If you are a registered HEi-know user, please log in to continue.
You must be a registered HEi-know user to access Briefing Reports, stories and other information and services. Please click on the link below to find out more about HEi-know.
Interventionism is suddenly all the rage with the Westminster Conservative government, and higher education is feeling the impact as new policies and legislation are brought to bear on the sector, writes Johnny Rich, Chief Executive of Push and of the Engineering Professors’ Council.
Mike Boxall, an independent researcher and consultant on higher education policies and strategies, and a senior adviser to PA Consulting, considers the emerging post-COVID world and its implications for the future of universities. His blog is based on a paper published recently by PA Consulting, and co-authored with its HE lead, Ian Matthias.
The Westminster government should wake up to the full potential of higher education to help it meet its ‘levelling up’ goals, argues Professor Martin Jones, Deputy Vice-Chancellor at Staffordshire University.
Professor Jon Scott, Pro Vice-Chancellor Student Experience at the University of Leicester, picks out the dominant themes in higher education news of the past week.
Social mobility, TEF, KEF and, of course, the ongoing speculations surrounding the possible outcomes of the Augar review of fees were among the major themes picked up across the media in another busy week for news about higher education during the last week.
The social mobility strand can be followed from a number of different perspectives in this week’s news. The first angle was seeing the Office for Students flexing its regulatory muscles again in terms of applying financial penalties. Writtle University College became the second provider to be fined by the OfS, in this case to the tune of £250,000, for a ’major access agreement breach’ . Writtle had failed to comply with the provisions in its access agreement leading to what Chris Millward, Director of fair Access and Participation of the OfS reported as ‘a total deficit in spending on outreach over the six-year period of £776,120’.
Some of the latest speculations around the Augar review of post-18 education funding also focused on social mobility. The Times, the Observer and the Guardian commented on warnings from three previous ministers within the Department for Education, Justine Greening, Jo Johnson and Lord Willetts, that cuts to the tuition fees would damage social mobility and benefit the wealthy. Justine Greening was particularly forthright, as reported by the Observer, in her reference to the threat of a ‘cack-handed fees reform that means we go backward on social mobility and access’. In its opinion piece, the Observer again called for a graduate tax as being the fairest way to pay for university.
The Guardian also reported on the response of vice-chancellors to the proposals to restrict access to student loans if they failed to obtain three Ds at A level. Dominic Shellard, Vice-Chancellor of De Montfort University, claimed that such a move would ‘strike at the heart of social mobility’, a view endorsed by Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) who stated that ‘It will hit entrants from the poorest backgrounds disproportionately’.
Two other stories also picked up on the social mobility theme. The first of these was a revisiting of the concept of grammar schools as engines, or not, of social mobility. A report published for HEPI was widely reported in the media. Its author Iain Mansfield, who was formerly a civil servant at the DfE, claimed that previous reporting of grammar schools had taken too narrow a focus and that grammar schools are making a ‘vital contribution’ to social mobility. The report provides evidence that entry statistics for Cambridge showed that grammar schools were more successful than other state schools in providing entrants from POLAR 1 & 2 groups and non-white entrants. Meanwhile, on Wonkhe, Neil Harrison and Richard Waller challenged the long-espoused view that disadvantaged young people are under-represented in higher education because of a lack of aspiration.
Thursday’s big story was the publication of the TEF year 4 provider level metrics. This provides a wealth of data for analysts to pore over and Wonkhe’s David Kernohan was quick off the mark with an initial, headline-grabbing analysis. Comparing the core metrics for TEF4 against the final outcomes for awards currently held under TEF2 or 3 suggests that there would be fewer Gold awards made. Each year there have been differences in the metrics and their weightings. For example, although there are additional NSS metrics included in TEF4, their weighting has been halved. Continuation, however, has been double-weighted. The core metrics only tell part (albeit a major part) of the story and inclusion of the split metrics and, in particular, the institutional submissions have previously resulted in significant movement across the awards. Nonetheless, the attention-grabbing head-liner, was that none of the English Russell Group Universities would initially be rated as Gold based on the core metrics.
Finally, in the world of three-letter acronyms, Research England published its consultation on the KEF (knowledge Exchange Framework) which will run until 14th March. The proposal is that universities will be judged against seven ‘perspectives’ with universities being ranked on their performance in each aspect.
© 2013 Media FHE, all rights reserved