left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

Be careful what you wish for.

As the long election campaign ground on in the first half of this year, many in the sector were concerned that higher education wouldn’t get the attention it needed and merited in the full election campaign.  Well, we needn’t have worried.

the song remains the same

Just seven days after the election was announced, higher education was front and centre of that day’s general election coverage courtesy of Rishi Sunak’s continuing vendetta against the Disney Corporation.  And against English universities. At the same time.

Of course the none of the details of the announcement of (yet another) crackdown on Mickey Mouse degrees stacked up (David Kernohan’s take-down in WonkHE was particularly enjoyable), so the story died a death within 24 hours.  The only ongoing relevance of the term ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the election is when writing pieces about the quality of Conservative Party’s current campaign.

future possibilities

Since that high/low point, higher education has remained out of the election spotlight.  But at the same time the production of manifestos and plans for higher education has continued apace from sector bodies bidding to fill the somewhat sparse canvas that amounts to Labour’s higher education policy (e.g. GuildHE; British Academy; the Russell Group even has two – one of its own, one from its SUs).  Most thought-provoking has been Chris Husband’s Four futures: Shaping the future of higher education in England, as while it’s not a manifesto in the manner of the others its intent to influence the policy of the next government is clear.

All of these focus on policy issues and prescriptions to address the fundamental challenges facing the sector at the moment.  All make useful contributions.

We know little at the moment of what an incoming Labour government will do to address these challenges (and at this point we know that’s going to be what we have; we just don’t know where they’ll land on the spectrum between minority government to era-defining landslide). Consequently the incentive for the sector to make suggestions is even stronger than it would in any case be.

a hazy outline

There are some broad outlines of how a Labour government would approach higher education.

The sector will be working with a government led by a party whose dominant attitude towards the sector isn’t suspicion and hostility. Which will make a pleasant change.

It also seems logical given the extent to which the current Labour project rests on the need to generate economic growth to address the UK’s current dire fiscal situation, that the incoming government will need to see how higher education will directly and significantly contribute to that.

And my hunch is that a Labour government may take a step away from the current laissez faire approach (market-led, regulated) to something more managed, based on a recognition of higher education as a sector rather than viewing it as multiple, atomised individual providers.

Of course the party manifestos are due out this week, but all the pre-briefing suggests that the Labour manifesto as a whole is unlikely to go much beyond previous policy announcements.  And if that’s the case, then presumably that would be as true for higher education as for other areas.

What a political party commits to in relation to higher education, either in its manifesto before an election or once it has entered government, is critical for the sector.  Of course that’s true, and the current crisis in higher education makes it more so.

What is as important is what that party actually does when in government, what it achieves.  And in this respect, the people are as important as the policy.

getting things done

Over recent months there’s been a lot of navel gazing in the right wing media on what they have to show for 14 years of Tory government.  Those podcasts/posts tend to turn pretty quickly to education.  And whether you view their record in education in a negative or positive light, the impact of the Tory government on education has been considerable.

Why?

Well, partly because they had a clear sense of what they wanted to do and set about doing it.  But the other thing that was critical to achieving this impact was the consistency of ministerial leadership.

Between 2010 and 2014 Michael Gove had four clear years to implement Tory education policy.  For 10 of the 13 years between 2010 and 2023 Nick Gibb was in the crucial Minister of State role.  And this continuity of ministerial leadership was critical to ensuring that education now looks fundamentally different to how it did in 2010 (again, I’m not commenting on whether that’s for better or worse). Continuity of personnel in ministerial leadership can play a crucial role in the successful implementation of a policy agenda in a given area of government activity.

breaking the habit

Yes, it’s important that the sector continue to lobby and influence the next government in order to ensure that the higher education policy approach meets the challenges and needs of both the sector and the country.  The new government needs to choose to do the right things, to meet the huge challenges the sector faces.

But we also need to make sure those right things get done.  And to achieve this, the sector should also be emphasising just how important it is that an incoming government cease the never-ending shuffling of higher education ministers (nine in the last six years, though to be fair two of them did it twice each), and provide consistent and sustained ministerial leadership.

Expecting a UK government to break as well-established a habit as unnecessary ministerial reshuffles may be seeking the miraculous, but given the current storms higher education is facing the sector needs things to work in its favour.  Clear, consistent ministerial leadership and advocacy will neither solve all the problems nor make them easy to solve; but it’s likely to make it less difficult to do so, and increase the chances of success.