Universities have a good record on civic engagement and driving economic growth. Lucy Haire, Director of Partnerships at HEPI, asks whether there is scope for doing more.
Just as singer Joan Armatrading pleads ‘what more can we do’ in her song ‘Flight of the Wild Geese’ from the 1978 war film The Wild Geese, higher education leaders — gathered at a recent roundtable dinner convened by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and Lloyds Bank in Liverpool — echoed her sentiment as they grappled with mounting demands.
We took two of the Secretary of State for Education, the Right Honourable Bridget Phillipson’s five demands of universities, as set out in her November 2024 letter to university leaders, as our focus for the evening’s discussion. Phillipson urged higher education providers to ‘Make a stronger contribution to economic growth’ and ‘Play a greater civic role in their communities’, themes that Lloyds has explored at some length with partner PwC, culminating in their Drivers of Growth report launched at the University of Birmingham earlier this academic year.
Lloyds Banking Group regards higher education as a strategic priority, integrating it with a broad spectrum of regional regeneration initiatives. These efforts drive local development, nurture businesses connected to university ecosystems, and address critical needs such as housing, skills development, digital literacy and charitable support. Lloyds representatives spoke candidly about the significant financial pressures facing the UK higher education sector and highlighted their active role in developing institution-specific action plans. In addition, the Group has recently contributed to the Universities UK Efficiencies Taskforce, advancing another of the Secretary of State’s key priorities: the implementation of ‘a sustained efficiency and reform programme’ across the sector.
A Russell Group university vice-chancellor reminded dinner guests that six civic universities — Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, and Bristol — were founded in the first decade of the twentieth century and are often called the original ‘red brick’ universities, highlighting that the civic university concept is far from new. He expressed a preference for the term ‘place-based’ over ‘civic’ to describe his university’s mission, suggesting it better reflects a modern approach. While the concept wasn’t new, it was also pointed out that it hasn’t remained consistently fashionable – for example, Warwick University had deliberately not taken the name of its nearest city, Coventry, when it was established.
The vice-chancellor outlined the many ways his university supports the local region: as the area’s second-largest employer after the NHS, a major economic contributor, operator of an academy school and a recruiter of many students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The university’s turnover surpasses that of any Premier League football club, and it maintains formal partnerships with major multinational companies and local SMEs and start-ups, including university spin-outs. ‘Why are we seen as out of touch with the local community?’, he wondered. ‘What more can we do?’
The conversation shifted to recent Government policy, with many expressing disappointment over the proposed immigration white paper —particularly its suggested levy on international students—which was seen as a greater setback for higher education than the latest Spending Review. The implicit answer to the persistent question of the night, ‘what more can we do’ when it comes to civic impact and economic growth, was that ‘we could do more with more favourable government policies’. The Government’s stated focus on economic growth drew attention to persistent issues: sluggish national growth since the 2008 financial crisis and chronic regional productivity gaps, even in major cities like Manchester and Liverpool.
Two senior university leaders from a small specialist institution and a large post-92 expressed doubt that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will deliver a step change in participation by mature learners. One said she thought the LLE’s design did not match well with the urgent priorities currently facing many institutions; the other said she could see little evidence of substantial demand.
Several university leaders highlighted concrete initiatives that directly challenge the narrative that universities aren’t supporting their regions. Examples included student-run legal clinics providing millions of pounds’ worth of free legal advice to local residents, specialist support for businesses on decarbonisation, large-scale recruitment of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and substantial capital investment in regional development. A recent HEPI webinar with the UPP Foundation focused on similar student-led civic initiatives.
There was a consensus that, behind closed doors, the Government is far more appreciative of universities’ regional impact than public statements tend to suggest. One former vice-chancellor noted that transformative change led by universities often unfolds over two or three generations — progress rarely captured by short-term political agendas. Another leader observed that countries like China and those in Southeast Asia are much more vocal in championing their higher education sectors. Some around the table called for more third-party endorsements, while one colleague highlighted the significant export value of his practice-based institution, where a quarter of students are international.
A dinner guest with Whitehall experience remarked that government policy towards higher education often amounted to ‘benign neglect’. While the sector is valued, he argued, ministers are currently preoccupied with issues that matter to swing voters, particularly immigration, making universities an easy target in related policy debates. He suggested that to shift the negative narrative, the sector should place greater emphasis on the financial sustainability and broader impact of university research. A vice-chancellor added that universities are too often perceived as merely ‘big schools’: while more people understand their teaching role, far fewer appreciate the significance of their research.
The former government official also noted that the trend toward devolution and the emergence of combined mayoral authorities present a significant opportunity for higher education. Regional mayors and council leaders—regardless of political affiliation, including those from the fast-growing Reform party—are often strong advocates for their local universities. However, another guest pointed out that many institutions fall outside these combined authorities and therefore miss out on the benefits of mayoral champions.
Another attendee, who is researching the concept of civic universities alongside his university administration role, referenced the original Roman meaning of ‘civic’: citizens as active members of the community, expected to uphold behaviours that sustain a functioning society. He observed that American culture has historically embraced this ethos, extending it to democratic ideals. The conversation shifted to the recent ‘war on universities’ led by President Trump, with several guests observing that events in the US underscore the need for UK universities to speak with a unified voice about their societal value. As the discussion drew to a close, the lyrics from the final lines of Armatrading’s song resonated: ‘Now madness prevails, lies fill the air. What more, what more, what more can we do?’
The evening concluded with a shared recognition of the need for long-term, place-based stewardship under strong and visionary leadership.
By Derfel Owen, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Janice Kay, Higher Futures.
Generative AI and other new technologies create unprecedented challenges to some of the deepest and longest-held assumptions about how we educate and support students. We start from a position that rejects a defensive stance, attempting to protect current practice from the perceived threat of AI. Bans, restrictions and policies to limit AI use have emerged in an effort to uphold existing norms. Such approaches risk isolating and alienating students who are using AI anyway and will fail to address its broader implications. The point is that AI forces us to reconsider and recapitulate current ways of how we teach, how we help students to learn, how we assess and how we engage and support. Four areas of how we educate require a greater focus:
Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving: Teaching students to evaluate, analyse, and synthesise information while questioning AI-generated outputs.
Creativity and Innovation: Focusing on nurturing original ideas, divergent thinking, and the ability to combine concepts in novel ways.
Emotional Intelligence: Prioritising skills like empathy, communication, and collaboration, essential for leadership, teamwork, and human connection.
Ethical Reasoning: Training students to navigate ethical dilemmas and critically evaluate the ethical implications of AI use in society.
Here we set out some practical steps that can be taken to shift us in that direction.
1. Emphasise Lifelong Learning and Entrepreneurialism
Education should equip students with the ability to adapt throughout their lives to rapidly evolving technologies, professions and industries. Fostering the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn quickly in response to changing demands is essential. A well-rounded education will combine new and established knowledge across subjects and disciplines, building in an assumption that progress is made through interdisciplinary connections and creating space to explore the unknown, what we might not know yet and how we go about finding it.
The transformation of traditional work through AI and automation necessitates that students are fully equipped to thrive in flexible and diverse job markets. Entrepreneurial thinking should be nurtured by teaching students to identify problems, design innovative solutions, and create value in ways that AI can support but not replicate. Leadership development should focus on fostering decision-making, adaptability, and team-building skills, emphasising the inherently human aspects of leadership.
We should be aware that jobs and job skills in an AI world are evolving faster than our curricula. As McKinsey estimates, AI will transform or replace up to 800 million jobs globally, and the stakes are too high for incremental change.
2. Promote Originality and Rigour though Collaboration
AI’s strength lies in the processing speed and the sheer breadth of existing data and knowledge that it can access. It can tell you at exceptional pace what might have taken hours, days or weeks to discover. This should be viewed as a way to augment human capabilities and not as a crutch. Incorporating project-based, collaborative learning with AI will empower students to collaborate to create, solve problems, and innovate while reinforcing their roles as innovators and decision-makers. Working together should be a means of fostering communication skills, but can also be strengthened to encourage, promote and reward creativity and divergent thinking that goes further than conventional knowledge. Students should be encouraged to pursue discovery through critical thinking and verification, exploring unique, self-designed research questions or projects that demand deep thought and personal engagement. These steps will build digital confidence, ensuring students can use AI with confidence and assuredness, are able to test and understand its limitations and can leverage it as a tool to accelerate and underpin their innovation. Examples include generating content for campaigns or portfolio outputs, using AI to synthesise original data, demonstrating Socratic dialogue with AI and its outputs, challenging and critiquing prompts.
3. Redesign Assessments
Traditional assessments, such as essays and multiple-choice tests, are increasingly vulnerable to AI interference, and the value they add is increasingly questionable. To counter this, education should focus on performance-based assessments, such as presentations, debates, and real-time problem-solving, which showcase students’ ability to think critically and adapt quickly. Educators have moved away from such assessment methods in recent years because evidence suggests that biases creep into oral examinations. This needs reevaluating to judge the balance of risk in light of AI advancements. Stereotyping and halo biases can be mitigated and can increase student engagement with the assessment and subject matter. What is the greater risk? Biases in oral assessment? Or generating cohorts of graduates with skills to complete unseen, closed-book exams that are likely to be of limited value in a world in which deep and complex information and instruction can be accessed in a fraction of the time through AI? We must revisit these norms and assumptions.
Collaborative assessments should also be prioritised, using group projects that emphasise teamwork, negotiation, and interpersonal skills. Furthermore, process-oriented evaluation methods should be implemented to assess the learning process itself, including drafts, reflections, and iterative improvements, rather than solely the final outputs. Authenticity in learning outputs can be assured through reflective practices such as journals, portfolios, and presentations that require self-expression and cannot be easily replicated by AI, especially when accompanied by opportunities for students to explain their journey and how their knowledge and approach to a topic have evolved as they learn.
Achieving such radical change will require a dramatic scaling back of the arms race in assessment, dramatic reductions in multiple, modularised snapshot assessments. Shifting the assessment workload for staff and students is required, toward formative and more authentic assessments with in-built points of reflection. Mitigating more labour-intensive assessments, programme-wide assessment should be considered.
4. Encourage understanding of the impact of AI on society, resilience and adaptability
AI will accentuate the societal impact of and concerns about issues such as bias, privacy, and accountability. Utilising AI in teaching and assessment must build an expectation that students and graduates have an enquiring and sceptical mindsets, ready to seek further validation and assurance about facts as they are presented and how they were reached, what data was accessed and how; students need to be prepared and ready to unlearn and rebuild. This will require resilience and the ability to cope with failure, uncertainty, and ambiguity. A growth mindset, valuing continuous learning over static achievement, will help by enhancing their ability to adapt to evolving circumstances. Simulated scenario planning for real-world application of learning will help equip students with the skills to navigate AI-disrupted workplaces and industries successfully.
The new kid on the block, DeepSeek, has the important feature that it is an open-source reasoning model, low cost (appearing to beat OpenAI o1 that is neither open-source nor free) with the benefit that it sets out its ‘thinking’ step-by-step, helpful for learning and demonstrating learning. It is not, however, able to access external reports critical of the Chinese state, de facto showing that Gen AI models are wholly dependent on the large language data on which they are trained. Students need fully to understand this and its implications.
Navigating these wide-ranging challenges demands robust support for those shaping the student experience—educators, mentors, and assessors. They remain the heart of higher learning, guiding students through an era of unprecedented change. Yet, bridging the gap between established and emerging practices requires more than just adaptation; it calls for a transformation in how we approach learning itself. To thrive in an AI-integrated future, educators must not only enhance their own AI literacy but also foster open, critical dialogues about its ethical and practical dimensions. In this evolving landscape, everyone—students and educators alike—must embrace a shared journey of learning. The traditional role of the academic as the sole expert must give way to a more collaborative, inquiry-driven model. Only by reimagining the way we teach and learn can we ensure that AI serves as a tool for empowerment rather than a force for division.
Top Hat’s AI-powered assistant, Ace, just got even better. Two new features—example generation and personalized practice—make it easier than ever for educators to personalize learning and give students the support they need to stay on track.
Ace was designed to take the heavy lifting out of creating assessments and provide students with help when they need it. Now, it’s enabling educators to make learning more relevant by connecting course content to student interests and career goals and by offering targeted practice based on where students are struggling most.
“Each of these features reflects our belief that great teaching and learning happens when technology helps people do what they do best,” said Maggie Leen, CEO of Top Hat. “With Ace, we’re building an experience that empowers busy educators and motivates students to connect, explore, practice, and succeed.”
Since its introduction in 2023, Ace has become a trusted partner for instructors seeking to deepen engagement and boost learning outcomes. The new enhancements make it simple for educators to implement teaching practices shown to improve learning, and enhance student success through on-demand, personalized study support.
Example Generation: Make Content More Relevant and Engaging
One of the biggest challenges in teaching is helping students see why what they’re learning actually matters. With Ace’s new example generation feature, educators can highlight any part of their course material and ask Ace to create a scenario that ties the concept to something students might encounter in their future careers—or even in everyday life. For instance, an educator teaching anatomy to nursing students might ask Ace to show how muscle function affects patient mobility. When content is connected to students’ goals or lived experiences, it becomes more relevant and meaningful.
This new capability builds on Ace’s popular question generation tool used by faculty to create formative assessments from their content with just a few clicks. With example generation, educators have another fast and flexible way to personalize course material and make learning more engaging.
Personalized Practice: Turn Mistakes Into Learning Opportunities
Many students want more chances to practice but often don’t know what to review or where to start. Ace’s new personalized practice feature gives them just that. As students work through assigned readings and questions, Ace pinpoints where they’re struggling and creates targeted practice sets based on those areas. Feedback is instant, helping students stay on track and build confidence before high-stakes tests.
More than 100,000 students have used Ace for on-demand study help—from chat-based explanations to unlimited practice questions tied directly to their course content. The new personalized practice feature builds on these tools by offering even more tailored support. It’s a smarter, more continuous way to learn, to build confidence, and deepen understanding over time.
“Ace shows what’s possible when AI is used thoughtfully to empower instructors, reflect students’ interests, and elevate the learning experience,” said Hong Bui, Chief Product Officer at Top Hat. “As Ace continues to evolve, we’ll add new capabilities to help educators teach more efficiently and create more impactful, engaging experiences for their students.”
This blog is by Dr Clive Winters, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and Governance) at Coventry University Group.
Today is Josh Freeman’s last day at HEPI. Josh has run the HEPI blog alongside his other duties for most of the past two years and has been a fabulous colleague. We will miss him and wish him all the best for the future and in his new role at the Office for Students.
When levelling up was popular in political and media circles, it was a source of bemusement to some of us in Higher Education. After all, universities as anchor institutions have been helping level up our communities and delivering economic impact for decades, or even longer.
Coventry University Group is now a global education provider, but its roots go back to 1843 when entrepreneurs and industrialists created Coventry School of Design to deliver a skilled workforce. Nearly two centuries later, we have never lost that core ethos of meeting local needs and we continue to work with businesses to provide job-ready graduates with the skills and creative thinking to improve their communities.
Our emblem is a Phoenix, chosen because of the city’s long history of regeneration and rebirth – a story only possible through our ongoing commitment and agility to evolve with the city and deliver the skills and innovation ecosystem needed to raise and maintain aspirations, mobility and prosperity. We have always been of the city and for the city of Coventry and have transplanted our mission of creating better futures into more cities and regions with campuses in London, Scarborough and Poland.
Education is based on place and each location is different, with social, economic and geographical factors driving local need and the gaps in skills, health and prosperity that we can help to fill. Our research and knowledge exchange activity complements our excellence in teaching to allow us to operate as a collaborative partner of choice, developing holistic solutions for local communities. We deliver technical, professional and vocational education and research that impacts on people and places. We co-create our courses with employers, our research is undertaken in collaboration and partnership, and knowledge exchange activity is designed with businesses not for them.
When trying to capture this in an economic impact report on our activity in Coventry, we assumed the figures would be large, impressive and surprising to some but would not tell the full story of how we contribute to place and society. So, we asked the consulting team at Hatch to look at our wider impacts and not just add up the pounds.
In simple economic terms, our main campus had a gross quantifiable economic footprint of 6,730 FTE jobs and £320m in Gross Value Added (GVA) in Coventry (2021/22). One in every 20 jobs in the city can be traced back to our presence. For every four direct on-campus jobs, a further three are supported across the city through the multiplier effects generated by the Group’s activity.
But that doesn’t calculate the true extent to which we are woven into the economic and social fabric of Coventry, helping the city adapt and grow for 180 years. Our 5,000 health students on placements populate the teams in the wards and clinics of our local hospital, working alongside our alumni in the health and care sector in Coventry. The Research Centre for Care Excellence is a partnership with University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) empowering staff to develop ideas to make ‘patient first’ improvements. Patients feel the benefits, almost certainly without ever knowing the role we played. We are also working with UHCW and other NHS bodies to use our city centre estate to bring health services closer to patients and are the first university to be co-located in a Community Diagnostic Centre. Real people benefit from our work.
Coventry was the home of bicycle design and manufacturing before becoming the UK’s motor city and is now vying to position itself at the forefront of the net zero transport revolution. Many of the brightest and best car designers and engineers in the UK have Coventry degrees, and we continue to meet the evolving needs of the city – upskilling 1,200 JLR staff though an electrification development programme and conducting 34 net zero collaborative research projects in just two years. We are moving the city forwards into a brighter, better future.
The song We’ll Live and Die in These Towns seems an unusual choice for any place to have as an (unofficial) anthem, as it speaks of desperation and resignation to the fate of the working classes. But it has been embraced, not least by supporters of Coventry City, possibly because it somehow transmits a strong sense of identity based on where you are from, of place. Alongside the defiant chorus, the lyrics include the line, ‘nothing ever happened on its own’. People have to make things happen and Coventry is a city where we make things happen, but we don’t do that on our own. We do it with someone and for someone in collaboration and partnership as an anchor institution, that is the key to real economic impact.
This blog is by Rod Bristow is CEO of College Online which provides access to lifelong learning, Chair of Council at the University of Bradford, Visiting Professor at the UCL Institute of Education, Chair of the Kortext Academic Advisory Board and former President at Pearson.
I am an advocate for education technology. It is a growing force for good, providing great solutions to real problems:
Reducing teacher workload through lesson planning, curriculum development, homework submission and marking, formative assessments, course management systems and more;
Improving learning outcomes through engaging, immersive experiences, adaptive assessments and the generation of rich data about learning;
Widening access to content and tools through aggregation platforms across thousands of publishers and millions of textbooks; and
Widening access to courses and qualifications for the purpose of lifelong learning using online and blended modes of delivery.
Products and services that solve these problems will continue to take root.
All that said, we have not seen the widespread transformation in education that technology promised to deliver, and investors have had their fingers burned. We could argue this results from unrealistic expectations rather than poor achievement, but there are lessons to be learned.
According to HolonIQ:
2024 saw $2.4 billion of EdTech Venture Capital, representing the lowest level of investment since 2015. The hype of 2021 is well and truly over, with investors seeking fundamentals over ‘fluff’.
The chart says it all. Steady growth in investment over the last decade culminated in a huge peak during Covid. Hype and ‘fluff’ overtook rational thinking, and several superficially attractive businesses spiked and then plummeted in value. In education, details and evidence of impact (or efficacy) matter. Without them, lasting scale is much harder to achieve.
The pendulum has now swung the other way, with investors harder to convince. Investors and entrepreneurs need to ask the question, ‘Does it work?’ before considering how it scales. If they do, they will see plenty of applications that both work and scale, and better-educated investors will be good for the sector.
One of the biggest barriers to scale is the complexity of implementation with teachers, without whom there is little impact. Without getting into the debate about teacher autonomy, most teachers like to do their own thing. And products which bypass teachers, marketed directly to consumers, often struggle to show as much impact and financial return.
Will things be different with AI? The technology, being many times more powerful, will handle much greater flexibility of implementation for teachers than we have seen so far. AI has even greater potential to solve real problems: widening access to learning, saving time for teachers and engaging learners through adaptive digital formative assessment and deeply immersive learning experiences through augmented reality.
But risks of ‘over-selling’ the benefits of AI technologies are potentially heightened by its very power. AI can generate mind-boggling ‘solutions’ for learners which dramatically reduce workload. Some of these are good in making learning more efficient, but questions of efficacy remain. Learning intrinsically requires work: it is done by you, not to you. Technology should not try to make learning easy, but to make hard work stimulating and productive if it is to sustain over the long term.
There is a clear and present danger that AI will undermine learning if high-stakes assessments relying on coursework do not keep pace with the reality of AI. This is a risk yet to be gripped by regulators. There is also little evidence that, for example, AI will ever replace the inspiration of human teachers, and those saying their solutions will do so must make a very strong case. Technology companies can help, but they can also do harm.
New technologies must be grounded in what improves learning, especially when unleashing the power of AI. This is entirely possible.
There are many areas of great promise, but none more so than the enormous expansion in online access to lifelong learning for working people who are otherwise denied the education they need. There are now eight million people (mainly adults) studying for degrees online and tens of millions of people taking shorter online skills courses. Opening access to lifelong learning to everyone remains education’s biggest unmet need and opportunity. Education technologies can be ‘designed in’ to the entire learning experience from the beginning, rather than retrofitted by overworked teachers. Widening access to lifelong learning could deliver a greater transformation to the economy and society than we have seen in 100 years.
Learning tools and platforms are one thing, but what do people need to learn in a world changed by AI? Much has been written about the potential for technology and especially AI to change what people need to learn. A popular narrative is that skills will be more important than knowledge; that knowledge can be so easily searched through the internet or created with AI, there is no need for it to be learned.
Skills do matter, but these statements are wrong. We should not choose between skills and knowledge. Skills are a representation of knowledge. With no knowledge or expertise, there is no skill. More than that, in a world in which AI will have an unimaginable impact on society, we should remember that knowledge provides the very basis of our ability to think and that human memory is the residue of thought.
Only a deeper understanding of learning and the real problems we need to solve will unleash the huge potential for technology to unlock wider access, a better learning experience and higher outcomes. To simultaneously hold the benefits and the risks of AI in a firm embrace, we will need courage, imagination and clarity about the problems to be solved before we get swept up in the hype and fluff. The opportunity is too big to put at risk.
When a crisis hits a school campus, communication can either save lives or contribute to chaos. Whether it’s a lockdown, severe weather, or a gas leak, the first moments matter most, and so does the ability to reach the right people instantly. For school leaders, this reality has turned the mass notification system for schools from a nice-to-have into a non-negotiable.
In today’s education landscape, safety isn’t just a responsibility; it’s an expectation. Parents demand it. Students rely on it. And legislation like the Jeanne Clery Act mandates it. From K-12 schools to sprawling universities, institutions are under growing pressure to prepare for emergencies. That means having a reliable, fast, and flexible way to communicate campus-wide emergencies across multiple platforms.
Mass notification systems (MNS) offer that capability. They enable school officials to send real-time alerts through text messages, emails, voice calls, desktop pop-ups, sirens, and public address systems, all from a single dashboard. But with so many systems available, selecting the right one can be overwhelming. Some platforms specialize in panic buttons and mobile alerts; others focus on layered communication and integrations with existing infrastructure.
The stakes are high, but the path forward doesn’t have to be murky. This guide will walk you through what a mass notification system is, why it matters for schools of all sizes, and how to evaluate your options with confidence.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM’s Mautic CRM!
What Is a Mass Notification System for Schools?
So, what is a mass notification system for schools?A mass notification system for schools is a platform that enables institutions to quickly inform students, faculty, and staff about emergencies or critical situations.
These alerts, sent via SMS, email, voice calls, app notifications, and digital signage, can communicate anything from severe weather and campus lockdowns to service disruptions and safety instructions from one central platform. This ensures rapid, widespread communication during emergencies.
They integrate with existing infrastructure such as fire alarms, intercoms, and digital signage to ensure every possible communication pathway is covered.
Schools often turn to systems like Rave Alert, Everbridge, Alertus, and Intrado Revolution, among others. These platforms are designed specifically for emergencies, but what if you had a tool that could do that and more?
How Do Mass Notification Systems Work?
Most MNS platforms are cloud-based and integrate with school databases or SIS (student information systems). Here’s how they function:
Message Creation: Administrators draft a message through a web-based interface or mobile app.
Audience Segmentation: Messages can be sent to specific groups (e.g., staff, students, grade levels).
Multichannel Distribution: The system pushes the message across chosen channels simultaneously.
Acknowledgement and Tracking: Some systems allow recipients to confirm receipt, and administrators can track who received what.
Two-Way Communication: More advanced systems allow for replies and real-time updates.
Why MNS Is a Necessity, Not a Luxury
The need for several types of communication channels has made the need for timely notifications undeniable. In response, many universities adopted robust mass notification systems, and today, the Jeanne Clery Act mandates that all U.S. colleges maintain systems for timely warnings and emergency notifications.
In Canada, provinces like Ontario require school boards to implement emergency and lockdown procedures, which may include notification systems. Globally, ISO 22301 emphasizes communication strategies in business continuity planning, applicable to schools.
But this isn’t just a higher ed concern. K–12 schools face their own risks. And communication needs often extend beyond the campus to include parents and guardians.
Mass Notification Has Multiple Uses
Your mass notification system doesn’t have to be reserved for emergency use. It can and should be the most important part of your everyday communications strategy. Ensuring your mass notification system includes all of your main communications mediums like email newsletters, text messages, website alerts, and social media channels will allow you to do it all in one single platform, saving you time and streamlining your efforts.
Need to send your email newsletter, a text reminder, and a social media push all at once? There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to do that using your mass communications system. Need to send a mobile app and website alert while you’re at it? You’ll save hours by having everything bundled in one mass notifications toolbox.
Think of it this way: your institution already collects valuable contact information, behavioral data, and engagement history through its CRM. That same infrastructure can power smarter alerting during a crisis. Instead of a generic campus-wide message, you could send tailored updates, like notifying only international students during a visa-related policy change, or alerting online learners about digital platform outages. It’s the intersection of immediacy and intelligence: delivering the right message to the right people, at exactly the right moment.
This synergy is especially relevant in higher education, where the line between operational communication and marketing is increasingly blurred. Institutions must build trust not just through promotional emails but also through reliable, timely updates that reassure students and their families. A CRM-integrated mass notification system supports both missions, emergency preparedness and ongoing relationship-building.
HEM’s Mautic CRM: Smarter Messaging in Every Scenario
Mautic by HEM allows institutions to segment their contact lists by criteria such as program, campus, or enrollment stage, ensuring each person gets the right message at the right time. The platform also supports multi-channel outreach; staff can send automated emails and SMS messages, all from one centralized system.
With features like workflow automation to schedule campaigns and trigger communications (for instance, event invitations or follow-up messages), a CRM like this can unify both emergency notifications and routine marketing outreach. In practice, that means a school could broadcast critical alerts to affected individuals during a crisis and also manage day-to-day communications with students or customers, all through the same integrated system.
Key Features to Look For
How do you decide which system is right for your school? The key is to carefully evaluate each option’s capabilities against your institution’s needs. Below, we outline the key features to look for when choosing a mass notification system for schools, and how those features play out in practice at schools and universities.
1. Multi-Channel Delivery
Not everyone will be reached by the same medium, so your system should use multiple channels at once. At minimum, it must support SMS/text, email, and voice calls, since one person might see a text first while another picks up a phone call.
More advanced systems go further, triggering alerts over public address speakers, digital signage, desktop pop-ups, and mobile push notifications. Using multiple channels in parallel provides redundancy to ensure your message gets through. If cellular service is down or a phone is silenced, a desktop or PA alert might still reach them.
Example: Harvard University’s Everbridge-powered Harvard Alert blasts out texts, emails, and phone calls to students and staff simultaneously.
In a crisis, every second counts. The person sending the alert could be under extreme stress, so the interface must be very quick and simple to operate. Ideally, launching an alert should be as easy as pressing a single panic button.
Look for a system with an intuitive dashboard, pre-written templates, and minimal steps to send a message. If the process is too convoluted (requiring multiple logins or too many clicks), precious time will be lost.
One university learned this the hard way. It found that issuing an alert took nearly 30 minutes because staff had to activate separate systems for texts, emails, and PA announcements. Needless to say, that delay was unacceptable. The school eventually moved to a unified platform (the same Everbridge solution now used by the University of Michigan) so that one action triggers every channel at once.
Example: The University of Michigan employs the U-M Emergency Alert system (via Everbridge) to issue real-time emergency messages to students, faculty, and staff.
Will the MNS play nicely with the technology your school already uses? The best platforms can plug into and leverage your existing infrastructure. For example, can it broadcast through your classroom intercoms and PA speakers, or trigger fire alarm strobes and door locks? Many schools have piecemeal safety tools that don’t automatically coordinate with each other. A strong notification system serves as the central hub to unify these.
Example: McGill University’s campus-wide alert system ties into multiple platforms already on campus, including a digital signage network (Omnivex), mass text/email alerts, and loudspeakers. This means one alert can simultaneously pop up on phones, computers, and PA systems across the university, rather than requiring separate actions for each.
Can you target alerts to specific groups or locations when needed? In some situations, you won’t want to blast everyone. The system should let you easily narrow the recipient list based on location or role.
For example, if a small chemical spill affects only the science building, you might alert just that building’s students and staff rather than the entire campus. Conversely, if you have multiple campuses, you may need to send a message only to one site. A good MNS supports both wide-area alerts and precise targeting.
Example: Hubspot’s SMS features offer personalized tokens, contact integration, and workflows, allowing schools to create targeted SMS campaigns and engage in live two-way personalized conversations.
You need a system that works even when things go wrong. Ensure the provider’s network has redundant infrastructure (backup servers, multiple data centers) and built-in fail-safes if one communication mode fails.
For example, if text messages aren’t going through, can it automatically switch to another channel, like email or voice calls? On your side, plan for overlapping alert methods so there’s no single point of failure.
Example: HEM’s Mautic allows you to send notifications via text, email, and mobile app all at once, while the campus also uses sirens and PA announcements as backup.
In an emergency, communication shouldn’t be just one-way. It can be very useful to get feedback or confirmation from recipients and to empower people on the ground to initiate alerts. Some mass notification systems for schools allow two-way interaction. For instance, letting recipients click “I’m Safe” in a mobile app or reply to a text to give their status. This helps account for people and gather instant feedback from the scene.
Equally important is a panic-button capability. Many schools now provide staff with a mobile app or wearable panic button that lets them trigger an emergency alert or call for help with one touch.
Example: University of Southern California’s emergency notification ecosystem is integrated with a smartphone safety application, known as the Trojan Mobile Safety App, powered by LiveSafe. This free downloadable app, managed by the USC Department of Public Safety and Emergency Planning, complements the TrojansAlert system by putting emergency assistance tools directly in users’ hands. Notably, the app includes a panic-alert feature in the form of one-touch emergency calling.
Consider the management and support aspects of the system. You’ll want to control who can send alerts (and to whom). Robust platforms allow role-based permissions. For instance, limiting campus-wide alerts to senior officials while enabling more localized alerts by authorized staff. This ensures alerts can be sent out quickly but still securely by the appropriate personnel.
Data security is critical as well: the system will hold contact info for your students and staff, so it must safeguard that data and comply with privacy laws (such as FERPA or GDPR). Additionally, evaluate the vendor’s customer support and training.
Emergencies can happen anytime, so 24/7 technical support is highly desirable. If an issue arises at 3 AM, you’ll want immediate help. A good provider will also help train your team so everyone knows how to use the system effectively before an emergency occurs.
Example: The University of Washington uses a Rave-powered UW Alert system to manage communications for its large campus community. With tens of thousands of students and employees, UW relies on the system’s strong admin controls to ensure only authorized officials can send out mass alerts, and on the vendor’s support to keep the platform running smoothly.
Prices vary. Some platforms bill per message or user, others charge flat annual fees. Don’t choose based solely on price. Focus on total value and required features, and check for educational discounts.
9. Scalability and Future-Proofing
As your school grows or tech evolves, your MNS should scale accordingly. Look for vendors with a proven track record of innovation and regular updates.
In a nutshell, what features should a good campus mass notification system include? A reliable campus notification system should have multi-channel messaging (SMS, email, phone, app alerts), easy integration with existing databases and software, real-time analytics and reporting, mobile accessibility, and role-based controls. Ideally, it should also allow for geotargeted alerts, two-way communication, and scheduled test alerts. These features help schools deliver timely, relevant updates during both emergencies and routine situations.
Why HEM’s Mautic CRM Is a Smart Choice for Mass Notification and Communication
Choosing a mass notification system is not just a technical decision: it’s a strategic one. That’s why many institutions are turning to HEM’s Mautic CRM, a powerful platform that blends emergency communication with everyday engagement, all in one intuitive system.
HEM’s Mautic isn’t just a marketing tool: it’s a communication hub designed for the complex needs of modern schools. Built specifically for educational institutions, it provides the flexibility and automation required to send the right message to the right person, at exactly the right moment, whether you’re dealing with an emergency or simply sending out a campus newsletter.
Unified Communication Across Channels
Mautic CRM allows schools to centralize their messaging efforts, supporting email, SMS, and in-app alerts from a single dashboard. In a crisis, that means no delays switching between systems, just fast, targeted communication when every second counts.
But its value extends beyond emergencies. With Mautic, you can schedule and automate routine announcements, manage event outreach, and nurture prospective students through personalized workflows, making it a powerful asset for both marketing and crisis response teams.
Segmentation and Personalization
The platform’s segmentation features let you target messages based on program, campus, enrollment stage, or any other custom criteria. This ensures your messages are always relevant, crucial when issuing alerts that may only apply to certain groups, buildings, or locations.
Need to notify only international students about a visa-related change? Or send an urgent weather alert to your downtown campus while leaving other sites unaffected? Mautic makes it easy.
Automation for Every Scenario
From workflow triggers to dynamic content, HEM’s Mautic helps schools automate communication with precision. For example:
Trigger follow-up emails after an info session
Send reminders about registration deadlines
Automate alerts for emergency drills or test scenarios
These workflows can be adapted for both emergency preparedness and ongoing communications, creating a seamless experience for students, faculty, and administrators alike.
Easy Integration and Expert Support
HEM’s CRM integrates with leading SIS and web platforms, enabling real-time syncing of contact data and activity tracking. That makes implementation smooth and ensures your alert system always has up-to-date recipient information.
And because it’s backed by HEM’s education marketing experts, you get more than just software; you get strategic onboarding, training, and long-term support tailored to your institution’s needs.
Ready to Future-Proof Your School Communication?
Whether you’re managing crisis alerts or student outreach campaigns, HEM’s Mautic CRMdelivers reliability, flexibility, and peace of mind. Join institutions that are redefining campus communication and doing it smarter.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM’s Mautic CRM!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question:What is a mass notification system for schools? Answer: A mass notification system for schools is a platform that enables institutions to quickly inform students, faculty, and staff about emergencies or critical situations.
Question: What features should a good campus mass notification system include? Answer: A reliable campus notification system should have multi-channel messaging (SMS, email, phone, app alerts), easy integration with existing databases and software, real-time analytics and reporting, mobile accessibility, and role-based controls.
HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, looks at the latest row on admissions to the University of Oxford.
In a speech on Friday, the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith, strongly chastised her alma mater, the University of Oxford, for taking a third of their entrants from the 6% of kids that go to private schools.
In a section of the speech entitled ‘Challenging Oxford’, we were told the situation is ‘absurd’, ‘arcane’ and ‘can’t continue’:
Oxford recently released their state school admissions data for 2024.
And the results were poor.
66.2% – the lowest entry rate since 2019.
I want to be clear, speaking at an Oxford college today, that this is unacceptable.
The university must do better.
The independent sector educates around 6% of school children in the UK.
But they make-up 33.8% of Oxford entrants.
Do you really think you’re finding the cream of the crop, if a third of your students come from 6% of the population?
It’s absurd.
Arcane, even.
And it can’t continue.
It’s because I care about Oxford and I understand the difference that it can make to people’s lives that I’m challenging you to do better. But it certainly isn’t only Oxford that has much further to go in ensuring access.
This language reminded me of the Laura Spence affair, which produced so much heat and so little light in the Blair / Brown years and which may even have set back sensible conversations on broadening access to selective higher education.
I wrote in a blog over the weekend that the Government are at risk of forgetting the benefit of education for education’s sake. That represents a political hole that Ministers should do everything to avoid as it could come to define them. Ill-thought through attacks on the most elite universities for their finely-grained admissions decisions represent a similar hole best avoided. Just imagine if the Minister had set out plans to tackle a really big access problem, like boys’ educational underachievement, instead. The Trump/Harvard spat is something any progressive government should seek to avoid, not copy.
The latest chastisement is poorly formed for at least three specific reasons: the 6% is wrong in this context; the 33.8% number does not tell us what people tend to think it does; and Oxford’s current position of not closely monitoring the state/independent split is actually in line with the regulator’s guidance.
6% represents only half the proportion (12%) of school leavers educated at independent schools. In other words, the 6% number is a snapshot for the proportion of all young people in private schools right now; it tells us nothing about those at the end of their schooling and on the cusp of higher education.
The 33.8% number is unhelpful because 20%+ of Oxford’s new undergraduates hail from overseas and they are entirely ignored in the calculation. If you include the (over) one in five Oxford undergraduate entrants educated overseas, the proportion of Oxford’s intake that is made up of UK private school kids falls from from something like one-third to more like one-quarter. This matters in part because the number of international students at Oxford has grown, meaning there are fewer places for home students of all backgrounds. In 2024, Oxford admitted 100 more undergraduate students than in 2006, but there were 250 more international students – and consequently fewer Brits. We seem to be obsessed with the backgrounds of home students and, because we want their money, entirely uninterested in the backgrounds of international students.
The Office for Students dislikes the state/private metric. This is because of the differences within these two categories: in other words, there are high-performing state schools and less high-performing independent schools. Last year, when the University of Cambridge said they planned to move away from a simplistic state/independent school target, John Blake, the Director of Fair Access and Participation at the Office for Students, confirmed to the BBC, ‘we do not require a target on the proportion of pupils from state schools entering a particular university.’ So universities have typically shied away from this measure in recent times. If Ministers think it is a key metric after all and if they really do wish to condemn individual institutions for their state/independent split, it would have made sense to have had a conversation with the Office for Students and to have encouraged them to put out new guidance first. At the moment, the Minister and the regulator are saying different things on an important issue of high media attention.
Are independently educated pupils overrepresented at Oxbridge? Quite possibly, but the Minister’s stick/schtick, while at one with the Government’s wider negative approach to independent schools, seems a sub-optimal way to engineer a conversation on the issue. Perhaps Whitehall wanted a headline more than it wanted to get under the skin of the issue?
we do not require a target on the proportion of pupils from state schools entering a particular university
John Blake, Director for Fair access and participation
Jack Booth and Maike Halterbeck at London Economics take a closer look at the recently published HESA Finance data to investigate the financial state of UK higher education.
At 11am today, we will host a webinar to mark the launch of the Unite Students Applicant Index. You can register for a free place here.
With the recent release of the full HESA Finance data for 2023-24, we now have an updated picture of the scale of the financial challenges facing higher education providers (HEPs). London Economicsanalysed HEPs’ financial data between 2018-19 and 2023-24to better understand the current financial circumstances of the sector.
While other recent analyses focused on England only or covered other types of financial variables, here, we include providers across all of the UK and focus on three core financial indicators.
What does the analysis cover?
Our analysis focuses on four broad clusters of HEPs, following the approach originally developed by Boliver (2015), which categorises a total of 126 providers according to differences in their research activity, teaching quality, economic resources, and other characteristics. Cluster 1 includes just two institutions: the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. Cluster 2 is composed mainly of other Russell Group universities and the majority of other pre-1992 institutions (totalling 39 institutions). Cluster 3 includes the remaining pre-1992 universities and most post-1992 institutions (67 institutions), and Cluster 4 consists of around a quarter of post-1992 universities (totalling 18 institutions). The latest HESA Finance data were, unfortunately, not available for 8 of these clustered institutions, meaning that our analysis covers 118 institutions in total.
We focus on three key financial indicators (KFIs):
Net cash inflow from operating activities after finance costs (NCIF). This measure provides a key indication of an institution’s financial health in relation to its day-to-day operations. Unlike the more common ‘surplus’/‘deficit’ measure, NCIF excludes non-cash items as well as financing-related income or expenditure.
Net current assets (NCA), that is, ‘real’ reserves. This measure captures the value of current assets that can be turned into cash relatively quickly (i.e. in the short term, within 12 months), minus short-term liabilities.
Liquidity days. This is based on the sum of NCA and NCIF, to evaluate whether institutions can cover operational shortfalls using their short-term resources. We then estimate the number of liquidity days each institution holds, defined as the number of days of average cash expenditure (excluding depreciation) that can be covered by cash and equivalents. The Office for Students requires providers to maintain enough liquid funds to cover at least 30 days’ worth of expenditures (excluding depreciation).
What are the key findings?
The key findings from the analysis are as follows:
In terms of financial deficits (NCIF), 40% of HEPs included in the analysis (47) posted a negative NCIFin2023-24.
The average surplus across the institutions analysed (in terms of NCIF as a percentage of income) declined from 6.1% in 2018-19 to just 0.5% in 2023-24.
In terms of financial assets/resilience (NCA), 55% of HEPs analysed (65) saw a reduction in their NCA (as a proportion of their income) in 2023-24 as compared to 2018-19.
The decline in NCA has been particularly large in recent years, with average NCA declining from 27.4% of income in 2021-22 to 20.0% in 2023-24.
In terms of liquidity days, 20% of HEPs (24) had less than 30 days of liquidity in 2023-24, including 17 providers that posted zero liquidity days.
A challenging time for the sector
The analysis shows that the financial position of UK higher education institutions is worsening, with all three indicators analysed (i.e. NCIF, NCA, and liquidity days) showing a decline in providers’ financial stability. Major challenges to the sector’s finances are set to continue, especially as the UK government is looking to further curb net migration through potential additional restrictions on international student visas. Therefore, the financial pressures on UK HE providers are expected to remain significant.
Want to know more?
Our more detailed analysis, including a number of charts and additional findings on each indicator by university ‘cluster’, can be found on our website.
The Government wants English universities to play a greater civic role in their localities. But new research shows universities are failing to invest in the people who perform this work, putting local relationships at risk.
A new report from the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA) programme, funded by Research England to support civic universities and hosted by Sheffield Hallam University, finds that universities’ work with their communities and local partners is particularly vulnerable to the financial crisis now engulfing higher education. This is despite a strong message from education secretary Bridget Phillipson that the civic role should be one of five top priorities.
In her letter to university leaders on 4 November last year, Phillipson highlighted that universities should ‘play a full part in both civic engagement, ensuring local communities and businesses benefit fully from your work; and in regional development, working in partnership with local government and employers…’
Yet there is increasing evidence that those tasked with this work are facing a loss of resources, redundancies, and downgrading as universities focus on balancing the books. Some institutions, such as the University of Staffordshire, have disbanded their civic teams entirely; others have failed to renew employees’ short-term contracts or demanded that staff part-fund their civic roles by generating income.
Faced with this situation, we at the NCIA decided to explore further the impacts of this trend. We did so initially through an online survey and then through three focus groups in which we explored the situation in detail with 25 participants from 20 universities in England and one in Wales. The participants were all in ‘civic’ roles with responsibility for local partnerships. While some held academic posts, most were in management or professional services positions. The discussions were held under the Chatham House Rule to encourage participants to speak freely.
“There has been constant restructuring… it is expensive to lose all that valued knowledge.”
We identified four key risks to universities’ civic activities and relationships. Taken together, these pose a serious threat to universities’ status as ‘anchor institutions’ in their localities.
The first risk is that universities lose focus as they concentrate on their financial survival, generating uncertainty among local stakeholders about their reliability as partners. The second is a loss of institutional memory: as staff leave or are moved to other roles, relationships are abandoned and need to be rebuilt.
This risk was summed up by one participant in the discussions: ‘…because of the constant restructuring which seems to be repetitive over so many years … there’s not that continuation of learning, and all the knowledge and those relationships and that richness of what we do feels like it’s been lost… It’s expensive to lose all that valued knowledge.’
The third risk is a loss of credibility: partners in local government, healthcare or business see a growing gap between universities’ rhetoric about their civic role and their reduction of investment in relationships, or the junior status of the staff assigned to civic activities. This leads to a fourth risk, which is a loss of relevance, reinforcing the populist notion that higher education has little to contribute to issues that matter to local people.
As one participant commented: ‘If you’re sitting in rooms with leaders of councils and hospitals, for that to be a junior role is a big ask, especially if it’s a junior role on a temporary contract.’
From the discussions we identified five ‘civic capitals’ that now need to be rebuilt. These are economic (direct investment in local communities); social (relationships and networks); cultural (institutional support and resources); symbolic (leadership and ‘buy-in’ by senior staff); and emotional (the personal commitment and passion of those who do the work).
We make five policy recommendations for university leaders based on our findings, and three for national government.
University leaders should:
Set clear local priorities in strategic documents such as Civic University Agreements
Make room for ideas and organic development by fostering a civic culture
Resource civic teams with long-term budgets
Ensure the sustainability of civic activities through long-term commitments
Be accountable both internally and externally for delivering these commitments, with regular reporting supported by locally agreed metrics
Government policymakers should:
Articulate a clear narrative about the value of civic engagement and expectations of local impact
Incentivise civic activity by ensuring resources are consistently available through the core funding mechanisms for higher education
Foster conditions to make civic activity sustainable by coordinating place-based policies between government departments
We recognise that universities and government both face challenging times and multiple financial and political pressures. Yet if universities are to play a long-term civic role in their communities, and if government wants higher education to support its ambitions to tackle local inequalities, then sustained investment in civic work is a prerequisite.
HEPI’s Director, Nick Hillman, spent Friday at a conference organised by SKOPE (the Centre for Skills, Knowledge, and Organisational Performance), part of the University of Oxford’s Department of Education. It was overseen by James Robson, Professor of Tertiary Education Systems, and featured the Minister for Skills, Baroness (Jacqui) Smith, among many others.
In his opening address, Professor Robson articulated the growing consensus that, when it comes to post-school education, the time has come:
to replace competition with coordination;
to allow place-based approaches to flourish; and
to unlock new opportunities for the benefit of students and employers.
In her remarks, Jacqui Smith agreed, arguing for an end to ‘town / gown’ splits. The Minister emphasised she thinks higher education must reach out to other parts of the education sector: while she recognises the majority of future skills needs will be at a higher level, she wants to bring down the ‘artificial’ barriers between FE and HE in a ‘coordinated’ and ‘facilitated’ way.
Some people in the audience interpreted this as meaning universities’ only hope of more money is to do the Government’s bidding and, either way, the higher education sector clearly needs to get ready for a more directive approach from a more active state. The basic idea seems to be to have everyone work together to raise productivity, level up the regions outside London and deliver more social mobility.
It may sound lovely but these issues are as old as houses and, whenever I think of them, I think of those paragraphs from the Robbins committee – which was designed ‘to review the pattern of full-time higher education’ – that wrestle with freedom versus direction. The Robbins report struggled with the right level of co-ordination and, while much of what it said reflected Lionel Robbins’s liberal views, it also envisaged a role for oversight and direction:
Will it be possible to secure the advantages of co-ordination while preserving the advantages of liberty? The question is of critical importance. Freedom of institutions as well as individual freedom is an essential constituent of a free society and the tradition of academic freedom in this country has deep roots in the whole history of our people. We are convinced also that such freedom is a necessary condition of the highest efficiency and the proper progress of academic institutions, and that encroachments upon their liberty, in the supposed interests of greater efficiency, would in fact diminish their efficiency and stultify their development. …
We believe that a system that aims at the maximum of independence compatible with the necessary degree of public control is good in itself, as reflecting the ultimate values of a free society. We believe that a multiplicity of centres of initiative safeguards spontaneity and variety, and therefore provides the surest guarantee of intellectual progress and moral responsibility. We do not regard such freedom as a privilege but rather as a necessary condition for the proper discharge of the higher academic functions as we conceive them. …
The difficulties are greatest when it is a question whether institutions of higher education should have the ultimate right to determine their own size. … if funds are available, refusal to co-operate in national policies or to meet national emergencies is an unsympathetic attitude, and it would be easy to think of reasons why it should be overruled. … If, when all the reasons for change have been explained, the institution still prefers not to co-operate it is better that it should be allowed to follow its own path. This being so, it must not complain if various benefits going to co-operating institutions do not come its way. … [My emphasis]
it is unlikely that separate consideration by independent institutions of their own affairs in their own circumstances will always result in a pattern that is comprehensive and appropriate in relation to the needs of society and the demands of the national economy. There is no guarantee of the emergence of any coherent policy. And this being so, it is not reasonable to expect that the Government, which is the source of finance, should be content with an absence of co-ordination or should be without influence thereon. …
It all goes to show, yet again, that there is no such thing as a new education policy question.
There are a number of tests we should perhaps apply to the let’s-coordinate-everything-to-elevate-skills approach that is likely to form the core of the forthcoming post-16 strategy / white paper that is due ‘soon’ – very soon if some of those attending the conference are to be believed and not at all soon if others there are to be believed.
First, if we can’t even build a high-speed speed trainline on budget and on time, why are we so confident we can easily build an integrated skills and education system (and without a material increase in spending)? It is surely right to at least ask whether public authorities really do know so much about the future economy’s needs that individuals should cede control over who should study what and where. Clearly, Skills England could be important here, but it is an untested beast. (I note in passing that the Smiths, Jacqui and Phil [Chair of Skills England], are getting back together to do a webinar this week.)
Secondly, the broken model that tends to be held up in contrast to the coming smooth one is a market in which there is lots of wasteful competition, excessive homogeneity and a lack of focus on the country’s needs. But the idea that the only alternative to a coordinated system is a pure and chaotic market is bunkum. We’ve not had a pure market in higher education and I’ve never met anyone who wants one. Neither the political centre nor the Far-byn (or is it Cor-age?) axis want one. Perhaps we are letting ourselves be blinded by the idea that there are only two options: a pure red-in-tooth-and-claw market, which is a caricature of what we have, and a cuddly coordinated system, which will be harder to deliver than we pretend.
Thirdly, where is the space for education for education’s sake? As one member of the audience pointed out at the SKOPE conference, current discussions are so focused on ‘skills’ and the economy that education is sometimes becoming lost. Yet FE and HE collaboration is difficult at a practical and day-to-day level. Kath Mitchell, the Vice-Chancellor of Derby University, pointed out the challenges of running an FE college and a university together – for example pointing out that Buxton and Leek College is (absurdly) barred from receiving FE capital funding because it counts as part of the University of Derby.
Fourthly, we should question the assumption underlying current critiques that our universities are much too homogeneous. They do have some things in common, though one might just as well point out that all education institutions that share a legally-protected title controlled by strict criteria, such as ‘university’, are always going to have some things in common. But I’ve visited pretty much every UK university, and many of them multiple times, and I would urge anyone who thinks they’re all the same to do something similar. Just compare the two universities I know best (as I’m on their boards), Manchester and Buckingham: the former is a research-intensive institution with a turnover of £1.4 billion, 12,000 staff and 47,000 students while the other is a teaching-intensive place (‘the home of two-year degrees’) with a turnover of £50 million, 500 staff and 3,500 students as well as the only private medical school in the UK. Or compare the LSE and UCA (the University of the Creative Arts). Or Falmouth University and Newcastle University. These things are not the same.
Finally / fifthly, as Andy Westwood pointed out in his remarks at the SKOPE conference, devolution is ‘non-existent’ in large parts of the country. So what does ‘a coordinated place-based approach’ really mean there? It’s one thing if you’re in Greater Manchester; it’s quite another if you’re in a rural area far from the nearest town or city, college or university. Moreover, while it is true that the old Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) had a regional aspect to its work which we could well copy today, it was a big funder as well as a regulator and it had a substantial regional presence.
