This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Richard Watermeyer (Professor of Higher Education and Co-Director of the Centre for Higher Education at the University of Bristol), Tom Crick (Professor of Digital Policy at Swansea University) and Lawrie Phipps (Professor of Digital Leadership at the University of Chester and Senior Research Lead at Jisc).
On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.
For as long as there has been national research assessment exercises (REF, RAE or otherwise), there have been efforts to improve the way with which research is evaluated and Quality Related (QR) research funding consequently distributed. Where REF2014 stands out for its introduction of impact as a measure of what counts as research excellence, for REF2029, it has been all about research culture. Though where impact has become an integral dimension of the REF, the installation of research culture (into a far weightier environment or as has been proposed People, Culture and Environment (PCE) statement) as a criterion of excellence appears far less assured, especially when set against a three-month extension to REF2029 plans.
A temporary pause on proceedings has been announced by Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s Minister for Science, as a means to ensure that the REF provides ‘a credible assessment of quality’. The corollary of such is that the hitherto proposed formula (many parts of which remain formally undeclared – much to the frustration of universities’ REF personnel and indeed researchers) is not quite fit for purpose, and certainly not so if the REF is to ‘support the government’s economic and social missions’. Thus, it may transpire that research culture is ultimately downplayed or omitted from the REF. For some, this volte face, if it materialises, may be greeted with relief; a pragmatic step-back from the jaws of an accountability regime that has become excessively complex, costly and inefficient (if not even estranged from the core business of evaluating and then funding so-called ‘excellent’ research) and despite proclamations at the conclusion of its every instalment, that next time it will be less burdensome.
While the potential backtrack on research culture and potential abandonment of PCE statements will be focused on to explain the REF’s most recent hiatus, these may be only cameos to discussion of its wider credibility and utility; a discussion which appears to be reaching apotheosis, not least given the financial difficulties endemic to the UK sector, which the REF, with its substantial cost, is counted as further exacerbating. Moreover, as we are finding in our current research, the REF may have entered a period not limited to incremental reform and tinkering at the edges but wholesale revision; and this as a consequence of higher education’s seemingly unstoppable colonisation by artificial intelligence.
With recent funding from Research England, we have undertaken to consult with research leaders and specialist REF personnel embedded across 17 UK HEIs – including large, research-intensive institutions and those historically with a more modest REF footprint, to gain an understanding of existing views of and practices in the adoption of generative AI tools for REF purposes. While our study has thrown up multiple views as to the utility and efficacy of using generative AI tools for REF purposes, it has nonetheless revealed broad consensus that the REF will inevitably become more AI-infused and enabled, if not ultimately, if it is to survive, entirely automated. The use of generative AI for purposes of narrative generation, evidence reconnaissance, and scoring of core REF components (research outputs and impact case studies) have all been mooted as potential applications with significant cost and labour-saving affordances and applications which might also get closer to ongoing, real-time assessments of research quality, unrestricted to seven-year assessment cycles. Yet the use of generative AI has also been (often strongly) cautioned against for the myriad ways with which it is implicated and engendered with bias and inaccuracy (as a ‘black box’ tool) and can itself be gamed in multiple ways, for instance in ‘adversarial white text’. This is coupled with wider ongoing scientific and technical considerations regarding transparency, provenance and reproducibility. Some even interpret its use as antithetical to the terms of responsible research evaluation set out by collectives like CoARA and COPE.
Notwithstanding, such various objections, we are witnessing these tools being used extensively (if in many settings tacitly and tentatively) by academics and professional services staff involved in REF preparations. We are also being presented with a view that the use of GenAI tools by REF panels in four years’ time is a fait accompli, especially given the speed by which the tools are being innovated. It may even be that GenAI tools could be purposed in ways that circumvent the challenges of human judgement, the current pause intimates, in the evaluation of research culture. Moreover, if the credibility and integrity of the REF ultimately rests in its capacity to demonstrate excellence via alignment with Government missions (particularly ‘R&D for growth’), then we are already seeing evidence of how AI technologies can achieve this.
While arguments have been previously made that the REF offers good value for (public) money, the immediate joint contexts of severe financial hardship for the sector; ambivalence as to the organisational credibility of the REF as currently proposed; and the attractiveness of AI solutions may produce a new calculation. This is a calculation, however, which the sector must own, and transparently and honestly. It should not be wholly outsourced, and especially not to one of a small number of dominant technology vendors. A period of review must attend not only to the constituent parts of the REF but how these are actioned and responded to. A guidebook for GenAI use in the REF is exigent and this must place consistent practice at its heart. The current and likely escalating impact of Generative AI on the REF cannot be overlooked if it is to be claimed as a credible assessment of quality. The question then remains: is three months enough?
Notes
The REF-AI study is due to report in January 2026. It is a research collaboration between the universities of Bristol and Swansea and Jisc.
With generous thanks to Professor Huw Morris (UCL IoE) for his input into earlier drafts of this article.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Professor Nigel Savage. Nigel was awarded his PhD in 1980 for research into corporate governance and held several chief executive and non-executive posts in the public and private sectors, including Board membership of HEFCE and non-executive director of Fletchers solicitors.
On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.
Universities are facing the ‘perfect storm’ of challenges from several areas, not least financial and strategic sustainability, at a time when the government has many more competing priorities for scarce public resources. The situation is going to get much worse in the medium term as financial pressures rightly stimulate calls for greater accountability and a consequent erosion of the sector’s perceived and much-prized autonomy. The only way forward in the short term must therefore be for the sector itself to provoke change by Boards and non-executive directors (NEDs), assuming a more active role in challenging orthodoxy in much the same way as NEDs in the private sector.
The new Chair of the OfS, Edward Peck, has an unenviable in-tray. What the sector needs, alongside his appointment, is a greater degree of external insight to shake up the balance of power within the traditional governance model. I’ve worked for most of my life in higher education and the legal sector and have often been struck by the similarities in terms of management and governance issues. The legal services market has moved on somewhat from when it displayed an inherent resistance to change, a tendency to look to each other for solutions rather than externally and a blind faith that only lawyers operating within the partnership model could manage the business. Universities are still in a time warp typified by the fact that most of the organisations that purport to contribute to change by offering ‘partnerships’, guidance, consultancy or codes of practice are funded from within the sector and unlikely to recommend radical change or depart from sector orthodoxy.
Another lesson that could be learned from the legal services market is the greater use of external know-how and resources. Some thirty years ago, the Practical Law Company achieved considerable success by working with the best lawyers from a range of successful firms to create high-quality authored legal resources and software tools which were licensed to firms. Hitherto, that would have been regarded by the profession as relinquishing control over their crown jewels, eroding professional integrity, not to mention autonomy. The result was that lawyers were able to work more efficiently with enhanced productivity and greater confidence, focusing on providing solutions to clients’ complex problems. There is no reason why that model shouldn’t deliver similar outcomes within the higher education sector. Collaborative know-how would produce research outputs that inform teaching and learning with the added advantage that they are based on practice rather than recycled material from another academic in the form of a textbook. There are now over one hundred law schools in the UK each developing their own teaching and learning materials at a considerable cost and with varying degrees of quality. I see no reason why such a model could not deliver significant cost savings across disciplines and free staff time to focus on the delivery of teaching and learning innovation.
At one level there is no incentive to change, especially given the prevailing veil of protection provided by current interpretations of academic autonomy. I cannot speak for other disciplines, but given the stagnation in leadership of legal education, the legal services market is currently better served by employers than higher education. In part the issue is one of culture typified by the sector’s attitude to AI, as one commentator recently remarked, ‘universities are more concerned about AI, rather than with it …’. There is more debate about students using it as a vehicle for cheating or copyright issues than as a vehicle to enhance teaching and learning and create a seamless transition into the workplace. In general, technology in higher education is not embraced transformatively but defensively.
I was one of the few independent Board members of HEFCE (2002-08) and chaired the Audit and Risk Committee. As part of our engagement, we instigated a series of case study seminars for chairs and members of institutional audit committees with no members of their executive team present. The programme was much appreciated but we were surprised by the relatively low level of awareness of key risks, issues around internal audit and accountability and lack of engagement in terms of quality assurance. It’s interesting that many of the issues on the risk register then are a variation of the same issues that confront universities today. The impact of technology, an increasingly competitive environment, funding especially over-reliance on overseas income, changes in public policy, globalisation and students as consumers of higher education services.
Most of the above are issues that every global business model, regardless of ownership structure, sector, or location, has had to confront over the same timescale, without the level of resources available to higher education. Indeed, some universities have confronted them very well. So why is it that a growing number of universities are manifestly failing to address these issues when they should have been painfully aware of them for years? We are already seeing the likely next generation of entirely predictable risks in the growing number of institutions rushing to set up campuses in London and, worse still, in India and the Middle East at a time when they are barely sustainable. Will such initiatives deliver medium-term revenue growth, or are they merely off-balance-sheet Vice Chancellor vanity projects? And why are they not more aggressively challenged by NEDs?
Governance – culture change
There needs to be something of a culture change in the balance of power as between executive and non-executive roles. It is governance that dictates the rules of the game, especially in the relationship between the CEO (in most cases the Vice-Chancellor or Principal) and Chair. Government and the regulator need to be more prescriptive rather than rely on consultative services provided by those bodies that are part of a self-regulatory model. Anyone who doubts the need for change should read the Scottish Funding Council’s investigative report on Dundee University, which represents a massive failure of management and governance. Cultural issues were not the primary cause of the financial collapse at Dundee, but as observed in the report, ‘aspects of the culture of the institution … , may however have facilitated or been associated with a lack of transparency and of the limited challenge to the prevailing discourse on financial matters’
Action in the following areas would assist in generating such a culture change:
There is significant evidence that smaller boards outperform larger ones. A study by Bain (some years ago) suggests the ideal size of a board should be seven and each additional member beyond that results in a decline in effectiveness. I am not sure where that leaves the higher education sector since most large university boards are approaching the early twenties and can have less to do with governance and become more a matter of crowd control. This issue must also be viewed in the context of the structure below the Board in terms of Senate and Academic Board which has substantial staff and student representation. Large boards are more expensive to service and absorb a greater degree of resource and complexity to manage. Size also creates the impression that the body is consultative rather than at the pinnacle of decision-making. In recent years, changes in management structures may have exacerbated the position with the trend towards the appointment of Presidents, Provosts and COOs with a wide range of reporting lines, all of whom aspire to a seat on the board. This trend has the capacity to blur the lines between the executive and non-executive functions and, worse still, further increase the size of the board. The Vice Chancellor should be the only formal member of the executive on the Board as opposed to attending as an observer. The Dundee review recognised that a University Secretary may have dual reporting lines to the Chair and Vice Chancellor, which can create conflicts of interest, ‘care should be taken to ensure the primary responsibility is always to the Chair’.
Reducing the size of Boards would also mean that resources could be released to remunerate NEDs. Some institutions already embrace this policy in respect of Board chairs and committees. The whole process, including appointments, should be professionalised to ensure that appointees have proven experience as a senior executive or non-executive. It’s not surprising that universities are failing to hold Vice Chancellors to account if membership of the Board is based, at least in part, on the criterion that ‘no previous experience is required’. In recent months it seems to be votes of no confidence from the staff rather than governing bodies which decide the fate of an incompetent Vice Chancellor. The larger institutions now have turnovers of over £1.5 billion plus. Membership of such a Board is not a role for the inexperienced using an appointment as ‘net practice’ to build a NED portfolio or an elder statesperson looking to top off their career with a gong. Should all else fail there is always the standard ultimate requirement to deter cross sector appointments ‘ideally we are looking for a candidate with a background in or closely related to higher education…’.
The increasing use of head-hunters may also be a factor. The appointment of NEDs, particularly a new chair, should be a matter entirely for the Nominations Committee. The Vice Chancellor should be consulted within the process but not be directly involved and the head-hunters should be accountable to the Nominations Committee. One of the fundamental roles of a NED is to contribute to holding the executives ‘feet to the fire’ when necessary. A distinguished Yale commentator observed some years ago ‘I’m always amazed at how common groupthink is in corporate boardrooms. Directors are, almost without exception … comfortable with power. But if you put them into a group that discourages dissent, they nearly always start to conform.’ This is particularly so if they have been recruited under the criteria that they are ‘team players’ which is normally code for they will not ‘rock the boat’
Overseeing internal audit (IA) is a vital part of maintaining the integrity of a seamless governance model. The head of IA must be free from interference in determining the scope, process and communication of outputs. It is still the case that in some universities the head of internal audit reports directly to either the CFO or COO with a notional reporting line to the chair of the audit committee. This represents a classic case of marking your own homework and should no longer be tolerated. There is a real danger of undue influence when IA reports into the finance function, not the chair of audit committee. Unlike the external audit where there is a specified remit, internal audit can look at any area which is felt appropriate as directed by the board, including the prevailing culture and effectiveness of risk management. If the external auditor is satisfied that the IA is appropriately funded, competent and sufficiently objective and quality assured, they can rely on it. I suspect however that this is another area clouded by the mists of institutional autonomy and external auditors will seldom feel sufficiently confident to place reliance on IA data. There would however be an additional cost placed on such reliance attached to the audit fee.
Conclusion
Although the Office for Students (OfS) is beginning to engage more directly with providers given the emerging financial environment, they are theoretically hide-bound by the statutory institutional autonomy that universities enjoy. They ‘will not provide advice to providers on how they should run their organisation. Providers should look to other sources, for example to sector bodies, for such advice and support.’ Surely in such circumstances a regulator should be suggesting that they seek advice from their own Board or externally rather than organisations that are not independent and consist largely of retired senior executives from the sector. I can imagine the outcry if such a model was replicated in the private sector if a board were asleep at the wheel.
Institutions are required to have ‘adequate and effective management and governance arrangements.’ Therein lies the problem. In a culture based on the presumption of autonomy, it’s very difficult to provoke change based on a standard so low as ‘adequacy’ and advice from the sector. There are many interpretations of autonomy, but the concept is too often used as a defensive comfort blanket to resist change or, worse still, justify the executives’ vanity projects.
The current regulatory regime, based in part on a self-regulatory model, is somewhat naïve and reminiscent of that which prevailed many years ago in respect of company regulation in the private sector and contributed to the debate on the ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’. For example, the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) code declares that the code ‘is not compulsory, governing bodies can determine based on the advice of the executive which parts of the code apply to them …’ There is no longer a need for an annual Head of Internal Audit Report and the OfS no longer require submission of the Annual Report of an institution’s Audit Committee. Indeed, there is nothing in the guidance any more compelling registered providers to have an Audit Committee.
Within this benign regulatory environment, the sector has received substantial funding on a headcount basis at a time when they should have been preparing for wholly predictable changes. Boards should be looking much more clearly on value for money issues. They continue to create massive Super Faculties which are unmanageable, stifle innovation and leave staff isolated. Decision-making processes are attenuated, and there is hostility to learning from external sources that are well ahead in confronting and managing change. There has been a proliferation of roles and reporting lines at the top with very little focus on efficient delivery at the coal face but fragmentation in terms of leadership.
Sadly, the position is even worse in Scotland where legislative changes in 2016 made the appointment process and composition of Boards even larger and more cumbersome and much less effective decision makers, hence the Dundee fiasco.
The current governance culture encouraged by the legislation and embraced by the sector and the regulators creates the impression that the sector should be treated differently from any other sector. In my experience, the fundamental role of NEDs is the same irrespective of the corporate status: to appoint and monitor the performance of the executive and to sign off on the strategy and rigorously monitor performance, delivery structures, risk and compliance. Legal status will shape strategy in terms of charitable status or shareholder value in the private sector but that’s no justification to deter NEDs from carrying out the primary role of holding the CEO’s feet to the fire and continuously monitoring and measuring executive performance. The way forward may be to engage them more directly within the structures of the institution, taking care that they don’t cross the line into the executive function.
I operated as a CEO in the sector for twenty years and a NED on both side of the fence. In my NED roles I have always operated by asking questions and seeking clarity on issues that I wouldn’t want raised if I were the CEO!
Nigel Savage
I am grateful to James Aston (BDO) the leading independent authority on HE governance, for a couple of stimulating conversations on some of the issues.
From learning gain to educational gain, the concept is appealing for its emphasis on understanding how students grow and develop over time, and the extent to which higher education institutions can make robust claims about their roles and contributions.
However, the Office for Students (OfS) left the definition and measurement of educational gain to individual providers to decide for themselves, which left the sector with a multitude of definitions. In the absence of a clear, shared definition of and approach to educational gain, the sector has tended to default to what is most easily measured.
Yet, an over reliance on student outcome metrics (such as the National Student Survey, continuation/completion or Graduate Outcome data) reduces the indicators of student development into just numbers. More concerningly, this approach meant student groups with small numbers may be lumped together or even excluded in various statistical analyses. When we focus on lived experience as headline statistics, the nuances are swept away.
For individual institutions, a context-specific relevant approach makes sense, reflecting their own goals, priorities and practical considerations. But as a sector, including for the OfS, such freedom makes national comparison difficult if not impossible, and we revert to readily accessible and available outcome data.
Yet, educational gain must not only capture cognitive progress, but also the broader and holistic developments such as confidence and belonging.
The sector would benefit from a shared but flexible frame of reference for educational gain, which advocates for a diverse approach to evidence student growth over time.
A multi-dimensional approach to educational gain
Informed by the foundations of learning gain, this new paper proposes a multi-dimensional model of educational gain through three interrelated domains: cognitive and metacognitive, personal and affective, and social and cultural. Drawing on educational, psychological and sociological perspectives, these domains recognise the different aspects of student development, which also foregrounds the importance of longitudinal data from both qualitative and quantitative methods.
A multi-dimensional approach appreciates the student experience across the agency-structure spectrum. It provides an overarching frame of reference that enables institutions to tailor the specific approach as appropriate for their contexts. There will be differences across the sector in how institutions apply these in practice, but if the three domains (cognitive and metacognitive, personal and affective, and social and cultural) are broadly shared and operated as a thematic proxy across the sector, then we are at least in a position to explore how different institutions have collectively explored those dimensions.
For example, for cognitive and metacognitive development, it is conceivable that TASO’s Access and Success Questionnaire (ASQ) is adopted nationally to provide sector-wide comparable data with use value within and across institutions. In parallel, it is also conceivable to run a longitudinal qualitative study that unpacks how students articulate, reflect on and discuss their cognitive and metacognitive development.
Similarly, quantitative and qualitative methods can explore the extent to which students grow in confidence, resilience and self-efficacy, or whether they expand their social capital, sense of belonging or broader development as global citizens.
A multi-dimensional approach offers a unified lens for understanding educational gain that recognises sector benchmarks as well as local narratives. Without such a multi-dimensional view, the sector risks defaulting to established metrics that do not capture the full breadth of gains students achieve during their higher education.
What institutions can do
Short, funded pilot projects – supported by modest capacity-building grants – would give staff the space to test these methods before it is rolled out more widely. Contextually relevant reflective tasks could be strengthened and encouraged across programmes to encourage students to engage more critically with their own development. Crucially, it is important to ensure that any evidence gathered is conceptually robust and grounded in relevant theories of student progress and gains, for example: cognitive and metacognitive development, personal and affective growth, and social and cultural development. National-level benchmarks can be used effectively alongside the richness of context-specific data and evidence collected over time at the institutional level – reconciling national comparability with institutional distinctiveness.
What next?
If educational gain – and variations of it – is part of any next assessments, then the OfS should really be more explicit about what it expects from institutions. The ‘test’ from TEF 2023 to give providers the freedom to set their own criteria may be well-intended, but it served limited value for the sector, and presumably for the regulators themselves. A broad, flexible guiding principle or framework might provide the necessary coherence, preferably one that invites theoretical and methodological foundations in addition to the practical and pragmatic.
This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages at https://whoteacheslanguages.blogspot.com.
We have to bring an end to the Culture Wars in “Modern Foreign Languages” in England. Since 2019 we have been convulsed in an internecine political fight over whether our subject is about Communication or Intellectual Conceptualisation. Of course, it’s both. The same goes for Literature, Linguistics, Content Integrated Language Learning (CLIL), and Culture. Likewise, we can encompass transactional travel language, personal expression, professional proficiency, creative or academic language. Teachers have all of these on their radar, and make decisions on how to select and integrate them on a daily basis.
Our subject benefits from the richness of all these ingredients, and to privilege one or to exclude others, is to make us all the poorer. Teachers work in the rich and messy overlap between Grammar and Communication, engaging with pupils at every stage through their encounters with and progression through another language.
The narrative that it is harder to succeed in languages is accurate. Not because of the difficulty of the course content or the exams, but because of the determination of the allocation of grades. It’s not accurate to say that this is a reflection of pupils’ progress or the quality of teaching compared to other subjects. That calibration has not been made. In fact, grades are not calibrated one subject to another. The only calibration that is made, is to perpetuate grading within the subject year on year.
This was most famously set up in advance when we moved to a new GCSE in 2018. The unfair grading of the old GCSE was carefully and deliberately transferred across to the new GCSE. So pupils taking the new course and the new exam, even though it was proposed to be a better course and a better exam, had no chance of showing they could get better grades. Furthermore, where under the old A-G grading system, the difference between languages and other subjects had been around half a grade, the new 9-1 grading meant that the difference in the key area of grades 4 and above, was now stretched to a whole grade, because of the way the old grades were mapped onto the new ones.
The lower grades given out in languages are a strong disincentive for take up at GCSE. There is the accurate narrative that pupils will score a lower grade if they pick languages, which acts as a deterrent not only for pupils, but also for schools. One way to score higher in league tables is to have fewer pupils taking MFL. There is also the inaccurate narrative that this is a reflection of the pupils’ own ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. The allocation of grades is a historical anomaly perpetuated year-on-year, not a reflection of actual achievement.
This is the biggest issue facing modern languages. It would also be the easiest to fix. Grade boundaries in other subjects are used in order to bring standards in to line. If an exam is too easy or too hard, and many pupils score a high mark or a low mark, the grade boundaries are used to make sure the correct number of pupils get the grade. Except, that is, in modern languages, where the thresholds are used to make sure that grades are out of line with other subjects. Imagine if languages grades were allocated in line with other subjects, would there be a clamour of voices insisting they should be made more difficult?
There is a very real danger of misinterpreting this manufactured narrative of “failure” in languages. It features in every report or proposal, but often instead of identifying it as an artificial anomaly, it is used to diagnose a deficit and prescribe a solution. Often this is a solution taken from the culture wars, ignoring the fact that schools and teachers are already expertly blending and balancing the elements of our subject.
Unfair grading at GCSE is the greatest of our problems, and the easiest to sort out. In Part 2, I shall look at the trickier question of what happens post-16.
Every year, prospective students and their families attend hundreds of open days at colleges and universities around the world. These events are more than just campus tours and presentations. They’re often the first real opportunity for students to picture themselves as part of your community. With so many options available, the challenge for institutions is clear: how do you create an open day that not only informs but also inspires?
While the essentials, like academic info sessions, tours, and welcome talks, set the foundation, the schools that stand out go further. They design experiences that feel memorable, personal, and true to their identity. With the right mix of creativity and strategy, your open day can shift from being just another stop on a student’s list to the moment they decide your institution is the right fit.
In this post, we’ll share 10 practical strategies to elevate your open days, whether you’re planning in-person events, virtual formats, or a blend of both. Drawing on real-world examples, including some from HEM’s own portfolio, we’ll explore how you can highlight what makes your institution unique, harness technology, and add thoughtful personal touches that resonate long after the event ends.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
What Is an Open Day?
An open day is an event hosted by a college or university to give prospective students and their families the chance to experience the campus, meet faculty and staff, and learn more about academic programs and student life. Unlike brochures or websites, open days provide a first-hand look at the atmosphere of the institution. They typically include tours of facilities, information sessions, and opportunities to speak with current students and alumni. For many students, an open day is the key moment when they decide whether a school feels like the right fit for their academic and personal goals.
In the same vein, what are Application Days at universities? Application days are special events hosted by universities to help prospective students complete their applications on-site. These events often provide access to admissions staff who can guide applicants through the application process, answer questions about requirements, and sometimes even waive application fees.
In many cases, students may receive an admission decision more quickly if they apply during these events, making application days both supportive and efficient for applicants.
1. Showcase What Makes Your School Unique
Every institution has a defining strength, whether that’s a standout program, a strong industry network, or a vibrant campus culture. Open days work best when they put that strength front and center.
Build around your USP: If partnerships are key, invite industry reps to host networking booths or demos. If location is a highlight, include guided tours of nearby attractions. For research-driven schools, showcase labs or projects with real impact.
Spotlight distinctive opportunities: Feature sessions on co-op programs, study abroad, or unique facilities like observatories or art galleries.
Example: Royal Roads University: This university played to its innovative reputation with a campaign called “Future View.” Instead of relying on traditional brochures, Royal Roads launched live virtual tours of its campus and classes using GoPro cameras and Google Glass. In other words, prospects could experience campus through a student’s eyes in real time. As part of the campaign, Royal Roads representatives strapped on GoPros and Google Glass to stream lectures, walking tours, and Q&As, giving would-be students a first-hand look at life at RRU.
Static presentations rarely capture the imagination. What sticks are experiences where prospects get to take part, experiment, and play an active role. Today’s students, especially Gen Z, respond best when an open day feels like something they can do, not just watch.
Classroom-style engagement: Replace long lectures with sample classes, workshops, or lab experiments where visitors actively participate, such as robotics builds or art jam sessions.
Campus showcase zones: Let departments display projects in interactive formats, flight simulators, artifact handling, or student performances.
Clubs and student life: Involve student groups with mini debates, telescope viewings, or sustainability scavenger hunts.
Virtual attendees: Use polls, VR tours, or guided avatars to replicate hands-on engagement online.
Example: The College of ACES at NMSU turned its open house into a family-friendly interactive fair. Visitors of all ages could roam through live animal exhibits, tour science labs and museums, and try their hand at various learning games and demonstrations at each stop. From petting zoo stations with the university’s farm animals to interactive science experiments, the event engaged guests on multiple levels.
Your current students are among the most persuasive voices you can showcase on open day. While visitors expect polished messaging from admissions staff, what they really value are honest, relatable insights from peers who have lived the experience. Student ambassadors should therefore be central to the day, whether in person or online, acting as welcoming guides, storytellers, and role models.
Train them with talking points, but give them freedom to share their journeys authentically, from why they chose your school to how they’ve navigated challenges. Their warmth and candor create a sense of trust that brochures and presentations can’t replicate.
Example: University of Central Lancashire (UK):At UCLan’s open days, current students act as official ambassadors, easily spotted in their special red UCLan hoodies. These student ambassadors are stationed at campus entrances to give a warm welcome and directions, they lead campus and accommodation tours, and they hang around after info sessions to chat. Most importantly, they share authentic insights about their courses and social life – the kind of candid student-to-student advice that visitors crave. Attendees are encouraged to approach them with any question, no matter how trivial, making the whole experience feel peer-guided and relatable.
4. Involve Successful Alumni for Real-World Perspective
Current students show the “here and now” of campus life, but alumni networks embody the long-term value of your institution. Featuring graduates in your open day event gives prospects and their parents confidence that an education with you leads to meaningful outcomes.
Alumni panels, guest talks, or casual meet-and-greet stations can showcase diverse career paths, from industry and entrepreneurship to research and community impact. You might also pair alumni with specific program sessions. Imagine an engineering graduate now at a leading tech firm sharing how campus experiences prepared them for success. Even an “alumni corner” for informal chats helps visitors picture their own future through authentic stories.
Example:The University of Exeter organized a special alumni networking event in Ho Chi Minh City for offer-holders (admitted prospective students) and local alumni. This “Alumni and Offer-Holder” gathering (27 Feb 2023) featured an alumni panel sharing personal stories about studying at Exeter and their career achievements since graduation. Prospective students and their parents were invited to network informally with these alumni and university staff over a reception.
Parents and guardians often play a decisive role in a student’s choice, so winning them over is just as important as impressing prospects. A strong open day provides dedicated spaces and sessions tailored to their concerns.
Consider running parent-specific info sessions while students explore elsewhere. These can cover housing, safety, tuition, financial aid, support services, and graduate outcomes, offering direct access to staff from each area. Comfortable lounges, refreshments, and a “Parent HQ” make them feel welcome and valued throughout the day. Printed or digital materials should also speak directly to their perspective, highlighting career outcomes, security measures, and student support systems.
Example:At Cardiff University’s open day, for instance, they held a dedicated session titled “A Parents’ Guide to Higher Education,” where staff walked parents through supporting their child in the application process and beyond. Parents were invited to put their questions to a panel of university experts in finance, student support, and accommodation – essentially a frank Q&A just for them. The topics ranged from tuition fees and scholarship opportunities to the quality of campus facilities. This gave parents a chance to voice any worries in a forum designed for them, separate from their teens.
6. Personalize the Open Day Experience for Visitors
Students don’t all want the same thing from university open days, so personalization can make your event feel far more engaging. Use registration data to create tailored itineraries that reflect interests like intended major, extracurriculars, or career goals. Even simple touches, such as personalized name badges with a program of interest, help staff and ambassadors connect conversations to what matters most for each visitor.
Flexibility is also key. Offer a “choose your own adventure” approach where attendees pick sessions that align with their priorities, whether that’s a lab tour, a faculty panel, or a sports center visit. Train ambassadors to personalize on the fly, asking about interests and adjusting tours or recommendations accordingly.
Example: University of Cincinnati (USA):UC has embraced personalization in a big way. Their Open House events are described as “build your own schedule” experiences where each family creates a custom itinerary for the day. Upon registering for UC’s “Bearcat Open House,” students are prompted to select which academic presentations, campus tours, and special topics interest them. On the day, there isn’t a rigid tour everybody follows; instead, visitors might have a list like: 10:00 AM College of Engineering tour; 11:15 Residence hall open rooms; 1:00 PM Financial Aid Q&A; 2:00 PM Meet the Gaming Club, etc., based on what they choose.
7. Embrace Virtual and Hybrid Open Days to Expand Your Reach
What is a virtual open day? A virtual open day is an online event where prospective students and their families can explore a university without visiting campus in person. Typically hosted on a digital platform, it may include live webinars with faculty, virtual campus tours, student Q&A panels, and one-on-one chats with admissions staff. The goal is to replicate the open day experience digitally, giving participants access to information, interaction, and a feel for campus life, no matter where they are in the world.
Virtual and hybrid open days have become a staple of higher education recruitment, offering accessibility and reach that in-person events alone can’t match. A dedicated virtual event, complete with faculty webinars, student panels, and one-on-one admissions chats, can engage global audiences who might not have the time or resources to travel. Virtual campus tours, whether self-guided or live-streamed, keep your school “open” year-round and give prospects a chance to explore at their own pace.
Hybrid formats add another layer of inclusivity. You might livestream your keynote sessions, run interactive live chats for online viewers, or capture campus highlights to share on demand afterward. Interactive elements like polls, breakout sessions, and virtual “booths” ensure remote participants remain engaged rather than passive viewers.
Example: Brock University (Canada):Brock University has been an early adopter of immersive virtual open day experiences. One innovative approach they took was building an interactive online open house in a 3D virtual environment. Using a platform similar to a retro video game interface, Brock recreated key parts of its campus digitally and let prospective students log in as avatars to explore. When prospects entered this virtual campus, a simulated student guide (an avatar controlled by a Brock student or staff) would greet them and offer to lead a tour. Visitors could navigate their avatar through hallways, into classrooms and labs, and even chat when they “bumped into” other avatars representing faculty or current students.
8. Harness Social Media for Pre-Event Buzz and Post-Event Engagement
A strong social media strategy can turn your open day from a single event into a shared experience that builds excitement before, during, and after. Start with a dedicated event hashtag and use it across all promotions, encouraging attendees to post their questions and experiences.
During the event, showcase live content: Instagram Stories, TikTok snippets, or a feed of hashtagged posts, to engage both in-person and virtual audiences. Afterward, curate user-generated content into a recap post or gallery, and follow up with a thank-you message paired with a clear call-to-action, such as “Book a chat with a student ambassador” or “Apply now.”
Example: Lancaster University (UK): Lancaster provides a masterclass in using student-driven social media to boost recruitment events. In 2020, with in-person events off the table, Lancaster University asked its student ambassadors to create a series of fun TikTok videos as ads to generate excitement for its online open days. Instead of polished commercials, these were authentic clips following TikTok trends. Think students doing campus tours set to music, quick dorm room tours, or tongue-in-cheek “day in the life” sketches. The result? The campaign blew past expectations: over 10 million impressions and 90,000+ clicks through to Lancaster’s open day info page.
Sometimes it’s the little extras that transform an open day from ordinary to unforgettable. First impressions matter, so think about how your visitors are welcomed the moment they arrive. Clear signage, friendly greeters, and a thoughtful welcome pack with a campus map, schedule, and small pieces of branded swag can immediately put families at ease.
Fun moments sprinkled throughout the day also make a difference. A student band playing in the quad, a scavenger hunt through key campus spots, or a quirky photo booth at the student life fair can lighten the mood and help prospects associate your institution with energy and creativity.
Example: Temple College (USA):This community college in Texas put a delightful twist on their open house by setting up a photo booth with their mascot, a leopard nicknamed “TC Leopard.” Students and families could pose with the costumed mascot and snap fun pictures – a perfect keepsake to take home and share on social media. Temple College even turned it into a mini-contest where participants could win small prizes for posting their mascot photos. The result was a lot of laughter, and every family left with a tangible memory (a photo print or a digital pic) of the day.
These kinds of small but meaningful touches linger in memory. Long after presentations fade, visitors will remember how welcome, entertained, and cared for they felt. That emotional connection can tip the scales when it comes time for students to make their final choice.
10. Follow Up and Continue the Conversation
An open day doesn’t end when the last tour wraps up. In fact, some of the most important work happens afterward. A thoughtful follow-up plan not only shows prospective students and parents that you value their visit, but also keeps the momentum going as they move closer to making a decision. Too many institutions stop at a generic “thank you for coming.” By going a step further, you stand out.
Send a prompt, personalized thank-you. Ideally, within 24-48 hours, shoot attendees an email (or even a text message, if they opted in). Make it more than just “Thanks for coming.” Use merge fields to include the student’s name and perhaps one detail from their registration or what they did.
For example: “Hi Alex, thank you for visiting our Open Day on Saturday! We hope you enjoyed the Biology lab tour and the sample lecture in psychology.” This level of detail shows that you noticed their presence. Then, include helpful next steps: links to apply, to book a one-on-one meeting, or to a video recap of the event.
Example: Morton College (USA): This college nailed the follow-up game. Right after their open house, Morton College rolled out a one-two punch of follow-ups. They sent out personal thank-you emails to attendees, and at the same time, they put out a public thank-you on their social media pages. Importantly, it didn’t stop at gratitude – the post also included a next step, reminding students that registration was open for the upcoming semester and providing a link to get started.
Strong follow-up also means nurturing interest over time. Sharing student stories, reminders about upcoming deadlines, or invitations to future events extends the relationship beyond one day. In the end, what sets your open day apart is how well you continue to guide students once they’ve left campus.
From Open Day to Enrollment: Your Next Step
Open days (or open house events) are a cornerstone of student recruitment in higher education. They’re your chance to say, “Here’s who we are, here’s what makes us special, and here’s the community you could join.” By implementing these strategies, from showcasing your unique strengths, creating interactive experiences, and leveraging students/alumni, to embracing virtual formats, social media, personalization, and strong follow-up, you can elevate your open day from a routine tour into an unforgettable event that resonates with attendees long after they’ve gone home.
Remember, the goal isn’t just to convey information, but to make prospective students feel something: excitement about an academic program, a sense of belonging on campus, confidence that your school is the right fit, or the inspiration to take the next step towards enrollment. When you make your open days stand out, you ultimately make your institution stand out in a crowded higher education market.
Planning an exceptional open day does take effort and creativity, but the rewards are enormous. Many students cite campus visits and open days as the moment they “knew” which school was right for them. By following the approaches outlined above, you’ll increase the chances that your event is the one that wins their hearts. Good luck with your next open day event, and have fun making it one to remember!
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is an open day?
Answer: An open day is an event hosted by a college or university to give prospective students and their families the chance to experience the campus, meet faculty and staff, and learn more about academic programs and student life.
Question: What are Application Days at universities?
Answer: Application days are special events hosted by universities to help prospective students complete their applications on-site.
Question: What is a virtual open day?
Answer: A virtual open day is an online event where prospective students and their families can explore a university without visiting campus in person. Typically hosted on a digital platform, it may include live webinars with faculty, virtual campus tours, student Q&A panels, and one-on-one chats with admissions staff.
This blog was kindly authored by Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive, MillionPlus, the Association of Modern Universities
Every year, surveys like HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey offer a snapshot of university life. But behind the charts and statistics is a changing story about what higher education looks like, especially at modern universities. These institutions are showing that studying in 2025 rarely follows a single, conventional route.
Modern universities have long been known for their openness and ties to local communities. Now, they are also shaping a very different kind of student journey—one that does not always follow the traditional three-year residential degree. Instead, it reflects the realities of a diverse student body: people working while studying, commuting from home, caring for family, or building new careers later in life.
Beyond the “traditional” student
For many students at modern universities, higher education is less about stepping away from life for three years and more about weaving learning into a busy, complicated existence. As the Student Academic Experience Survey shows, almost half (45%) of modern university students are in paid employment—often out of necessity, not choice. Many are parents, carers, or career-changers. For these students, study isn’t a bubble; it’s one delicate strand in a web of responsibilities.
For some, this results in a very different kind of campus life: less time spent living in halls, more commuting (40% travel over 10 miles) and a stronger pull between work, family and academic priorities.
New models of participation
While financial pressures for students and wider society remain acute—38% of students who need work can’t find it, and 30% say cost-of-living concerns affect their ability to focus—modern universities are adapting their teaching and support models. Many now offer blended delivery, intensive block teaching, alongside established flexible provision such as degree apprenticeships and part-time study. These approaches allow students to earn, care, and live at home while progressing towards qualifications.
Supporting non-traditional students
This is a student population that remains deeply committed to learning. Despite all the pressures, modern university students show up, participate, and persist. Approaching a fifth of students has caring responsibilities, comfortably higher than their peers at older institutions. Some 40% report that their tutors actively encourage class discussion and help them explore personal areas of interest. They value that their feedback is accessible and constructive, helping them improve and stay on track.
While their circumstances may be more complex, their commitment to learning is strong. These students also place a high value on being heard and report a sense of belonging, often shaped by feeling that their opinions matter and that support services are there when needed. These aren’t just “nice to haves”—they’re essential in a system where so many are juggling competing demands.
Their experience may look different from the “classic” university model, but it is no less valid.
For institutions, the challenge is that this is all happening against a backdrop of unsustainable finances, with their resources being stretched increasingly thinly.
The financial strain on universities
While much of the conversation around student experience rightly focuses on individuals, universities across the sector are also under growing pressure, the reasons for which are by now well established. Modern universities typically receive less research funding and fewer philanthropic donations than many of their older counterparts, with their international student income potentially next on the chopping block if the government follows through on its proposed levy.
They also face higher staff costs, with significant increases in pensions cost (recent changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme which modern universities are bound to offer are estimated to cost the sector £125 million per year) and this year are facing an 11% fall in Office for Students recurrent grants, compared to 5% at pre-92s. This is coupled with recent defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships, provision into which many modern universities had put significant investment to support the skills system. Yet they educate a high proportion of students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, often with greater support needs.
Balancing quality education with constrained budgets is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The financial model that underpins higher education in the UK is coming apart at the seams. These universities are doing vital work—widening participation, supporting local economies, and offering first and second chances—but they’re being asked to do more with less.
The case for a new funding model
The current system is simply not fit for purpose. If modern universities are to continue serving their students effectively—and if those students are to thrive—there needs to be a shift in how higher education is funded. This could mean more targeted government support, reforms to tuition fee and maintenance structures, or increased investment in student support services. In order to maintain a world-leading higher education sector, vital to help meet the government’s stated goals, there must be a clear strategy for higher education from Westminster and Holyrood. The sector waits in hope for the government’s promised HE reform package.
Without change, inequality will be further entrenched and institutions that play a crucial role in social mobility will be immeasurably lessened. In 2025, with the support of their institutions, modern university students are doing everything they can to succeed. It’s time the system worked just as hard for them.
This blog was kindly authored by Alice Routledge, Policy Labs Adviser at Wellcome Trust.
The UK’s unsustainably funded university sector is not just a domestic challenge to research innovation and growth. It also risks undermining the UK’s global standing. A new Wellcome report highlights the critical role of research and development (R&D) in shaping international partnerships and influencing how the UK is perceived around the world.
Five years ago, Wellcome published The UK’s role in global research, calling for the UK Government to embrace its strengths in research and development and live up to its place in the world. That report spoke to the optimism for R&D and boosterism of Boris Johnson’s government, leaning into the UK being a science superpower and the idea of a global Britain, following the UK’s exit from the European Union.
The change in geopolitics over the last five years has been stark, and the world has changed dramatically. A global pandemic, war on mainland Europe, the proliferation of conflict across the Middle East, and a new UK Government are reshaping the context in which UK research operates. With the scaling back of science funding in the US, worries about the future and effectiveness of multilateralism, and internationally divergingtrends in the trust of science itself, it was time to think up a new narrative for UK international science collaboration.
In response, Wellcome has released a report urging the Government to resist the trend towards isolationism, and build on its strengths in R&D and diplomacy to become: The Global Partner of Choice for R&D.
Why R&D as a tool for diplomacy?
The UK excels in research. It ranks first globally for the quality of academic publications and leads the G7 in international collaboration. Its universities are world-renowned, with three or four regularly ranked among the global top 10. Its tech sector boasts more tech unicorns than any other European country. UK research is naturally international, with over 60 per cent of the UK’s academic publications in 2022 being co-authored by international researchers – the highest proportion in the G7.
It creates growth. Public investment in R&D delivers strong returns: £1 invested in public R&D leverages double that in private investment and generates £7 in net benefits to the UK economy in the long run. In internationally neglected disease research alone, sustained investment could generate more than £4.8 billion of private sector investment in R&D and create nearly 4,000 UK jobs.
R&D also strengthens the UK’s diplomatic reach, with international research partnerships and alumni networks serving as powerful tools of soft power and global influence.
There is no national security without health security. Investment in global health research helps to prevent future pandemics by funding the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and finding solutions for infectious diseases such as malaria, TB and meningitis. The report recommends that the Ministry of Defence ensure that it uses its increasing R&D budget to invest in research that supports health security while welcoming the government funding for the collaboration between the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Pandemic Institute for vital research into emerging infectious diseases.
UK leadership in emerging technologies, from AI to genomics, offers a chance to shape global norms and standards in line with democratic values. The report urges the Government to use the UK’s unique ability in both science and diplomacy to convene an international coalition with a common focus on the regulation of emerging technology.
A new narrative for a new era
Wellcome recommends the Government move beyond the language of science superpower or innovation powerhouse. These terms can sound self-congratulatory, and as quoted in the report, “just falls completely flat globally.” Instead, the UK should position itself as the global partner of choice for R&D, a country that others want to work with because of the excellence of its universities as research institutions, its openness, and its commitment to mutual benefit.
This shift in narrative is not just semantic. It requires a change in how the UK approaches international collaboration.
Modernising partnerships: The UK must move from a model of paternalism to one of partnership. This means co-created partnerships based on mutual benefit, nurtured for the long term and where possible led by researchers
Choosing partners strategically: partnering with countries for top-down research relationships should focus on research impact. The UK should deepen ties with the European Union and forge new partnerships with low- and middle-income countries. This will require a rethink of the UK’s approach to Official Development Assistance (ODA), ensuring it supports long-term, equitable research collaborations.
The global exchange of people and ideas: The Government should prioritise reducing the barriers to the global exchange of people and ideas. The Government could encourage an exchange of research talent at all stages with strategic partners around the world by including provisions in Free Trade Agreements and science and innovation agreements, or through joint PhD or exchange schemes and by reducing the costs of moving to the UK.
Implications for higher education
To become the global partner of choice for R&D, the UK must ensure that its higher education sector is financially sustainable. Universities play a central role in the UK’s research ecosystem – convening global talent, producing world-class research, and cultivating international alumni networks that serve as diplomatic assets. Yet they will struggle to play this role if they remain under-resourced. Up to 72% of providers are facing an income deficit in 2025-26, and many universities are currently consulting on redundancies.
While the recent Spending Review did not deliver the funding uplift many hoped for, exploring more stable funding streams must not come at the expense of fundamental research. Funders, institutions, and the Government must work together to ensure the UK remains an attractive place to collaborate on research.
This means that from September 2026, learners can apply for funding to begin modules and courses from January 2027, with access to up to £38,140 of tuition loan finance and maintenance support for in-person studies. Crucially, the LLE supports modular study for specific courses, allowing learners to access 30-credit modules that form part of, or can stack towards, full qualifications.
This announcement comes just months after HEPI and Instructure jointly published a Policy Note calling for a coherent lifelong learning strategy that unites the LLE with the upcoming Growth and Skills Levy, avoiding fragmentation between further and higher education. HEPI and Instructure’s analysis highlights the importance of:
A user‑friendly, low‑burden loan application process for modular study
A regulatory approach that supports modular learning without excessive bureaucracy
Increased awarding of qualifications at Levels 4/5 as solid progression markers
So does the latest iteration of the LLE deliver on its potential to close skills gaps, improve employment opportunities and social mobility and welcome a broader range of learners into education?
What works, what doesn’t, and who is responsible?
Let’s start by acknowledging where the LLE has got it right. Unlike with previous higher education loans, learners can fund individual 30‑credit modules throughout their lives, rather than for a one-off qualification. This allows for flexibility to pursue new learning opportunities which align with career aspirations, upskilling requirements on both the learner and employer’s behalf, as well the learner’s personal circumstances. However, the LLE in its current form is still quite restrictive, and Instructure would like to make these recommendations to the following stakeholders.
The DfE should widen loan eligibility
In reality, the range of modules eligible for LLE funding is still quite limited. Funded modules must comply with a select list of priority skills areas outlined by the Government, offer at least 30 credits (roughly 300 hours of study) and form part of an established parent course. What’s more, modules from institutions that are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted or have a Gold or Silver TEF award, will have an easier time getting approved for LLE funding – those outside of this criteria will have to submit more evidence.
However, the skills most in demand by employers, such as Generative AI development, Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) and green skills, are by nature, newer skill areas. In their infancy, these skills may not have have many, if any, available 30-credit modules which form part of an established parent course, and are offered by an institution that’s been highly-rated by TEF or Ofsted.
Therefore we recommend the DfE considers funding modules which are smaller units of study, such as 15-20 credit microcredentials. These credentials could be offered by learning providers which may not have achieved industry accolades just yet but do have credibility upskilling learners in emerging skills areas.
Lastly, while online modules are tuition-eligible, maintenance loans are not. We recommend that the Government extend maintenance support to fully online learners to improve access and social mobility.
EdTech companies and learning providers need to be ‘credit-aware’
In order to help become eligible for the LLE, we urge learning providers to design modular content intentionally, ensuring it is credit-bearing and responsive to labour market needs.
Furthermore, EdTech should support flexible and credential-rich delivery. Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) platforms specifically should facilitate diverse delivery models, including asynchronous and hybrid formats, and support digital credentials and e-portfolio pathways.
In short, the latest LLE guidance sets the foundation for modular pathways and stackable credentials in selected subject areas – a more viable option for many learners who are at varying stages of their learning journey. However, the LLE must be aligned with effective funding and regulation, coupled with coordinated action from providers, employers, and edtech partners – if this crucial policy is to meet its full potential.
Instructure is a partner of HEPI and works with UK universities to pioneer flexible, modular and digital-first lifelong learning pathways.
HEPI Director Nick Hillman reviews Reforming Lessons: Why English Schools Have Improved Since 2010 and How This Was Achieved by Nick Gibb and Robert Peal.
On Tuesday, 9 September 2025, HEPI will be hosting the launch of the OECD’s flagship Education at a Glance report. Book a place (in person or online) here.
This is the second book on education in a row that I have reviewed on the HEPI website that comes from a right-of-centre perspective. The previous review (of a book by the President of the New College of Florida) garnered some pointed attacks underneath – ‘No doubt we’ll soon be seeing articles offering a “more balanced” perspective on Putin and Orban’s records in office’. So let me start by noting HEPI has also run many reviews (by me and others) of books written by left-of-centre authors as well as centrist authors, such as Sam Friedman and Aaron Reeve, Simon Kuper, Francis Green and David Kynaston, Melissa Benn, and Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin.
Let me also note that we are always on the lookout for reviews of recent books that are likely to be of interest to HEPI’s audience, irrespective of where on the political spectrum the authors of the books in question or – indeed – the reviewers sit. When we started running book reviews on the HEPI site many years ago, they tended to receive less engagement than other output, but that has changed over the years and they are often now among our most-read pieces. We hope this remains true on our brand new website. So the door is wide open. Come on in.
Now down to business. Reforming Lessons is a defence of the changes wrought by the long-standing and thrice-appointed Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb, and to a lesser extent his boss Michael Gove, co-written by Gibb himself. The other author is Robert Peal, who was one of a group of young state-school teachers (often, like Peal, powered by Teach First) who made up the advancing phalanx for the school reforms that were implemented by the Coalition and subsequent Conservative Governments. (John Blake, the Office for Students’s Director for Fair Access and Participation was another member of this front line and merits a mention in the book, as was Daisy Christodoulou, who has contributed a Foreword and who features multiple times.)
At the risk of further brickbats, it would be absurd for HEPI to have ignored this particular book at this particular time, for it is currently a huge talking point among educationalists. But is not just about education; it is also a book about the practice of politics. As the authors themselves write, it is an account of ‘the virtues of a subject-specialist minister driven by conviction in a specific cause rather than personal ambition.’ It fulfils this brief very well indeed, so it should be read far beyond the education world, especially by aspiring ministers in any field where they want to make a difference. But, and I do not mean this to be in any way rude, I suspect it was not – in one important sense – all that hard for Gibb and Peal to make their case.
This is because the key international data on school performance, which come from the OECD’s comparative PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment), show England forging ahead, including against other parts of the UK, between 2009 and 2022. So Gibb and Peal had a secure evidence base on which to build their story.
We may argue that PISA is not a perfect measure: it tests only a small number of disciplinary areas and to a fairly basic level of knowledge and it has not always been completed the same way (sometimes on paper and sometimes on screen), but it is better than anything else we have when it comes to comparing school systems – and infinitely better than anything we have in higher education. So anyone who wants to shoot down the book’s central claim that Nick Gibb succeeded as a Minister will struggle to find equally robust performance data for their argument – though they could presumably focus on other evidence such as on an apparent narrowing of the curriculum (though Gibb and Peal get their defence on this in first – see pages 123 and 124).
Near the start, the book takes a look at how any education changes begun in 2010 had to be extremely cost-effective – cost-cutting or else free – given the dire fiscal position which led every major political party to promise drastic spending cuts at that year’s general election. Gibb and Peal also paint a picture of the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of the expensive centralised initiatives based on existing orthodoxies that preceded the Coalition. The multi-billion pound Building Schools for the Future programme was perhaps the archetype for, as Gibb shows, tens of millions of pounds were spent on building individual schools with open-plan classrooms where staff struggled to teach and pupils struggled to learn. Another challenge during the 2000s is that schools were overwhelmed with bureaucracy: in 2006/07 alone, we are told, there were around 760 missives to schools from Whitehall and quangos – four-per-day for the whole school year.
Yet Nick Gibb is far from being a free-for-all libertarian right-winger. He is, rather, someone who wants to use the power of the state to drive policy, including how to teach reading (synthetic phonics) as well as how to shape other aspects of the school curriculum. It is easy to see how this approach could have gone wrong but Gibb’s primary goal is always to follow the evidence as he sees it, and I cannot be the only parent who was amazed by how quickly their children started to read during their initial school years in the second half of the 2010s. Gibb has given more thought to schooling than any other modern politician and he rejects many of the ideas of his colleagues as much as those from the political left: he did not favour a wave of new grammar schools, he did not want GCSEs to be replaced by O-Levels and he opposed Rishi Sunak’s Advanced British Standard.
The book might begin and end somewhat immodestly and uncollegiately by reminding readers that many commentators picked out education as the one and only really big success of the Coalition and Conservative years, yet this is not by any stretch of the imagination a selfish book. Nick Gibb shows how his worldview was built upon teachers like Ruth Miskin, academics like ED Hirsch and others – even his researcher Edward Hartman gets a namecheck (or rather two) for introducing him to Hirsch. He shows how his agenda was carried forward by people like Hamid Patel, Katharine Birbalsingh and Jon Coles.
Political colleagues like Michael Gove and David Cameron are given credit for changing Whitehall’s approach to schooling. The triumvirate of advisers, Dominic Cummins, Sam Freedman and Henry de Zoete all receive praise, as does Nick Timothy for his stint in Number 10 as Theresa May’s Joint Chief of Staff. Andrew Adonis garners the most praise of all for starting ‘the revolution we undertook whilst in office’, and Kenneth Baker is lauded for getting the successful City Technology Colleges (the forerunners of academies) off the ground in the 1980s. Gibb and Peal note there have been ‘squabbles’ between Conservatives and Lib Dems over who designed the Pupil Premium policy but they do not join in, concluding instead that ‘we should celebrate that it was jointly pursued and agreed upon by the Treasury’.
There is high praise even for the man who temporarily displaced Gibb as the Minister for Schools, David Laws, especially for the design of the school accountability measure Progress 8 as well as for Lord Nash, who oversaw academies and free schools from the House of Lords. Gibb admits he did not agree with Nicky Morgan, who replaced Michael Gove as the Secretary of State for Education in 2014, on pushing ‘character education’ as a discrete concept but he excuses her on the grounds that ‘she had been transferred to Education from the Treasury with no notice, so never had the luxury of time I had enjoyed to read up on education philosophies.’
The tales from Gibb’s period as a backbench MP and then Shadow Minister also remind us that the most effective Ministers have typically learnt their briefs in the years before they take office rather than on the job. They then stay in post long enough to make a difference (or, in Gibb’s case, do the job more than once). Even for bold reforming ministers, like Gibb and Gove, good policy tends to be patient policy. In contrast, many of Gibb’s predecessors as the Minister for Schools (who include the current Minister for Skills, Jacqui Smith, who did the job in 2005 to 2006) were not in post for long enough to make a major sort of difference. Gibb’s account of his time in office also serves to remind us that it is wrong to think effective ministers must have worked in the field they are overseeing before entering Parliament: Gibb was an accountant, not a teacher, just like David Willetts, the well-respected Minister for Universities and Science during the Coalition, was a civil servant rather than an academic or scientist.
The book is peppered by illustrative and illuminating anecdotes. The one I found most shocking is about a visit Nick Gibb made in the mid-1990s to a school in Rotherham, where he was fighting a by-election: a headteacher ‘explained how she had completed an “audit” of her school library, removing any old-fashioned books that simply conveyed information.’ (A few years later, Tory party HQ abolished their library altogether, so it was not just schools that fell down this hole.) The second most shocking anecdote, at least to me, concerns the first draft of the rewritten National Curriculum for primary schools: ‘when the first draft of the curriculum was sent out for informal consultation amongst maths subject associations, it returned with all 64 mentions of the word “practice” expunged from the document.’ The funniest anecdote is one about Gibb visiting a successful academy that had converted from being an independent school: ‘On my train up to Yorkshire, I saw a pupil’s tweet expressing disappointment to find out the politician visiting her school was not Nick Clegg, as she had been led to believe, but instead “some random” called Nick Gibb.’
Personally, I dislike the language used by those who talk of an educational ‘blob’, not least because it paints all educationalists in the same negative light. Gibb dislikes the term too, and he was uncomfortable with his political colleagues throwing it about. He is pro-teachers and there were always some classroom teachers who held out against the knowledge-light ‘progressivist ideology’ even at its height. Gibb’s reforms were designed to dilute the educational orthodoxy of unions and quangos and to give power to trusted headteachers as well as to multi-academy trusts instead – the mantra was ‘high autonomy and high accountability’. His core goals were to find the best resources and teachers, then to free school leaders to make the biggest differences they could and finally to encourage others to emulate them, especially via high-performing multi-academy trusts. If Blair’s mantra was ‘education, education, education’, Gibb’s was ’emulation, emulation, emulation’.
But while rejecting the ‘blob’ term, the book does help one to understand how the moniker came to gain such currency. Gibb tells a story, for example, of how, as an MP and a member of the Education Select Committee, he was summoned to the ‘salubrious offices in Piccadilly’ of the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Once there, the Chief Executive and Chairman demanded Gibb stop asking parliamentary questions about their work. It was an error of immense proportions – perhaps if they had known Gibb had circulated anti-communist propaganda in Brezhnev’s Russia, they would have had a better idea of how tough he is under the polite demeanour. Either way, the scenario served to remind Gibb not to back down in battles once he became a minister.
One surprise in the book is the degree to which Gibb thinks his reforms have deep roots and are here to stay. He makes a persuasive case for this, especially in the Conclusion, when he notes how embedded and successful some multi-academy trusts now are. Yet his book also recounts how Scotland and Wales have in recent years moved in the opposite direction to England, downplaying knowledge in their school curricula (and suffering the consequences in international comparisons). So one-way travel is surely not guaranteed.
Keith Joseph talked of a ‘ratchet effect’ in British politics and it might be too early to tell if the Gibb / Gove reforms are locked in or whether the pendulum could now swing back. What I saw after the 2024 general election from my vantage point of being a long-standing Board member of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) gives me less confidence that educational policy is now settled. Despite Gibb’s belief his reforms will last, even he notes in passing the recent attempt to water down the freedoms enjoyed by academies. What is taught in schools, and how, will surely continue to be fervently debated and it is why HEPI has sought to focus minds in higher education on the important Curriculum and Assessment Review under Professor Becky Francis.
The book is all about the pipeline to higher education but it is not really about higher education except near the end, where the authors take a look at teacher training. Those running university education departments were among the people who did not take Nick Gibb seriously while in Opposition or in Government and they too paid the price for it:
‘Of all the different sectors of the education establishment, university education faculties were – by a stretch – the most difficult with which to work. … the main message I received whenever I visited university education faculties was, as Jim Callaghan had been told 40 years previously, “keep off the grass”. Meetings I had usually consisted of being talked at for 90 minutes in a boardroom with no appetite or opportunity for discussion. If I, as a minister, showed any interest in what they thought, they would mistily invoke the virtues of “academic independence”, and insist the government had no place stepping on their hallowed turf.’
At the very end of the book, Gibb bemoans the fact that, when it comes to ‘the evidence revolution in English education’, ‘university education faculties have been – with one or two exceptions – notable only by their absence’. And when it comes specifically to school teaching, Gibb regards universities as part of the problem rather than the solution. (So perhaps we should not be surprised that Gibb and Peal do not mention the short-lived attempt by Theresa May’s Government to get universities to sponsor academies.) As Universities UK prepare to release new research on public perceptions of higher education institutions, I was left wondering whether there might be lessons for how the higher education sector can best engage with Ministers and officials.
While Twitter / X may often be a sewer today, Gibb argues that various education bloggers and tweeters (often from the political left) played a vital role in shoring up his reforms, for example in helping Michael Wilshaw sort out Ofsted, who we are told ‘succeeded where Chris Woodhead could not.’ Gibb may point the finger of blame at those who pushed the ‘progressivist ideology’ that he has fought against but when it comes to A-Level grade inflation, for example, he does not limit his criticism to the Blair / Brown Governments, also complaining about his Conservative predecessors. Yet despite the ferocious attacks he was subjected to as a Minister, Gibb does not respond in kind, confident instead that his policies rested on evidence from the UK and overseas rather than polemic.
This is a lengthy book and a very very good one, though it does not stop me wanting to know more about what Gibb thinks in one or two areas. For example, we surely do not talk enough about demographics in education. Yet it was the growing number of young people that was part of the reason why the Treasury and others accepted lots of brand new schools called ‘free schools’, just as it was the falling number of school leavers prior to 2020 which helped persuade the Treasury to remove student number caps for undergraduates in England. Gibb does acknowledge the impact of changes to the birth rate in boosting his agenda, but personally I would like to have read more than the single paragraph on page 155 about it.
Churchill is said to have remarked, ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. I kept thinking of this as I was reading the book, so it is perhaps too much to expect a deep dive into educational areas that the Conservatives failed to fix in their 14 years in charge. For me, these are: the educational underperformance of boys relative to girls, which does not merit any specific mentions; the current crisis in the supply of new teachers, which gets less than a page of dedicated text; and post-COVID truancy rates, which gets a paragraph and a couple of other fleeting mentions. But Nick Gibb is, and will rightly remain, one of the most important Ministers of recent decades – and to think he never even made it into the Cabinet.
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Lynne Bianchi, Vice Dean for Social Responsibility & Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility, at the University of Manchester
I recently had the fortune to be part of a panel discussing the place of Service Learning in higher education, chaired by HEPI. My reflections before and since may inspire you to take time to think about your perspective on the nature and role of Service Learning in fast-changing university and civic landscapes. In its simplest sense, Service Learning is an educational approach that combines academic study with community service.
In my role within a large science and engineering faculty, I have rallied our staff and students to think seriously about the features, advantages and benefits of Service Learning in science and engineering contexts. For our university, this teaching and learning approach isn’t new, with expertise in the biomedical sciences and humanities teaching us much about the way in which undergraduate students can create benefit for our local communities whilst enriching their own academic experiences.
In this blog, I build on my own background as a teacher and higher education academic and draw on my experience in curriculum design when focusing on how we can provide authentic and impactful Service Learning experiences for our undergraduates.
What do we mean by the ‘right’ learning experiences?
It doesn’t take long working in this area to unearth a wide range of terms that are used interchangeably – from place-based learning, real-world learning, community-engaged learning, practice-based learning, critical urban pedagogy, industry-inspired learning and more. A gelling feature is that to get Service Learning working well there must be an authentic benefit to each party involved. The students should develop skills and understanding directly required within their degree, and the partner should have a problem explored, solved, or informed. In essence, the experience must lead to a ‘win-win’ outcome(s) to be genuine.
In our context in science and engineering, we have envisioned Service Learning working well, and considered this to include when:
For students:
Learning has relevance: work on a project, individually or in groups, is contextualised by a problem, issue or challenge that is authentic (as opposed to hypothetical).
Learning has resonance: developing and applying skills and knowledge to inform the problem, issue or project that dovetails with existing course specifications and requirements.
For partners:
They are engaged: partners are involved in the design and delivery of the project to some extent. This may vary in the depth or level of engagement and requires both sides to appreciate the needs of each other.
They are enriching: partners identify real issues that matter and expose elements of the work environment that enrich students’ awareness of the workplace and career pathways.
When is the right time for students to engage in service learning?
I am still pondering this question as there are so many variables and options that influence the choice. Which year group should service learning drop into? Or, does a developmental over time approach suit better? Is Service Learning more impactful in the later undergraduate years, or should it be an integral part of each year of their experience with us? Realistically, there won’t be a one-size-fits-all all model, and there are benefits and challenges to each. What will need to underpin whichever approach we take, will be the focused need to elicit the starting points of our students, our staff and our partners in whichever context.
Going from ‘zero to hero’ in Service Learning will require training and support for all parties. My experience working across the STEM sector for nearly three decades has taught me that no one partner is the same as another – what is a big deal to one can mean nothing to another. My thinking is that we need to see each person involved in the Service Learning experience as a core ‘partner’ and each has learning starting points, aspirations and apprehensions. Our role as programme leaders is to identify a progression model that appreciates that this is ‘learning’ and that scaffolds and key training will be required at different times – even within the process itself.
What support will be required to mobilise this model at scale?
In my early career at this university, I spent time within the Teaching & Learning Student Experience Professional Support teams, where I saw firsthand the integral way that any university programme relies on expertise in taking theoretical ideas into practice. The interplay between project management, planning, timetabling, eLearning, marketing and communications and student experience support teams, to name some, will have play such critical roles in achieving excellence in Service Learning. Working at scale in our faculty across 10 different discipline areas, will require integrated work with other faculties to harness the power of interdisciplinary projects and digital support for course delivery and assessment that can embrace an internal-external interface.
Support for scaling up will also require a culture of risk-taking to be valued and championed. Over the introductory years, we need to provide a sense of supported exploration, a culture of learning and reflection, and an ethos where failure is rarely a negative, but an opportunity. Of course, science and engineering disciplines bring with them our obligations to accrediting bodies, and a close dialogue with them about ambition, relevance and need for this enriching approach needs to be clearly articulated and agreed so that any course alteration becomes a course invigoration rather than a compromise.
Faculty culture and the way the university and the sector views and reviews SL will have a significant implication on practice and people feeling safe to innovate. As the university forges and launches its 2035 strategy the spaces for innovation and development are increasingly championed, and the months and years ahead will be ones to watch in terms of establishing a refreshed version of teaching and learning for our students.
In closing this short exploration of Service Learning, I can feel a positive tension in the air – the excitement to work together to further invigorate our student experience whilst supporting our staff and partners to embrace varied new opportunities. The ‘getting it right’ story will have many chapters, many endings as the genres, characters and plots are there for us all to create – or more pertinently ‘co-create’! What drives me most to remain in this space of uncertainty for a while longer is the anticipation of creating experiences that truly make a difference for good. As our universities transform themselves over the coming years, I invite you to join us in the dialogue and development as we have so much to learn through collaboration.
