What can we look forward to in 2021?

This blog is taken from a review undertaken for Bournemouth University and reflects the author’s personal views.

This is the time of year when we all like to reflect on the year just gone (although this time most of us will agree that we’re glad it is over) and look forward to the year ahead. At BU my colleague Sarah and I try to do a horizon scan every few months.

Although most of the year has been taken up by managing and responding to the pandemic, and fitting in as much normal and useful activity around it as possible, the end of the year has been marked by a surprising amount of HE policy activity. So it looks like next year will be a big one.

Of course, the huge global challenges are still huge global challenges. Inequality has been exacerbated by the pandemic and racial inequality in particular has rightly become a focus. We are all much more aware of mental health and wellbeing challenges, as they affect us and those around us. Environmental issues have also been highlighted, as the skies and roads cleared and then became polluted again. These issues affect HE and HE people.

But putting those to one side for a minute, here are some thoughts on HE policy in 2021.

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 summer’s restructuring document was the biggest warning yet “Public funding for courses that do not deliver for students will be reassessed.”   UUK got in on the act, announcing an advisory group were developing a charter to ensure universities (England only) take a consistent and transparent approach on potential low-value/quality courses.  
• In November, the OfS launched a hugely significant consultation on quality (covered in our 20^th November policy update here). Measures of quality, consistent with all recent announcements are graduate employment outcomes and continuation. Gavin Williamson said earlier this year 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 they rarely mention any other metrics.    Under this consultation, minimum absolute numbers for these things (with no benchmarking or adjustment for demographics) would become regulatory standards.
• 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).
• The government 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.
• Conclusion of the Post-18 Review was due at the next Spending Review but it didn’t come with the mini review in November.  When it does…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?  It has been announced that the budget will be on 3^rd March – is that the day we will finally get all this?
• Outcome of the Pearce Review of the TEF.  The OfS have been advertising for a head of TEF and have included the TEF in their plan for 2021. When we know more, 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.  We wrote about what might happen in our 27^th November policy update here.  When we do get it, expect it to link to the NSS review, the OfS review of B conditions and the new regulatory outcomes metrics as well as possibly to the funding review outcomes.
  • There was no TEF year 5 exercise in 2020, but what 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. So it certainly looks like there will have to be an extension.  And if the new exercise really is going to take two years (as the OfS had suggested), it will be quite a long extension. 
  • 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 the awards 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?

Government focus on technical education

• This sits alongside the big focus on jobs and skills in the July mini-budget.  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.  
• Degree apprenticeships seem to have fallen out of favour. Part-time and adult learning is back in vogue.

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 restructuring document is a clear policy statement: “Providers will need to examine whether they can enhance their regional focus.” And that means technical education if that is what your region needs.
• Chris Skidmore will chair the Higher Education Commission’s inquiry into university research and regional inequalities. The inquiry will explore how research funding might be used by universities to contribute to the government’s ‘levelling-up’ agenda.
• They are still worried about “cold spots”. They are also likely to worry about rural provision and blended models offer a solution to this.

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.  There was more positive language in the spending review in November (see our 27^th November policy update here).
• 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.
• Who knows at this point whether the UK will be part of Horizon 2020 under Brexit arrangements. If we aren’t the government will (in theory) have a lot of money to spend within the UK but they will probably let it follow “quality” with a nod to regional disparities. They will almost certainly focus it on STEM, and it will also be influenced by who does well in the KEF.  And the REF. And they will probably channel a lot of it through business not directly to universities.

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 have been 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. 
• Some said that student number controls may be here to stay – once given this lever, government might not be able to let it go especially as they seek to reduce cost and focus on non-uni paths.  That was debunked by the reaction to the A-level results.  Now they have removed them again, it will be hard to bring them back.  But there may be well be other sorts of rationing in the response to Augar (linked to quality or outcomes) and that may impact access.
• 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.  This will be even more on the agenda as political pressure builds because of A level grade inflation and perceptions of “under-qualified” students getting into university this year. 

Government focus on fairness and choice

• 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.
• Both UCAS and UUK have published papers on options for changing the admissions system – both broadly supporting a change to offer making after A-level and BTEC results are known.  The OfS had paused their review of admissions (launched before the first lockdown) and had indicated no further action on this for the time being, so the timing is interesting.  Will it come out in the first quarter of 2021? The Secretary of State for Education has expressed support for the change, which UUK suggest could not happen before admissions in 2023 at the earliest although the government statement merely says that it will not affect admissions in 2021.  It is expected that there will be wide consultation before such a change. 

And don’t forget these other things that have not gone away

• The restructuring regime refers to senior executive pay and freedom of speech.  And had a dig about student unions (funding “niche campaigns” instead of working for all students). 
• Focus on 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).
  • The OfS have committed to reducing bureaucracy and the burden for universities as they go back to more “normal” regulatory business. Those looking at the many consultations opened over the end of the year will be wondering if the OfS is going to deliver on this.
• In that 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.

And I can’t finish this blog without a tiny plug. I have contributed a chapter to a new book – Humanising Higher Education – a positive approach to enhancing wellbeing, edited by some amazing colleagues at BU with contributions from across a range of disciplines. My chapter is about how policy work – and policy people – can contribute to this – I can’t think of a more important time to focus on how we can all help make the world a more positive place!

Here’s to a happy new year – and a busy one.