This post by Jane Forster of Bournemouth University reuses material prepared for internal use and represents her own views and not those of BU.
It focusses on HE policy specifically, and therefore doesn’t address the extremely important matters that are facing all organisations at the moment, such as the equality and diversity agenda including race, gender, disability and disadvantage, the environment and sustainability, and health and wellbeing, with mental health as well as the many issues arising from the pandemic being high on everyone’s priority list.
Having put aside those (monumental) questions, here is the blog, which seeks to set out a brief summary of government and OfS positions on a long list of HE policy matters and to look forward to the Autumn, with some trepidation.
Government focus on educational quality
- Although it is a slippery thing to prove, the government are convinced that there are some poor quality institutions and some truly dreadful individual courses out there.
- This from the recent restructuring document is the biggest warning yet “Public funding for courses that do not deliver for students will be reassessed.”
- Measures of quality they are using consistently in all recent announcements are graduate employment outcomes and continuation. Gavin Williamson recently said the only point of a degree was if it got you a good job. And on continuation, they are worried that drop-outs means they have wasted student loan subsidy and that they imply poor student experience and course quality. And interestingly they rarely mention any other metrics.
- Everything is focussed on courses supporting economic and societal need, i.e. STEM and healthcare and teaching. Expect a strong anti-humanities feel in policy developments. In their view these courses do not “lead” to productive careers in enough cases. Value for money now clearly defined in terms of the taxpayer. (Student value is addressed by looking at graduate outcomes).
- They are concerned about duplication – they are willing to have courses replaced by lower level courses including provided by FE colleges instead to replace university provision.
- “it is probable that the sector in 2030 will not look the same as it does now”
- Oh – and just because they haven’t mentioned it for a while, don’t forget that degree outcomes data will be a stick to beat the sector with if there is an on-going grade inflation story. This is not over. With new UUK guidance out in July this is a story that will run again soon, especially in the context of no detriment policies.
Government focus on technical education
- This big new agenda may mean that there is less money available for universities, which may have implications for tuition fees and OfS grants.
- There may be incentives for universities to do more level 4 and 5, especially in collaboration with colleges and schools. We should at least look at our partnerships.
- Degree apprenticeships seem to have fallen out of favour.
- Part-time learning is back in vogue – the Minister hinted that in their response to Augar the government will look at funding bite-size learning and she also wants universities to provide more courses.
- This sits alongside the big focus on jobs and skills in the July mini-budget
Government focus on the regions
- The new blue wall is of course a massive priority. But even outside the North they want universities to focus on local economic needs.
- This is consistent with the previous government’s focus on “place” in the Industrial Strategy (not something they talk about much now) but the principles are very similar. To deliver on jobs, productivity and “levelling up”, universities need to be strongly tied to their regions and doing the things that make a difference there.
- This from the restricting document is a clear policy statement: “Providers will need to examine whether they can enhance their regional focus.”. And make no mistake, that means technical education if that is what your region needs.
- They are still worried about “cold spots”. They are also likely to worry about rural provision and blended models offer a solution to this – is this an opportunity now that we have tackled blended?
Government focus on “high quality” and “strategic” research
- Linked to productivity and regional economic success, there is a big focus on the “right sort” of research. We will continue to see a focus on industry led rather than university led projects and a downturn in funding for humanities and social sciences research.
- The R&D roadmap announced in July 2020 repeats the commitment to R&D investment of 2.4% by 2027 and public investment will be £22bn by 20204/25 – the rest comes from industry. Lots of references to diversity, bureaucracy, unhealthy work cultures, over-dependence on the Golden Triangle. Oh, and “moonshots” and an “Office for Talent”. Linked to points mentioned above, there will be a new R&D Place Strategy. ARPA also features. Promised review of QR and a look at full economic cost.
- The recent restructuring document suggests restructured universities would need to “focus resources on scientific research that is: internationally excellent (‘three star’) or higher, or else of direct and demonstrable value to the national economy or to the local and regional business community”. This as with the rest of that document, sets the tone.
- It looks less and less likely that the UK will be part of Horizon 2020 under Brexit arrangements. If we won’t the government will have a lot of money to spend within the UK but they will probably let it follow “quality” with a nod to regional disparities. That means the North. They will almost certainly focus it on STEM, and it will also be influenced by who does well in the KEF. The KEF documentation is clear that it will in the future influence who gets the cash.
Government focus on levelling up does not mean increasing access to HE.
- Those students from disadvantaged groups who are at university still have to be supported to succeed.
- But we may see an abandonment of access targets – or we may not. The statements are inconsistent and confusing. The government may be happy to see the sector commit to and deliver access targets but may not mandate them or require the OfS to mandate them any more. Or they may continue to mandate targets but targets to increase the proportion of disadvantaged students in overall lower or flat student numbers.
- Worth noting in this context although it’s a more general points – student number controls may be here to stay. Given all the other rhetoric, there will be a strong temptation to extend or replace the covid arrangements with something longer lasting.
Government focus on fairness and choice
- Consistent with the previous administration, there is an on-going focus on these things. However, this government may go further by pushing hard on post-qualification admissions and using the issue of complaints linked to Covid-19 to push harder on student protection, student rights to information, complaints and fee refunds. They do not like offer making practices, university marketing or clearing and they are convinced that there is mis-selling. The OfS has declared war on unconditional offers, for similar reasons.
And don’t forget these other things that have not gone away
- The restructuring regime refers to senior executive pay and freedom of speech (an old chestnut, that). And has a dig about student unions (funding “niche campaigns” instead of working for all students).
- The restructuring regime also makes a thing about bureaucracy and cost efficiency.
- The last time bureaucracy came up was when they attacked EU research bidding processes as part of the Brexit discussions, announced they were dropping impact statements in UK bidding and then quietly admitted they were just moving them to another bit of the form.
- It is unclear what new bee they have in their bonnet but anyone applying for the restructuring funding may need to demonstrate the leanness of their professional services functions and internal processes, or at least show that they are willing to tackle them once restructured.
- The bee may be marketing spend – the OfS have been very critical of marketing spend and it is also noted in recent ministerial speeches. We might expect some tough questions about marketing and recruitment costs specifically as well as general pressure on publishing our spend to students in an accessible way (remember that issue – hasn’t gone away either).
- In this context it is also worth mentioning accelerated degrees because they haven’t forgotten about those either and they could be part of a future “efficiency” drive.
What’s next:
- KEF – submissions due in October.
- Conclusion of the Post-18 Review at the Spending Review this Autumn. Will it include differential fees? Will it include student number controls, either direct ones or indirect via limiting access to student loans for certain “low value” subjects, or for some “low quality” universities? Will they cap fees at “cost” as discussed in Augar to stop cross subsidisation by low cost subjects?
- Outcome of the Pearce Review of the TEF. Expect subject level TEF to be firmly back on the agenda, and a new TEF to have teeth –highly likely to be used (at subject level) in whatever the Post-18 review outcome is.
- If the TEF doesn’t do it, the OfS will through licence conditions – they announced a long time ago a plan for “continuous improvement” and “moving baselines” – expect tougher steps from the OfS once the present distractions have been mitigated a bit.
- OfS restarting their admissions review – either that or government green or white paper will pre-empt it (as it isn’t really within the OfS’s gift anyway).
- Don’t expect the OfS to go soft on APPs. And differential outcomes (as seen in the TEF data) will become even more important. And degree outcomes. So quality and consistency are key.
- REF submissions next Spring.
Good luck everyone!