left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

You don’t get something for nothing in this world.  But sometimes you do get nothing for nothing.

That’s a little like how it’s felt in English higher education after the general election, not least since last month’s budget when the income from a long delayed inflationary increase in undergraduate home fees in 2025-26 was pocketed by the government through its changes to employers’ National Insurance.

As a sector, English higher education is in a financial hole: partly of its own making; significantly excavated by the last government. Compared to the last government, the new one has stopped digging that hole; is no longer stood above us at the edge of the hole, shouting abuse; and is saying it very much hopes we get out of the hole. To date though, it’s done nothing to help us out of the hole.

the plan

But that’s alright, we now know that the Secretary of State has a plan for higher education.  Bridget Phillipson has shown (at least some of) her hand, by setting out plans for reforming higher education in line with five stated priorities: widening access; economic growth; civic contribution; teaching quality; operational efficiency.

Entirely coincidentally this has been revealed just as the government is commencing the next, three-year Comprehensive Spending Review.  With it also being clear that the 2025-26 inflationary increase in home undergraduate fees is just that – a one-off increase, with no decision yet on future indexing of the fee cap.

What’s on offer is clear, and at first viewing it doesn’t feel like the greatest deal.

transactional

Admittedly it’s not nothing for nothing, as has been the case up until now.  But given the scope and extent of the Secretary of State’s intended reforms, and the important but limited impact of permitting inflation-equalling rises in fee levels after 2025-26 (with little prospect of further government funding), it feels like the sector is being asked for a lot and getting something, but not a lot, in return.

But maybe there’s a bit more going on than this transactional perspective on DfE’s reform of English higher education, which is the perspective I’ve heard a lot since Phillipson’s letter landed in vice-chancellor’s inboxes.

something more?

Last week Ed Dorrell from Public First published a really interesting blog on the government’s approach to public sector reform.  Or rather, approaches as Dorrell contrasted the differences between Phillipson at Education, and Wes Streeting at Health.

Dorrell essentially portrayed Streeting’s approach as full-throated New Public Management; ‘pure, unadulterated Barberism’ (it’s difficult to know which of those two descriptions will cause more flutters in higher education hearts, given Sir Michael Barber’s tenure at OfS and the resulting poor performance of our regulator).  And with league tables, running poor managers out of town and ‘earned autonomy’ it’s difficult to disagree with Dorrell’s interpretation of what’s being planned over in Health.

Dorrell contrasts that with Phillipson’s approach to schools, which he describes as ‘designed to lessen the impact of competition in the system, soften the harder edges of accountability and increase collaboration’, citing a recent speech by the Secretary of State setting our her approach.

As Dorrell notes it’s possible to overdo this distinction, but it still feels valid.  He’s not the only person to have commented on the difference.  It’s also implicit in a recent blog by Alan Preece, though while Dorrell adopts a ‘let’s see how this turns out’ stance Preece’s view is that what English higher education needs is reform much closer to what appears to be on the cards for the NHS.

so what?

Of course the sector will now swing (probably has already done so) into full public affairs/engagement mode on the higher education reforms.  Seeking to operate levers by which it can influence the shape of the forthcoming reforms, and alongside/through this the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

That’s understandable and necessary.  As we do this, though, we need to think through how we engage beyond this transactional level. We need to engage in a way that takes note of the different approach to reform that the DfE is taking, compared to other parts of the government.

This is a real opportunity to work with DfE to address some of the fundamental problems in atomistic, market-driven approach that has been taken to higher education since 2010 and then enshrined in the Higher Education and Research Act.  To help DfE develop an approach to English higher education similar to Phillipson’s ambition for the school sector: as Dorrell characterises it, ‘to lessen the impact of competition in the system, soften the harder edges of accountability and increase collaboration’.

opportunity knocks

I’m not suggesting that the sector will (or should) be given an easy ride as a result of a ‘softer’ approach.  There are many difficult issues beyond the financial storm, and which the sector has been unwilling to engage with and tackle (some of which I’ve written about before).  We absolutely need to address these, and doing so will present challenges to universities – including some longstanding shibboleths of the sector.

What I am saying is that if the interpretation of the DfE’s approach set out by Dorrell holds for universities, we may now have an opportunity to address these challenges in a more open way than was possible when we had a government directly hostile to the sector.  And in doing so to move on from some of the worst aspects of the regulatory and policy approach to higher education of the last 14 years.

If that’s the case it’s an opportunity we need to both acknowledge and seize.