained. "Cutting the fee level, without a commitment to make up the shortfall with public funding, will see bigger class sizes, poorer facilities, and less advice, support and choice for students."
Cuts will hit the local communities and civic life: "Any MP knows intimately how their local university is woven through the fabric of civic life, contributing to health, sport, culture, charitable endeavour and local economic growth. Much of this activity is not formally funded; universities do it because it matters and because they have a responsibility to their local community. In areas where traditional industries have declined the university is always at the heart of regeneration efforts, providing the research, innovation and skills to stimulate business growth and attract external investment".
Students should be free to make their own choices on what to study and where "Our current system is shaped by students' choices by design. To suggest that a civil servant in Whitehall knows better than a prospective student what sort of course they should study and where, is clearly nonsense…fundamentally we should respect and support students' choices – as it is they who will have to live with the consequences." Jarvis does go on to acknowledge that IAG could be better, and the funding system needs to be clearer.
During this week's Science and Technology Committee session examining the work of the Universities Minister Skidmore responded that any reduction in fees for universities would have to be mitigated through alternative measures and the voice of universities properly heard.
Meanwhile the Stephen Hammond, Minister of Health and Social Care, remains adamant nursing bursaries will not return:
The Government has no plans to reinstate the bursaries for nursing degrees and is committed to increasing uptake of the additional places these reforms have made available.
The intention of the funding reforms was to unlock the cap which constrained the number of pre-registration nursing training places, and to allow more students to gain access to nurse degree training courses, creating a sustainable model for universities and securing the future supply of homegrown nurses to the National Health Service. In support of the reforms, we announced additional clinical placement funding to make available 5,000 more nurse training places each year from September 2018 and 3,000 more midwifery training places over the next four years.
Students on the loans system are at least 25% better off than they were under the previous bursary system. In recognition of the additional costs that the healthcare students incur in order to attend the mandatory clinical placement, the Government introduced the Learning Support Fund, a £1,000 per student, per year for child dependent allowance, reimbursement of all travel costs above their usual daily travel and up to £3,000 per year for exceptional hardship. These payments are in addition to the allowances on the student loans system.
On 7 February, the University and College Admissions Service published full-time undergraduate nursing and midwifery applications made by the 15 January deadline. This data showed a 4.5% increase in applicants to undergraduate nursing and midwifery courses at English providers. We are working with Health Education England and the university sector to ensure students continue to apply for these courses this year and in future years.
TEF, metrics and more
As you are aware, last week was a big week for TEF as the call for views closed. You can read more in our policy update for w/e 1st March here.This week we have seen more about the metrics used for TEF.
The Royal Society of Statistics wrote an explosive submission., which builds on their previous submissions to the year 2 and subject level consultations (there are links in the document), which they say have been largely ignored. They say:
the TEF "appears to transgress…the..UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice for Statistics
the data is potentially deceptive and misleading for students – it should be communicated to students that "the TEF is observational in nature and that TEF differences are likely not solely due to teaching quality differences"
"The use of the same TEF award, and the same TEF logo, for all types of university seems highly misleading. The literature and communication around TEF should make it clear that TEF awards are not comparable across the board."
the presentation of data in the TEF and the way that is benchmarking may encourage game playing by universities (eg to improve their metrics)
the TEF benchmarking is flawed from a statistical point of view and many flags will have been awarded incorrectly "far too many flags are being raised, erroneously alerting the downstream human TEF panels to effects that are just not there. Our conclusion is that the previous TEF awards are not valid"
It shouldn't be called TEF because it doesn't assess teaching quality [that's an old chestnut, but one that Dame Shirley will hear a lot]
And this: "TEF also does not appear to capture the time series nature of teaching quality. We have made this point previously in our consultation responses. What is the evidence to say that a teaching quality mark now will result in a student getting a good experience in several years' time?"
TEF is oversimplifying the data, in a way which is unhelpful – and misleading. Students should be able to assess the detailed data themselves on a more granular basis through a revamped unistats. "…. It might be argued that the TEF's philosophy that distils diverse institutions into three categories, underestimates the intellectual ability of prospective students and other stakeholders"
Some more detailed quotes below because they really are worth reading:
On uncertainty:
Ultimately, the RSS judges it to be wrong to present a provider/subject as Gold/Silver/Bronze without communication of the level of uncertainty. The current TEF presentation of provider/subjects as Gold, Silver, Bronze conveys a robustness that is illusory. A prospective student might choose a TEF Silver subject at one provider instead of a TEF Bronze at another institution. If they had been told that, statistically, the awards are indistinguishable, then their choice might have been different and, in that sense, TEF is misleading.
The uncertainty is likely to be higher for subject-level assessment than for provider-level assessment….
Accurate and coherent uncertainty assessment is also vital to understand the value and cost-effectiveness of the TEF. If it turns out that the uncertainty swamps the mean level award (Gold, Silver, Bronze), then this calls into question whether it is even worth continuing with the TEF.
On comparability
Is a TEF Gold at one university the same as TEF Gold at any other university? The answer has to be no. …Statistically, TEF Gold at one institution can not necessarily be compared with TEF Gold awarded to another. This is potentially deceptive and misleading for stakeholders, particularly students…The use of the same TEF award, and the same TEF logo, for all types of university seems highly misleading. The literature and communication around TEF should make it clear that TEF awards are not comparable across the board.
On benchmarking
We are extremely worried about the entire benchmarking concept and implementation. It is at the heart of TEF and has an inordinately large influence on the final TEF outcomes. (i) The RSS has referred to benchmarking in the past as a 'poor person's propensity analysis'…. differences in TEF metric scores might be due to unobserved characteristics unrelated to teaching quality. So, attributing the differences to teaching quality is unscientific and wrong
TEF benchmarking does not include important characteristics such as amount of course content, diversity (in its broadest sense) or difficulty/challenge of material. Surely, this has an enormous effect on what is measured? This seems wrong in itself. We are concerned that omissions of this sort will lead to game playing by institutions. One might improve NSS scores, for example, by 'dumbing down' the syllabus and there is strong anecdotal evidence that this is already happening in the sector. (Indeed, OfS already has evidence of unexplained grade inflation which might be evidence of 'dumbing down' or related behaviours. How much of this is stimulated by exercises such as TEF or NSS?)
…At Dame Shirley's listening session, the RSS enquired of the DfE/OfS representatives whether multiple testing without adequate size control was occurring and the answer seemed to be yes. Since this seems to be the case, then this lack of overall size control is a serious statistical mistake and means that many (previous) TEF flags should not have been so flagged.
Transparency and reproducibility
At a minimum, we would expect the entire TEF data process pipeline to be published, including as much data that can be released ethically. We have reports of people (in and outside the RSS) trying to understand the TEF data release, but find the accompanying instructions impenetrable. There is a lack of transparency, which is fuelling a perception of lack of integrity.
Fundamentally, do the metrics input to TEF measure quality of teaching? Do the provider submissions measure teaching quality? We are sceptical. There may be some distant indirect association, but what robust research been carried out to assess this? Alternatives might be to rename TEF (to remove 'teaching excellence'), or actually carry out some evaluation of teaching quality (which would be expensive).
We do think it is useful for students to see the metrics that underpin TEF, relating to their potential course choice. The Unistats website already does this and seems to be useful and well-used by potential students. The RSS could imagine an upgraded Unistats site containing well-chosen and well-communicated metrics being valuable for prospective students and other stakeholders.
Continuation data
And HESA have published experimental data about continuation, one of the metrics used in TEF. As we have written before, non-continuation is linked to a whole lot of different factors, but in the TEF of course the implication is that students leave because the course is poor quality or they do not believe that carrying on will make enough difference to their employment prospects afterwards.
Arthi Nachiappan and David Kernohan from Wonkhe have helpfully looked at the data to see what it says about who leaves HE. Of course there are interactive data views to play with too.
We tested a common variation on the above theory – that non-continuation rates are lower at the Russell Group and higher at post-92 institutions due to the latter taking higher proportions of first degree young undergraduate students from low participation backgrounds…
Among Russell Group institutions, students who didn't continue were more likely than average to transfer to another provider than to leave higher education altogether. Russell Group institutions tended to have a lower proportion of students from low participation backgrounds than the average provider, but non-continuation rates for those students from low participation backgrounds at Russell Group universities tended to be lower than 8%.
The equivalent figure for post-92 institutions is in the range of 5-20%. When we look at students from other backgrounds, this range narrows to between 4 and 12% at post-92 institutions, while at the Russell Group it is between 1-7%, but generally – with the exception of Queen Mary University of London – below 4%. The proportions of those from low-participation backgrounds who do not continue in their studies is higher at both groups of institutions than the equivalent figures for students from other backgrounds.
….But any idea that alternative providers are currently reaching students that would otherwise not access HE, much less offering them a successful student experience, should be abandoned.
They also look at subject level:
… the overall rate for all students leaving computer science (for instance) is 9.8%. But among students who enter following a HE foundation course, the rate is 4.2%. What students come in with is a huge predicting factor of their course outcome.
Among students entering with at least some tariff points, mass communications and documentation sees the largest percentage of non-continuation (20.40%), but the largest number of students not completing their course (6,341) are on social studies.
For those with BTECs – to give another example – the subject area with the largest number of non-completions is biological sciences (5,738), but the subject area with the highest percentage of non-completions is engineering and technology. The overall preferred subject of study for BTEC students is business and administration.
And what's next?
… once again it is Damian Hinds rather than Chris Skidmore that supplies our comment. Inflammatory "bums on seats" language will do little to endear him to the sector, and once again the threats of Office for Student action are wheeled out.
His substantive point is unlikely to surprise anyone: "No student starts university thinking they are going to drop-out and whilst in individual circumstances that may be the right thing, it is important that all students feel supported to do their best – both academically and in a pastoral sense. Today we have announced a new taskforce to help universities support students with the challenges that starting university can involve, but universities need to look at these statistics and take action to reduce drop-out rates."
It's been National Apprenticeships Week with lots of news and releases. The Federation of Master Builders published their survey which states that (marginally) more parents in the UK want to see their child undertake an apprenticeship than a university degree.
25% preferred their children to undertake apprenticeship
24% preferred their children to study a university degree
50% had no preference
Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders (FMB), said: "We're finally seeing the shift in attitudes with more people understanding the value of undertaking a vocational apprenticeship rather than a university degree. For too long, apprenticeships were looked down on and seen as the alternative route if children weren't bright enough to follow the more academic route. With university fees in England going through the roof, and with apprenticeships offering an 'earn-while-you-learn route to a meaningful job, it's no wonder that the penny has finally dropped."
These findings contrast (slightly) with the Sutton Trust findings below (note these only asked about degree apprenticeships – parents seem to be preferring the traditional degree model rather than a degree apprenticeship for their children with the capability to study at this level).
The Sutton Trust surveyed parents (with children aged 5-16) about on degree level apprenticeships. Key Findings:
27% said they would advise their child to take a degree level apprenticeship over a universities degree course, with 31% indicating they would make the opposite recommendation, Of which:
68% intimated that this was because they believed it offered better career prospects, whilst 29% said it was because they lacked knowledge about apprenticeships in general
The National Audit Office published a report assessing the apprenticeship programme considering whether it provides value for money, addresses poor productivity, and employer investment in training. It wasn't great news for the Government. Key conclusions:
The DfE has not set out clearly how it measures whether the programme is boosting economic activity
Since funding reforms were introduced, apprenticeship starts have fallen substantially.
Employers are not using the apprenticeship levy to pay for new apprenticeships (just 9% of funds used, £191 million of the available £2.2 billion)
The average cost of training an apprentice is double what was expected, as employers are choosing more expensive standards at higher levels than expected. This could inhibit the growth in the number of apprenticeships once frameworks are withdrawn and all apprenticeships are on standards.
To meet the target of 3 million new apprenticeships by March 2020, the rate of starts would need to double for the remainder of the period
The Department's targets for widening participation among under-represented groups lack ambition and levels of apprentices from the most disadvantaged areas are actually going down.
The introduction of standards has increased the number of higher-level apprenticeship starts, and the trend looks set to continue. But its not all good news some levy paying employers are replacing professional development programmes with apprenticeships – meaning no additional value to the economy.
Inspection grades are still low with many inadequate or requiring improvement and the 20% off the job training rule doesn't appear to be adhered to across the board.
Just a few of the most relevant recommendations:
The Department should set out clearly how it measures the impact of the programme on productivity, and indicate the level of impact that it is aiming to achieve.
The Department should strengthen the programme's performance measures relating to participation among under-represented groups.
The Department and the ESFA should assess whether they would secure better value for money by prioritising certain types of apprenticeship, rather than delivering a programme for apprentices at all levels, in all sectors.
Matthew Fell, CBI Chief UK Policy Director, said: Today's report confirms what employers already know – that the Apprenticeship Levy is not yet working as intended and is holding back the Government's welcome efforts to modernise the skills system. Companies are committed to apprenticeships, so what's needed now is a second wave of reform. The Government must use its review of the apprenticeship levy to work with business and the sector to build a system that supports, rather than frustrates, employers offering a first step to people in their career.'
The OfS have released one of their Insight Briefs on degree apprenticeships to try to raise awareness and increase both supply and demand for degree apprenticeships. This link also has the data on level 6 and 7 apprenticeship starts (2017/18) and this looks at the disadvantage profile of young apprentices on higher level apprenticeships. The chart below highlights that as the level of apprentice rises more places are taken up by the more advantaged students (quintiles 4 and 5).
Research Professional have an interesting article on the government's plans to prepare for the impact of no-deal Brexit on research.
With three weeks to go before Brexit day, the UK government is in talks to create an international research funder to mitigate the loss of access to the coveted European Research Council….As reported by Cristina Gallardo, a project to craft a UK-based global research agency is being led by Adrian Smith, director of the Alan Turing Institute, the UK's national centre for data science. …In the spirit that hard problems are not to be shirked, today's Playbook draws attention to three questions that will be high on Team Smith's list of considerations.
Size matters How much funding should researchers expect? That's the billion-pound question and one in which UKRI chief executive Mark Walport, BEIS secretary Greg Clark and chancellor Philip Hammond have shares. According to data compiled by the Royal Society, in the previous European Framework programme (2007 to 2013), the UK received €1.67 billion in ERC grants, around a fifth of the entire budget. The UK also received just over €1bn in Marie Skłodowska-Curie grants, a quarter of the total. Former Royal Society president Paul Nurse reiterated last week that the UK receives between £500 million and £1bn more in European grants annually than the government puts into the EU science budget, and he isn't confident that this extra funding will be replaced. Assuming that the government pays separately for the UK to associate to eligible parts of Horizon Europe, the new global fund should still be worth at least in the region of €350m to €400m annually, and likely more if it also absorbs the Global Challenges Research Fund and what remains of the Newton Fund….
Housing decisions We know that the new funding agency cannot be a like-for-like replacement for the ERC, as it is designed to support UK-international collaborations. But that prompts questions about its institutional home and its organisational architecture. It will almost certainly sit inside UKRI. But what happens if UKRI chooses to reduce or streamline its nine-council structure? …A permanent home will take time to decide on. In the interim, BEIS and UKRI could potentially extend their relationship with outside bodies such as the British Council and the British Academy. ..
What price autonomy The ERC's great attraction for researchers—something that the UK fought hard to achieve—is that it is both generous with its funding and unashamedly investigator-led. Nick Talbot, a plant geneticist at the University of Exeter, told us in an interview that his success in obtaining an ERC Advanced Grant was down to his track record as a scientist and the power of his idea—not necessarily the foremost criteria for conventional grant schemes. But we're in a vastly different world from 2004, when Ian Halliday, then chief executive of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, was happy to remark: "There is an awful flavour in Europe of: 'Let's give everybody something.' It has to be possible for the best guy in Cambridge to run away with all the money." It isn't possible today to establish a funding agency without proper regard to equality of opportunity, diversity and inclusion. Funders can no longer disregard the importance of place as well as public engagement in how they make decisions. Creating a wholly new research funding body in the midst of the Brexit drama presents plenty of challenges and it should not be rushed. The chance to create a global research funding agency doesn't turn up every day.
Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, responded to a parliamentary question to highlight the Government's hopes for Horizon Europe:
The Department has worked closely with UKRI and engaged with wide range of stakeholders on no deal planning for the Horizon 2020 programme. This includes via the High Level Group on Science and Research. Further updates will be provided on Horizon 2020 no deal planning in due course.
The Government remains committed to ongoing collaboration in research and innovation and wants to work with the EU on a mutually beneficial outcome beyond 2020. The Government wants to have the option to associate to Horizon Europe, depending on the outcome of negotiations.
In the event that the UK does not associate to Horizon Europe, the Government is committed to continuing to back UK researchers and innovators by supporting measures to enable world-class collaborative research, including support for small businesses. We will be seeking independent advice from Sir Adrian Smith on these measures.
He also includes research within his top priorities when he spoke within the Committee meeting that scrutinises his work:
Skidmore informed the committee that the UK was rated one of the most innovative nations in the world and was home to three of the world's top ten universities. He argued that 2019 was a critical year for science and innovation due to Brexit and the CSR. It would be pivotal to establish a clear roadmap that demonstrated where public investment would be made as well as demonstrating how private investment would be leveraged to reach the new target of research and innovation spend at two-point four percent of GPD.
He went on that
…it was important to maintain close ties with European institutions after Brexit, including participation in programmes such as Horizon 2020, Euratom and the European Space Agency.
His priorities, Skidmore advised the committee, were to ensure maximum certainty on relationships with Europe, ideally through a deal on Brexit, meeting the target of 2.4% spend and to maintain strong international collaboration.
Meanwhile Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, who was also examined informed the committee that he had been focused on [amongst other work] improving the absorptive capacity of science among policy makers. Perhaps good news for those academics hoping Parliament will take their research on board within policy development.
SUBU says: Gender in HE – graduate outcomes
Here's the latest from SUBU's Sophie Bradfield.
As its International Women's Day, it's interesting to take a brief look at gender in Higher Education; specifically graduate outcomes. There are lots of factors that can influence outcomes and this update only looks at gender, but when you add characteristics such as ethnicity or disability alongside gender, the picture changes again.
First a caveat; I was disappointed when researching data that the most reputable sources only separate graduates by sex and not gender or perhaps they have even confused the two; so on a day where we are actively celebrating gender equality, I'd like to share the Genderbread Person, which is a great infographic to understand the concept of gender and why it's important that we don't use it interchangeably with sex.
The number of graduates has increased steadily over the past decade and it is widely known that females are more likely to enter Higher Education than their male counterparts (see UCAS applicant figures). However when looking at the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) report on Graduates in the UK labour market, the outcomes of female graduates compared to male graduates highlight a disparity in employment attainment after leaving Higher Education.
The research defines a graduate in broad terms as: "a person who is aged between 21 and 64, not enrolled on any educational course and who has a level of higher education above A level standard." With this definition, it looks at all graduates and not just recent graduates, therefore using a data set of 14 million people in the UK who were graduates from July to September 2017.
Delving deeper into the report, employment rates differ between male and female graduates, with 86% of male graduates in employment compared to 79% of female graduates (figure 13a). Further to this, the research also finds that male graduates are more likely to have high or upper-middle skilled employment (figure 14a). It's important to note that in this research, high-skilled employment involves use of skill acquired from a degree or equivalent; upper-middle skilled employment involves skills developed from post-compulsory education but not degree level; lower-middle skilled employment involves skills developed from compulsory education with a combination of work experience; and low skilled employment involves skill attained from compulsory education.
The data shows female graduates are almost twice as likely to have lower-middle skilled employment compared to male graduates, which goes some way to explain why the median gross hourly pay differs, with male graduates receiving £17 an hour on average, compared to female graduates receiving £14 an hour.
33% of female graduates work part-time, compared to only 8% of male graduates (figure 14b) and 47% of all part-time workers are employed in lower-middle skilled jobs (figure 14c). The statistics show that the lower-skilled jobs seem to offer more opportunities to work part-time; which is a need that can be influenced by a number of factors including family commitments, which as 11% of female graduates, compared to 2% of male graduates, are 'inactive due to looking after the family and/or home' (figure 13b), is a factor which has a greater impact on female graduates than male graduates.
Figure 11 shows that STEM degrees lead to higher salaries and Figure 15b shows that the subjects that lead to the highest average salaries are mainly dominated by male students. According to WISE: "Women make up 23% of those in core STEM occupations in the UK". Because of this, there are fewer female role models working in these areas and/or going on to teach STEM subjects; something which is vital to move towards a gender-balanced workforce and also increase the earning potential of female graduates.
There are initiatives such as Athena SWAN which seek to address gender equality in Higher Education and you can read more about how this is working in the recent Wonkhe article 'No more steps. It's time for a leap on gender equality.'
Ultimately, despite females making up 58% of the overall figure of applicants (see UCAS), they are less likely to apply for the subjects that lead to the greatest earning potential and are also less likely to achieve employment utilising the skills developed from undertaking a degree. This is something that needs to be looked into if we want to achieve this year's International Women's Day theme of #BalanceforBetter.
Failing Universities
A new HEPI poll was released showing student attitudes to financial concerns at their institutions
The survey of over 1,000 full-time undergraduate students, undertaken for HEPI by the polling company YouthSight, shows:
most students (83%) are confident their own institution is in a strong financial position;
over three-quarters of students (77%) believe government should step in if their university were threatened with closure;
more than half of students (51%) think fees should be refunded in the event of their university closing, while only one-third (32%) back merger with another institution;
nearly all students (97%) want to know if their university is in financial difficulty – in contrast with current practice which hides financial problems from students;
most students (84%) say they would have been less likely to have applied to their university if they had known it was in financial difficulty; and
the overwhelming majority of students (89%) do not know what Student Protection Plans are, while even more have not seen their own university's Plan (93%).
Lots of renewed media interest in the financial sustainability of universities and the polling results: BBC, iNews, FE News, and Mail Online.
We have a big week coming up for Brexit, maybe, but in the meantime…
The Institute for Government have published a report on Immigration Post-Brexit. This criticises the Government's "incoherent position" over student migration, with the DfE on the one hand wanting to increase education exports to £30 billion by 2020, but simultaneously counting students in the net migration target. "The policy remains simultaneously to reduce student migration while also wanting to boost it".
This, from James Blitz in the FT, summarises the position nicely.
The Russell Group are calling on the Government to change their post-Brexit immigration plans as the salary threshold is too high for mid level scientific, teaching and technician posts, and it discriminates against part time posts (many of which are taken up by women). ITV news covers the story.
Student Loans – another way of presenting them
MoneySavingExpert.com and the Russell Group of universities are piloting a proposed redesign of the student loan statement and are calling on parents, students, graduates and those in the higher education sector to test it and give feedback. The consultation runs until 12th March
MSE and the Russell Group, which represents 24 UK universities, believe that this change should substantially enhance understanding of the student loan system for graduates and their families. We plan to present our findings to Government in the hope it will change the current student loan statements.
Currently, students simply receive a statement of their outstanding 'debt' and the interest that is being added. As an example, a low-earning graduate on a Plan 2 loan (for students in England and Wales who started university after 2012) would receive a statement with £50,000 of 'debt' on it, and would see it growing by £1,500 a year in interest. But in reality, a graduate earning under £25,000 would not have to make any repayments at all.
Instead, the redesigned Plan 2 statement focuses on the actual repayments that students have made, and what they are likely to repay in the future.
You can see a full pilot of the proposed redesign on this link.
Health dominates part time provision: Wonkhe report that an independent report published by the OfS which tackle part-time provision for underrepresented students finds that allied health subjects are the most prevalent part time subject area. The report argues that decline in participation among part-time students is driven partly by cost of study and partly by lack of provision. It goes on to notes that the proportion of disadvantaged students has remained at around 10 per cent. Wonkhe go on to explore a second independent OfS report focussing on mature allied health students. They highlight that although applications from mature students have declined, enrolments have stayed stable, and the report recommends improvements to information provision and diversification of pathways into allied health courses. As ever, the questions surrounding the decline of part time provision, and the dominant programmes and part time groups remain a question of chicken or egg. It is hard to sort cause and effect out from one another.
Tags: apprenticeships Brexit Continuation fees and funding financial sustainability Gender equality Graduate Outcomes mental health post-18 review Student loans teaching excellence framework TEF
HE policy update for the w/e 1st March 2019
EU, international, policy, Student Engagement jforster
It's a big week for TEF and new guidance is out on access and participation. No real news on the post-18 review but it's apparently coming "in the Spring". Policy watchers will remember that these terms are flexible in government circles – optimists enjoying the recent sunshine and the daffodils will think Spring is upon us but officially we're still in Winter (and all the snow last year was in March)– and Spring could mean June….when Brexit may still be a big distraction….
With that in mind, we've saved Brexit for the end – and it's only a short comment.
Independent Review of the TEF
1st March was the deadline for the call for evidence for the Independent Review of the TEF. BU submitted a response which you can read here.
The UUK submission was widely covered in the press, mostly because they were very critical of subject level TEF. Their press release says: In this report, UUK – representing 136 university members – states that overall the TEF is having a tangible effect on the sector, but there is still some way to go to improve the system. In particular, UUK calls on the government to reconsider plans for subject-level assessment following the challenges arising from pilots in 89 universities, and to look again at its value for students, universities and taxpayers. In it, UUK concludes:
The TEF is having an impact on the sector, in teaching and learning strategies and the monitoring of outcome measures.
It is however hard to gather conclusive evidence of its contribution to teaching and learning experience and outcomes.
Its definition of excellence is weighted heavily towards employment outcomes, without full consideration of a student's overall study experience and the wider benefits of teaching and learning for students and society.
Awareness of the TEF is still low among students while gradual and piecemeal changes have made it complicated for them to understand or to use it most effectively.
New governance arrangements should be made to ensure the government, the Office for Students, students and providers have a clear stake in strategic decision-making.
A year into piloting subject-level assessment, there is considerable doubt over whether this will drive real value for students, while it is adding significant complexity and cost which could divert resource from other student-focused areas.
UUK believes that plans for subject-level TEF should not proceed until the limitations of the methodology, its resource impact, and the actual value of its contribution to student decision-making, have been fully considered.
Estimates from UUK put the cost of taking part in year two of the TEF at £4 million for participating universities, a figure which would increase significantly with a full roll out of subject-level assessment. UUK is calling for further consideration to be given to whether the aims of subject-level assessment could be met through existing or alternative information sources such as Unistats, university websites and league tables. Further work into this area should also look at the risks of the subject-level TEF; including concerns around the quality of the data and metrics, and their ability to support students in important and complex decisions.
William Hammonds of UUK writes about the UUK response on Wonkhe here:
the focus should be on ensuring institutional TEF makes a positive contribution to teaching, learning and student decision-making before significantly increasing the complexity of the exercise. Our concerns are:
Subject-level assessment will be large, complex and costly and won't produce reliable judgements.
It won't support good quality teaching and learning and instead will encourage universities to chase rankings.
It won't help student decision-making, only adding to the volume of information already out there.
David Morris, formerly of Wonkhe and now of the University of Greenwich, writes on Wonkhe about how to rescue the TEF and make it worthwhile
Part of the government's problem in persuading the sector, students, and wider public of the need for TEF has been its insistence that it is about enabling better student choice. This is clearly complete tosh, and is being borne out by early data we have on students' general unawareness and indifference about an institution's TEF rating.
Long-time readers of Wonkhe may well remember that the real genesis of TEF (and indeed the entire new regulatory regime) came as much from government officials' belief that universities were held insufficiently accountable for teaching quality under the old quality assurance regime, particular compared to research, as much as it came from any Tory ideologues' insistence of creating a market for student choice.…Greater honesty about TEF's role in asserting the public as well as student interest in university accountability would also better reflect what we have finally acknowledged about higher education funding: ultimately, the taxpayer is footing most of the bill. Acknowledging this fact, as well as the wider limits of marketisation, could lead to an accountability exercise with greater scope for nuance, recognition of diversity, and more conducive towards actually making teaching and learning better.
He defends benchmarking (which we agree with – although we have concerns about forced differentiation)
But we shouldn't overlook the instances where TEF has pointed us in the direction of a more progressive and fairer assessment of the state of the UK university sector. This is most notable in the instance of benchmarking TEF metrics, by far the biggest leap forward in assessing UK universities' quality of student experience upon their actual merits rather than irrelevant and archaic qualities such as ancientness, research power, or international prestige. Benchmarking is what distinguishes TEF from the traditional media league tables, by acknowledging that different institutions' student characteristics give them a different starting point from which to be evaluated.
I really hope that the Pearce Review does not abandon this approach. If TEF abandons benchmarking and moves in a more qualitative direction, the spectre of the early-nineties teaching quality assessments might begin to emerge, with judgements on the quality of teaching being made almost concurrently with perceptions of prestige and research quality. This would be a huge step backwards.
And urges the review to drop LEO (something we also agree with – it is interesting but the data can't tell you anything about current courses, if it can tell you anything about courses at all….what it tells you about is the economic and employment situation of students who graduated a number of years ago, which may or may not have much to do with their university studies…)
Regular readers of Wonkhe will know that I am far from a LEO cynic. Indeed, I am really enthused about the power that richer data about graduate employment outcomes for better policy making in higher and further education and about the youth labour-market efforts to make society more just.
But beyond ideological objections (which are well documented elsewhere), on a practical level, TEF is not the right place for the DfE to play with its sparkly new toy. The piloted inclusion of two new supplementary LEO metrics in TEF appears to have produced bizarre results. Upon brief examination of the national data, the spread of outcomes once benchmarked across providers appears to be very narrow, with few providers securing either a positive or a negative flag. Under the current flagging system, if a new TEF metric does not show a sufficient spread of performance, it is hard for me to see how it will aid panel decision making or provide much value.
Then there is the lag effect of LEO's inclusion in TEF. If TEF 2020-21 goes ahead as planned, it will include assessment of the graduate employment and salary outcomes of students who entered university in 2008 (i.e. my own fresher year). It will also assess those graduates' employment outcomes in the 2014-15 tax year. This seems nonsensical, both in fairly assessing institutional performance, and in providing information to applicants.
Post-18 review
After we trailed the Augar report it didn't come out – and we aren't now sure when it will. The PM answered a question about it in PMQs this week – "Philip Augar and his panel are working on the report and we will look seriously at the proposals they bring forward".
The House of Commons library has published a research briefing on the post-18 education and funding review. The covering note:
says that the review is due to report I the Spring 2019 – so presumably that is still the plan.
confirms that the Review recommendations will be consistent with the Government's fiscal policies to reduce the deficit
says that the recommendations will not place a cap on the number of students who can access post-18 education.
This briefing paper discusses the Review process and gives an outline of the post 18 funding system in England.
It includes helpful links to some of the mission group and other influential responses to the original call for evidence – ours is here
It suggests possible options for reform that the Review may propose, such as the lowering of higher education tuition fees and analyses the impact of these proposals in detail, including looking at the Treasury Committee and House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reports, which we have reviewed in this update previously.
It includes a summary of impact
The BBC have published this story suggesting the reasons for the delay are Brexit plus a disagreement about the outcomes of the review – which may have pushed it back to the drawing board…
But it seems increasingly likely that the all-consuming politics and economic uncertainty of Brexit have pushed back the review.
There are also claims of significant differences in what 10 Downing Street, the Treasury and the Department for Education want from the shake-up of fees. According to sources, a headline cut in fees is seen as important for the prime minister's office – described as being the "retail offer" needed to respond to Labour in a general election.
The Treasury does not want to commit to extra direct funding while there is such uncertainty about future public finances. But at the same time, the Department for Education is reluctant to go ahead with a cut in students' fees until it is clear how that income could be replaced.
The debate is said to be "stuck on the roundabout" – and even when the Augar review publishes its findings, there could be delays before the government responds with any decision.
This might not be until the autumn or later – in a political calendar full of uncertainties about budgets, elections and leaders.
However, other senior university figures say the prime minister might want to push ahead with changing fees as soon as Brexit has been achieved, as a way of showing the government still has a grip on domestic policy.
There are also arguments that when the review is so strongly linked to Theresa May, any change at the top could see it disappearing into the long grass. Charles Heymann, a higher education consultant who formerly worked at the DfE, says: "It wouldn't be the first education review to end up gathering dust on Whitehall shelves."
In the meantime, the lobbying continues. Shakira Martin, the NUS president, wrote for Wonkhe.
I'm still adamant that maintenance grants need to return, so we support working class students and put an end to the obscene situation whereby they graduate with the highest student loan debts. The Diamond Review in Wales shows this can be done in a way that really ensures the poorest students are properly supported, and we know that the Augar has looked at the findings of Diamond in detail. On top of that, just about every voice in the sector, including UUK, the Russell Group and Million Plus argues they should return, so I remain hopeful.
We also need to provide better funding for those on part-time or distance learning courses, or otherwise support flexible learning – this should include targeted support like childcare funding for part-time students and travel grants for commuters. The decision to scrap NHS bursaries for nurses, midwives and other healthcare professions needs revisited as it has clearly failed those students and the health service.
There are lots of other changes we have suggested that would make a huge difference to students such as monthly student support payments monthly to help students budget or increasing the threshold for maximum support from £25,000 for the first time in over a decade. And all this is not even to start on adult learning – student support is inadequate in HE – but at least it exists. We need to radically improve the offer for those in FE and I think the Augar panel will recognise that too.
And HEPI have a blog by Andy Nicol, Managing Director at QS Enrolment Solution about a student survey about the perspectives of prospective students:
"This year's survey (of 1,700 respondents, mostly aged 16-18) sought to unpack what they believe to be the appropriate balance between their individual investment in their degree and that of the state."
39% of respondents say that the debt they will take on makes them less likely to apply to university than they otherwise would. It is perhaps not surprising then that overwhelmingly (88%) survey respondents believe that Government should be funding at least half of the teaching cost of an undergraduate degree. These prospective students also said that their tuition fees being spent on student accommodation, course facilities, careers support and links to employers would represent a return on their investment.
HEPI's own research last year found that 74% of students want more information on where their fees go. According to university accounts, the research also found that typically only around 45% of each student's fee goes on the direct costs of teaching – such as staff salaries. The majority of the remainder is also spent on areas that benefit students. After teaching, the next biggest cost is buildings. Then come other high priorities like information technology, student support services (such as counselling and careers advice), widening participation activities and the students' union.
… Now is the time for Government to work more closely with universities to ensure it communicates how potential new funding arrangements will represent value for money. With political, economic and demographic challenges facing the sector, it is more important than ever that institutions understand how to engage better with potential recruits. That's why as part of this report we have published an Action Plan for Domestic Student Recruitment in 2019to help universities and Government do just that.
The OfS published guidance for institutions to produce their new Access and Participation plans for 2020/21. Key points include:
The removal of the guideline percentage of how much of the higher fee income an institution should spend on widening participation, success and progression activities.
The OfS has stated institutions can expect increased scrutiny, rigour and challenge on their plans, in part to kickstart the stagnation of social mobility. Including consideration of whether institutions are at risk of breaching their conditions of registration with the OfS.
Focussed, evidenced, analysis of an institution's current performance will link with the institution's strategic aims and priorities for rectifying inequalities in access, student performance and attainment, and progression. The OfS will assess the feasibility of an institution's aims and the appropriateness and challenge within the chosen targets.
All targets should be outcomes based, rather than measuring outputs.
A greater focus and breakdown on 'investment' (spend) is required for access measures. This fits with current Government rhetoric on ensuring widening access spend is effective and focussed towards the most efficient and successful outcomes (supported by robust evidence of impact).
Evaluation, impact and research of widening participation interventions remains important.
All providers are expected to use the POLAR measure (number of young local population that progress to HE) to provide a level of consistency and comparability. A national Access and Participation dataset is also expected to be published shortly.
The OfS has also set itself national key performance measures which address the inequalities they are most concerned about – the gaps that remain the most challenging to tackle and affect large student groups. In order to meet these measures all institutions are expected to have a target which contributes towards improving outcomes in these KPI areas.
ENTRY GAP – Eliminate the gap in participation at higher-tariff providers between the most and least represented (POLAR) groups, from a ratio of 5:1 to a ratio of 3:1 by 2024-25.
DROP OUT GAP – Reduce the gap in non-continuation between the most and least represented groups (POLAR) – eliminating the unexplained gap by 2024-25, and eliminating the absolute gap (the gap caused by both structural and unexplained factors) by 2030-31.
ATTAINMENT GAP – Reduce the gap in degree outcomes (1sts or 2:1s) between white students and black students, eliminating the unexplained gap in degree outcomes (1sts or 2:1s) between white students and black students by 2024-25, and eliminate the absolute gap by 2030-31.
ATTAINMENT GAP -Reduce the gap in degree outcomes (1sts or 2:1s) between disabled students and non-disabled students by 2024-25.
The OfS acknowledges that other non-KPI measures remain important too – addressing the decline in the number of mature students in higher education and access, success and progression for care leavers.
Sarah attended a parliamentary reception this week at which Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation, emphasised the scrutiny and rigour with which the OfS will be examining the new plans, pushing for ambitious (but realistic) progress, and setting out a commitment to tackle underperformance early on. At the reception there was much discussion of the US universities' Princeton model of admissions with Chris Millward calling for more English universities to step away from grade based entry and make far more use of contextual admissions, including assessing the personal qualities of grit and resilience which he felt were sure indicators of graduate success within disadvantaged students. Chris confirmed that the OfS' powers didn't extend to direct interference in an institution's admission policy and that the Access and Participation targets would be one of their key methods to push the sector to solve the disadvantage gaps.
Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, gave his first speech on access and participation on the day the guidance was launched. He spoke during a tour of Nottingham Trent University and praise the institution for its work in advancing social mobility. He announced that Nottingham Trent, alongside Kings College London and the Behavioural Insights Team have been awarded the OfS contact for the WP Evidence and Impact Exchange. The Minister said: I want to use this occasion today to outline my own five-part vision for the access and participation agenda – to help set a strategic direction for the sector and support the OfS in holding providers to account on these vitally important issues.
His speech acknowledged the importance of the removal of the student number caps, spoke about the narrowing of the gap with more disadvantaged young student applying to university, whilst acknowledging: All this is good news and a welcome move away from the days when going to university was just for the fortunate few. Yet, we all know that behind the positive headlines lies a much more complex picture of inequality and progress is not as rapid as it should be. And that takes me on to the first point in my plan – namely that we now need a more nuanced approach to 'access' and a greater recognition of the true access gaps. Major themes I want to see the sector and the OfS addressing are geographic disparities and widening access for specific groups, including White working-class as well as Black and minority ethnic students.
Sam Gyimah, the previous Universities Minister, wanted disadvantaged young people to aspire to and enter the highest tariff institutions. Chris continues this challenge to the high tariff institutions to become more accessible and think beyond entry grades whilst acknowledging that high tariff doesn't necessarily mean best: I also want to reverse the trend of students from currently under-represented groups being less likely to apply to high-tariff universities. In 2018, 17% of students who were eligible for free school meals entered higher education in the UK. Yet only 2.7% of them enrolled at high-tariff providers. Now, I'm not saying that high-tariff institutions are necessarily the best option for everyone. Plenty of excellent lower-tariff providers offer students a first-rate education with exceptional graduate outcomes, and are the right choice for many. But what worries me is that some people may not be considering high-tariff providers even when they could clearly benefit from them – showing how prior social and educational experiences can all impact on an individual's life choices. I am genuinely saddened when I hear people hesitating about applying to one of our world-leading providers because they simply don't believe that going to a university like that is really for people like them… The UK is blessed to have a diverse, multi-cultural society, and it is simply not right that, despite displaying obvious talent, some people still feel a 'top' university education is out of reach for them… This is why I also welcome the fact the Duchess of Sussex recently added public prominence to this issue when expressing shock that too few professors in the UK are from diverse backgrounds. She is right – as she herself said, "change is long overdue", and if we want our student communities to reflect our wider population, then we have to start thinking seriously about the role models and examples we are setting them.
Chris spoke about the Secretary of State for Education's guidance letter to the OfS setting out the Government's expectations. They called for greater and faster progress in access and participation, including at the most selective providers, as well as for key target groups, including disabled students and care leavers. He also spoke of the Race Disparity Audit initiative when he called for the OfS to hold universities to account for attainment disparities through their Access and Participation plans and, if necessary, to use its powers to challenge any provider failing to support equality of opportunity.
Chris was stern on the effective use of WP monies, particularly making better use of evidence to inform spend: £860 million [the combined planned spend by universities on WP in 2018/19] is not an insignificant sum and, so, I believe it is essential that this money is used well, and that any future spending is underpinned by clear evidence and evaluation. Although some providers already do this, for too long the sector as a whole has been too slow in using evidence to inform its approaches and to understand what really works.
He also wants to see more collaboration across the sector: Despite numerous providers undertaking excellent work in the access and participation space, by and large, the sector has been too piecemeal in its approach and too many providers have got used to doing their own thing. I will be the first to admit that this may well be a logical consequence of policy development – with an emphasis on market-style activity, a lack of data-sharing, and too little infrastructure to encourage collaboration. But now is the time for this to change.
Finally, he turned to the importance of data and consistent, reliable measures to track progress in tackling disadvantage. When it comes to data, I know there is a saying that 'what gets measured, gets managed'…higher education providers have focused less on the outcomes of their disadvantaged students than they should…Differing approaches have not helped. The key measure to drive widening participation in higher education has traditionally been POLAR…The POLAR system has many strengths, and the insight it has provided has helped lead to genuine progress in opening up access to university. Yet, it is also known that POLAR doesn't always overlap well with other measures of disadvantage – such as eligibility for free school meals…the principal measure used in schools and forms the main basis for extra support and funding. He spoke of UCAS' work to find new and better predictors of disadvantage in higher education that take account of much more than just where someone grew up. It's also why I welcome the OfS's commitment in its access and participation strategy to work with providers to look not just at POLAR, but other aspects of disadvantage to ensure this work can really transform the life chances of young people.
He also welcomed the Transparency Duty which requires institutions to publish data on the application, offer, acceptance, completion and attainment rates of students, divided by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background: And on this, I further welcome the OfS's requirement that providers set out their ambitions for improving access and participation for up to five years and report annually – something which I hope will keep everyone's eye on the ball and prevent us from becoming complacent. He also spoke about the newly announced formation of a Data Advisory Committee stating it would help me ensure we are not only using the right data to shape the access and participation agenda, but are using it in the right way. I therefore look forward to working with the OfS, this Committee and the wider sector to find ways to refine and advance the data we use.
Interestingly he also mentions the (delayed) Augar Review and attempts to reassure the sector as a counterpoint to the leaked snippets and speculation of disastrous cuts for HE within the past press: I know many in the sector have been critical about what could emerge from the Review's recommendations and its potential impacts on access and participation activities. Let me reassure you today that progressing access and successful participation remains a top focus for this government and it will be a key lens for me and others in government as we decide how to take the Review forward. My key outcome for the Review is that we create a truly joined-up system, which is even better at promoting social mobility and countering childhood disadvantage. I also encourage us to view the post-18 Review as an opportunity to think again about how we view disadvantage, to ensure we are putting our energy and investment where it is most needed. Reading between the lines I'm not sure this is quite as reassuring as Chris intended!
Disadvantage starts early – Universities Minister Chris Skidmore is a believer that disadvantage starts at birth and has committed to working with Nadhim Zahawi (Minister for Children and Families) to tackle disadvantage. He has announced they will be working together to improve support for care leavers throughout the whole education system, noting that only 6% of care leaver attend universities and are the most likely student group to drop out. He urged the OfS to do all they could to support care leavers. Nadhim also announced an additional 1,000 health visitors will be trained to support children's early language and communication needs this week. Noting that children who start school with poor vocabulary are twice as likely to be unemployed as an adult. The health visitors will detect early signs of speech and language delay and take early action when it can have the most benefit.
Level 4-5 Qualifications Review Outcomes
The DfE have published a research report on the Level 4-5 Qualifications Review. Key points:
L4-5 qualifications support a diverse mix of students. The qualifications are undertaken by a slightly higher proportion of ethnic minority and male students than other HE and FE programmes, and there is also a relatively high proportion of older learners and learners with disabilities
Nearly all FE colleges (97%) and most HEIs (88%) provide L4-5 qualifications. Nearly 200 private and adult community learning providers deliver L4-5 providers, which includes 48 alternative providers in HE that are not FE colleges.
The L4-5 market is diverse. There were 3,368 different L4-5 qualifications that were available to learners in 2016/17, of which 2,633 were developed by HEIs and delivered by FE and HE providers.
The size of the L4-5 market is relatively small, compared to HEIs and FE providers' overall offer. There were 111,420 learners that studied an accredited L4-5 qualification in 2016/17, which comprises only 2% of all vocational qualifications awarded. In HE, there were 75,632 learners that undertook L4-5 qualifications in 2016/17, which accounted for 3% of all HE learners.
L4-5 programmes not delivered through apprenticeships are most commonly taken for subjects in health, public services and care (composing 23% of all L4-5 learners); business administration and law (17%); and Engineering and manufacturing technologies (12%).
Just under 40% of learners on HE-accredited L4-5 programmes progressed to full-time employment and 26% progressed to full-time further learning. This reflects the dual aims of L4-5 qualifications. The proportion of learners that progress to employment does, however, vary significantly by subject area and qualification type
Support the promotion to providers and learners of L4-5 qualifications that provide direct entry to the labour market, by being actual or de facto licences to practise. Awareness of these qualifications can be low among learners, which reduces take-up.
Incentivising HEIs to recognise L4-5 qualifications as providing exemptions from the first or the first and second year of a degree programme and encouraging joint working with HEIs and AOs to harmonise content with degrees and L4-5 provision.
Stimulating FE providers and HEIs to expand their L5 provision, as this appears to be provided less comprehensively than L4, despite having higher learner take-up.
The DfE have published Apprenticeship and Levy Statistics for February 2019
As at 31 January 2019, 122,700 commitments had been recorded for the 2018/19 academic year (114,000 fully agreed and 8,700 pending approval). This compares to 98,000 commitments recorded for the 2017/18 academic year at the equivalent point last year
Of the 122,700 commitments recorded so far for 2018/19, 60,800 commitments were for apprentices aged 25 and over. 38,200 commitments were intermediate apprenticeships, and 52,000 were advanced apprenticeships.
In 2017/18, there were 48,150 higher level (level 4+) apprenticeship starts, compared to just 3,700 in 2011/12.
Between 2015/16 and 2016/17 higher level starts increased 34.7per cent from 27,160 to 36,570.
Between 2016/17 and 2017/18 the higher level starts rose 31.7 per cent to 48,150.
In contrast, both intermediate (level 2) apprenticeships and advanced (level 3) decreased between 2016/17 and 2017/18 by 38.1 per cent and 15.9 per cent, respectively.
The DfE have published an Apprenticeships Study on non-completion. This is NOT about degree apprenticeships but FE learners and apprentices – but still interesting
Non-completers commonly lacked information about the content of their course and how it would be delivered before they began. Whilst motivated, a lack of upfront information before they started the course meant that expectations tended to be limited to an expectation that the course would be organised, run smoothly, and enable them to work to pass.
Non-completers reported mixed experiences of their courses and apprenticeships. However, they had commonly experienced challenges such as a lack of sufficient flexibility, loss of child care, and employers not allowing them enough time to do their coursework.
Non-completers dropped out when one or more of three key areas were not satisfied. They dropped out when core personal issues took priority over learning; with family, health, and finances commonly taking priority. Drop out occurred when learners did not see their course as valuable, meaning the content and level were not appropriate to enable them to pursue their career goals. Finally, learners dropped out when their course or apprenticeship failed to meet their expectations for functional delivery.
This is interesting because of course many of the same issues arise with university non-completions. Non-completion (or continuation as the TEF calls it) is a key metric for TEF, precisely because the DfE believe that the value of the programme and the functional delivery of it, to use the terms above, are key indicators of the quality of a programme and so continuation is a proxy measure for quality. Of course that ignores the personal issues. The report says: "Although learners were generally tipped into non-completion by an issue aligned to one of these areas, they tended to be facing multifaceted issues which overlapped across two or more layers". So it's not that simple.
Key Recommendations:
More comprehensive and accurate information up front about the content, structure and expectations for a course
Proactive and holistic support and flexibility to ensure they can continue to manage their course alongside their personal priorities
Improvements to course delivery so that courses and apprenticeships are more consistently delivered across the country.
The Sutton Trust have conducted a survey of parents with children aged 5-16 on degree level apprenticeships.
75% of parents said they would be confident offering children help and advice were they to apply to a degree-level apprenticeship
27% said they would advise their child to take a degree level apprenticeship over a universities degree course, with 31% indicating they would make the opposite recommendation
Of those parents who would advise their children to undertake a university degree course, 68% intimated that this was because they believed it offered better career prospects, whilst 29% said it was because they lacked knowledge about apprenticeships in general
Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET)
The DfE and ONS have published statistics on the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training.
For quarter four (i.e. October to December) 2018, 11.3% of 16-24 year olds were NEET, a slight increase of 0.2 percentage points from quarter four of 2017.
The age 16-17 NEET rate was 4.2%, an increase of 0.6 percentage points. The 18-24 NEET rate was 13.1%, increasing by 0.2 percentage points.
However, none of these annual changes to the NEET rates were statistically significant
It now looks increasingly likely that there will be a short delay to Brexit unless the deal, perhaps amended in some way with concessions from the EU, is passed on 12th March in the newly scheduled meaningful vote.
Resignations and the formation of the Independent Group of MPs don't really change the arithmetic yet. The shift of the Labour party's position on a second referendum also does not make much difference either while the vast majority of MPs continue to vote along party political lines.
There will need to be many more resignations or radical changes of position on the deal if it is to pass in March. That is still possible, but a good number of Conservatives, from both the remain and the leave side, will need to find a way to support it, supported by a good number of Labour Brexiteers seeking to avoid a second vote. Remember that more than 100 MPs need to change their view on the deal for it to go through.
However, UK citizens worrying about their plans for travel to the EU may therefore find that they don't need an International Driving Licence or private health insurance for an Easter trip. No deal is still, however, firmly on the table, so you may need them for the summer. The overwhelming flood of information from the government has included reissuances for EU colleagues and EU students about travel to the UK after a no deal Brexit – but of course the continued uncertainty is unhelpful. And it's sobering to note that whatever the result of the current flurry, even if the deal is signed we will have to go through it all again before the end of the transition period in December 2020. There won't be proper certainty about anything for a long time.
A delay beyond June still seems impossible – although it might seem a lot more possible by the time we get there.
OfS Student Panel: The Office for Students (OfS) has announced five new members of its student panel, which advises the OfS board to ensure student interests are reflected in OfS' work. Georgia Bell is President of the students' union at the Northern School of Art; Rose Bennett is Student Experience officer (postgraduate) at the University of Birmingham; Samuel Dedman is vice-president education at the University of Southampton students' union; Joshua Sanderson-Kirk is president of the student association at the University of Law and Sabrina Mundtazir is a student nurse at the University of Huddersfield.
University enterprise zones: The Treasury and BEIS have announced a £10 million fund to help develop proposals for up to 10 new university enterprise zones in England. Treasury Minister Robert Jenrick and Universities and Science Minister Chris Skidmore launched the fund during a visit to Nottingham University, which has piloted a University Enterprise Zone that is supporting start-ups and enterprises in the East Midlands. Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, stated:
Our universities are among the best in the world, and when they join forces with our ambitious and innovative small businesses, they have the potential to meet the grand challenges of the future.
HESA have published stats on staff employed in HE providers for 2017/18
Student sexual harassment/violence: Dig-In have published an infographic on sexual harassment and violence experienced by students based on a survey.
They say:
56% of students have experienced unwanted sexual behaviours (such as inappropriate touching, explicit messages, being cat called, followed and/or being forced into sex or sexual acts)
Only 15% of students believe that they are the victims of sexual harassment
And only 8% have reported an offence.
Only 25% of students who were forced into having sex reported it
53% of incidents were perpetrated by another students and 30% took place on campus
They also say that only 52% of students understand that it is not possible to give consent if you are drunk
Tags: apprenticeships Brexit fees and funding HE staff LEO Level 4 and 5 qualifications NEET Office for Students OFS Review of post-18 education teaching excellence framework TEF widening participation
HE Policy Update for the w/e 1st February 2019
EU, humanities, international, policy, Research news jforster
This week we bring you the latest on unconditional offers, Parliament give the nod to accelerated degree funding, the wonk-press frenzy in dissecting Chris Skidmore's first formal speech, and a little on the B-word.
Universities Minister speaks out
Chris Skidmore gave his inaugural formal speech as Universities Minister on Thursday which set out his vision for the higher education sector. He began by raising the uncertainties of Brexit and the knock on effect on recruitment, staffing and funding. He acknowledged the Post 18 HE Review added to this uncertainty and strove to reassure:
I hear your concerns and I am keen to work with you during this difficult period.
My vision for our universities and colleges is a positive one. I'm not going to be a Minister who comes in and beats up or needlessly berates the sector. Instead, I want to restate my commitment to you today to work in partnership with you to ensure our higher education sector remains one that works for everyone and of which we can be proud in generations to come.
Given the extent of recent regulatory changes, I understand the prospect of increased government intervention may raise alarm bells in the sector. But let me reassure you today that, as a former academic myself, I fully appreciate the concept of institutional autonomy. And I believe so much of what is good about our universities today has come about because of the freedom they have been able to exercise.
He continued on to talk of the TEF and the independent review which is "an important opportunity to take stock of the TEF from a constructively critical perspective". On accelerated degrees he acknowledged they weren't for everyone but were "just one way that the sector can expand its offerings for those who are looking for something different from their higher education experience".
Value for money, the LEO data, and student mental health got a mention and there were hints in there that Skidmore feels passionately about students who drop out of university.
On LEO: I also realise the LEO data could be developed further. So I am keen to engage with the sector to explore how to make the most of this data going forwards. For one, I want to look at ways of making this data more readily available to the academic research community to allow for more in-depth analysis. I also intend to set up a Data Advisory Committee to help me ensure, as Minister, that we are making the most of the opportunities thrown up by these rich new datasets and that they are being used in the best way possible – to ensure they are reaching those who could benefit from them; that they are being used in context; and that their insights and implications are being fully understood.
And perhaps positive thoughts for a balanced sector amid the differential fees rumours of late:
As much as I see the value of more data, I am also aware of concerns it has given rise to about the value for money of certain courses, disciplines and institutions. On this, I believe we need to take a step back and ask what exactly value for money means in the context of higher education. Successful outcomes for students and graduates are about much more than salary: if we are to define value purely in economic terms, based on salary levels or tax contributions, then we risk overlooking the vital contribution of degrees of social value, such as Nursing or Social Care, not to mention overlooking the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences – the very disciplines that make our lives worth living.
How you define value for money depends heavily on how you envisage the kind of world you want to live in. For my part, a society without people to care for each other; to support each other; to teach the next generation; or to step in selflessly in times of crisis is a very sad society indeed. Equally, although I am officially Minister for Science, I take great pride in wanting to be Minister for the Arts and Humanities as well – disciplines which enrich our culture and society, and have an immeasurable impact on our health and wellbeing.
As we move forwards into the future, the last thing I want to see is value judgements emerging which falsely divide the Sciences and Engineering from the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. To do so would be a travesty. Our future success depends on all these disciplines being completely intertwined.
Although perhaps celebrations should be tempered by the fact Chris gave his speech at the Royal Academic of Dramatic Arts.
He concluded: In my vision for the sector, people should be free to embark on higher education at any time that is right for them. We should build bridges to make this happen. By 2030, I want us to have built a post-18 education system that gives people the flexibility they need – so that no-one who has quit higher education, for whatever reason or circumstance, has to feel they have dropped out with no routes back in later in their lives.
However, Wonkhe were not convinced by the Minister, they say:
Talk was that RADA auditions were being held on the day a nervous Chris Skidmore took to a small stage in the bar to address a critical audience of wonks and journalists. But did he pass?
I'd have to say….no. Not on the lack of strength in his own performance, but on the blandness of his material. It was a crop of sector pleasing bromides that failed to hold attention and gave him little to work with. There were no popular press-pleasing pot shots at universities – so that's the good news. He's pitching himself more as late Sam Gymiah, less as Jo Johnson. But as a former history lecturer and pop-punk agitator, you expect the well-struck aside and the fascinating digression to be a part of Skidmore's armoury – first time out he played it straight. I sat there for 30 minutes, and my abiding memory was him repeatedly hedging statements with the world "overwhelmingly".
But there was little chance of the select audience being overwhelmed – the most interesting thing we learned was that Skidmore had already visited ten universities (naming most of them in the speech), and enjoyed responding to Radio 4 tweet prompts. There were no questions, and no huddle afterwards for journalists – though THE apparently has an exclusive interview. Good luck to them.
Research Professional said: Chris Skidmore may not be in office for long, but his choice of setting and conciliatory tone in yesterday's inaugural speech suggest there will be changes from the Johnson/Gyimah era. Not since David Willetts in 2010 has a universities minister arrived in post waving an olive branch rather than a brickbat.
They continue:
Inaugural speeches from ministers also need to be looked at for what they do not contain. In the case of Skidmore's outing yesterday, there was little about science, engineering or research. The phrase "world leading" cropped up many times as you would expect, but there was also no mention of the Russell Group, although Oxford and Cambridge did get a line.
There was the ritual nod to his predecessors—and every sign that the emphasis on mental health under Sam Gyimah will continue—but in other respects, we should expect some clearing out.
One of the most revealing sections of the speech was on the TEF. Skidmore began by appreciating that there is disquiet over the TEF but then added that "no university should shy away from it". He mentioned that Dame Shirley Pearce's independent review "provides an important opportunity to take stock of the TEF from a constructively critical perspective". And then came the killer line: "Dame Shirley has commissioned the Office for National Statistics to carry out an analysis of the statistical information used in TEF assessments and its suitability for generating TEF ratings."
Thanks to evidence from the Royal Statistical Society and the views of the Department for Education's own office of the chief scientist, we already know that statisticians are singularly unimpressed with the TEF's lack of statistical rigour. It is not beyond possibility that the Pearce review might precipitate the beginning of the end for the TEF. Skidmore ended with a call for universities to help twist the knife: "I hope that you will take the opportunity to make your views known to Dame Shirley over the consultation period ahead."
Skidmore also went out of his way to praise the UK's modern universities, something that ministers rarely do.
Here's the link if you want to read more of Research Professional's take on the Minister's speech.
This from Research Professional: Augar leaks have substance, says Sussex vice-chancellor who claims that many of the rumours about the Review of post-18 Education and Funding are true (lower fees, barring lower grades from accessing loans, higher fees for medicine and science).
The House of Commons library has produced a briefing overview on the state of part time undergraduate education in England, discussing the decline in numbers and the impact this has on the HE sector. Traditionally the view has been that part time student numbers have dropped because of the introduction of higher tuition fees, the lack of viable loan funding and the influence of not funding a second degree for a student who has previously studied at the same level. The timing of the Commons briefing release this week coincides with an announcement from the Welsh Government of a 35% increase in part time undergraduates from Wales. Welsh post-grads have been were eligible for dedicated bursaries and support from Welsh universities since 2018/19. With means-tested grants and loans to be introduced from September 2019. The news story attributes the success through increased numbers to the new Welsh student support system. Welsh Education Minister Kirsty Williams said:
"This is fantastic news and a real vote of confidence in our student support package, the first of its kind in the UK or Europe.
We have always said that high living costs are the main barrier for students when thinking about university. Our package of support was specifically designed to address these concerns, making it easier for people to study part-time, especially if they have work or family commitments.
Our radical approach to supporting part-time study is essential to improving social mobility, employment outcomes, access to the professions and delivering on our commitment to lifelong learning."
The DfE published analysis on the importance of financial factors in decisions about higher education.
Some groups do express greater debt aversion than others, especially:
those planning to live at home whilst studying (35%),
those of a non-white ethnicity (30%), and
those from lower socio-economic group (26%).
63% of applicants expected to use parents or 62% savings as a source of income whilst at university (particularly applicants from higher socio-economic groups (75% and 70% respectively).
University was the only option considered by the majority of applicants (75%), (this increases to 78% for Russell group applicants). This was consistent across socio-economic backgrounds. Getting a job and travelling were the main alternatives considered by applicants
The course offered (82%), university reputation (58%), and potential for high future earnings (41%) were the most commonly cited major influences on applicants' choices about where to study.
Around half of applicants (54%) said they were 'put off' to some extent by the costs associated with university.
Accelerated Degrees
This week the Lords approved the statutory instrument which makes provision for the elevated fee level (and accompanying loan arrangements) to facilitate and prompt more universities to offer faster intensive degree programmes. The BBC reports on the decision. Ex-Universities Minister, Sam Gyimah, pushed for the accelerated degrees calling on universities to shake up their offer and provide more flexibility, included accelerated provision, to meet the needs of a wider range of students and businesses. While there can be inertia inherent within large, established organisations who know their recruitment draw well the sector did not offer opposition to the push for accelerated degrees. The welcome to the new arrangements has been similar to that for degree apprenticeships, perhaps slower uptake overall than the Government wanted and often for good reason – the devil is in the delivery detail. Dr Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group, sums it up:
"Greater choice for students is always good but I would caution ministers against 'over-promising'. The government's own projection for the likely take-up of these degrees is modest and we actually hear many students calling for four-year degrees, for example, to spend a year on a work placement or studying abroad. I wouldn't want disadvantaged students to rule out a traditional three-year course because they didn't believe they could afford it. Doing a more compressed degree also reduces the opportunity for part-time work, potentially increasing short-term financial pressure."
It will be interesting to watch how many programmes are actually launched and the eventual outcomes for students.
Unconditional Offers
UCAS published data on unconditional offers on Thursday detailing the significant rise in unconditional offers nationally. There were no new messages and we've already shared the details with you in the recent policy updates. The only change is that the OfS now have an 'independent' and reliable national data set from which to push for the sector to reduce its overuse of unconditional offers to support recruitment requirements. With the threat of sanctions from the Competition and Markets Authority as a harbinger of doom for any institutions who fail to heed warnings and curb their excessive overuse. Smita Jamdar dissects the threat below.
The OFS responded: Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said:
'I welcome the publication of this data by UCAS, and the increased transparency it brings around the use of unconditional offers.
'We are especially concerned about 'conditional unconditional offers'. These are offers where a student has to commit to making a particular university their first choice before the offer becomes unconditional. The risk is that this places undue pressure on students to reach a decision which may not be in their best interests.
'As we made clear when we published our insight brief on this topic last week, there are some good reasons why universities might make unconditional offers. However, for a number of universities this data will make uncomfortable reading – where they cannot justify the offers they make they should reconsider their approach.'
The OfS also issued a news story warning universities against indiscriminate use of unconditional offers stating it 'is akin to pressure selling and could put them in breach of consumer law'. The statement accompanies the launch of a new series of Insight briefs on 'priority policy issues' you can read the first research paper on unconditional offers here.
Wonkhe ran an article by Smita Jamdar of Shakespeare Martineau, on the OFS's allegations that some practices in offer making could amount to "pressure selling". Smita says that there are several ways that unconditional offers could be relevant to consumer law:
The first is falsely stating that an offer will only be open for acceptance for a particular time, or will only remain available on certain terms for a certain time. The second is providing distorted information about market conditions to get a consumer to purchase the service on terms that are less favourable than market conditions. So cases where students are put under pressure to accept quickly, or to accept because they won't get a better offer elsewhere, might amount to a banned practice.
Depending on the facts and circumstances, there may be other features of unconditional offers that constitute "aggressive practices". A practice is aggressive if it significantly impairs a consumer's freedom of choice through coercion or undue influence and it leads to the consumer entering into a transaction where he or she would not otherwise have done so. Persistence, and exploiting any vulnerability on the part of the consumer, are examples of factors that could lead to a practice being regarded as aggressive.
Finally, the regulations also make unlawful a broader range of "unfair practices". A practice is unfair if it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence and materially distorts or is likely to distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer (average in the context of the regulations means taking into account any particular vulnerabilities of the consumer group targeted, so in the case of many prospective students, their youth and inexperience).
Of course, any case will depend on its particular facts. Action might be taken in court for a criminal offence, by the Competition and Markets Authority seeking assurances about compliance, or by a student seeking redress – including withdrawing from their programme and getting their course fees back.
Here are some press links: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Times, TES, Financial Times and the Belfast Telegraph highlights Northern Ireland's two universities who between them only made 10 unconditional offers for the last cycle.
Prior to the UCAS data release Dean Machin from Portsmouth wrote a thought provoking HEPI blog on UCAS as the gate keeper of admissions data and how their previous reluctance to release data may actually have implications for the Competitions and Market Authority too.
This story will run and run and we can expect more from the OfS in the coming months.
Admissions – and access to HE
Meanwhile a new blog on Wonkhe rounds up the end of the 2018 application cycle to give a national comparative perspective. Wonkhe also comment: For the 2018 cycle overall, the relentless rise of the Russell Group seems to have slowed, with post-92 institutions the big winners in terms of year on year growth in acceptances. There's also some surprises in those seeing large year-on-year shrinkage
Lastly, the HESA 2017/2018 release reports that the number of students in higher education in 2017/18 is at a five year high (2,343,095 students), and reflects a steady increase since 2012/13. The increased numbers also reflect increased diversity within the student body with a growing proportion of black, Asian, and mixed background students, as well as those from other ethnicities, and increased levels of students with a disability.
However, David Lidington MP, is not encouraged by the increased diversity within the HESA statistics and spoke out via a Government news story on Friday. The story announces measures to improve outcomes for ethnic minority students in higher education… [which are]… part of a bold cross-government effort to "explain or change" ethnic disparities highlighted by the Prime Minister's Race Disparity Audit website, so people can achieve their true potential, whatever their background and circumstances.
The figures from the Race Disparity Audit and OfS show that while record numbers of ethnic minorities are attending university, only 56% of black students achieved a First or 2:1 compared to 80% of their white peers in 2016/2017, and black students are the most likely to drop out of university. In the workforce, only 2% of academic staff are black. White British low-income males remain the least likely to attend higher education.
Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, said he expected universities' access and participation plans: to contain ambitious and significant actions to make sure we are seeing material progress in this space in the next few years…It is one of my key priorities as the Universities Minister to ensure… we redouble our efforts to tackle student dropout rates. It cannot be right that ethnic minority students are disproportionately dropping out of university and I want to do more to focus on student experience to help ethnic minority students succeed at university.
The carrot and stick measures include:
Holding universities to account through their Access and Participation plans – with the OfS using their powers to tackle institutions who do not fulfil their promises
Including progress in tackling access and attainment disparities within league tables to pressurise institutions to make better progress
OfS to develop a new website replacing Unistats with a particular mindset to ensuring the needs of disadvantaged students are taken into account. The website will provide better information to students so they can make informed choices.
Reducing ethnic disparities in research and innovation funding – UK Research and Innovation is commissioning evidence reviews on challenges for equality and diversity and how they can be addressed.
Gathering evidence on what works to improve ethnic minority access and success – through the OfS Evidence and Impact Exchange
Reviewing the Race Equality Charter. Advance HE will look at how the sector charter can best support better outcomes for both ethnic minority staff and students.
Encouragement for institutions to address race disparities in their workforce – using tools such as the Race at Work Charter and Race Equality Charter.
Scrutiny of each universities published data on admissions and attainment broken down by ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic background with a focus on all institutions to make progress, not just providers who have the poorest records.
The OfS have also published their commissioned research into Understanding and overcoming the challenges of targeting students from under-represented and disadvantage ethnic backgrounds. WP Wonks will recognise some familiar names from the sector within the authors of the report. There are also guidance and case studies available on the OfS page.
The OfS have published a case study of a successful academic study skills support service programme implemented in three northern FE colleges for non-traditional HE learners to support their transition and success at HE level. The study found engineering and IT students the hardest to reach with few self-accessing the service. The case study describes changes made to scheduling, flexibility in approach and embedding core elements within the programme induction. The programme's success was partly measured using the Duckworth's GRIT questionnaire. Which looks at confidence levels and the ability to sustain interest in and effort towards long-term goals, such as academic study.
In other WP news the Social Mobility Commission expect to issue their regular publication State of the Nation updated for the 2018 year in the spring.
Preparing and supporting students in the transition to University
Here is our regular student feature from SUBU's Sophie Bradfield…
On Wednesday 23rd January I attended a Westminster Briefing on behalf of SUBU, on supporting students into Higher Education (HE) which focused on how to prepare students with realistic expectations to help them transition into University life. The current generation (Z) is the most likely to go into Higher Education with almost half going to University, but student expectations aren't always an accurate picture of reality and this is a problem for transitions. Unrealistic student expectations of Higher Education can be linked to access for widening participation students; student mental health; retention; progression and success. Alongside the importance of helping students to have realistic expectations of University, a key theme identified by each speaker was the significance of students developing a sense of belonging to help them transition into HE. Below are a few key thoughts from the day.
The briefing began with a presentation from Dominic Kingaby, the Student Experience Policy lead at the Department for Education (DfE), who emphasised the way that mental health affects incoming and current students. The Office for National Statistics' work around Measuring National Wellbeing shows that prospective and current students have lower mental health than the general population. The 2017 'Reality Check' report from HEPI and Unite Students found that around 1 in 8 applicants to University have pre-existing mental health conditions, which they often won't disclose to their University. Mental Health can be exacerbated by a number of pressures which are part of University life, for example money issues, accommodation issues, assignment pressures etc. The report also found that when facing issues, 85% of prospective students would feel most comfortable talking to their friends/course-mates and flatmates about it, showing the importance of peer support and students establishing good friendships whilst at University.
It was reflected by the group that the pressures of going to University and the academic workload itself hasn't necessarily changed that much in the last ten years however the mind sets of students have. Of course class sizes are bigger; students have more information at their fingertips and financing a degree is at the forefront of most students' minds, which is intensified by social media and the news. Yet more than ever before, students are coming to University suffering with ideals of 'perfectionism' cultivated through years of their educational progress being monitoring and tracked from a very early age. (Dominic noted that he was feeding these unintended consequences of monitoring into the DfE). This 'perfectionism' then deepens a mantra of University just being for "a degree" and students having a sense that they don't "have time" to take part in and be transformed by the whole experience. Consequently they are missing out on the vital extra-curricular elements which foster skills for progression and success. Students are also increasingly suffering with 'Imposter Syndrome' leading to sentiments of not belonging at University which impacts retention.
Students who aren't prepared for HE will have very different expectations to the reality as FE is very different. The Government's work on a strategy for tackling loneliness notes that "Students and those in higher education can be at risk of loneliness, especially when starting their course, and this can lead to greater feelings of anxiety, stress, depression and poor mental health." On the academic side of things alone they will be challenged by the difference in student-staff ratios and going from fixed curriculums to independent self-study. It was agreed in the briefing that more needs to be done for students before they are even old enough to apply to University but there is also a lot that can be done in the period between an offer being given and coming to campus. There were a whole range of good practices from different institutions; from linking up incoming students with current students for peer support; to providing a portal for incoming students with all the information they would need on life at University (not just the academic side of things); and also a trial at Plymouth University of the whole of the first year being a transitionary period.
Other noteworthy aspects of the briefing include the impact that going to an Insurance choice rather than a 1st choice can have on delaying the 'sense of belonging' that a student has. It was also discussed that with a diverse student body with many different identities, transition needs to be a whole institutional and partnership approach. Universities need to work alongside their Students' Unions to offer a diverse package of support and activities for students. An example of how this can help is; one student may speak to their academic advisor because they know them from one of their units and therefore feel comfortable seeking support on an issue with them, whereas another student facing the same issue may instead get the support and information they need when speaking to their peers at their academic society. Both students have the same support needs but their identities and 'sense of belonging' are different, therefore they get this support from different places. This shows how a whole institution-collaborative approach is needed for transitions and student support.
From Research Professional:
Tuesday night's vote on Graham Brady's amendment to require the government to reopen negotiations with the European Union over the withdrawal agreement was one of the more bizarre moments of theatre in the Brexit process, with the prime minister voting for a backbencher's amendment against the deal she had spent two years negotiating.
You may be wondering how the cavalcade of MPs with a significant interest in higher education voted. Former science ministers and second-referendum advocates Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah both abstained from the vote. Universities minister Chris Skidmore and his boss Damian Hinds voted with (sorry, against, but really with) the government. Gordon Marsden and Chi Onwurah of Labour voted against the amendment, naturally. Greg Clark and other business ministers voted for the amendment.
Eight Conservative MPs voted against the amendment but not Johnson and Gyimah, which is curious.
From Dods: On Monday morning the Exiting the European Union Committee have published their twelfth report of session 2017-2019 on 'Assessing the Options.' The report is the first published since the defeat of the Withdrawal Agreement and covers a number of outcomes and assessments:
No deal: The report says that there is deep concern about the readiness of business for a no-deal exit and that the "Government's belated efforts to engage with business and provide some form of guidance is unlikely to be sufficient to mitigate the worst effects of a no-deal exit." It also highlights that the Government's no-deal technical notices "place significant weight on assumptions about how the EU will respond in the event of no-deal", and that the maintenance of goodwill depends on a settlement of financial obligations and a generous guarantee of the rights of EU citizens.
Renegotiation of the deal: The report argues that a renegotiation of the Political Declaration would, most likely, require a limited extension of the Article 50 process; a deal that would enable frictionless trade to continue is not possible under a CETA-style free trade agreement with the EU and under such rules N Ireland would have to trade under different rules from the rest of the UK as set out in the backstop; A Norway Plus relationship between the UK and the EU would enable frictionless trade on the condition that the UK continued to adhere to EU rules – including the Single Market and remain in a UK-EU customs union.
A second referendum: The report acknowledges that a second referendum would be logistically and politically complex, but not unobtainable if the will existed in UK Parliament. However, there is now insufficient time to hold a referendum before 29 March 2019 and so if the will for one did exist then Article 50 would have to request an extension to Article 50. The report highlights that under the Wightman Judgement there is a possibility of the UK unilaterally revoking the notification to leave under Article 50 but makes the distinction that this would not be a mechanism to buy time and would instead bring the withdrawal process to an end.
Conclusion: The report says there is no majority in the House for the Prime Minister's deal in its current form and repeats the recommendation of the eleventh report that "it is vital that the House of Commons is now given the opportunity to identify an option that might secure a majority." It says that there does not appear to be a majority for no deal exit but acknowledges that this remains the default outcome if the House is unable to approve the deal or pass legislation required to implement it in domestic law. It concludes that the final options remaining are for re-negotiation, legislate for a referendum, or the revoking or extension of Article 50.
Process – from the BBC: The next steps and the various alternative scenarios are set out nicely here with an exploration of each of the different possibilities
From HEPI:
The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has worked with polling company YouthSight to survey FT UG students' attitudes towards Brexit. Students are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the European Union:
76% opt for remaining in the EU
6% back Theresa May's recently rebuffed deal
7% for no deal
11% undecided.
However, opinion divides further when the option to remain is removed:
37% opt for Theresa May's deal
36% 'don't know'
27% choose no deal
Student opinion is interesting because only 43% were eligible to vote in the 2016 referendum (93% are eligible now). Some facts:
69% want a second referendum
21% are willing to work through their MP to demonstrate their voice within the Parliamentary voting
8% of students who did vote in the referendum said they would change the way they voted if there was another referendum. With Leave voters more likely to change the way they voted in a second referendum (34%) than Remain voters (2%).
If students were given the choice between remaining in the EU and no deal:
80% of them would choose to remain
10% no deal
10% unsure
75% of students believe Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU (14% believe it was right to vote to leave, 12% unsure).
And separately:
74% believe the Government is doing badly at listening and engaging effectively with young people over Brexit.
77% of students believe their future prospects will be worsened by the decision to leave the European Union (13% expect improved prospects, 11% believe it makes no difference).
Student opinion on the political parties: support for Labour is strongest but has dropped 10% since the previous HEPI poll, Theresa May as a leader is unpopular amongst students while student's choosing to vote Conservative or for the Liberal Democrats remains relatively stable. You can read more on student party opinions in the full blog here.
Students say they would turn out to vote in high numbers should there be a General Election (81% would vote). HEPI note this supports recent trends, as it was estimated that 64% of 18-24 year olds voted in the 2017 election, the highest turnout for this age group since the 1992 election.
Science Salaries
The Minister also gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee this week noting concern that the recommended minimum salary thresholds for EU workers after Brexit would be detrimental to science.
Temporary leave to remain
The Government have updated their policy issuing details of Temporary leave to remain as a Brexit no deal stopgap solution. This relates to new arrivals after March if there is no deal – students and staff already in Britain should be fine as long as they can demonstrate their residency prior to Brexit. There is a three year limit on the temporary leave to remain which may have implications for students on 4 year courses, who may need to apply for a visa mid-course to complete their programme.
Here is the detail from Dods:
The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 received its Second Reading on 28 January and has passed into Committee stage. On the same day, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Sajid Javid, announced a new 'European Temporary Leave to Remain in the UK' as part of the Government's no-deal Brexit planning.
The Government plans to implement the Immigration Bill and end free movement from 30 March 2019 in the event of a no-deal Brexit. This means that for the most part, EU citizens and their family members who come to the UK from 30 March 2019 will require immigration permission to enter the UK. The Government and the Home Office will need rules in place to grant immigration leave to enter and remain to EU citizens.
However the Government has said that the new immigration rules, as set out in the White Paper, will "take some time to implement." This means there will be a gap in immigration law and policy between the end of free movement and the implementation of the new immigration rules for EU citizens. To fill this gap, the Home Office has announced it will implement the new 'European Temporary Leave to Remain in the UK,' subject to parliamentary approval.
The main features of European Temporary Leave to Remain
EU citizens (including EFTA citizens) will be able to enter the UK as they do now (i.e. without the need for a visa/immigration permission) for a period of up to three months. During this time EU citizens will have the right to work and study in the UK.
EU citizens who wish to remain in the UK for more than the initial three months will need to apply for 'European Temporary Leave'. The Home Office has explained that this will be done through an online application where the applicant will need to prove their identity and declare any criminal convictions. This sounds similar to the application process for 'settled status'.
European Temporary Leave will allow the holder to remain in the UK for 36 months from the date of their application. EU citizens with this type of leave will have the right to work and study in the UK. It will be temporary and cannot be extended, nor will it lead to settlement in the UK. Holders of this type of leave would be required to apply for further leave to remain under the UK's new immigration rules when implemented in the future. As the Home Office explains: "there may be some who do not qualify under the new arrangements and who will need to leave the UK when their leave expires."
There will be an application fee and family permits will be required for non-EEA 'close family members'. The Home Office explains in further detail:
"European Temporary Leave to Remain will allow EEA citizens arriving in the UK after 29 March 2019 to live, work and study in the UK if there's no Brexit deal.
"EEA citizens who are granted European Temporary Leave to Remain will be able to stay in the UK for 36 months from the date of their application. European Temporary Leave to Remain will be a temporary, non-extendable immigration status. It will not give indefinite leave to remain (ILR), lead to status under the EU Settlement Scheme or make EEA citizens eligible to stay in the UK indefinitely. If EEA citizens want to stay in the UK for more than 36 months, they will need to apply for an immigration status under the new immigration system, which will come into effect from 1 January 2021. Those who do not qualify will need to leave the UK when their European Temporary Leave to Remain expires."
Those who don't need to apply
The following people will not be required to apply for European Temporary Leave:
EU citizens and their family members with settled or pre-settled status.
Irish citizens.
Those who are a "serious or persistent criminal or a threat to national security" will not be eligible and the UK's deportation threshold will apply.
EU citizens can enter the UK with either their passport or a valid nationality identity card.
The Home Office explains that employers and landlords conducting right to work and rent checks for EU citizens will not be required "to start distinguishing between EU citizens who were resident before exit and post-exit arrivals." Until 2021, EU citizens can continue to rely on their passports or national identity cards.
Settled status and no-deal
The introduction of European Temporary Leave does not affect those eligible for the settled status scheme. EU citizens living in the UK prior to 29 March 2019 can still apply for settled status in a no-deal Brexit, as European Temporary Leave is a status for those who arrive after 29 March 2019. For more information on this, see the Library's Insight 'What does the Withdrawal Agreement say about citizens' rights?'.
The settled status scheme has completed its restricted pilot testing phases and is now open for applications from all eligible EU citizens. The Prime Minister Theresa May announced on 21 January 2019 that the £65 fee for settled status will be abolished. People who have already applied and paid the fee will be refunded.
The Home Office has further said that EEA citizens who arrive in the UK after 29 March 2019, but who had lived in the UK prior to 29 March 2019, will be eligible to apply for settled status. It is not clear what the specific eligibility requirements will be for people with these circumstances who wish to apply for settled status.
The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19, House of Commons Library.
The status of EU citizens in the UK after Brexit,House of Commons Library.
What does the Withdrawal Agreement say about citizens' rights?House of Commons Library.
Erasmus & Brexit
Erasmus+ and EU Solidarity Corps in the UK if there's no Brexit deal
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, funding is available from the government to underwrite all successful bids for UK applicants submitted to the Erasmus+ programme and EU Solidarity Corps while we are still in the EU, where planned projects can continue. The DfE have updated guidance.
The Government continue to recommend that applications are submitted to the European Commission or UK National Agency for the 2019 Erasmus+ and ESC Call for Proposals as normal. In the event that the UK leaves the EU with a withdrawal agreement in place, the UK will participate in Erasmus+ and the ESC until the end of the current cycle in 2020.
In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK will engage with the European Commission with the aim of securing the UK's continued full participation in Erasmus+ and ESC until 2020. There are a range of options for the UK's continued participation in Erasmus+ and ESC, including programme country status, partner country status or another arrangement. Partner country access to Erasmus+ varies between different regional groups. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the government's underwrite guarantee will cover the payment of awards to UK applicants for all successful Erasmus+ and ESC bids.
The European Commission have also adopted a final set of contingency proposals in the area of the Erasmus+ programme.
Today's measures would ensure that in the event of a "no-deal" scenario:
Young people from the EU and the UK who are participating in the Erasmus+ programme on 30 March 2019 can complete their stay without interruption;
EU Member State authorities will continue to take into account periods of insurance, (self) employment or residence in the United Kingdom before withdrawal, when calculating social security benefits, such as pensions;
UK beneficiaries of EU funding would continue to receive payments under their current contracts, provided that the United Kingdom continues to honour its financial obligations under the EU budget. This issue is separate from the financial settlement between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Research England have published the final guidance for the REF 2021.
In early 2020, the four UK higher education (HE) funding bodies will invite UK HEIs to make submissions to REF 2021.
Each submission in each UOA will contain a common set of data comprising information on all staff in post with significant responsibility for research on the census date, 31 July 2020; and information about former staff to whom submitted outputs are attributed
The deadline for submissions is 27 November 2020.
Submissions will be assessed by the REF panels during the course of 2021. Results will be published in December 2021, and will be used by the HE funding bodies to inform research funding from the academic year 2022–23.
Wonkhe discuss the key changes:
Some of the key changes in REF 2021 includes identifying more clearly staff who have significant responsibility for research in institutions and providing a consistent approach to interdisciplinary research. The guidance distinguishes between identifying staff who have significant responsibility for research from selecting those staff whose work is to be submitted for expert review.
Additionally, Dianne Berry, the chair of the REF Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel has released a statement to address the concern that "measures put in place to promote inclusion and support equality and diversity might be used by institutions as a mechanism for excluding staff in order to concentrate quality in their submission," and pressures on researchers to disclose sensitive information. The revised guidance references the importance of voluntary declaration of individual circumstances and decoupling staff circumstances from research output.
Catriona Firth writes the following blog for Wonkhe:, Head of Policy at Research England highlights the key features of REF 2021 and the REF Steering Group's ongoing quest for injecting clarity in the review process.
Consultations & Inquiries
Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. There are lots of new updates to past inquiries and consultations, links to reports issued and Government responses to the reports. Currently we are working on:
Proposed changes to the degree classification system
EHRC inquiry into Racial harassment in HE
The TEF review
Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) proposals
We have recently submitted responses to:
Institutional cost of the current Tier 4 processing system
OfS' approach to IAG
Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you'd like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
Insolvent FE providers: The Government has published guidance on changes to the statutory regulation of insolvency and interventions regimes for FE colleges. It aims to ensure that there is legal clarity about what will happen in the exceptional event of an FE or sixth-form college becoming insolvent. It will also aim to ensure that in the event of insolvency current students are protected – it includes a special administration regime for the sector called education administration, with the objective of avoiding or minimising disruption to the studies of the existing students of the FE body as a whole. In March 2019, the DfE will publish full details setting out what is changing within the FE college intervention regime, ahead of the new insolvency regime coming into operational effect on 1 April 2019.
Apprenticeships: The CBI have published the first in a series of reports in 2019 on the apprenticeship and skills system. Getting Apprenticeships Right: Next Steps recommends that the Government gives the Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA) the independence and clout it needs to reform and regulate the English skills system. It calls for a new wave of Government action to ensure apprenticeships lead to high-skilled, high-paid jobs, which fit firms' needs now and in the future. The Financial Times reported that the CBI has called for the creation of an independent apprenticeship body to "fix the failings" of the government's reforms to workplace training. It goes on to say that CBI said:
the apprenticeship levy, which was introduced in April 2017 and forces organisations to set aside money for workplace training, had proved frustrating for many employers, which would like to train more staff but feel prevented from doing so by the system's rules. The CBI argue that more independence should be given to the Institute for Apprenticeships, which oversees all workplace training schemes, adding that businesses had complained that the system gave too little time to spend the money.
The CBI's report's key recommendations include:
The Government must make clear that the Institute is the principal body for vocational skills in England with the clout to hold policymakers and the skills sector to account.
The Institute must take further steps to speed up the apprenticeship standards approval process so that businesses can start using them.
Given employer levy funds are due to start expiring from April 2019, the Government must urgently set up an appeals system that gives employers longer to spend their money where apprenticeship standards remain in development.
With the IfA assuming responsibility for T-levels and higher T-levels, they must set out how these routes will work in practice to give employers and the public confidence in them.
NEON report on Policy Connect's/HE Commission Degree Apprenticeships: Up to Standard? report, stating: Findings are released by the Higher Education Commission which show that degree apprenticeships may be good in theory but they're not delivering for small employers or disadvantaged students. The new report 'Degree Apprenticeships: Up to Standard?' reveals that of 51 approved degree apprenticeship standards, 43% have no providers that are delivering to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME), this is despite over 99% of UK businesses being SMEs.
Engineering: Education for Engineering has published a report arguing that the UK education system cannot produce enough engineers to support the economy, especially with increasing reliance on home grown talent post-Brexit. The report concludes that if the industrial strategy is to achieve its aims, government must nurture and grow its skilled engineering workforce to improve productivity and economic growth. Since the original Perkins Review, the report found that scant progress in addressing the UK's chronic engineering skills gap has been made and calls on government and the engineering community to take urgent action. Report recommendations:
Government should review the issues affecting recruitment and retention of teachers and go beyond plans announced this week by introducing a requirement for 40 hours of subject-specific continuing professional development for all teachers of STEM subjects, not just new recruits, every year.
An urgent review of post-16 academic education pathways for England is needed. Young people should have the opportunity to study mathematics, science and technology subjects along with arts and humanities up to the age of 18, to attract a broader range of young people into engineering.
Government must ensure engineering courses are adequately funded with increased top-up grants for engineering departments if tuition fees are to be reduced.
Government should give employers greater control and flexibility in how they spend the Apprenticeship Levy, including to support other high-quality training provision in the workplace, such as improving the digital skills of the workforce.
Professional engineering organisations and employers should address the need to up-skill engineers and technicians to prepare for the introduction of disruptive digital technologies into industry.
Employers should take an evidence-based and data driven approach to improve recruitment and increase retention and progression of underrepresented groups within organisations, including by introducing recruitment targets for underrepresented groups.
Dame Judith Hackitt, Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Chair of EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, said: In particular, there is a need to radically reform technical education – creating an Apprenticeship Levy system that is fit for the future and genuinely meets employers' needs. We also need to ensure T Levels do not face the same fate as the Levy but are employer-led and driven and, sufficiently funded in disciplines such as manufacturing and engineering.
Videoing lectures: A Research Professional article looks at the use and misuse of recorded lectures and the ethical and legal position surrounding this.
Finding the right disability support: The Guardian ran a thought provoking article by Ellie Drewry on the hurdles she faces at her university because of her disability.
Mental health: A relevant parliamentary question was answered this week –
Q – Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department is taking to support the mental health and well-being of postgraduate students in universities.
Mental health is a priority for this government, which is why the government is working closely with Universities UK on embedding the Step Change programme within the sector. Step Change calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority. Step Change also advocates a whole-institution approach to transform cultures and embed mental health initiatives beyond student services teams.
The former Higher Education Funding Council for England's Catalyst Fund also provided £1.5 million for 17 projects to improve the mental health of postgraduate research students. The Office for Students (OfS) is working with Research England to deliver this scheme.
This investment and the ongoing work of the OfS will support a range of activities. It will develop new practice for the pastoral support of postgraduate research students, and enhance training for their supervisors and other staff. Postgraduate research has different expectations and working practices to undergraduate work, so it will also help students adjust to the change.
Tags: accelerated degrees access and participation admissions apprenticeships Brexit erasmus EU staff EU students immigration mental health part-time students post-18 review ref 2021 Research Excellence Framework teaching excellence framework TEF transition to university unconditional offers widening participation
EU, Funding opportunities, Impact, international, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
We have made the policy update an almost Brexit-free zone this week. Of course we are all looking forward to the excitement on Tuesday, described by the Chancellor Philip Hammond, on radio 4 as not being "high noon" – we've got lots more to get through before we get to high noon, apparently.
Keeping it dry today, no politics here…if you are interested in all the amendments to the motion so far tabled for Tuesday, you can find descriptions of them on the BBC here. Parliament will publish the order of business nearer the time but as at Friday lunchtime the latest is here, which sets out the text of the amendments as tabled so far. It is very unlikely that all of these will be debated or voted on.
Dods have given us a very handy summary:
Amendment (a) in the name of Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn: Calls for Parliament to have a vote on staying in the customs union, and a second referendum with the aim of preventing the UK from leaving without a deal.
Amendment (b) in the name of Yvette Cooper: It provides for the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 3) Bill to be heard and passed on 5 February in a single day. The Bill, if passed, would mean that if the Prime Minister could not pass a withdrawal agreement by February 26 then the Commons would have an immediately vote on whether to request an extension of Article 50 from the EU which would end on 31 December 2019.
Amendment (e) in the name of Andrew Murrison and Sir Graham Brady: states that the EU withdrawal agreement would be amended so that the backstop shall expire on 31 December 2021.
Amendment (f) in the name of Hilary Benn: Calls on the Government to hold a series of indicative votes on the options setting out Exiting the European Union.
Amendment (g) in the name of Dominic Grieve: The Government's powers under Standing Order No.14 which allows them to set government business would not apply. A motion entitled: "That this House has considered the United Kingdom's departure from, and future relationship with, the European Union" would then become the first item of business.
Amendment (n) in the name of Andrew Murrison and Sir Graham Brady: amends the withdrawal agreement to include "and requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change.". *There is no suggestion of what the alternative arrangement would be.
Chief Political Commentator, John Rentoul has done a tally on likely outcomes from the amendment. Based on his calculations (very susceptible to change) Amendment B would pass by 320-317.[Ed: of course this one is a "long grass" amendment – it puts off the decision (as long as the EU agree) but who knows what Parliament would use the time for – the Bill to amend the leaving date and deliver the second part of the amendment is set out below]
And there are still some separate draft bills making their way through Parliamentary processes:
Geraint Davies (this one has been around since June 2018) – will have its second reading on 8th Feb: A Bill to require the holding of a referendum to endorse the United Kingdom and Gibraltar exit package proposed by HM Government for withdrawal from the EU, or to decide to remain a member, following the completion of formal exit negotiations; and for connected purposes.
And his second one (first presented in December 2018) also gets its second reading on 8th Feb: A Bill to require the Prime Minister to revoke the notification, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union unless two conditions are met; to establish as the first condition for non-revocation that a withdrawal agreement has been approved by Parliament by 21 January 2019 or during an extension period agreed by that date under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union; to establish as the second condition for non-revocation that a majority of participating voters have voted in favour of that agreement in a referendum in which the United Kingdom remaining as a member of the European Union was the other option; and for connected purposes.
The Grieve bills have still not been published
The Yvette Cooper one has – but no second reading date has been announced
And possibly connected, or possibly not, this is interesting (but not yet published) – Peter Bone "the Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement) Bill 2017-19" – this one was first tabled in Feb 2017 so probably not related. A Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the functions of the Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister, or a person temporarily carrying out the functions of the Prime Minister, is incapacitated; and for connected purposes.
And that is enough for now…
TEF Review
The independent review of the TEF kicked off this week with a call to HE providers to share their views on the TEF. The review is being chaired by Dame Shirley Pearce and will contemplate the adequacy of the metrics on which judgements are based, the rating categories (Gold, Silver, Bronze) and the impact these have on providers, and whether TEF is fair, worth it, and in the public interest. The review will conclude and report in summer 2019.
The Minister said:"As Universities Minister I want you, the experts, to take part in Dame Shirley's call for views and to give your thoughts so the TEF can work as well as it possibly can. It is important that we maximise the potential of this system and can only do that by getting invaluable insights from the sector."
BU is compiling a response – please let us know if you want to input into this.
To coincide with the launch of the TEF review the DfE published their evaluation research into the TEF's impact at year 2 (2016-17). They state it has driven providers to make improvements with positive changes in teaching quality and a focus on student employability. It also considers how widely prospective students used the TEF to determine their choice of institution.
A large majority considered that the TEF was either having a 'positive' or 'neutral' impact on their institutions. A small minority considered that the TEF had impacted their provider or the sector in a negative way.
Respondents reported that the TEF had contributed to an increased emphasis on student outcomes in the last two years (37%) and 29% noted that the TEF had contributed to an increased emphasis on teaching quality and the learning environment (rising to 45% among academic staff responding).
A slightly lower proportion reported that the TEF had contributed to a change in course content (22%), or enhanced interventions for improving student retention (21%).
With the exception of teaching quality/learning environment, HE providers which received a Bronze TEF award 2017 (Year 2) were more likely to report that the TEF had contributed to change over the last two years: 71% reported an increased emphasis on student outcomes, 38% noted change in course content, while 51% reported interventions for improving student retention.
They report a considerable amount of change in student employability over the last two years, attributing some of this change to the TEF.
The most common impact attributed (at least in part) to the TEF was an increase in student exposure to employability opportunities (21%).
A further 17% reported that communications with students about their careers had started sooner (rising to 37% among academic staff responding)
17% reported developments in the careers services as a result of the TEF. Only 11% reported that the TEF had enhanced employer partnerships.
28% of respondents reported an increased demand on staff to support students, at least in part as a result of the TEF (rising to 44% among academic staff responding)
A higher proportion of respondents noted that the TEF had contributed to a decrease in teaching morale (15%) than an increase (10%)
Among Gold providers, 43% said that the TEF had, at least in part, impacted on an improved institutional reputation among potential applicants.
Bronze award providers were more likely to attribute the TEF in a decline in reputation (25%).
Page 14 considers the level of influence the TEF rating had on applications and choice of a HE provider
Respondents reported that at least partly as a result of the TEF:
new initiatives were being developed to improve teaching standards (24%)
there was an increase in teaching qualifications or training schemes (24%)
staff were provided more support to deliver positive student experiences (23%)
there was an increase in sharing best practice across departments (21%, rising to 37% among academic staff responding)
TEF brought a focus to some areas:
increased investment in the monitoring of TEF-related metrics: 61% of TEF Contacts reported that the TEF – at least in part – contributed to increased monitoring of metrics such as NSS scores, continuation rates and employment data)
This rose to 79% among Bronze providers.
The qualitative interviews revealed a particular emphasis for some HE providers on monitoring retention rates, in part due to the financial implications of high retention rates.
This chart on page 34 shows a mapping of the perceptions of the impact that TEF has had: As Figure 3.2 shows, there are some clear patterns by broad category:
Student Experience – TEF Contacts reported a high amount of change in the last two years for all items, relative to other categories, and a moderate (average) amount of this was considered to be as a result of the TEF.
Student Employability – For four items, this followed a similar pattern to student experience, although generally both the amount of change and extent of TEF influence reported was slightly lower. Two items showed low change and low TEF impact.
Teaching Staff – With one exception, there had been low change in the last two years, and TEF influence was also primarily low.
Teaching Practices – Similar to student employability, with a higher level of change reported overall, and mostly a low amount of this was attributed to the TEF.
Prospective Students – All four items showed low or average levels of change in the last two years; with one exception TEF influence was also low.
Wider impacts – The extent of change in this category varied from very high to low, and in all instances where change had occurred, a high amount was attributed to the TEF, relative to other categories
Conclusions can be read at pages 120-123. One of the final points is that awareness and understanding of the TEF within the applicant population needs to increase for the TEF to fulfil its original purpose to better inform students' choices about what and where to study.
The call for views is only the first step: "In addition to the call for views I will be holding a programme of listening sessions and commissioning specific assessments of specialist questions. These will include an independent analysis of the statistical base of the TEF process and an assessment of its international impact. See more on the workstreams here."
The Student Room ran a survey with TSR research to obtain prospective students' views on unconditional offers.
46% agreed the Government should regulate unconditional offers (33% didn't, 22% unsure)
However, 70% would be happy to receive an unconditional offer and 58% felt they would feel positive about a university that gave them an unconditional offer believing it is offered as recognition of achievement (especially when from a high rank university or competitive course)
In keeping with the above theme of unconditional offer as recognition the survey found 'for the most part' the prospective students felt universities should be selective in who receives an unconditional offers
The prospective students felt these were genuine reasons to receive an unconditional offer:
Already have the grades (62% agreed)
An impressive personal statement (40%)
Successful interview (31%)
Very high predicted grades (31%)
Student is from a disadvantaged background (30%)
However, 10% felt that unconditional offers should never be made.
When asked if universities make unconditional offers to fill places rather than because of student aptitude or characteristics the opinion of unconditional offers became negative:
59% would perceive the university negatively if they believed they weren't discerning and made too many unconditional offers (6% weren't bothered about this)
Conditional unconditional offers (when the university makes a conditional offer unconditional after the application selects them as their firm choice) received mixed responses with 47% perceiving this negatively and 20% who approved of it.
However, the prospective students commented that the practice is manipulative. And while half said a conditional unconditional would not make them change their decision 27% said it would sway their choice to the unconditional university over the one they really wanted to attend. This was one of Sam Gyimah's key criticisms on unconditional offers whilst he was HE Minister.
43% recognised that the unconditional offer was a boon to mental health – reducing the pressure of exams and allowing them to do better. Although others felt it would negatively impact motivation to perform well (39%) and that such students wouldn't be sufficiently prepared for university study and exams.
Other students (without unconditional offers) were resentful and didn't want to study alongside those with an unconditional offer that may not have worked as hard or achieved the required grades. One quote implied only the top universities should be allowed to make unconditional offers: "Ultimately I just think unconditional offers shouldn't be handed out on a plate, and more regulation of less prestigious unis handing them out should be enforced."
All in all the students back up Government concerns that unconditional offers sway capable students away from more prestigious universities, that they undermine the sector's reputation, and that is it more about bums on seats within the crowded HE recruitment market. However, there is enough balancing student opinion to show the other side of the coin – young people value unconditional offers when they perceive they are a reward for aptitude, a reasoned boon to social mobility, and a balm to improve mental health. A large proportion were in favour of Government regulation, which the HE sector is keen to avoid.
And the OfS have responded with a press release, a briefing and interviews.
Some extracts from the briefing are here:
The growth of unconditional offers appears to be a consequence of increasing competition between universities. The OfS has a legal duty to have regard to the need to encourage competition where it is in the interests of students and employers. The question is whether the sorts of unconditional offer practices arising from this competition are in the interests of students
…The OfS is concerned about the rapid rise in unconditional offers, particularly those that require students to commit to a particular course. We will take action where they are not in students' interests.
While some are seeking to justify unconditional offers as a tool to support fair access for disadvantaged students, contextual offer-making is a more effective way of achieving this.
We will make clear where 'pressure selling' practices are at risk of breaching consumer protection law, and empower students to challenge this as well as taking regulatory action if appropriate.
We will bring together a range of education, employer and other organisations to explore whether the admissions system serves the interests of students. We will work with the Department for Education, students, UCAS and others on a consultation on principles for how the admissions system can best achieve this goal.
….Are unconditional offers a good or bad thing? This is probably the wrong question. Most commentators agree that, used appropriately, unconditional offers have a legitimate and useful place in the university admissions system. The right question is probably more complex: what does an 'appropriate' unconditional offer look like?
Risk of reduced attainment
The most recent UCAS report, and our own analysis, support this concern. UCAS estimates that the proportion of applicants placed in higher education through unconditional offers who miss their predicted grades by two or more grades is around five percentage points higher than would be expected compared with those holding a conditional offer. UCAS's modelling controls for different attainment at GCSE, background characteristics of the student and the course where they hold their firm offer to ensure that this estimate is not influenced by the group of applicants who hold unconditional offers. This proportion has remained fairly stable throughout the increase in unconditional offer-making. This means that as unconditional offers increase, more young people are attaining slightly weaker A-level results than expected each year.
….The rapid increase in unconditional offers means that it's too early to assess with any certainty their effect on continuation rates, student satisfaction and degree attainment. The limited evidence we have on non-continuation rates is set out in Figure 3, which shows non-continuation rates by entry qualifications. Because of the timescale we have only been able to look at entrants in 2015-16, when the numbers of unconditional offers were much lower than in 2018, and the differences are not statistically significant. We will continue our analysis as more data becomes available.
Impact on disadvantaged students
There are particular concerns about the effect of unconditional offers on students from disadvantaged groups. Critics highlight the particular vulnerability of applicants who are the first in their family to attend university, and of those who lack parental support. These applicants may be more likely to accept an unconditional offer with limited information about their options and the potential drawbacks.UCAS analysis shows that more unconditional offers are being made to applicants from the areas with the lowest rates of participation in higher education: these applicants are more likely to receive an unconditional offer than applicants from areas with higher participation. This is illustrated in Figure 4.
…Our own analysis demonstrates that some of this difference may be attributable to types of university rather than to student characteristics. In other words, universities and colleges may not, in general, be directing their unconditional offers towards disadvantaged students; rather, those that take a greater proportion of disadvantaged students tend to use more unconditional offers. This is an important distinction. It suggests that unconditional offer-making to disadvantaged students may be driven more by the circumstances of universities and colleges than the needs of the students. This contrasts with the practice of contextual offer-making, which takes into account the circumstances in which academic results are achieved.
Constraining choice?
A concern is that applicants may choose an unconditional offer because they see it as a safer option than a conditional offer. In particular, students accepting a conditional unconditional offer are depriving themselves of the chance to
consider other universities and colleges. This can result in students making sub-optimal choices, without information on alternative options which may be more suitable for their career plans or may better reflect their abilities and talents. In other words, they may not necessarily be opting for the course and university or college that would be best for them overall.
Since they can have the effect of reducing attainment, unconditional offers may also limit students' ability to choose a different higher education course, whether by changing their mind before starting, 'trading up' during adjustment or clearing, or transferring courses at a later stage. A connected concern centres on a perceived lack of transparency about how unconditional offers work. There is limited understanding of the criteria universities apply in selecting applicants to receive unconditional offers.
The OfS is taking action in relation to unconditional offers on a number of fronts:
We will continue to monitor and assess the way unconditional offers are being used across the sector.
We will ensure that provider-level data on unconditional offers is published on a regular basis, starting in 2019, including their impact at all stages of the student lifecycle where this can be monitored.
We will identify any cases where the evidence suggests that students with unconditional (or very low) offers are particularly at risk of poor outcomes, or not being properly supported. We will challenge the universities or colleges concerned, and intervene where necessary.
We will make clear our expectations that the governing bodies of universities and colleges are fully sighted on their institution's admissions policy and its implications for the interests of individual students.
We will make clear where 'pressure selling' practices are at risk of breaching consumer law, and empower students to challenge this as well as taking regulatory action ourselves if appropriate.
We will work with UCAS and other bodies providing information, advice and guidance to improve students' ability to make informed choices about unconditional offers.
The OFS research paper is here:
We are currently unable to include conditional unconditional offers (type B) which have not been recorded as unconditional (typically because the applicant has not made the offer their firm choice). The UCAS report includes an assessment of the conditional unconditional offers (type B) including those that are not recorded as unconditional. It suggests that the proportion of offers being made that have an unconditional component could be as much as 70 per cent higher than the unconditional offers reported here. Where possible we have shown the UCAS estimates of offers that contain an unconditional component alongside our estimates, for context.
On Thursday the Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced £100 million investment for research and technology to future-proof the UK economy for the fourth industrial revolution and to boost UK innovation. The funding has been earmarked for the creation of 1,000 new PhD places across the UK for the next generation of Artificial Intelligence; to fund research into life-saving technology to be used in NHS hospitals; to address pollution hotspots within cities and develop an early warning system; and to improve voice-recognition software for business and consumers. Despite the rhetoric it's not completely new money – it is part of the £7 billion that was promised for science and innovation in announcements since 2016. The Chancellor said:
"Britain is a great place to do business. And we are determined, as we leave the EU, to make sure it remains that way. We are leading the way in the tech revolution. The UK digital sector is now worth over £130 billion with jobs growing at twice the rate of those in the wider economy .I want to ensure we remain the standard bearer, so we must invest in our new economy so that it can adapt and remain competitive. We are backing British innovation to help create growth, more jobs and higher living standards."
Last week we informed you that the regulations aiming to change the HE funding regime to facilitate accelerated degrees were presented in Parliament amid concerns from Labour. Labour feel that working throughout the summer break rules out lower income students who rely on holiday jobs to fund their study and living costs. This week the Commons voted and have passed the regulations authorising the 20% increase on yearly fees for accelerated students. While the vote wasn't close there was substantial opposition with all Labour MPs voting against the increase. Other criticisms levied at the accelerated degree was the loss of the university experience and less time for students to settle into university life.
Chris Skidmore, Universities Minister, said the legislation was: "One of the great modern-day milestones for students and breaks the mould of a one-size-fits all system for people wanting to study in higher education."
Next hurdle for the regulations is the House of Lords vote which will take place next Tuesday 29 January.
Encouraging International Students (link)
Q – Jo Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the number of international students choosing to study in the UK grows over the next 10 years.
The government fully recognises the important economic and cultural contribution that EU and international students make to the UK's higher education sector. The government welcomes international students and there continues to be no limit on the number who can come here to study, and there are no plans to limit any institution's ability to recruit them.
The UK remains a highly attractive destination for non-EU students with their numbers remaining at record highs, with over 170,000 non-EU entrants to UK higher education institutions for the seventh year running. The UK is a world-leading destination for study, with four universities in the world's top 10 and 16 in the top 100 – second only to the USA. The government actively promotes study in the UK through the GREAT Campaign and to over 100 countries through the British Council.
In the Immigration White Paper, published on 19 December 2018, the government proposed to increase the post-study leave period for international students following completion of studies to 12 months for those completing a PhD, and to six months for all full-time postgraduate students and undergraduate students at institutions with degree awarding powers. Going beyond the recommendations set out by the Migration Advisory Committee, these proposals will benefit tens of thousands of international students.
Q – Catherine West: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there will be an independent review of credibility interviews within the student immigration system to ensure the system is (a) fit for purpose, (b) cost effective relative to current risk and (c) does not hinder universities' ability to recruit a diverse range of students.
A – Caroline Nokes:
An internal review of point of application credibility interviews for international students was conducted in 2018 to ensure that interviews are adding value to the case consideration process and not unnecessarily inconveniencing customers.
Up to date risk information was factored in to this review. Regular engagement with universities and other educational institutions ensures that feedback is collected in relation to the application process.
Q – Wes Streeting: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether EU students starting courses in England in the 2019-20 academic year will be eligible for home fee status in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
A: Chris Skidmore:
The department is aware that students, staff and providers are concerned about what EU Exit means for study and collaboration opportunities. To help give certainty, in July 2018, the department announced guarantees on student finance for EU nationals.
These guarantees are not altered if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. EU nationals (and their family members) who start a course in England in the 2019/20 academic year or before, will continue to be eligible for 'home fee' status and student finance support from Student Finance England for the duration of their course, provided they meet the residency requirement.
The House of Commons library also released an international and EU student briefing paper. You can download the pdf paper from the link at the very bottom of this page.
Q – Jo Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he plans to review the option of introducing a post-study work visa allowing up to two years of work experience for international students in the UK.
The independent Migration Advisory Committee's report on international students, published in September 2018, recommended against the introduction of a separate post-study work visa. The report also made several positive recommendations with regard to the current post-study work offer. (Link.)
… As set out in the Immigration White Paper, published last month, under the new student route all students studying at a Masters' level, or at Bachelors' level at an institution with degree awarding powers, will be eligible for a six-month post study leave period. Doctoral students will be eligible for a 12-month post study leave period. This will benefit tens of thousands of international students by providing them with more time to gain valuable experience or find employment in the UK in accordance with the skilled work migration routes.
The rumours and leaks surrounding Augar's Review of Post-18 education and funding have been a weekly affair over the last month with mass speculation over how degree tuition fees may change in the future. This week the BBC ran an article suggesting that Justine Greening planned to axe tuition fees in favour of graduate tax contributions before she was reshuffled out of office. The article says:
She [Justine] says she had been working on a radically different system which would have removed fees – but instead the prime minister launched a review of student finance, chaired by financier Philip Augar. Ms Greening is scathing about the review, which is expected to report back next month… She says its public remit is confused – without any "clear objectives of the problem it was trying to fix". And she says its private purpose was to buy time and only "tweak" a few of the most politically toxic aspects of the current system.
Extremism:
On Monday the Henry Jackson Society published Extreme Speakers and Events: In the 2017-18 Academic Year. It claims that in 2017/18 there were 435 student focussed events which had extremist content and creates a league table of the institutions most regularly hosting events which contain such content. The Society garnered media attention in claiming such universities were failing in their Prevent duties. They also criticised the Office for Students (OfS) monitoring and questioned the OfS figure that 97% of universities are compliant with Prevent. Wonkhe highlighted that the report doesn't consider the risk assessment and mitigation that may have been put in place by the host institutions. Responding to the report Queen Mary University replied that their speakers were subject to "stringent checks" and Birmingham University said "none of the speakers appear on any government list of proscribed organisations or individuals". Nevertheless, The Times report that Robert Halfon, Chair of the Commons Education select committee, said: "This is incredibly distressing. We seem to be going backwards. There needs to be an urgent inquiry."
By Wednesday the Home Office Minister of State for Security, Ben Wallace, announced a public independent review of the Prevent counter-radicalisation programme stating it was in response to an amendment by peers seeking such a move during scrutiny of the government's counter-terrorism and border security bill. He continued:
"This review should expect those critics of Prevent, who often use distortions and spin, to produce solid evidence of their allegations." On the timing he said: "The review of part 5 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which provides the legislative foundation for the Prevent programme, is in any event due to take place early in 2020, just 12 months away. Given that, I have decided that the time is now right to initiate a review of Prevent. Communities across the country are behind the policy and are contributing to it because, like us, they want to protect their young people from being groomed and exploited by extremists."
The Financial Times also reports Parliament's joint committee on human rights, comprising both MPs and peers, has also called for the scheme to be scrutinised.
Civic Engagement: Narratives on HE: slumming it on civic engagement is a new blog on Wonkhe covering the social good that students do within a community.
International Education Strategy: Education Minister, Damian Hinds, announced the intention to develop a cross-Government international education strategy stressing that education is "a big part of our diplomacy". The strategy will address and encourage incoming international students to the HE sector as well as supporting the expansion of UK universities abroad, Damian said:
Inbound international students is a really important part of [the strategy], both for the earnings reason – it's an important part of business – but also, just as important, because of the role it plays in our place in the world and because it makes sure we have diverse, vibrant student communities where everyone is learning from each other."
UUK International Director, Vivienne Stern, said:
"We're delighted to hear the Secretary of State for Education speaking publicly about the new governmental international education strategy and we are looking forward to its launch. The sector has long called for an ambitious strategy, backed up by meaningful policy, to encourage international students to choose UK universities. International students are vital to our universities."
The speech was also covered by The Financial Times.
Disadvantaged pupils:
The DfE have released data showing rising standards in secondary schools with disadvantaged pupils in multi-academy trusts making more progress than the equivalent national average. School Standards Minister, Nick Gibb, said:
Making sure that all pupils, regardless of their background, are able to fulfil their potential is one of this Government's key priorities and these results show that more pupils across the country are doing just that.It's been clear for some time that standards are rising in our schools and today's data underlines the role academies and free schools are playing in that improvement, with progress above the national average and impressive outcomes for disadvantaged pupils.
A level and other 16-18 results have also been published highlighting lower attainment for disadvantaged students compared to non-disadvantaged students across all qualification types.
Meanwhile the Public Account Committee have published a report on school academies accounts and performance. It concludes that a number of high profile academy failures have been costly to the taxpayer and damaging to children's education, and recommends that the governance and oversight of academy trusts needs to be more rigorous. Furthermore that Academy trusts do not make enough information available to help parents and local communities understand what is happening in individual academy schools. And when things go wrong it is not clear who parents can turn to, to escalate concerns about the running of academy schools and academy trusts.
Contact Sarah if you would like a more in depth summary of any of the above three reports.
EDM: An interesting cross-section of MPs have signed the following Early Day Motion within Parliament which pushes back against the recent 'let them fall' mindset to Universities in financial difficulty:
That this House recognises the crucial role of our higher education sector in meeting the nation's skills needs and supporting local economies; notes with concern the recent comments by Sir Michael Barber, chair of the Office for Students, which suggest that the new regulator will not support universities experiencing financial difficulties; further notes that allowing a higher education institution to fail would cause significant harm to its students, graduates and local area; awaits with interest the findings of Philip Augar's review of post-18 education and funding which represents an opportunity to overhaul the current system predicated on student debt; and calls on the Government to introduce a fair and sustainable funding system which protects both student interests, institutional funding, and which recognises higher education is not a private commodity but an essential public good.
Tags: accelerated degrees Brexit fees and funding international students post-18 review research funding teaching excellence framework TEF unconditional offers
Lots of news this week – and some negative headlines as a result.
Have you been following the changes to the TEF announced in February? Are you up to date with the metrics and proposed structure. Did you know that year 5 has been postponed? We have prepared some slides on TEF which will bring you up to date – you can see them via the Policy pages on the intranet.
Unconditional offers – the next phase of the debate
Sarah wrote a long piece on unconditional offers last week, and this week we have this year's data from UCAS. The headline of the report is that unconditional offers were made to a third of young applicants in England, Northern Ireland and Wales in the 2018 admissions cycle The actual report is here. The report also notes that most unconditional offers (i.e. around two thirds of those made) were made to those aged 19 and over – i.e. post qualification. This share has fallen since 2013 when it was 98%. (more…)
Tags: Brexit fees and funding grade inflation Graduate Outcomes LEO Review of post-18 education teaching excellence framework TEF unconditional offers
EU, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Student Engagement jforster
Last week was dominated by the Brexit political turmoil and no major HE reports were launched (although there are some coming later this week). The media continued to wring all the coverage they could out of the fee cut speculations and there was news on an American university who is currently registering with the OfS to takeover a London university college. And on Monday there was news for the TEF review and on accelerated degree fees.
The details for the Independent Review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) have been announced. The Terms of Reference are here and the 2016 policy paper has also been shared here.
Tags: accelerated degrees access and participation BME attainment Brexit fees and funding immigration inclusivity international staff KEF Knowledge exchange framework reputation Review of post-18 education social mobility subject level TEF teaching excellence framework TEF widening participation
HE Policy update for the w/e 22nd June 2018
EU, Funding opportunities, innovation, international, nhs, policy, Student Engagement jforster
Another big week in policy land. We've big features on grade inflation and post-qualification admissions to get your brain buzzing.
Brexit news for EU citizens setting in the UK
This week the Government released further details on how EU citizens and their families could apply for settled status through the EU settlement scheme. The link also contains the draft immigration rules. The Government issued a news story on the settlement scheme, it sets out the 3 steps applicants will complete – prove identity, demonstrate they live in the UK, declare that they have no serious criminal convictions.
Key information on the scheme:
It is proposed that an application will cost £65 and £32.50 for a child under 16. For those who already have valid permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain documentation, they will be able to exchange it for settled status for free.
The Home Office will check the employment and benefit records held by government which will mean that, for many, their proof of residence will be automatic. Those who have not yet lived in the UK for five years will be granted pre-settled status and be able to apply for settled status once they reach the five-year point. From April 2019, this second application will be free of charge.
The new online application system will be accessible through phones, tablets, laptops and computers. The Government will provide support for the vulnerable and those without access to a computer, and continues to work with EU citizens' representatives and embassies to ensure the system works for everyone.
The settlement scheme will open in a phased way from later this year and will be fully open by 30 March 2019. The deadline for applications will be 30 June 2021.
The Home Office will continue to engage with stakeholders, including employers, local authority representatives and community groups, about the detailed design of the scheme before the Rules are laid before Parliament.
Immigration Minister, Caroline Nokes, said: "EU citizens make a huge contribution to our economy and to our society. They are our friends, family and colleagues and we want them to stay. This is an important step which will make it easy for EU citizens to get the status they need to continue working and living here. We are demonstrating real progress and I look forward to hearing more detail on how the EU will make reciprocal arrangements for UK nationals living in the EU."
On Tuesday the Commons Science and Technology select committee debated an immigration system that works for science and innovation. The witnesses highlighted that flexibility and speed of application were essential and advocated for a frictionless reciprocal immigration system between the UK and the EU. Read the full text of the session here. Key points:
Science and Technology to be within the broader immigration system rather than separate special arrangements or a two tier system. A transition period may be necessary.
One witness argued for a reciprocal arrangement with EU scientists.
It was noted the EU are currently developing a directive allowing free movement within the EU of individuals on science visas from outside the EU.
Mobility for short stays is essential, e.g. conferences and discussion groups – these short stays should not require visas.
One witness noted the limited ability of small British companies that needed to bring in talent to grow. She raised that this successful navigation of the immigration system was essential and the needs of small business had to be considered within the general immigration system design.
The problems with using salary as a proxy for awarding tier 2 visas was discussed, particularly with the regional variability within the UK
One witness argued that research activity needed to be permitted in the indefinite leave to remain rules.
The limitations of the shortage occupations list were noted, i.e. retrospective analysis of data created a significant lag within the system and it wasn't responsive enough. It was postulated that these problems would resolve if the cap was removed.
Parliamentary Questions – Immigration
Sam Gyimah responded to a parliamentary question on visa requirements for students of Indian nationality studying in the UK (full text here) stating there was no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come to the UK to study and
"we welcome the increase in study related visa applications from Indian students since last year and the fact that over 90% of Indian students who apply for a UK visa get one. This shows that international students continue to recognise the benefits of studying in the UK, and are responding to our excellent higher education offer."
Commenting on student immigration, Alp Mehmet, Vice Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: "Genuine students are, of course, welcome but this is a slippery slope. The last time that the student visa system was loosened in 2009 it took years to recover from the massive inflow of bogus students, especially from India. We cannot afford another episode like that."
And there was a further question on immigration:
Q – Gordon Marsden: What additional criteria will be used to decide whether (a) India and (b) other additional countries will be eligible for inclusion in the low-risk Tier 4 visa category for overseas students.
A – Caroline Nokes: We have regular discussions with the Indian Government on a range of issues including on visas and UK immigration policy. 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.
There were three further questions on Indian students this week, all received the same response as above.
British Nationals Abroad – home fees?
Q – Paul Blomfield: whether UK nationals resident in the EU who fall within the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement will be treated as home students for the purpose of university fees after December 2020.
A – Sam Gyimah:
There are currently specific provisions in the rules that provide access to student support for persons who hold settled status in the UK, and who have left England to exercise a right of residence elsewhere in the Economic European Area (EEA) or Switzerland.
We have agreed with the EU that equal treatment principles will continue to apply for those covered by the Withdrawal Agreement. This means that UK nationals resident in the EU (and EU nationals resident in the UK) before the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020 will be eligible for support on a similar basis to domestic students in the relevant member state. It will be for member states to decide how they will implement the citizens' rights deal in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement. Entitlement to student finance and home fees status after 31 December 2020 for those outside the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement is under consideration.
Thursday's headlines for the sector were all about grade inflation, the actual report is here. The biggest increases are shown on page 16 – Surrey, East Anglia, Dundee, University of West London, Imperial, Huddersfield, Greenwich, Southampton Solent, Wolverhampton and Aston. These charts showing the absolute highest and lowest proportion are interesting and do raise some questions about whether the call for benchmarks is partly driven by the juxtaposition of our oldest and some of our newer universities in this first group. The arguments about prestige (made in the context of a discussion about REF and TEF) in this HEPI paper by Paul Blackmore come to mind. "Although the basis on which graduates and employers make decisions is a complex one, some institutions clearly have more powerful signalling effects than others."
Research Professional have another helpful summary with responses from Nicola Dandridge, Nick Hillman and others
Between 1997 and 2009, the proportion of "firsts" awarded increased from 7 to 13 per cent, and in the next seven years it doubled, reaching 26 per cent by 2017. The percentage of students being awarded a 2:1 has also risen from 40 to 49 per cent since 1995, meaning that the proportion of undergraduates awarded either a first or 2:1 has risen from 47 to 75 per cent in the last 22 years. There are now 40 institutions that award firsts to at least 30 per cent of their students. The report, A degree of uncertainty: An investigation into grade inflation in universities, says that one of the most likely explanations for the grade inflation is a lowering of degree standards by institutions. It states that some academics have reported pressure from senior managers to do so, and says that half of universities have recently changed the way that they calculate their students' final grade so that the proportion of top grades they award keeps pace with other institutions"….
"Harriet Barnes, head of higher education and skills policy at the British Academy—which operates the Humanities and Social Sciences Learned Societies and Subject Associations Network—told HE it was "difficult to see how a national assessment would work without encouraging universities to standardise course content and assessment in some way". "This would threaten academic diversity, limiting students' opportunities to fully explore their discipline, and undermining teaching by academics who are leaders in a specialist area," she said. "We also have concerns about the feasibility of learned societies setting national assessments. Not every discipline is represented by a single body, and many are run by volunteers without the capacity to set and monitor assessments."
Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, told HE that asking learned societies to design assessments was "an odd suggestion", and that it was "surprising to see Reform recommending less autonomy for institutions" "I've long been interested in getting learned societies and others more involved in preparing course materials and helping shape courses," he said, "but it would make most sense to do that for first-year students adapting to higher education rather than those specialising later on in their degree."
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said in a statement that "if there is artificial grade inflation this is not in the interests of students, employers or the higher education sector". She added that work was "currently under way by the OfS and other partners to assess the complex issues" tackled in the report."
The BBC story is here.
With the counter arguments, Jim Dickinson writes on Wonkhe:
""Establishing causality is problematic, yet the correlational evidence suggests that when tuition fees rise, so does the proportion of top degree outcomes". Maybe that big investment means they're working harder. Maybe more students are working hard to achieve the standard. Maybe teaching has improved, and assessment has become more diverse. Maybe more students are taking resists. After all, "inflation itself must be driven by factors that directly translate into universities awarding higher marks".
Trouble is, the report then goes on to look at all the other reasons that the sector has cooked up for the miracle. A pro-VC from UEA is mocked for citing improved entry qualifications, though without mentioning the student to staff ratio shift from 18:1 to 13:1 in the rest of his quote. Degree algorithm fiddling is cited, recycling a debunked quote. And without any reference to hard work or student support or assessment techniques, it then finds a handful of academics' anecdotes to say they've been pressured to lower standards. Cue the A-levels chorus of "we worked harder and so did students" from the sector, falling on deaf ears in the press and the think tanks."
There is an interesting comment in response on the Wonkhe article:
"Quick summary of previous responses, querying the assumption that grade inflation is necessarily bad.
1) If attainment gaps have closed (e.g. male/female gap, affluent/deprived student background gap, white/ethnic minority gap) by the under-achieving group catching up with the higher-achieving group, grade inflation is probably a positive thing.
2) If average marks awarded have risen (i.e. it is not just the case that the degree classification proportions have shifted), and if positive skew in the distribution has not been replaced with negative skew, this indicates that grade inflation is not the only potential explanation.
3) Even if grade inflation as conventionally understood has occurred, the cure could be worse than the disease. The cure could take the form of students undermining each other rather than working collaboratively, seeking to manipulate or complain against lecturers, students motivated by mark gain rather than a desire to learn (not the same thing), even higher levels of mental health anxiety than present.
4) In most subjects, students achieving first class degrees do not have better career outcomes than students with lower second class degrees. This suggests that employers do not rely on degree class as a signal and have developed effective recruiting mechanisms"
The sector wasn't standing still on grade inflation before this week's announcements. UUK were already tackling the issue:
The first element of this work responds to the specific request to clarify how the sector defines degree classifications. This work is on course to produce a reference document by September, and this will aid the transparency and consistency of approaches to degree classification and standards across the sector. The work is founded on the view that students should be assessed against clear criteria rather than setting quotas for the number of students who can achieve a 1st or 2.1. Quotas can demotivate students and devalue the level of knowledge gained over the course of their studies. The reference document is intended as a practical tool to aid academic practice and to improve understanding of the classification system, including among employers. The reference point will also be useful for new providers who gain degree awarding powers without prior validation by an existing degree body, and the established academic frameworks that come with this relationship. However, it will still be essential for universities to set and maintain their own academic standards, rather than simply marking against an off-the-shelf set of criteria.
This is also discussed on Wonkhe. "There is also a need for the sector to take meaningful and timely action to respond to stakeholder concerns on grade inflation, as other contributions to Wonkhe and elsewhere have suggested in recent days. UKSCQA will lead the coordination of a sector response on this issue."
HEPI have published a guest blog – The hard truth about grade inflation – by Dr Andrew Hindmarsh, Head of Planning at the University of Nottingham, and he also oversees the preparation of data for the Complete University Guide. It busts a number of theories:
So-called grade inflation has been greatest at universities with low average tariff scores and least at those with high average tariff scores. One explanation for this could be that the average tariff score has increased more at universities where the average score was lower to start with. If those low tariff score universities had had entry standards that had been rising faster, then you might expect there to be an impact on the subsequent attainment of the students. See Graph 3 shows that this has not been the case. In fact, the average tariff score of universities in quartiles 1 to 3 have all gone down, while only those in quartile 4 (the highest) have gone up.
What about teaching quality – could that explain the pattern of changes? Could it be that the universities with the best teaching quality have seen outcomes improve the most? One possible measure of teaching quality is the TEF (Teaching Excellence Framework) outcomes. …the hypothesis fails – it is the Bronze institutions which have seen the biggest changes in degree outcomes.
The questions on teaching in the NSS could be an alternative measure of teaching quality and this time there is a run of data so the change in NSS scores can be correlated with the changes in degree classification.However, once again the hypothesis fails: there is no correlation between the change in NSS scores on questions 1 to 4 between 2013 and 2016 and the change in degree classifications
So, what is going on? There are plenty of hypotheses left which our database cannot test. One change that has been happening is an increasing use of the full range of marks, particularly in Arts subjects. In the past, there was a tendency to avoid giving high marks with those above 80 in the Arts being very rare indeed. These high marks are much more common in the Sciences, particularly the numerical sciences, where it is possible to achieve maximum marks on mathematical problems. However, many universities are now actively encouraging all subjects to use the full range of marks with the result that, when an average mark is calculated, this is more likely to fall above a particular class boundary as the higher marks pull up the average. This hypothesis also explains why the proportion of first-class degrees has risen faster than the proportion of 1st/2:1s as you would expect more of the high marks to be obtained by students already at or close to a first-class standard. The conclusion must be that this is a complex subject and, while some explanations for changes in degree classifications can be ruled out, there are plenty more to be considered. The accusation that grade inflation is the cause needs to be justified with evidence rather than simply asserted as if it were a self-evident truth.
We'll have to wait for the outcome of the OFS work referred to above to see what happens next.
Sam Gyimah gave a reassuring answer to a parliamentary question this week. It was focused on the TEF but if extrapolated into the context of the single national assessment recommended to tackle grade inflation it is reassuring to know the Government doesn't anticipate going even further to observe 'classrooms'.
Q – Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with the Office for Students on the merits of observing teaching as an element for assessment in the teaching excellence framework.
Higher Education (HE) institutions, as independent and autonomous bodies, are responsible for the range and quality of the courses they deliver. Assessing the performance of an institution through observation would jeopardise the autonomy of the HE sector.
The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) uses a range of existing metrics related to teaching and learning to make an assessment of teaching excellence, alongside a submission of evidence from the providers themselves. The metrics used for the assessment are all well-established, widely used and trusted in the HE sector. The department consulted extensively on the metrics used in the TEF.
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education has not discussed with the Office for Students, the observation of teachers as an additional element within the TEF.
Senior Pay Guidance
The OfS has now issued guidance on VC and senior pay. Universities are required to report and justify the VC's total remuneration package and details of senior staff paid over £100,000. OfS will publish these details across the sector annually commencing in 2019. Nicola Dandridge commented: The Office for Students is today setting out our increased expectations around senior pay. Higher education providers will have to give us full details of the total pay package of their vice-chancellor. In addition, they will have to provide detailed justification of this package. As part of this, we will be looking at the ratio between the head of institution's pay and the pay of the other staff at the institution. This will provide additional visibility and transparency – and enable us all to ask tough questions as necessary.
In response to the guidance UCU general secretary Sally Hunt noted of the OfS requirements: much of the information being called for is already available in universities' accounts or through freedom of information (FOI) requests.
The guidance was well covered in the media this week: Times, Guardian, THE, Independent.
In the Independent article Michael Barber is reported as stating the OfS will look for salaries that 'stick out like a sore thumb'… such as … "Like a modest size university, and you are regional and you are not playing globally, and your pay is the same as a top university competing in the global market for research."
Political Crystal Ball
Dods (political monitoring consultants) have produced a series of short policy lookahead guides contemplating what is coming up politically in the following spheres over the next six months:
Science Tech and Digital
The Education Sector
Environment and Rural Affairs
The Post Qualifications Admissions – how it works across the world report was released on Tuesday comparing the UK's HE admissions system with that of 29 other countries worldwide. The document critiques the UK's system of offering a HE place before a student's final grades are known, particularly noting the unreliability of provisional grades (only 1 in 6 accurately predicted).
The report calls for more than just post-qualification offer making. It outlines enhanced support for choices and decisions and a pre-results preparation week to aid social mobility (see page 17 onwards). The report does acknowledge the benefits of the current pre-qualifications admissions system: it aids students from under-represented backgrounds because they are often predicted higher grades than they achieve (page 5); changing to a post qualifications system would squeeze teaching as exams would need to move earlier in the year, it would also reduce the time HE providers have to consider applications and decide on whether to offer a student a place.
The report was commissioned by UCU and compiled by Dr Graeme Atherton (Director of social mobility organisation NEON). Given the author's champion of disadvantage it's interesting the report has received conflicting responses with no clear consensus of whether a change would support or further hinder underrepresented or disadvantaged groups in society.
UCAS responded to the report stating changing to a post qualifications admission system would force structural change to the school system and stating it would be harder for poorer pupils who would have to make decisions after they had finished their exams and left school. Clare Marchant (UCAS): "students from disadvantaged backgrounds would be less likely to have access to teachers and support in making application choices".
Meanwhile The Sutton Trust argue that Atherton's claim that under-represented students receive higher predicted grades is incorrect stating 'high attaining disadvantaged students are more likely to have their grades under-predicted than their richer counterparts. This could result in them applying to universities which are less selective than their credentials would permit.'
UCU's press release leads a further attack on unconditional offer making. Unconditional offers were previously seen as a supportive measure for social mobility, for example, for a young student within the care system who needed stability and security over their university destination prior to giving up their living accommodation. However, unconditional offers have increasingly received poor press over the last two years claiming students become lazy and don't try so hard at exams once they have a guaranteed offer or that it pushes an able student towards a lower tariff university when their results would be accepted at a more prestigious institution. Concerns were also raised about unconditional offers last week at Buckingham's Festival of HE.
The BBC has covered the report.
The report also highlights some of the challenges that the other systems face. One notable issue in some European countries is that almost automatic admission based on results plus low fees leads to huge dropout rates, e.g. in France. And if the focus is almost exclusively on grades it's likely another subset of WP students will be disadvantaged. The report raises some questions but it would be interesting to do an analysis of other metrics such as completion and satisfaction, and WP indicators as well as graduate outcomes.
There are other issues with the current system that have been raised in recent times – e.g. concerns about the role of personal statements and the role of social capital. Given the author's day job at the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON), there is a focus in the report on equity in the system.
The article below raises the question of conflict of interests – would such a system reduce or increase game playing in the competition for students? – note last week's discussions in Buckingham about unconditional offers (which many commentators see as a "bad thing").
Research Professional have a great article on the report. As the article notes there is unlikely to be a rush to review this given all the other government priorities. But as new A levels come in, raising uncertainty about grades this year, might there be more applicants choosing to use clearing to trade up or take a year to consider and apply afterwards. And whether over time this might therefore become more of a priority for review?
On Thursday there was a debate in the House of Commons on the Erasmus+ programme and discusses the future position of the UK with regard to the scheme post Brexit. The House of Commons Library have produced a briefing note on Erasmus+.
Some fun facts on Erasmus+ taken from the briefing:
The EU sees Erasmus+ programmes as a means of addressing socio-economic issues that Europe may face like unemployment and social cohesion.
10,944 students in higher education in the UK participated in the 2016 applications for study placements abroad through the Erasmus+ scheme.
In 2015-16, the most popular host countries were France (2,388), Spain (2,131), Germany (1,312), Netherlands (701), and Italy (687).The UK was the 7th highest participating country in the programme in 2015.
The total value of all Erasmus+ projects funded in the UK has increased in each year from €112million in the 2014 'call' to €143million in 2017.
The Erasmus+ programme is run on run seven yearly cycles and the current cycle will end in 2020.
The UK Government has promised to underwrite funding that was due to continue after Brexit and UK citizens are currently encouraged to apply for funding under Erasmus+.
On 30 May 2018 the EU Commission announced that it is proposing that for the next cycle starting in 2021 any country in the world will be able to participate if they meet set requirements. It is unclear at present what the UK's participation in Erasmus+ will be after Brexit but the announcement opens up the possibility of the UK's continued involvement in the programme.
The Future of the Erasmus+ Scheme after 2020: House of Commons Debate
The Erasmus+ debate span a number of topics: social mobility, UUK's Go International project, strategy for how students would continue exchanges with EU universities in the event of a Brexit no deal.
Sam Gyimah stated: he recognised that international exchanges were "important to students, giving them social mobility and widening their horizons, and it is valuable to our soft power." And to clarify the Government's position on the future participation of Erasmus+ post 2020 within the uncertainty of Brexit he committed that the Government would "discuss with the EU the options for future participation as a third country, as the Prime Minister has made clear, on the basis of a fair and ongoing contribution. So we have accepted that we will want the option to participate and we know we must pay into the programme, but obviously we want the contribution to be fair and we will have to negotiate the terms." He reassured the House that the Government were "actively engaged in the discussions on the design of the programme and we have made the EU aware of our desire to participate in the programme, and there is a lot to welcome in the framework proposals." On cost, he said the Government had noted "the proposal for the budget to be doubled, so we need to discuss our participation based on a sensible and hard-headed assessment of the UK's priorities and the substantial benefit to the EU should the UK decided to participate."
Read the full text of the debate here.
The Public Accounts Committee has been running an inquiry into Delivering STEM skills for the economy and published a report on Friday. STEM is recognised as essential to the future of UK industries and the Government has been running initiatives to improve STEM skills in the workforce including a substantial focus on STEM curriculum in schools. Although some initiatives to address STEM skills shortages have been successful there remain problems:
Women remain underrepresented in STEM courses and jobs – only 8% of STEM apprenticeship starts are undertaken by women.
In 2016 only 24% of those with STEM degrees were working in a STEM field six months after graduation.
The Government has focussed on schools to grow the next generation of skilled STEM workers. However, the report finds that the quality of careers advice in schools is patchy at best, perpetuating misconceptions about STEM careers. In addition, the way that schools are funded will restrict the likelihood of pupils moving to other, more STEM-focused learning providers, such as the new institutes of technology.
The Government is also unable to accurately assess the volume of the STEM skills shortage.
To make better informed decisions, [Government] departments also need to tackle the apparent lack of industry and commercial experience on their STEM boards and working groups.
Government departments spent almost £1 billion between 2007 and 2017 on initiatives to encourage more take-up of STEM subjects.
The Committee made 8 recommendations:
Following publication of the Migration Advisory Committee report in September 2018, BEIS and DfE should, within six months, set out the further steps they will take to ensure that STEM skills shortages are addressed.
DfE should set out what specific steps it will take to ensure that Skills Advisory Panels are sufficiently aware of national and global skills supply issues to be fully effective.
By summer 2018, the departments should review the membership of all STEM boards and working groups, and address any shortfalls in expertise—for example, in industry knowledge or experience in STEM learning and work.
DfE must identify as soon as possible whether financial incentives for teacher training have delivered value for money, and report its findings to the Committee as promised (i.e. have the teachers remained in the profession).
By the end of 2018, the departments should establish, and start to monitor progress against, specific targets relating to the involvement of girls and women in key STEM learning programmes such as apprenticeships.
DfE should make better use of data on career destinations and salaries to incentivise young people to work towards careers in particular STEM sectors where there is higher need. As part of its plans to improve the quality of careers advice, DfE should work with Ofsted to consider rating the quality of advice provided in schools.
As a matter of urgency, DfE needs to develop a clearer plan for how new types of learning institution, such as the institutes of technology, will attract the numbers of students they need to be viable.
DfE should ensure it has effective monitoring systems in place to quickly identify apprenticeship programmes that are not fit-for-purpose, along with poor quality provision, and the action it will take in each case
Meg Hillier MP chaired the inquiry, she commented:
"Warm words about the economic benefits of STEM skills are worth little if they are not supported by a coherent plan to deliver them. Government must take a strategic view, properly informed by the requirements of industry and the anticipated impact of Brexit on the UK's skills mix.
But Government also needs to sharpen its focus on the details, from providing sound advice to pupils through to ensuring schools have the right skills in the classroom and STEM-focused institutions are properly supported. Poor-quality apprenticeships must be weeded out and there is still much work required to address the striking gender imbalance in STEM apprenticeships."
Read the Committee's press release: Sharper focus needed on skills crucial to UK productivity
STEM Parliamentary Questions
Q – Robert Halfon: what assessment he has made of the potential contribution of students with a qualification in Design and Technology GCSE to filling the skills gap in engineering.
The design and technology (D&T) GCSE is a useful qualification for those pupils considering a career in engineering. The Department has reformed the D&T GCSE to ensure that it is a valuable qualification and includes the knowledge and skills sought by leading employers. Content has been aligned with high-tech industry practice with strengthened technical, mathematical and scientific knowledge.
Q – Robert Halfon: what information he holds on the reasons for the decline in the number of entries to Design and Technology GCSE since 2010
Design and Technology GCSE entries have declined since before 2010. In 2016/17 over 150,000 pupils in England entered a Design and Technology (D&T) GCSE at the end of Key Stage 4, which is over 25% of all pupils (data source).
Subject experts identified a number of issues with the previous suite of D&T GCSEs. They advised that the GCSEs were out of date, did not reflect current industry practice, and lacked sufficient science, technology, engineering and mathematics content. These issues could have had an effect on take up. One issue was that there were six separate GCSEs focusing on different materials (such as resistant materials and textiles) or particular aspects of D&T (such as product design and systems and control). These did not allow pupils to gain a broad knowledge of the design process, materials, techniques and equipment that are core to the subject. The Department has reformed the D&T GCSE to address these issues. There is now just one GCSE title which emphasises the iterative design processes that is at the core of contemporary practice and includes more about cutting edge technology and processes. The new GCSE now effectively provides pupils with the knowledge they need to progress to further study and careers, including in high-tech industries.
Q – Robert Halfon: what steps he is taking to revise the national curriculum to ensure that students are prepared for T-levels.
T-levels will provide students with knowledge and the technical, practical skills needed to get a skilled job. They will also allow students to progress into higher levels of technical training including degree courses in subjects relevant to their T-level.
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced in April that he would make no changes to the National Curriculum within the lifetime of this Parliament; and there should be no need to do so to prepare pupils for T-levels. All state schools are required to teach broad and balanced curricula that will provide young people with the skills and knowledge they need to undertake post-16 education and training; and the design of T-levels will take into account the knowledge and skills that pupils obtain through the current National Curriculum and reformed GCSEs.
The DfE has published the research report: TEF and informing student choice: Subject-level classifications, and teaching quality and student outcome factors. The report notes that TEF was introduced to measure teaching quality and student outcomes to drive up teaching quality within the HE sector and inform prospective students so they can make more informed choices when choosing a HE institution. The research behind the report consider the methodology behind how subject level TEF could be delivered and gathered applicant and student views on what was important to them. The report will help inform the next iteration of the TEF.
Here are the key conclusions:
For subject level TEF CAH2 was preferred due to its accuracy for making subject-level classifications, and is considered most sufficient for providing information to help applicants choose where to study. (See here from bottom of page 39 to understand CAH2.) It was recognised some the CAH2 categories needed rewording, particularly subjects allied to medicine which needs more in-depth consideration. The Broad (7 subject) classification system was not helpful to applicants.
The study also highlights a number of teaching quality and student outcome factors that could be considered when further developing subject-level TEF. It's important to consider teaching quality factors that have a short term impact on student satisfaction whilst at University with those having a longer term impact (such as graduate outcomes). There were a handful of factors that were low on the analyses and potentially, from a student perspective, could be deprioritised from subject-level TEF development. This includes teaching staff contracts, class sizes and the academic qualifications of teachers.
The research looked at the awareness and influence of the TEF awards on students currently or about to start at a HE institution.
2/5 (two-fifths) of 2018/19 applicants were aware of what TEF refers to;
1/8 had used the TEF to inform their choice of institution, or intended to do so.
1/4 were aware of the TEF award given to their first-choice institution.
The research stated that as TEF becomes more embedded, we would expect applicant and student awareness and usage of TEF to grow over time, and the results from this research will form the baseline against which future awareness and student engagement can be measured.
The research concluded:
The study demonstrates that applicants and students would value the introduction of subject-level TEF ratings. Around three-quarters of all applicants and students (68 -78%) reported that they would find subject-level TEF awards useful while only a tiny minority (3-5%) suggested it was of no use. Applicants that were aware of the provider-level TEF and its purpose were also more likely to consider subject level TEF to be useful.
Some parliamentary questions from this week relevant to the TEF:
Q – Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with the Office for Students on the adequacy of the metrics for the Teaching Excellence Framework.
To enable students to make the best decisions about their future, it is important that they have consistent independent information about the courses they are considering. The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) metrics focus on what matters to students: teaching quality, the learning experience, and student outcomes. The development of subject-level TEF will give students more information than ever before. The department has worked collaboratively with the Office for Students (OfS), and the Higher Education Funding Council for England before that, throughout the development of the TEF.
The metrics used for TEF assessments are all well-established, widely used and trusted in the HE sector. We consulted the sector extensively on the design of TEF, including the metrics to be used, in 2016. We have recently concluded a consultation on subject-level TEF and the OfS has completed the first year of the pilot of subject-level TEF. Findings from those exercises, including on the operation of the metrics, will be shared between the department and OfS and will inform the further development of the TEF.
Q – Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of efficacy of untrained PhD students being employed by universities to teach undergraduates.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency collects and publishes data on the teaching qualifications of academic staff, but this does not enable an assessment of the efficacy of those staff or any PhD students that are teaching in universities. The Higher Education and Research Act enshrines the principle that higher education institutions are autonomous organisations with freedom to select, appoint, or dismiss academic staff without interference from government. However, the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) recognises and rewards excellent teaching in higher education. The Teaching Quality measure within the TEF core metrics uses data from the National Student Survey, including student views of the teaching on their courses. In addition, the new Office for Students published its regulatory framework in February of this year. This includes a condition that all registered higher education institutions must deliver well designed courses that provide a high quality academic experience for all students – and that providers should have sufficient appropriately qualified and skilled staff to deliver that high quality academic experience.
Science and Innovation Investment
On Thursday Greg Clark (Secretary of State, BEIS) highlighted new investment in UK talent and skills to grow and attract the best in science and innovation. Key points:
£1.3 billion boost to attract and retain world-class talent and guarantee the UK's position at the forefront of innovation and discovery through the modern Industrial Strategy
Prestigious £900 million UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Leaders Fellowship Scheme – open to best researchers from around the world the investment will fund at least 550 new fellowships for the brightest and best from academia and business
The inaugural UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship Scheme will receive £900 million over the next 11 years, with 6 funding competitions and at least 550 fellowships awarded over the next 3 years. The investment will provide up to 7 years of funding for early-career researchers and innovators, including support for part-time awards and career-breaks, providing flexibility to researchers to tackle ambitious and challenging areas. For the first time ever, this type of scheme will now be open to businesses as well as universities. The scheme aims to help the next generation of tech entrepreneurs, business leaders and innovators get the support they need to develop their careers. It is open to best researchers from around the world, ensuring the UK continues to attract the most exceptional talent wherever they may come from.
Complementing the Future Leaders Fellowship Scheme, the Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, British Academy, and Academy of Medical Sciences will collectively receive £350 million for the prestigious fellowships schemes. This funding will enhance the research talent pipeline and increase the number of fellowships on offer for high skilled researchers and innovators.
Over the next 5 years, £50 million has been allocated through the National Productivity Investment Fund for additional PhDs, including 100 PhDs to support research into AI, supporting one of the Grand Challenges within the Industrial Strategy and ensuring Britain is at the forefront of the AI revolution.
There was a Parliamentary Question about UKRI this week.
Q – Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps he is taking to ensure that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) fulfils its mission to push the frontiers of human knowledge and understanding by appointing active research scientists to the UKRI Board.
A – Sam Gyimah: In line with the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), the Government has appointed UKRI Board members with experience across research, innovation and development, and on commercial and financial matters. This enables the UKRI Board to support and hold the organisation to account, ensuring it delivers effectively, rather than to supply discipline-specific expertise. That expertise is provided by the councils, who are uniquely positioned to understand the latest challenges and opportunities in their specific field, and they include a range of experts, including active researchers.
New LEO data
The DfE have issued the Graduate outcomes (LEO): subject by provider, 2015 to 2016, and have also published employment and earnings outcomes of graduates for each higher education provider broken down by subject studied and gender. The longitudinal education outcomes (LEO) data includes information from the Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs. The release uses LEO data to look at employment and earnings outcomes of higher education first degree graduates 1, 3, and 5 years after graduation in the tax years 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016.
Main Document: Graduate Outcomes (LEO): Subject by Provider, 2015 to 2016
Full data release: Official Statistics, Graduate outcomes (LEO): subject by provider, 2015 to 2016
Gender stereotypes in advertising
Growth in creative industries
Home Office immigration charges
Resignation: The Trade Minister, Greg Hands, resigned this week in protest at the Heathrow expansion. George Hollingbery has been appointed. Previously George was Theresa May's Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Environment: Research Professional report on the Plastics Pollution Research fund. And there is a parliamentary question on the Environment Plan.
Q – Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to involve scientists, economists and environmentalists in developing a set of metrics to measure the progress of the 25 Year Environment Plan; and when those metrics will be published.
A – Lord Gardiner of Kimble: We have engaged with scientists, economists and environmentalists from a number of external organisations since January to inform the development of a comprehensive suite of metrics and indicators.We will engage further with interested parties over the summer to canvas views on what this suite of indicators and metrics ought to cover. This will be achieved through a combination of publicly available briefing papers and targeted technical meetings with individual organisations and small groups of interested parties. The package of metrics we propose will then be subject to a further period of formal consultation in order to ensure we get this important measure absolutely right.
HE Sector Finances: The House of Commons Library has released information on HE Finance Statistics. It considers how the balance and make-up of university income and expenditure has changed over time, particularly since 2012. Summary from Dods: After many years of increased income, expenditure, more staff and students, the higher education sector in England especially faces on ongoing fall in income from the public sector, falling numbers of some types of students, particularly those studying part-time and much less certainty about the future make-up and nature of the sector as a whole. This has meant that the future public/private funding mix, size and role of the sector are the focus of more attention than at any time in the recent past. This note gives a short factual background on changes in income, expenditure and staffing since the sector took its present form in the mid-1990s. It also gives some information on variations between institutions. It includes data on all Higher Education Institutions in the UK.
Social Impact of Sport: The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee held an evidence session on the social impact of participation in culture and sport this week. The witnesses stated that sports, arts, and cultural provision yielded significant social benefits, including educational and health benefits. However, it was noted that data collection and analysis needed to improve to fully demonstrate this. There was discussion that good programmes were underway but best practice needed to be shared more effectively and communication of what was available needed to improve. It was felt that the Government should link up the various programmes underway and communicate the holistic benefits of sporting and cultural interventions. Contact Sarah for a fuller summary.
Tags: admissions Brexit erasmus grade inflation Graduate Outcomes immigration innovation investments LEO skills STEM subject level TEF teaching excellence framework TEF UKRI
Centre for Excellence in Learning, EU, Events, international, policy, Student Engagement jforster
A busy week for publications this week, while the government have been busy with Brexit votes and there is a positive story about immigration rules.
The Economics of HE
Commons Public Accounts Committee – The Commons public accounts committee published its report on the higher education market on Friday. After some interesting evidence sessions, Research Professional report that the outcome is disappointing:
"Rather than providing an analysis of the problem and proposed solutions as we saw in the Lords economic affairs committee's report [see below], the PAC report takes the form of an exam question and moves rapidly—after two pages—to conclusions and recommendations. The recommendations mostly involve asking the Department for Education to return to the committee.
Those who work in universities will be familiar with complaints from students about the lack of detailed feedback they receive after going to all the effort of submitting a considered piece of work. The PAC might want to reflect on whether this report is an adequate response given the public concern over whether the fees and loans system is fair on students….
It's all a bit vague, which is terribly disappointing given the very good evidence the committee received in this area. The recommendation is formulaic and is drawn in a broad way that lets the department off the hook. It will be quite easy to provide evidence of how the department is putting pressure on universities."
The conclusions and recommendations are here. No new news – please define the market, set up an evaluation framework for careers (a CEF?), evidence of success in WP and put pressure on providers, guidance to help students to change institution and a performance framework for the OfS (OfSEF?).
The Department treats the higher education sector as a market, but it is not a market that is working in the interests of students or taxpayers. There is greater competition for students between higher education providers, but no evidence that this will improve the quality of the education they provide. Higher education providers have increased their marketing budgets in order to attract students rather than compete by charging different tuition fees. However, the amount of funding for higher education (primarily via tuition fees) has increased by 50% since 2007/08. It is therefore critical that the higher education market is delivering value for money, both for individual students and the taxpayer. The new sector regulator, the OfS, has a primary objective that students "receive value for money". But neither the OfS nor the Department has articulated well enough what value for money means in higher education, or how they will seek to monitor and improve it.
Recommendation: The Department should write to the committee by October 2018 to explain what it expects a successful higher education market to look like.
Young people are not being properly supported in making decisions on higher education, due in large part to insufficient and inconsistent careers advice. The substantial financial commitment required and wide variation in outcomes from higher education mean prospective students need high-quality advice and support to make decisions that are right for them. The complexity of the market and the volume of information available makes it difficult for prospective students, most of whom are teenagers, to assess the quality and suitability of higher education institutions, raising questions over whether student choice alone will drive up the quality of provision. A wide range of other factors influence students' decisions, such as marketing by higher education providers, the reputation of institutions and their perceived prestige, a student's family background, as well as the location and costs of travel and accommodation. High-quality, impartial careers advice is critically important, but the support available to students in schools is not good enough. The Department acknowledged that it needs to improve the quality of careers advice for young people. It told us that its Careers Strategy, published in December 2017, will have a "real impact" on young people's lives and help students make choices which best fit their own aptitude, skills and preferences, but it is not clear how or whether the department will ensure high quality careers advice at school level. It is too early to judge its success, but action is needed quickly and the strategy should be robustly evaluated to ensure it is achieving its aims.
Recommendation: The Department should write to the Committee by October 2018 with details of progress it has made with its careers strategy and the impact it is having. It should set up an evaluation framework to enable it to assess progress.
The Department does not have enough of a grip on actions to widen participation in higher education, and is over-reliant on the actions of some universities. The Department's reforms are designed in part to ensure equal access to higher education, regardless of a student's background. However, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are still far less likely to enter into higher education than those from more advantaged backgrounds. There have also been substantial drops in part-time and lifelong learning, which are critical to social mobility. The Department told us that it has introduced a Social Mobility Action Plan to address inequalities across the education system, and one of the roles of the OfS will be to ensure best practice in reaching out to students from disadvantaged background is being applied across the higher education sector. However, we are concerned that the incentives in the higher education market do not sufficiently support widening participation. Outreach activities are primarily conducted by universities and while there are areas of good practice, some universities who find it easy to recruit students are not pulling their weight. The OfS told us that each higher education provider will set targets for widening participation and improving outcomes for disadvantaged groups, and it will oversee these Access and Participation Plans, which will be a condition of registration. But it remains to be seen whether the plans to improve performance will have an impact on the life chances for disadvantaged groups.
Recommendation: The Department should provide us with evidence of how it is widening participation and opening higher education to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Department should demonstrate how they will maintain pressure on providers to measure success.
Students have limited means of redress if they are unhappy with the quality of their course, even if they drop out. The relationship between students and higher education institutions has changed substantially since tuition fees were introduced, with a much greater emphasis on whether a course or institution offers value for money. An effective market requires empowered consumers who can switch provider if they are dissatisfied, but this is not the case in the higher education market. Across the sector, only 2% of students transfer provider each year, and students are more likely to drop-out altogether if they are dissatisfied with their course rather than switch provider. When students do switch providers or drop out, they are unlikely to get any of their fees back unless they can demonstrate that they were misled in some way. The OfS will require universities to demonstrate what arrangements they have in place for facilitating transfers, and it will have a responsibility to make sure there is better use of transfers where appropriate. However, given the relative weakness of students as consumers, it is vital that the OfS uses its full powers actively, and works effectively with other regulators, such as the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority, to ensure the market functions in the interests of students.
Recommendation: In developing the new regulatory framework, the Department and OfS must ensure students' interests are protected. The OfS should include clear guidelines to enable students to shift courses or institutions more easily.
The new Office for Students has not yet articulated how it will support the varied and complex interests of students. It told us that, as the sector regulator, its role is to regulate universities and colleges "on behalf of students". However, it is clear that these interests are varied, complex and often competing. The OfS told us that it has established a student panel, although it has chosen not to work with the National Union of Students, to inform how it makes decisions and to ensure that its definition of the student interest is defined by students themselves. It also told us that it plans to develop a student engagement strategy to clarify what the interests of students are so that it can feed these into its regulatory framework, which would include quality of teaching, feedback and graduate outcomes as key areas of focus. But until the OfS has sufficient clarity over what it is trying to achieve in the interests of students, it will not be able to effectively monitor and evaluate the success of its regulatory approach.
Recommendation: The Office for Students should report back in six months to set out in detail how it will measure and report on its performance in regulating for students, and be clear about what its priorities are in protecting student interests.
The summary of the summary is this bit: "We spoke to the Office for Students at its inception and hope that it will set a clear marker that it really is acting in the interests of students from day one. It is still unclear how it will gauge the real concerns of students and ensure that institutions are delivering and sanctioned when they let students down."
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee – The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee's inquiry into the Economics of higher, further and technical education inquiry has reported. They find that the system of post-school education in England is unbalanced with too much emphasis on full time university degrees, and as a result offers poor value for money to individuals, taxpayers and the economy – and they stress the need for immediate reform. As an official Committee the Government are expected to take note of, and respond to, the report – although it's not binding on the Government. The current HE Review will certainly include these findings within its deliberations. There is a short summary pamphlet issued by the Committee here.
The report notes that undergraduate HE studies dominate post-school choices. They attribute this to the HE Finance system making it an easy option, alongside the lack of alternative viable, consistent and quality alternatives. The report notes this is not in the country's best interest.
The key recommendations are:
Other post-school options need more funding – Funding for post-school education is too heavily skewed towards degrees. Public funding across all forms and institutions in higher and further education should be better distributed. There should be a single regulator for all higher education (Level 4 and above – the Office for Students is noted) and a single regulator for other post-school education (Level 3 and below).
Reversing the decline of part-time and flexible learning – The decline in part-time learning in higher education is a result of restrictions around accessing loans for students who already have a degree, the increase in tuition fees in 2012 and the lack of maintenance support for part-time students (which will be available from 2018/19). Funding restrictions have also led to a decline in part-time study in further education. A credit-based system whereby people can learn in a more modular way and at their own pace should be introduced.
Apprenticeships – The Government's target of three million apprenticeships has prioritised quantity over quality, and should be scrapped. The Government must renew its vision for apprenticeships, concentrating on the skills and choices that employers and individuals really need. The Institute for Apprenticeships should be abolished and replaced with a new regulator for Level 3 and below qualifications, and the Office for Students should take responsibility for those at Level 4 and above.
Reforms to student loans and widening maintenance support – The Government claims the high level of interest charged on student loans makes the system progressive, but it is middle-earning graduates who end up paying back most in real terms. The interest rate should be reduced to the 10-year gilt rate, currently 1.5 per cent, from the current rate of RPI plus 3 per cent.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Chair of the Economic Affairs Committee, said:
"The way we expect students to access higher and further education is deeply unfair. We must create a single system, including apprenticeships, that offers more choice and better value for money.
Maintenance support should be available for all students studying at Level 4 and above. The means-tested system of loans and grants that existed before 2016 should be re-instated, and total support increased to reflect the true cost of living.
We recommend that the interest rate charged on post-2012 student loans should be reduced to the level of the ten-year gilt rate. This would mean reducing the interest rate from around about 6 per cent today, to 1.5 per cent. No student should incur interest while studying."
The report also noted:
The statistical claims made by the Government about the relationship between higher education and economic growth are oversimplified. Whatever relationship may or may not have existed in the past, the assumption that sending increasing numbers of today's young people to university to study undergraduate degrees is the best option for individuals and the economy is questionable. The evidence suggests that there is a mismatch between the qualifications and skills provided by the higher education system and the needs of the labour market. A substantial proportion of current graduates may have been better off pursuing other higher education qualifications in areas where there are skills shortages.
The aim of the 2012 reforms to create an effective market amongst universities has not been achieved, as evidenced by the lack of price competition. We have seen little evidence to suggest that the higher education sector is suitable or amenable to market regulation. We are concerned that the replacement of nearly all grant funding by tuition fees, coupled with the removal of the cap on student numbers, has incentivised universities to attract prospective students onto full-time undergraduate degrees. This may also explain the striking increase in grade inflation.
The combination of incentives to offer and study for undergraduate degrees has had a negative effect on the provision and demand for other types of higher education.
The Teaching Excellence Framework will not impose sufficient discipline on the sector to ensure the quality of the ever-increasing provision of undergraduate degrees. The framework is based on metrics which are too general to relay much information about the quality of an institution or course and are too dependent on unreliable surveys. Risk is borne almost entirely by students and taxpayers rather than the institutions.
With this in mind, there was a parliamentary question on TEF this week:
Q – Gordon Marsden: T what external organisations he plans to consult to take forward his Department's commitment to appoint an independent reviewer of the teaching excellence framework and its criteria of operation.
A – Sam Gyimah: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education will appoint a suitable independent person for the purpose of preparing a report on the operation of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), in accordance with the Higher Education and Reform Act 2017. In taking decisions about the TEF, he will take account of advice from partners in the higher education sector. That includes the department's TEF Delivery Group, which is comprised of representative organisations from the sector plus the Office for Students and the devolved administrations, and gives advice on the design and development of the TEF.
Wonkhe have an analysis of TEF year 3 grade inflation data:
"Every institution where data is presented showed evidence of grade inflation [Ed: or just improvement in outcomes?] when comparing the most recent year of first class awards with the supplied historical comparator, in some cases up to a 20 percentage point difference. Most institutions also showed a steady increase over the most recent three years, all of which were substantially above the earlier figure.
Every institution showed a rise in the number of first class degrees, and a fall in the number of 2:2, third class or other honours degrees.
What doesn't the data tell us? Resits, basically. We don't know to what extent degree candidates are simply not accepting lower awards, and instead choosing to resit elements of their course to achieve a higher award. We also do not know to what extent institutions are encouraging this – in light of the continued idiocy of certain parts of the rankings industry in including "percentage of first class degrees" in league tables, or in the light of student care (and a weather eye on DLHE metrics).
The simple proportions are also less reliable for smaller institutions, where you would expect to see a greater fluctuation year on year and cohort by cohort. And we don't (yet – this may come in future years when the data is derived centrally from HESA) get any splits – of particular interest here would be prior qualifications, but we already know that various student attributes are a good predictor of final grade."
And the BBC has cut last week's IFS data and has an interactive tool – adding "But remember, there's more to life than money…" and the all-important qualifier: "Earnings for different professions may vary over time. The figures are based on students graduating between 2008 and 2012." Read last week's policy update for some critical perspectives on the relevance of this data for current applicants. Past performance is not really a guide to future performance – and some graduates may end up doing a different job to the rest of the cohort….
There were two Parliamentary questions about research funding, one in the context of Brexit
Q – Kemi Badenoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the maintenance of funding for (a) universities and (b) research projects after the UK ceases to receive European Research Council funding.
The UK is eligible to fully participate in all aspects of the Horizon 2020 programme, including the European Research Council (ERC) while we remain a member of the EU. The Joint Report, reflected in the draft Withdrawal Agreement, envisages that UK entities' right to participate will remain unaffected by the UK's withdrawal from the EU for the duration of the programme and the lifetime of projects funded under Horizon 2020.
If necessary, the Government's underwrite remains in place. This guarantees the funding for UK participants in projects ongoing at the point of exit, as well as any successful bids submitted before the UK leaves the EU.
As part of our future partnership with the EU, the UK will look to establish a far reaching science and innovation pact. The UK would like the option to fully associate to the excellence-based European research and innovation programmes, including Horizon Europe, the successor to Horizon 2020. The UK intends to play a full and constructive role in shaping these proposals and we look forward to discussing the detail of any future UK participation with the Commission.
Q – Rebecca Long Bailey: When the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy plans to publish a roadmap for meeting his target of increasing investment in R&D to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027.
A – Sam Gyimah: Since the publication of the Industrial Strategy, we have been speaking to businesses, academics and other stakeholders to develop the roadmap. Through this engagement we are exploring the barriers to increased R&D investment by business, the greatest opportunities for R&D growth over the next decade, and the key policies Government should prioritise to reach the 2.4% goal and deliver economic and societal impact.
EU Students – This week both Layla Moran (Lb Dem Education Spokesperson) and Universities UK have been pressurising the Government to clarify the fee status of EU students for the 2019/20 academic year, warning of a further drop in EU numbers. The Scottish Government confirmed the fee status for EU students in February this year.
Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said: "Students from across the EU, who bring great economic and academic value, are already enquiring about 2019 study, but face uncertainty on the expected financial costs of doing so. We know from research that the majority of international students start their research about studying abroad more than 12 months in advance of actual enrolment…there is now an urgent need for clarification to be provided across all parts of the UK. It is critical that action is taken to prevent a drop in EU applications next year."
Non-EU Doctors and Nurses – Immigration Relaxation – The Government have announced a relaxation on the Tier 2 visa cap which currently limits immigration of non-EU skilled workers to 20,700 per year (see Politics Home) to ensure that non-EU doctors and nurses will be outside of the cap.
The Telegraph reported that a much wider review is expected: "businesses and employers will be able to recruit an extra 8,000 skilled migrants a year from other professions including IT experts, engineers and teachers, effectively increasing the cap by 40 per cent."
Changes to the immigration rules were announced on Friday that come into force on 6th July that do not seem to go that far:
increasing the number of countries that benefit from a streamlined Tier 4 student visa application process – 11 additional countries including China have been added
leave to remain for children under the Dubs amendment – including study and healthcare for children who do not qualify for refugee or humanitarian protection leave
changes applying to Afghan interpreters and their families that were announced recently
the change relating to non-EU doctors and nurses who will no longer be in the Tier 2 visa numbers cap
including fashion designers and TV and film professionals in the exceptional talent visa
Opposition to Theresa May's immigration policies, including whether international students should be included in the overall net immigration target, has been widely reported in the press over the last couple of years, including a lack of support for the current approach from Cabinet members. The change in relation to the NHS may be the start of something bigger. The promised Immigration White Paper was postponed due to the Migration Advisory Committee's (MAC) investigations into workers within the UK labour market and the impact of international/EU students (due to report in September). Meanwhile there have been pressing calls from the sector (notably from HEPI following the publication of their research into benefits of international students) for the MAC Committee to report ahead of September.
The Immigration White Paper is now rumoured to be scheduled for release in July, to allow for consultation prior to the European Council leaders' summit on the 18 and 19 October (the target date to agree a withdrawal treaty). The Immigration Bill is expected to be presented to Parliament before 2019.
'Start up' Visas – The Home Secretary has announced that people who want to start a business in the UK will be able to apply for a new "start-up" visa from Spring 2019. This is aimed to widen the applicant pool of talented entrepreneurs and make the visa process faster and smoother for entrepreneurs coming to the UK. It will replace the previous visa for graduates, opening it up to a wider pool of talented business founders. It will require applicants to have acquired an endorsement from a university or approved business sponsor, including accelerators.
The Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, said:
"The UK can be proud that we are a leading nation when it comes to tech and innovation, but we want to do more to attract businesses to the UK and our migration system plays a key part in that.
That's why I am pleased to announce a new visa for people wanting to start a business in the UK. This will help to ensure we continue to attract the best global talent and maintain the UK's position as a world-leading destination for innovation and entrepreneurs.
This initiative builds on other recent reforms to the visa system – including doubling the number of visas available on the Exceptional Talent route to 2,000 per year – and shows the government's commitment to making the UK a dynamic, open, globally-trading nation."
International Students – During an American Senate hearing the US confirmed they will limit the study visa of Chinese students studying in 'sensitive' fields (robotics, aviation, high-tech manufacturing) to a one year duration with an option to renew and extend study into subsequent years after consideration. The hearing, Student Visa Integrity: Protecting Educational Opportunity and National Security, (originally titled 'A Thousand Talents: China's Campaign to Infiltrate and Exploit US Academia'). A spokesperson from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated the policy decision was not driven by race or ethnicity but by the need to safeguard American Intellectual Property in the face of "the fact that China has a publicly-stated policy goal of acquiring sensitive information in technology around the world …that they seek access and recruit global experts regardless of their nationality to meet their science and technology aims." In opposition to the visa limitations testimony was given on the value of international students at the hearing. What is most interesting is the difference in attitude between the US and UK in the consideration of the benefits of an international student population that the hearing revealed.
In the UK international students are welcomed for the diversity they bring, the further invigoration and internationalisation of the curriculum, the income boost through tuition fees, the levels of postgraduate students, and the significant economic 'side effects' benefiting the geographical community (see HEPI). There is also an assumption that (due to the visa system) most international students will return home, having originally chosen to study here to enhance their own international career standing or bring fresh skills back to their own community (a personal motivation).
Yet the opinion expressed in the American Senate hearing was that the international students should be contributing to American society (and paying for the privilege of doing so): "Most students and visiting scholars come to US for legitimate reasons. They are here to… contribute their talents to [the US]." Senator Cornyn (Chair of the hearing). Most likely American academia would have alternative viewpoints to Senator Cornyn on the valuing of international students. Also this appears to be a niche policy decision to infuse intellectual property security concerns into the visa approval process rather than a blanket policy.
Britain and America are two of the major world players in attracting international students and both now have elements of unwelcome emanating through policy decision. It's notable that Chinese student numbers are the biggest international group to access UK universities; in 2015/16 1 in 4 international originated from China..
Widening Participation and Achievement
There were several parliamentary questions within the widening participation sphere this week.
Part Time Students – Q – Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to higher education funding on student numbers at the Open University in each year since 2011.
The government recognises the decline in part-time study within the sector, and is aware of the impact this has had on the Open University. That's why the government is committed to supporting part time students and since 2012, it has paid the tuition fees of students studying on part-time courses up-front through a system of subsidised fee loans.
In addition, new part-time students attending degree level courses from August 2018 onwards will, for the first time, be able to apply for up-front loans to help them with their living costs. Subject to the development of a robust control regime, these loans will be extended to students on distance learning courses from August 2019.
The government continues, through the Office for Students (previously Higher Education Funding Council for England), to provide direct grant funding to support successful outcomes for part-time students. This was worth £72 million in the current academic year (2017/18), and the Open University received a sizeable amount of this funding.
This funding reflects the particular costs associated with recruiting and retaining part-time students and includes funds to support successful outcomes for part-time students. The Open University received £48 million to support teaching activity in 2017/18.
Effective Deployment of WP – Q – David Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps he is taking to ensure that the widening participation funding is deployed effectively. And Q – David Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds attending university.
The following response covered both questions: A – Sam Gyimah:
Widening participation in higher education remains a priority for this government. We want everyone with the potential to have the opportunity to benefit from a university education, regardless of background or where they grew up.
University application rates for 18 year olds to full-time study remain at record levels. The proportion of disadvantaged 18 year olds entering full time higher education has increased from 13.6 per cent in 2009 to 20.4 per cent in 2017. Building on this our major review of post-18 education and funding will consider how disadvantaged students receive maintenance support both from government and from universities and colleges and how we can ensure they have equal opportunities to progress and succeed in all forms of post-18 education.
We have set up the Office for Students (OfS) with powers to drive forward improvements in access and participation and we have asked the OfS to do more to maximise the impact of spending in this area. In their business plan the OfS plans to evaluate the return on investment on access and participation. We have also asked the OfS to set up an Evidence and Impact Exchange to improve the impact and value for money of providers' access and participation expenditure.
In addition, through the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, we have introduced the Transparency Duty requiring registered higher education providers to publish data on application, offer, acceptance, dropout and attainment rates of students by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. This will hold the sector to account for their record on access and retention of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and shine a light on where they need to go further
Targeted Outreach – Q – Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with (a) the Director for Fair Access and Participation and (b) the Office for Students on strengthening university programmes aimed at potential applicants between the ages of 11 and 16 from disadvantaged black, working-class white and other communities. And Q – Gordon Marsden: what discussions he has had with universities and their representative bodies on extending their outreach activities for disadvantaged groups of young people between the ages of 11 and 16.
In our first guidance to the Office for Students (OfS) we have asked them to challenge higher education (HE) providers to drive more progress through their Access and Participation Plans. Prior attainment is a critical factor in entering higher education and we are asking providers to take on a more direct role in raising attainment in schools as part of their outreach activity. The OfS have also established the National Collaborative Outreach Programme to target areas where progression into higher education is low overall and lower than expected given typical GCSE attainment rates.
Through the Higher Education and Research Act, we have introduced a Transparency Duty requiring higher education providers to publish data on application, offer, acceptance, dropout and attainment rates of students by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. This will hold the sector to account for their record on access and retention of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and shine a light on where they need to go further.
Officials and I are in regular contact with the OfS, including the Director for Fair Access and Participation, and the higher education sector to discuss issues around widening access.
Disabled Applicants – Q – Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with the Office for Students on encouraging university applications from potential applicants with disabilities.
Widening access to higher education among under-represented or disadvantaged groups is a priority for this government. In our first guidance to the Office for Students we have asked them to ensure that higher education providers include, within their access and participation plans, those students that have been identified as requiring the most support. This includes students with disabilities.
Higher education providers have clear responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 to support their students, including those with disabilities
Through access agreements – in future known as access and participation plans – higher education providers expect to spend more than £860 million in 2018/19 on measures to improve access and student success for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is a significant increase from £404 million in 2009.
Change in turbulent times
HEPI released Policy Note 7 – Change is coming: how universities can navigate through turbulent political times. It focussed on three key drivers for Universities: internationalisation, the impact of disruptive technologies, and changes to education delivery – the power not only to change the way we teach and learn, but also how we manage information and collect data.
"Rebooting learning for the digital age? As shown by HEPI report 93, improvements across the world in technology have already led to improved retention rates and lower costs:
in the US, technology-enhanced learning has produced better student outcomes in 72 per cent of projects and average savings of 31 per cent;
in the University of New England in Australia, student drop-out rates have reduced from 18 per cent to 12 per cent via learning analytics; and
at Nottingham Trent University, 81 per cent of first year students increased their study time after seeing their own engagement data "
"Demand for higher education to 2030 As HEPI report 105 uncovers, universities in England should be preparing themselves to take on at least 300,000 additional full-time undergraduate places by the end of the next decade. This is good news in the long-term but the scale of the transformation that is required now – in terms of increasing capacity – is substantial.
Many universities are already concentrating on the long-term picture. This is best shown by the improvements to university estates. Yet, with a smaller pool of prospective students being relied upon to fill these resources in the short-term, we can expect competition between institutions to increase sharply over the coming years – particularly if it becomes more common for students to switch providers of higher education mid-course under the new regularly landscape of the Office for Students (OfS)."
To steer effectively through the troubled waters the policy note suggests:
"On the one hand, this involves coming together to:
learn from each other's experiences in the global context;
identify common challenges;
develop appropriate fixes; and
present a collective voice in the sector against current political sentiment.
On the other hand, this also involves enhancing the distinctiveness of higher education institutions to:
ensure they make a real difference on the ground in other parts of the world;
ensure challenges specific to different institutions do not get lost in the general policy debate;
develop appropriate strategies for success; and
get ahead in an environment of increased competition.
Coming together in unity to learn from one another and develop appropriate strategies, while still maintaining the diversity that is unique to UK higher education, is what will help universities to overcome some of the biggest emerging policy challenges of our time – posed by the pressures of internationalisation, advancements in technology and domestic political developments. Universities today ultimately have two obligations on their hands – the first, to ensure their own individual successes and, the second, to preserve their part in a healthy, wider higher education sector, complete with variety and choice, for generations to come."
Student experience – what students really want and why it matters
BU hosted Dr Diana Beech from the Higher Education Policy Institute on Wednesday morning for a policy breakfast, part of this year's CELebrate symposium. In a packed room and despite the early start, we had a great discussion about student perceptions, value (and value for money). You can read about it and find links to the survey, her slides and other HEPI reports referred to elsewhere on the research blog here.
Student loans – the numbers
The Student Loans Company have published their statistics for England for the financial year 2017-18.
The amount lent in financial year 2017-18 to Higher Education borrowers was £15.0billion, an increase of 11.9% when compared with 2016-17. A total of £222.3m was lent to Further Education borrowers.
The amount lent in financial year 2017-18 for Postgraduate Masters was £582.9million.
Net repayments posted to customer accounts within Higher Education amounted to £2.3billion in the financial year 2017-18, an increase of 16.0% compared with 2016-17 (including £399.2million in voluntary repayments).
The balance outstanding for Higher Education (including loans not yet due for repayment) at the end of the financial year 2017-18 was £104.6billion,an increase of 17.0% when compared with 2016-17.
With the entry of the Higher Education 2018 repayment cohort into repayment in April 2018, there were 3.8 million borrowers liable for repayment and still owing (an increase of 4% compared to April 2017). There were a further 1.2 million borrowers not yet liable for repayment bringing the total still owing to 5.0 million.
The average Loan Balance for the Higher Education 2018 repayment cohort on entry to repayment was £34,800. This is a £2,380 increase on the previous year average of £32,420.
880,400 (18.6%) of the Higher Education borrowers who had become liable to repay since ICR loans were introduced in 1998 have fully repaid their loan.
Student Drug Attitudes
The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and University of Buckingham have released a YouthSight survey on attitudes towards drug use based on the responses of 1,059 full-time undergraduate (UG) students. On the number of students who have never (71%) or regularly (11%) use drugs the findings contrast slightly from the April 2018 NUS report which noted higher usage. HEPI explain that the NUS sample was targeted and believe this report is more representative of full-time UG students.
Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI said:
'This survey provides an important corrective to some of the wilder ideas about today's students. They are more hardworking and less hedonistic than is often supposed… Our survey shows most students support their institutions taking a tougher, rather than a more relaxed, line on the use of illegal substances by fellow students.'
The survey explains student drug use as attributable to:
47% peer pressure
81% took drugs for recreational purposes
6% took drugs to cope with difficulties with exams
When considering if their HE institution has a drug problem the respondents split with 39% identifying a problem, and 44% stating there wasn't. The students were concerned about the impact of drug use personally and in society. 88% were concerned drugs negatively impacted mental health; 68% felt it contributed to crime; and 62% were concerned about the cost of the health care burden caused by drug users. Many students recognised excessive alcohol consumption as a serious threat (87% considered alcohol overuse as very serious or quite serious compared to 64% on drug use). The report stated 62% of students want their university to 'take a stronger line' on drug dealers and 'students who repeatedly use drugs'.
There is still time to contribute to the industrial strategy topical blogs because they've extended the deadline until 21 July – yippee! Get your thinking caps on and get in touch with Sarah!
Local MPs: Richard Drax (South Dorset) used his prime minster question this week to call for her to support a grant for Weymouth's harbour wall. The PM responded that there were various options that grant funding had to look at carefully, but said that this project was on a list of potential recipients. She anticipated a decision by the summer.
The Hous