No fewer than three government ministers showed up to Universities UK annual conference – if you count science minister Patrick Vallance dialling in – all with only nice things to say about the importance of higher education.
From Patrick Vallance:
The work that you do now and your researchers and others do in the students at universities will, of course, define the shape of much of the country over the next several decades, and indeed probably for the next century.
From minister for skills, Jacqui Smith:
Thank you to those of you who are leading the sector and delivering all of that benefit in making our country richer, not just economically, important though that is, but socially and culturally as well.
And from (now, following a reshuffle over the weekend, former) Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle:
When I talk about being a champion in your corner, it comes from a place that is very deep, and very personal, and very conviction-oriented. It’s because a university education wasn’t a given for me – because I fought for it – that means that I always valued it so extremely highly.
As one vice chancellor commented to me privately, it’s like being briefly in a warm bath, or basking in the glow of a sunny morning to attend events where ministers say things like these – only to step back into the chilly reality of trying to deal with all the difficulties facing higher education institutions right now.
The weekend’s reshuffle saw Peter Kyle take the helm at the Department for Business and Trade, with Liz Kendall stepping in to replace him at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Jacqui Smith retains her role as minister for skills, working across the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions – either signalling a welcome opportunity for strategic join-up in a cross-government policy agenda, or a dog’s dinner waiting to happen.
Neither seems unlikely to materially change the policy agenda for higher education in England (no, not because there isn’t one, don’t be mean) – but it could slow it down even further while ministers get to grips with their new responsibilities and reporting lines. As MP for Leicester West, Kendall has been supportive of and engaged with the higher education institutions in her constituency, so there is no immediate cause for alarm in the appointment. But everything that follows gleaned from Universities UK should probably carry the caveat that we’ll need to see how much the world has changed in the interim before drawing any firm conclusions.
Yes, we are all individuals
Current policy in the mix includes work across DfE and DSIT to look at the sustainability of the higher education sector. Jacqui Smith hinted that there will be more clarity on future fee levels at the same time as the publication of the post-16 education and skills white paper, but was not able to speak in much more than broad strokes about the themes of the government’s plans for higher education – collaboration, coordination, economic growth and skills, and so on. Similarly, Vallance hinted without explicitly saying it that there is a view within government that the research budget is being spread too thinly and that the presumption of broad-based research taking place in most institutions may be in the cross-hairs.
Patrick Vallance, on the inadvisability of universities attempting to maintain a broad research base without the funding to support it:
We can’t end up with a very, very broad range of research going on everywhere. It speaks to the question of how you get specialisation behind this and it speaks to the question of how we deal with this full economic costing versus volume [of research].
“Specialisation” popped up elsewhere, too; witness Jacqui Smith:
We need a post-16 system that is more able to benefit from specialisation to really drive quality, where there is a bigger focus on collaboration – within the higher education sector, but also between the higher education sector and further education partnerships at at a civic and local level, with employers, with local government, with mayors…
And Peter Kyle:
One of the problems is that too many universities are competing for the same pool of students at the expense of playing to their relative strengths, or truly specialising to become the go-to authority in their field rather than a bit player. In many, this is having a real effect on how resources are being prioritised.
The theory is sound in the abstract – each institution focuses on doing the things they are already good at, and letting others do different things that they are good at, creating the space for a healthy diversity of mission, subject portfolio, and learning modality. You can even imagine the policies that might support such a shift: opening up bids for institutions to build on key specialisms or create consortia to grow demand for particular kinds of provision, for example. You could also take a stick-based approach, focusing on raising the bar to being allowed to provide in areas where the government thinks there is already over-provision.
But you would need deep policy focus, deeper pockets, and the metaphorical political hide of a rhinoceros to pull something like that off, not least because it goes strongly against the grain of the sector and would probably cause some institutions to fall over in the process.
Under financial pressure, vice chancellors are more likely to be thinking in terms of diversifying their offer to hedge against market instability, monitoring any signs of growth in market share among their competitors so they can do their best to grab some of it and, within course and subject areas, streamlining the offer to reduce overheads. Highly specialist provision is expensive and demand can be uncertain. And, as one vice chancellor noted privately, you don’t get the best from academics by not letting them do research, even if teaching might be considered your main strength.
Quid pro quo or true partnership
What strikes me in all this is that despite the warmth with which ministers talk about, and to, the sector, there is still quite a way to go to achieve the kind of partnership with government that is grounded in the will to find a common agenda and shared sense of purpose. Both sides can agree at a high level that higher education is terribly important for the country. Both, I think, can pretty much agree that while higher education as a sector continues to deliver some essential stuff for individuals, society and the economy, it would be much more optimal if the downsides of the marketised system – institutions on the financial brink, subject loss, aggressive (and sometimes predatory) recruitment behaviours, a greater degree of homogeneity of offer than might be desirable, (arguably) insufficient sensitivity of the demand-led system to the labour market – were to be reduced or disappear altogether.
But while the framing remains transactional ie “this is the deal we will give you in return for permission to raise fees” the prospect of a deeper alliance seems remote. This may in one sense be entirely appropriate – higher education institutions are autonomous from government for a reason. But in a time of crisis there might be a case to at the very least define some shared missions or priorities.
Jacqui Smith said that the forthcoming white paper will enact “a shift from that assumption of competition to an assumption of collaboration…[one that] requires us to think about where we put the incentives in order to promote collaboration rather than competition.” She added, in response to a question put to her by a vice chancellor, “without reverting to a sort of Soviet style planned model, the idea that there is some sort of market understanding, you described it as a “guiding mind” is something that I think we need to think hard about, and we will say more about in and post the white paper.”
If asked how to steer a path between adopting a “Soviet style planned model” and just trying to poke the market to see if it can be moved, I’d argue that you could do worse than defining some critical areas that would benefit from collaboration in the sector, and that would require some coordination with government to move forward, and setting up some “mission boards” to drive those forward. My list would include provision of information, advice and guidance about the relationship between HE choices and future career options; student health and wellbeing; credit transfer; HE cold spots and subject gaps, for starters.
Collaboration and coordination doesn’t come about because the government says we would like to see more of this; it happens because there is a value(s)-based rationale for it and some meaningful convening of activity. So maybe the forthcoming white paper could set out some of those agendas as a way of setting the government free from what is obviously a very difficult policy quandary. Or maybe, on the assumption the government probably doesn’t have the scale of will and bandwidth it might need to drive the changes it might, in principle like to see, the sector needs to take the lead and get on and do it anyway.
Rather than the ‘warm bath’ nonsense, I’d like to see more debate involving Govt Ministers about why on earth we seem to be locked into the notion that ‘everybody’ has to get themselves into debt by studying an extra 3 years before being deemed fit for the workplace. We need to give our 18-year-olds alternatives to University , and a good start would be to ban the discrimination of graduate-only trainee / junior jobs that could easily be done by school leavers. Also , we need our Govt Ministers to scrutinise the HE Sector, not love bomb them , and… Read more »