Despite it being the season of cheer, higher education in England isn’t facing the merriest of Christmases.
Notwithstanding the recent inflationary uplift to the undergraduate fee cap, the financial headwinds in higher education remain extremely challenging. Somehow, in the spring/summer of next year, the Secretary of State for Education is going to have to set out not only what the government expects from the sector in terms of meeting the core priority areas of access, quality and contribution to economic growth, but how it will deliver on its promise to put the sector on a long-term sustainable financial footing.
The overall structure of the sector in terms of the total number of providers of higher education and their relationships to each other might arguably be considered a second-order question, subject to the specifics of the government’s plans. But thinking that way would be a mistake.
The cusp of change
There are real and present concerns right now about the short term financial stability of a number of providers, with the continued increased risk that a provider exits the market in an unplanned way through liquidation, making the continued absence of a regime for administering distressed providers ever more stark.
But on a larger scale, if, as some believe, the sector is on the cusp of entering into a new phase of higher education, a much more connected and networked system, tied more closely into regional development agendas, and more oriented to the collective public value that higher education creates, then the thinking needs to start now about how to enable providers to take part in the strategic discussions and scenario plans that can help them to imagine that kind of future, and develop the skills to operate in the new ways that a different HE landscape could require. It is these discussions that need to inform the development of the HE strategy.
The Office for Students (OfS) has signalled that it considers more structural collaboration to be likely as a response to financial challenge:
Where necessary, providers will need to prepare for, and deliver in practice, the transformation needed to address the challenges they face. In some cases, this is likely to include looking externally for solutions to secure their financial future, including working with other organisations to reduce costs or identifying potential merger partners or other structural changes.
Financial challenge may be the backdrop to some of this thinking; it should not be the sole rationale. Looking ahead, the sector would be planning change even if it were in good financial health: preparing for demographic shifts and the challenge of lifelong learning, the rise of AI, and the volatile context for international education and research. Strategic collaboration is rarely an end in itself – it’s nice to work together but ultimately there has to be a clear strategic rationale that two or more providers can realise greater value and hedge more readily against future risks, than each working individually.
There’s no roadmap
In the autumn of 2024, Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve convened a number of private and confidential conversations with heads of institution, stakeholders from the sector’s representative bodies, mission groups, and regional networks, Board chairs, and a lender to the sector. We wanted to test the sector’s appetite for structural change; in the first instance assessing providers’ appetite for stepping in to support another provider struggling, but also attitudes to merger and other forms of strategic collaboration short of full merger. Our report, Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable higher education system in England sets out our full findings and recommendations.
There is a startling dearth of law and policy around structural collaboration for HE; some issues such as the VAT rules on shared services, are well established, while others are more speculative. What would the regulatory approach be to a “federated” group of HE providers? What are merging providers’ legal responsibilities to students? What data and evidence might providers draw on to inform their planning?
We found a very similar set of concerns, whether we were discussing a scenario in which a provider is approached by DfE or OfS to acquire another distressed provider, or the wider strategic possibilities afforded by structural collaboration.
All felt strongly that the driving rationale behind any such structural change – which takes considerable time and effort to achieve – should be strategic, rather than purely financial. Heads of institution could readily imagine the possibilities for widening access to HE, protecting at-risk subjects; boosting research opportunities, and generally realising value through the pooling of expertise, infrastructure and procurement power. The regional devolution and regional economic growth agendas were widely considered to be valued enablers for realising the opportunities for a more networked approach.
But the hurdles to overcome are also significant. Interviewees gave examples of failed collaboration attempts in other sectors and the negative cultural perceptions attached to measures like mergers. There was a nervousness about competition law and more specifically OfS’ attitude to structural change, the implications for key institutional performance metrics, and a general sense that no quarter would be given in accommodating a period of adjustment following significant structural change. The risks involved were very obvious and immediate, while the benefits were more speculative and would take time to realise.
Creating conditions
We have arrived at two broad conclusions: the first being that government and OfS, in tandem with other interested parties such as the Competition and Markets Authority could adopt a number of measures to reduce the risks for providers entering into discussions about strategic collaboration.
This would not involve steering particular providers or taking a formal view about what forms of collaboration will best serve public policy ends, but would signal a broadly supportive and facilitative attitude on the part of government and the regulator. As one head of institution observed, a positive agenda around the sector’s collaborative activity would be much more galvanising than the continued focus on financial distress.
The second is that institutions themselves may need to consider their approach to these challenges and think through whether they have the right mix of skills and knowledge within the executive team and on the Board to do scenario planning and strategic thinking around structural change.
In the last decade, the goal for Boards has been all about making their institution stronger, and more competitive. While that core purpose hasn’t gone away, it could be time to temper it with a closer attention to the ways that working in a more collective way could help higher education prepare itself for whatever the future throws at it.
This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve. View and download Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable higher education system in England here.
Interesting article. Shame it seems to equate HE with universities, ignoring the role further education colleges already play, but more significantly need to play in the future post-16 landscape. Surely that’s an oversight, to ignore the potential for university – college mergers/collaborations/federation/agreements which will be focused on local inclusive economic growth? Perhaps it’s a simple and clear sign of the mindset and silo that universities have dug themselves into that there is no mention of further education colleges? If the government wants a lifelong learning revolution, then this mindset and silo will have to change.
Very interesting piece, thank you for sharing also the link to the Connect more report. I wonder whether partnerships and mergers is something of a distraction, given the legal and regulatory barriers. And if so, universities urgently need to develop capabilities to imagine, formulate and execute future-literate strategies for growth that might need to look quite different to these tired exhortations to partnerships, mergers, target operating models, etc. Greater imagination needed to envisage other possibilities.