An initial response to yesterday’s Curriculum and Assessment Review from HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, is available on the HEPI website here.
Today’s blog was kindly authored by Martin Webster, Director of the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON). It is the fifth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the Post-16 Education and Skills white paper. You can find the other blogs here, here, here, and here.
Since the Labour Party formed the Government in 2024, things have undoubtedly changed for higher education and specifically widening access. At the Labour Party Conference in 2024, there was a feeling of optimism with the Minister for Skills, the Rt Hon Baroness Smith, describing widening access as the Government’s number one priority for higher education. We now have a Government that not only believes in the importance of higher education but is putting a new emphasis on both expanding access and improving the outcomes of disadvantaged students.
This ambition for widening access has now been crystallised in the recently published Post 16 Education and Skills white paper, which lays out the key steps that will be taken, the main ones being:
increasing the maintenance loan in line with forecast inflation each academic year.
introducing the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to include modular funding, for both full and part-time study.
reintroducing targeted, means-tested maintenance grants by the end of this Parliament.
reforming the regulation of access and participation plans to allow an approach where the Office for Students (OfS) can be more risk-based with an expectation that providers will continue to strengthen evaluation.
bringing together a Task and Finish group of sector experts, charities, OfS, and UCAS to consider how the system can best widen access.
demonstrating a commitment to widening access to postgraduate level studies.
All of the above demonstrate the importance that the current Government are placing upon widening access and lays out their expectations for change, a change to a more equitable higher education system. Whilst there may be some who critique some of the steps outlined, and may feel they do not go far enough, if the higher education sector can make these changes, we will end up producing better outcomes for disadvantaged learners.
But…
Westminster, we have a problem
It is no secret that the higher education sector is under pressure with providers trying their hardest to ensure they can maximise efficiency from limited resources. Nowhere has this been felt more keenly than within widening access. Over the past couple of years, the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) started to hear anecdotes from our members about ‘efficiency measures’ that were being taken. These ranged from recruitment freezes on their teams and reductions in dedicated budgets to staffing reorganisations where certain roles, and in some cases whole widening access teams, were being put at risk of redundancy. In the spring of 2025, we therefore surveyed NEON members in order to try to ascertain a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem.
Thirty six of our members responded, and whilst the results may not be statistically significant, they indicate a concerning trend. For the 2025/26 financial year 58% reported a reduced level of financial resources for widening access, and 58% reported a reduced level of staffing resources.
Even within NEON we have seen some of our members unable to renew their membership with us, not because they do not feel their membership is not giving them and their colleagues benefits, but because they have so little available budget that they cannot afford, or are not allowed to invest in, the relatively modest subscription amount.
These findings should concern both the Government and policymakers. Despite being the number one priority for higher education, widening access budgets are being diverted within institutions, sometimes due not to a lack of commitment, but due to necessity. Staffing is being cut and, in one case that we know of, this has included the removal of dedicated evaluation colleagues, an area that the Government are placing even greater emphasis upon. Higher education providers have made a range of commitments in their Access and Participation Plans, and those commitments are at serious risk of not being met.
As one anonymous NEON lead member stated in their response to our survey:
It is increasingly difficult to prioritise widening access activity over such things as recruitment activity when the University’s most pressing need is to balance the books. The resource for widening access will be reduced and we will simply be unable to maintain the level of current activity. This will of course have a disproportionately negative impact on under-represented and hard to reach groups.
Another NEON lead member commented:
The reduction in [institutional] funding means we’re only able to reach a fraction of the disadvantaged learners who would benefit from our outreach offer – we’re currently working with approximately 40% of the schools in our region due to capacity. Of the remaining 60%, over 50% of those have average or higher than average numbers of PP learners.
The Task and Finish group will undoubtedly come up with an excellent set of recommendations, but the reality is that, on the ground, there are even fewer colleagues to deliver the important work that is taking place across England to ensure it is effectively evaluated. Steps need to be taken now to ensure widening access is protected and that providers can support the Government’s ambitions.
So what should the Task and Finish group consider?
ensuring that funding for widening access is ring-fenced and subject to further accountability measures;
establishing an expectation that all providers work with learners across all age groups, from primary school level up to and including mature learners;
considering how the evaluation of access and success initiatives can be strengthened for all providers, including small specialist providers, through a regional approach delivered by collaborative partnerships;
considering how widening access can be established as a strategic driver within schools and colleges; and
developing greater, direct communication between the Department for Education and higher education providers to ensure the Government’s strategic priorities are being met and greater understanding can be developed.
Widening access is at a crossroads. We can stand by and watch progress continue to wane away, or we can put measures in place to continue to build upon the hard of work of colleagues across the higher education sector and improve equitable access and success.
Is your website’s organic traffic dipping lower each month? You’re not alone. Search behavior is undergoing its biggest transformation in decades, one powered by AI-driven tools that are rewriting the rules of how people find and consume information.
Instead of clicking through pages of search results, users now get instant, conversational answers from AI chatbots or search engine summaries. Google’s own Search Generative Experience (SGE) is a clear response to this shift, generating AI summaries directly in search results. The effect? A surge in zero-click searches, where users get what they need without ever visiting a website.
For higher education marketers, this new landscape poses a serious challenge. Prospective students can now learn about programs, tuition, and campus life straight from AI assistants, without setting foot on your website. If your school’s content isn’t being surfaced in these AI summaries, you risk losing both visibility and leads.
But here’s the good news: SEO isn’t dead, it’s evolving. By adapting your strategy to align with how AI engines interpret and present content, you can protect and even expand your organic reach.
In this article, we’ll unpack how AI-driven search and SEO evolution are reshaping student discovery, and what steps you can take to optimize for both traditional search and the emerging world of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). Ready to future-proof your visibility? Let’s get started.
Today’s Student Search Reality
Today’s prospective students have more ways than ever to find information, and they’re not just typing into search bars. They’re talking to AI tools. Voice assistants, chatbots, and platforms like ChatGPT are now part of everyday research habits. In fact, 54% of U.S. teens say it’s acceptable to use ChatGPT to explore new topics for school, a clear sign that AI is becoming a mainstream source of information. When future students want to know, “What are the best business programs in Canada?” or “How do I apply for scholarship X?”, they expect an instant, conversational answer, not a list of links.
Search engines are evolving to meet that expectation. Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) now delivers AI-generated overviews for nearly 47% of search queries, compiling snippets from multiple sites into a single summary. While convenient for users, this means fewer clicks for everyone else. According to Ahrefs, when an AI overview appears, the top organic result sees an average 34.5% drop in click-through rate.
This “zero-click” behavior has been building for years. By 2020, nearly 65% of Google searches ended without a single click, and AI summaries are accelerating that trend. In the past year alone, zero-click searches rose from 24.4% to 27.2%, with many results pulling directly from Google-owned platforms like Maps and YouTube.
Why SEO Still Matters in the Age of AI
Does SEO still matter in the age of AI? With AI tools answering questions directly on search pages, it’s a fair question to ask: The short answer is absolutely. But it’s no longer SEO as usual. Even as AI search evolves, organic SEO remains the foundation of online visibility for schools. Roughly 91% of organizations still report significant marketing gains from SEO.
Here’s why: AI depends on SEO. Google’s generative AI and similar systems pull information from optimized web pages, especially those already ranking high. One study found that 75% of pages featured in AI Overviews also appeared in the top organic results. Translation? Ranking well still boosts your odds of being cited by AI.
That said, SEO must adapt. Keyword stuffing is out; intent-based, high-quality content is in. Strong metadata, logical structure, and mobile-friendly design improve both SEO and user experience. Consistent, credible content also builds authority and trust, signals that matter to both Google and AI.
SEO Best Practices for Today’s Search Landscape
Search has changed, but the fundamentals of SEO haven’t disappeared. What’s different is how you apply them. The same pillars still matter: high-quality content, logical site structure, and credible backlinks, yet the way they’re interpreted by search engines and AI systems is evolving. To remain visible, your strategy must adapt. Here’s how.
1. Develop High-Quality, Intent-Focused Content
Content remains the cornerstone of SEO, and in the AI era, its importance has only deepened. Search engines and large language models now evaluate depth, clarity, and user intent more than ever. Each page should have a clear purpose and directly answer the kinds of questions your audience is asking.
Rather than thin content that skims the surface, build comprehensive, easy-to-scan pages that explore a topic fully, from program overviews and admission requirements to career outcomes and FAQs. This makes your content valuable to both users and AI systems, which pull key points from authoritative pages to construct summaries.
Freshness also counts. Adding new articles, student stories, or data-driven insights at least once a month signals that your site is active and relevant. High-quality, well-structured content written in your audience’s language (not overstuffed with keywords) naturally attracts both clicks and citations in AI-driven results.
Example: Excel High School maintains an active blog of expert tips and student success stories tailored to common questions from students and parents. The blog’s content is written in an easy-to-scan format with conversational titles (e.g., “Is Online Private High School Right for Your Child?”) and highlights like “Student Success Spotlight” profiles. These posts directly address the audience’s concerns (such as comparing online school vs. homeschooling) with depth and clarity. The school publishes new articles frequently (covering online learning tips, college prep, etc.), showing a commitment to fresh, high-quality content. By focusing on topics parents and students are asking, and answering them in detail, Excel High School naturally earns both user engagement and citations in AI-driven results.
Today’s algorithms understand context, relationships, and intent, not just keywords. That’s where semantic SEO comes in. Instead of creating isolated posts, organize your content around topic clusters: a central pillar page supported by subpages that dive deeper into related areas such as courses, career paths, and student experiences.
This approach demonstrates expertise and gives both users and search engines a clear content map. It also increases your chances of ranking for multiple queries and being cited in AI-generated answers.
Don’t neglect long-tail keywords, the natural, conversational queries people use with voice and AI search. Phrases like “What is the best MBA program in Canada for working professionals?” signal specific intent. Use these as subheadings or FAQs to capture users who speak their searches out loud. The more your content mirrors natural language, the more relevant it becomes to AI assistants and human readers alike.
Example: The University of Cincinnati demonstrates semantic SEO by incorporating FAQ sections and natural long-tail queries into its content. In a blog post about an Interdisciplinary Studies degree, the page concludes with a Frequently Asked Questions section that uses the exact questions prospective students might ask, such as “Is interdisciplinary studies a good degree?” and provides a concise answer. These Q&A subheadings (which include conversational phrases like “Can I teach with an interdisciplinary studies degree?”) act as long-tail keyword targets. The surrounding content is organized in a hub-and-spoke model (overview, deeper career paths, then specific FAQs), reinforcing contextual relationships. This strategy not only improves human readability but also helps AI systems easily extract direct answers to niche voice queries.
A clear structure benefits both your audience and AI models. Use descriptive “Heading 2s; H2s” and (Heading 3s; H3s) to organize content logically.
For example: “Overview,” “Curriculum,” “Faculty,” “Admission Requirements,” and “FAQs.” This hierarchy improves readability, crawlability, and the likelihood that an AI engine will lift your text as a cited answer.
Equally important are your title tags and meta descriptions. Keep title tags concise and front-load the main keyword. Write meta descriptions that summarize the page with clarity and value. For instance:
“Explore the curriculum, admission requirements, and career outcomes of our Business Management Diploma, all in one place.”
Example: Great Bay CC’s program pages use a logical, repeatable structure that benefits both users and crawlers. Each certificate or degree page is segmented with descriptive headings such as “Overview,” “Curriculum,” “Admission Requirements,” “Outcomes,” and “Faculty.” For example, the Biotechnology Certificate page clearly presents these sections in order. A visitor can jump straight to Admission Requirements or Outcomes, and an AI can quickly identify which paragraph addresses which subtopic. This structured hierarchy (implemented via heading tags) improves crawlability and the likelihood of content being featured as rich results. Notably, each section is labeled in plain language (“Curriculum Outline,” “Admission Requirements”) so both search engines and prospective students instantly know what information follows. Even Great Bay’s site listings show these section labels, underscoring how metadata and structure align.
Even though Google may generate its own snippet, a strong description improves click-through rates and shapes how AI interprets your page.
Finally, optimize images with alt text and use descriptive anchor text for internal links. These seemingly small steps provide search engines with more context and make your pages more accessible, a win for both humans and machines.
4. Enhance Site Experience and Technical SEO
A technically healthy, user-friendly site is the foundation of all SEO. With mobile-first indexing, Google prioritizes mobile performance, and that’s crucial given how students search. Most Gen Z users browse on phones and rely heavily on voice assistants.
Ensure your pages load quickly, your navigation is intuitive, and your layout adapts smoothly to smaller screens. Use HTTPS, repair broken links, and maintain clean sitemaps and robots.txt files so your content can be crawled and indexed without friction.
Engagement also matters. Multimedia such as videos, infographics, or virtual tours can keep visitors on your site longer, signaling value to Google. Include captions or transcripts to make these assets indexable and accessible. Ultimately, fast, secure, and engaging sites don’t just rank better. They retain attention, a metric both search engines and AI models consider indicators of trustworthiness.
Example: Otis College provides a real-world example of technical and UX improvements elevating SEO. In June 2024, Otis unveiled its newly redesigned website. The responsive design ensures that whether a prospective student is on a phone or a laptop, the pages render correctly and quickly, a key factor now that Google uses mobile-first indexing. Otis also streamlined site structure (e.g., more logical menu categories and internal links), which helps web crawlers index the site efficiently.
Local search remains vital for institutions with multiple campuses or regional presence. Students often search with geographic intent, “colleges in Ontario biology program,” and Google tailors results accordingly.
Start by optimizing your Google Business Profile for each location: include up-to-date contact info, hours, and descriptions. Encourage authentic student reviews, as strong ratings can improve local visibility.
Create location-specific landing pages. For example, “Toronto Campus: Programs and Student Life” includes city or neighborhood references naturally within the text. Consistent local citations (accurate listings of your name, address, and phone number across directories) reinforce credibility and help you rank in local results.
These efforts support traditional SEO and feed data to AI systems, generating regional recommendations. When someone asks, “What’s the best college in Toronto for healthcare programs?” your optimized profile improves the odds of being mentioned.
Example:Humber College, which has multiple campuses in Ontario, optimizes for local search by creating dedicated location-specific landing pages. For example, its North Campus page welcomes users with localized content: a description of the campus setting in Toronto, highlights of on-campus amenities, and most critically, the full campus address and transit details prominently shown. The page naturally weaves in the city name (“Toronto”) and neighborhood context (adjacent to the Humber River, etc.), which improves its relevance for queries like “colleges in Toronto with residence”. The inclusion of a map link and transit routes not only helps users but also counts as structured local information that search engines can parse. Furthermore, Humber’s site encourages local engagement by listing “Nearby Toronto Attractions” near the bottom, referencing landmarks like the CN Tower and Royal Ontario Museum. These geo-references strengthen Humber’s local SEO signals.
GEO Best Practices: Optimizing for AI-Driven Search Results
What is Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), and how does it differ from traditional SEO? The rise of Generative AI in search has created a new SEO frontier known as Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): the art of making your content discoverable, understandable, and quotable by AI-powered tools like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE), Bing Chat, ChatGPT, and others. While traditional SEO aims to improve rankings on a results page, GEO focuses on helping AI models use your content effectively in their generated answers. In essence, GEO extends SEO principles into a new space where machines summarize.
Unlike standard search results, AI overviews read and synthesize multiple sources to provide a direct, conversational response. To stay visible in this landscape, your content must be structured, authoritative, and AI-readable. Below are the essential GEO strategies to strengthen your position in AI-driven search.
1. Create Answer-Focused Content
Generative models extract concise, relevant passages to address user queries. The easier you make it for them to identify answers, the better your visibility. Structure sections in Q&A format or include an FAQ block with clear, scannable responses.
For example, if a user asks, “How much does it cost to attend your business diploma program?” an AI engine should easily find a line that reads:
“Tuition for the Business Diploma program is $X per year.”
This direct, declarative format makes your content quotable. Blogs framed as questions, such as “What Can You Do With a Psychology Degree?” often perform well in both AI summaries and voice search.
In other words: anticipate and answer the questions students are asking. If your institution doesn’t address them on its website, someone else, or the AI itself, will. The goal is to become the source AI systems trust to provide accurate, concise information about your programs and services.
2. Maintain Authority and Accuracy
AI models are built to prioritize credibility. They prefer information from authoritative, verifiable sources, and that means your content must demonstrate expertise.
Start by creating in-depth, well-researched resources that cite reliable references such as government data or industry reports. For example, a blog citing official labor statistics on graduate employment rates signals trustworthiness to both users and AI. Include bylines and author bios to show content expertise and keep your facts up to date.
Accuracy and consistency matter more than ever. If one page says your nursing diploma is two years and another says three, AI systems will hesitate to use either. Review and update your website regularly to maintain coherence across all mentions of tuition, program length, and admissions details.
Finally, use citations within your text where appropriate: “According to the Canadian Nurses Association, nursing graduates will see 7% job growth by 2030.” Such phrasing reinforces reliability and gives AI models clear attribution patterns to replicate.
Be the source worth quoting. In the AI era, your brand’s authority is built not just through backlinks but through data integrity and factual precision.
3. Implement AI-Friendly Schema Markup
Structured data, or schema markup, is the hidden language that helps search engines and AI systems understand your content. By tagging key elements of your pages (program names, events, FAQs, how-to steps), you make it easier for machines to extract and display your information accurately.
Use the FAQ schema and QAPage schema for question-based sections, the Course schema for program descriptions, and the Event schema for open houses, deadlines, and campus events. These schemas enable AI to pull details like:
“The next Open House is on October 15 at 10:00 AM.”
Schema can also help voice assistants through Speakable markup, which identifies which parts of your content are ideal for being read aloud.
Why it matters: Google’s SGE and Bing Chat frequently rely on structured data to identify authoritative responses. When your content is tagged properly, you make it easier for AI systems to find and quote your material verbatim.
Even if you’re not a developer, there are tools and generators for creating JSON-LD schema code for FAQs, events, and courses. Implementing this markup bridges the gap between human-readable content and machine understanding, boosting both traditional SEO and GEO performance.
4. Diversify Content Formats and Channels
AI doesn’t just read websites; it pulls data from across the web, including YouTube, LinkedIn, Reddit, and other platforms. That means your visibility in AI search improves when your content ecosystem extends beyond your main site.
Repurpose your strongest content into multiple formats. For instance, transform a blog on “Tips for Successful College Applications” into a YouTube video, an infographic, and a short LinkedIn post. Transcripts from your videos, captions on social media, and consistent keyword use across platforms all increase your digital footprint.
AI models often reference content from high-engagement communities. After seeing an AI summary, users frequently validate information through YouTube reviews or Reddit discussions. Being active and consistent on these platforms helps your brand appear wherever AI or your audience looks for confirmation.
When your messaging is aligned across channels, you build “community proof.” This type of engagement-driven validation strengthens how AI interprets your trustworthiness. The takeaway? Don’t let your best content live in isolation. Let it circulate. The wider your reach, the greater your chance of inclusion in AI-generated results.
5. Welcome AI Crawlers and Monitor Mentions
Just as you optimize for Googlebot, ensure your site welcomes legitimate AI crawlers. Tools like GPTBot (used by OpenAI) and similar agents from Anthropic, Perplexity, or Google can index your content for inclusion in their AI-generated answers.
Check your robots.txt file to confirm these crawlers aren’t unintentionally blocked. Allowing access means your pages can be referenced when users query AI assistants.
Once you’re visible to AI crawlers, start tracking how your content appears in AI-generated results. Emerging SEO analytics tools can now identify when your site is mentioned within AI overviews or cited in chat responses. Pay attention to referral traffic from sources like bard.google.com or chat.openai.com. These indicate clicks coming from AI-powered experiences.
While the volume of AI referral traffic is still relatively low, it’s expanding fast. Some studies report tenfold growth in a single year. And because these users arrive after seeing your content recommended by an AI model, they’re often high-intent visitors; individuals seeking more detail, verification, or enrollment information.
Track which pages attract this traffic and which topics generate it. This data can guide your next content updates and show where you’re already succeeding in GEO.
Measuring Your Progress and Adjusting Course
Implementing a strong SEO and GEO strategy is only half the battle. The other half is knowing whether it’s working. In an AI-driven search environment, measuring success means tracking both traditional SEO metrics and new signals that reflect your visibility within AI-generated results. Here’s how to evaluate progress, interpret your data, and refine your strategy over time.
Use the Right Analytics and Tools
Start with the essentials. Google Search Console remains your most valuable tool for understanding organic performance. It reveals which queries trigger your site, your average ranking position, impressions, and click-through rates (CTR). Pay attention to the relationship between impressions and clicks: if impressions stay steady or rise while clicks decline, you may be seeing the effects of zero-click searches, where users get answers directly from AI overviews or snippets.
Google Analytics (GA) complements this by providing insight into user behavior after they arrive. Track organic traffic volume, session duration, bounce rates, and key conversion events such as brochure downloads, form submissions, or virtual tour signups. If you notice a dip in organic traffic that aligns with the rollout of a new AI search feature, that correlation is important. GA’s referral data can also highlight hits from sources like chat.openai.com or Bing’s chatbot, small but growing indicators of AI-driven referrals.
Beyond free tools, platforms like Ahrefs and SEMrush are invaluable for deeper competitive and keyword insights. Ahrefs can show when a keyword’s results page includes an AI overview or featured snippet, while SEMrush offers comparative content analysis to identify what competitor pages are doing differently, such as using schema markup or answering queries more directly.
Finally, experiment with emerging platforms like Keyword.com’s AI Overview Tracker or similar products that monitor how often AI overviews appear for your target keywords. If your budget allows, these new metrics can help quantify your AI visibility, not just your search ranking.
Key Metrics to Watch
Organic Rankings: Continue monitoring rankings for your high-priority queries. For instance, “[Province] business diploma” or “[Your College] admissions.” If your positions hold steady but traffic drops, AI summaries could be diverting clicks. A sharp fall in rankings, meanwhile, may signal a technical or algorithmic issue that needs attention.
Click-Through Rate (CTR): In Search Console, compare CTR trends for your top-ranking pages. A consistent decline, say, a drop from 5% to 3% at the same rank, may indicate that an AI box is capturing user attention. Studies show that when AI overviews appear, the top organic result can lose up to one-third of its clicks. If this pattern matches your data, consider optimizing content to appear within the AI-generated summary, not just beneath it.
Zero-Click Indicators and Dwell Time: You can’t directly measure zero-click searches, but a combination of high impressions and low CTR is a clear proxy. Focus on dwell time or average session duration for those who do click through. Recent findings suggest that although fewer users click from AI-heavy results, those who do are more engaged, viewing multiple pages or staying longer on-site. If your analytics show longer sessions for specific queries, that’s a sign your content is effectively deepening the user journey beyond what the AI overview offers.
AI Referral Traffic: Check GA for referral traffic from AI platforms like bard.google.com, bing.com/chat, or chat.openai.com. While numbers may be modest now, early adopters are seeing these referrals increase quickly, in some cases by tenfold year-over-year. Each click from an AI platform often represents a highly motivated user seeking further detail or validation. Treat these as premium leads and track how they behave once on your site.
Conversion Metrics: Ultimately, your goal is engagement: inquiries, applications, and conversions. Even if top-of-funnel traffic decreases, conversion rates may improve as AI filters out casual browsers and sends you high-intent visitors.
Research suggests that users who click after an AI overview view roughly six pages per session, similar to traditional searchers but with greater purchase or enrollment intent. Monitor lead form submissions, email signups, and other goal completions closely; steady or rising conversions amid lower traffic mean your strategy is targeting the right audience.
Adjusting Your Strategy
Analytics are only useful if they lead to action. Once you’ve identified which queries or pages are underperforming, adjust your approach based on the data.
If a critical keyword consistently generates an AI overview that excludes your content, create a new page or update an existing one to address that question directly, complete with schema markup and concise Q&A formatting. Conversely, if you notice certain pages repeatedly mentioned in AI summaries or drawing high engagement, double down: expand those topics, interlink related content, and promote them across your channels.
SEO and GEO are iterative disciplines. As AI search behavior evolves, so must your content. Make small, data-informed adjustments regularly rather than waiting for major overhauls.
Stay Ahead of Algorithm and AI Changes
Search engines are transparent, to a point, about major changes. Monitor updates from Google’s Search Central Blog, follow industry analysts, and participate in professional SEO communities to stay informed about algorithm shifts and AI integration.
For instance, during the Google March 2025 Core Update, industry data revealed a 115% increase in AI-generated overviews across queries. Knowing such patterns can help you anticipate traffic fluctuations and explain them internally before panic sets in. It also allows you to update your content proactively for new features, such as AI-generated “Education Q&A” boxes or visual search summaries.
Gather Qualitative Feedback
Not all insights come from dashboards. Pay attention to what prospective students and your admissions team are saying. If applicants mention, “I saw on Google that your program offers…”, check if that information is accurate. AI summaries sometimes simplify or misrepresent data. When they do, it’s your cue to clarify the information on your site so the AI can correct itself over time.
Listening to these real-world interactions helps bridge the gap between technical optimization and student perception. Remember: algorithms change constantly, but student questions about cost, programs, and outcomes remain remarkably consistent.
Partner with HEM to Make the Most of The AI Revolution
The rise of generative AI marks a turning point in search, but not the end of organic visibility. Like every major evolution in digital marketing, this shift calls for adaptation, not abandonment. The institutions that will stand out are those that embrace innovation while staying grounded in authenticity.
How can schools and marketers protect their organic traffic as AI-driven search evolves? To thrive, higher education marketers must blend SEO fundamentals: relevance, structure, and authority, with AI-era tactics like structured data, conversational formatting, and ongoing performance tracking. The goal isn’t just to rank; it’s to become the source AI trusts when answering students’ questions.
By creating genuinely useful, clearly structured content and continually measuring what works, your school can remain visible and credible, even as zero-click searches grow. Remember: AI hasn’t changed what students want, only how they find it. Keep listening, refining, and sharing real stories that resonate. In doing so, you won’t just survive the search revolution, you’ll lead it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: Does SEO still matter in the age of AI?
Answer: With AI tools answering questions directly on search pages, it’s a fair question to ask: The short answer is absolutely. But it’s no longer SEO as usual. Even as AI search evolves, organic SEO remains the foundation of online visibility for schools. Roughly 91% of organizations still report significant marketing gains from SEO.
Question: How can schools and marketers protect their organic traffic as AI-driven search evolves?
Answer: To thrive, higher education marketers must blend SEO fundamentals: relevance, structure, and authority, with AI-era tactics like structured data, conversational formatting, and ongoing performance tracking. The goal isn’t just to rank; it’s to become the source AI trusts when answering students’ questions.
Question: What is Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), and how does it differ from traditional SEO?
Answer: The rise of Generative AI in search has created a new SEO frontier known as Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): the art of making your content discoverable, understandable, and quotable by AI-powered tools like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE), Bing Chat, ChatGPT, and others.
HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, takes a first look at today’s Final Report from the Curriculum and Assessment Review.
It feels like Christmas has come early for policy nerds. At 6.01am this morning, we finally got sight of Building a world-class curriculum for all, the long-awaited report from the Government’s independent Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR).
Overseen by Professor Becky Francis, who is an experienced educational leader and researcher and someone who also has a background in policy, it was commissioned when the Labour Government was facing brighter days back in their first flush.
The first thing to note about the report is that, in truth, independent reports commissioned by governments are only half independent. For example, the lead reviewer is usually keen to ensure their report lands on fertile soil (and, indeed, is usually chosen because they have some affinity to the people in charge). In addition, independent reviews are supported by established civil servants inside the machine and there is usually a conversation behind the scenes between the independent review team and those closest to ministers as the work progresses. (In higher education, for example, both the Browne and Augar reviews fit this model.) So it is no great surprise that the Government has accepted most of what Becky’s largely evidence-led team has said.
Yet anyone reading the press coverage of the CAR while it has been underway, or anyone who has seen the front page of today’s Daily Mail, which screams ‘LABOUR DUMBS DOWN SCHOOLS’, may wonder if the report that has landed today is the nightmare before Christmas rather than a welcome festive present. There is lots to like but the document also feels incomplete, especially – for example – for people with an interest in higher education. So it is perhaps best thought of as a present for which the batteries have yet to arrive.
Nonetheless, this morning I spoke at the always excellent University Admissions Conference hosted annually by the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference (HMC) and the Girls’ School Association (GSA) and I could not help wondering aloud whether any new restraints on state-maintained schools might give our leading independent schools, who are much freer to teach what they like, an additional edge – especially as academy schools are already, even before today, having freedoms ripped from them.
What does the CAR say (and what does it not say)
But what does the review, which had a team of 11 beneath Becky (including one Vice-Chancellor in Professor Nic Beech and also Jo-Anne Baird from the Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment) actually say?
The first thing to note is that it is much better than the Interim Report, which said little, sought to be all things to all people and read like it had been written by one of the better generative AI tools.
In terms of hard proposals, the Final Report starts and ends with older pupils, those aged 16 to 19, for whom we are told there should be ’a new third pathway at level 3 to sit alongside A-Levels and T Levels.’ If this feels familiar, it is because the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s emerging findings helped shape the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper and, more importantly, because there is already such a pathway populated by qualifications like BTECs.
So there is a sense of reinventing the wheel here, with (to mix my metaphors) politicians putting a new coat of paint on the current system. In many respects, the material on 16-to-19 pupils is the least interesting part of the report – especially as there is next to nothing at all on A-Levels. The review team starkly states, ‘we heard very little concern regarding A Levels in our Call for Evidence and our sector engagement’, so they basically ignore them – in a world of change, A Levels continue to sail steadfastly on.
As trailed in the newspapers, there is a recommendation for new ‘diagnostic Maths and English tests to be taken in Year 8.’ This would obviously help track progress between the tests taken at the end of primary school (in Year 6) and the public exams taken at age 16. But the idea has already prompted anger from trade unionists, almost guaranteeing that the benefits and downsides will be overegged in the inevitable political rows to come.
There are also numerous scattergun subject-by-subject recommendations. These are largely sensible (see, for example, the iideas on improving English GCSEs or the section on Science) but also a little unsatisfying. Some of the subject-specific changes are a little trite or inconsequential (like tweaks to the name of individual GCSEs) while others need much more detail than a general review of everything that happens between the ages of 11 and 19 is able to offer. Any material changes will need to be at a wholly different level of detail to what we have got today, and they will be some years away, so may make no difference to anyone already at secondary school.
Other points to note include that the Review is Gove-ian in its love of exams, which it stresses are a protection against the negatives of AI, over coursework. (I suspect Dennis Sherwood, the campaigner against grading inaccuracy will be incandescent about how the report appears to skate over some of the imperfections of how exams currently operate.) However, despite the support for exams, one of the crunchiest recommendations in the review is the proposal of a 10% reduction in ‘overall GCSE exam volume’, which we are told can happen without any significant downsides, though the tricky details are palmed off to Ofqual and others.
The English Baccalaureate and Progress 8
The one really clear place where Professor Francis’s review team and the Government, who have generally accepted the recommendations, are out of kilter with one another is on Progress 8.
Progress 8 is a school accountability measure that assesses how much ‘value-added’ progress occurs between primary school (SATs) and GCSEs. It is such a favoured measure that the Government has recently proposed a new Progress 8 measure for universities (which is a mad idea that wrongly assumes universities are just big schools – in reality, it is a defining feature of universities that they set their own curricula and are their own awarding body).
Becky Francis opposes the EBacc, which is a metric related to, but separate, from Progress 8, yet she wishes to maintain some vestiges of the EBacc within Progress 8. While the EBacc focuses specifically on how many students achieve qualifications in a list of specially favoured subject areas (English Lang and Lit, Maths, Sciences, Geography or History plus a language), the CAR recommends ‘the removal of the EBacc measures but the retention of the EBacc “bucket” in Progress 8 under the new title of “Academic Breadth”.’
This is something the Government is not running with, favouring less restrictions on Progress 8 instead, which may or may not reinvigorate some creative subjects. Yes, it is all exceptionally complicated but Schools Week have an excellent guide and the two pictures below (from Government sources) might help: the first shows the status quo on Progress 8 and is what Becky Francis wishes to maintain (though pillars 3, 4 and 5 would be renamed if she got her way); the second shows the Government’s proposal.
How does it fare?
Call me simple, but I was always going to judge the Curriculum and Assessment Review partly on the extent to which it tackled specific challenges that we have looked at closely at HEPI In recent years. Here the CAR is a mixed bag. On the positive side of the ledger, the review recommends more financial education, reflecting the polling we conducted to help inform the CAR’s work: when we asked undergraduates how well prepared they felt for higher education, 59% said they felt they should have had more education on finances and budgeting.
The most obvious problem that the CAR insufficiently addresses is the huge underperformance of boys. This issue usually gets a namecheck in Bridget Phillipson’s interviews but it was entirely ignored in the recent Post-16 white paper; in the CAR, it does at least receive a quick nod and just maybe some of the proposed curriculum changes will benefit boys more than girls. But there is more focus on class and other personal characteristics than sex and in the end the brief acknowledgement of boys’ underperformance does not lead to anything properly focused on the problem.
This is very strange for we simply cannot fix the inequalities in outcomes until we give the gaps in the attainment of boys and girls the attention they deserve. I am beginning to think I was wrong to be so hopeful that a female Secretary of State was more likely to focus on this issue than a male one (on the grounds that it would be less sensitive politically).
Another area where we at HEPI have been mildly obsessed is the catastrophic decline in language learning, as tracked for us by the Oxonian Megan Bowler. Here, as with boys, the new review is disappointing. In the section looking at welcome subject-by-subject changes, the recommendations on languages are both relatively tentative and relatively weak. As one linguist emailed me first thing this morning, ‘It is pretty remarkable that the CAR’s decision on languages runs exactly contrary to the best and consistent advice of the key language advisers on the issue’. However, the Government’s response goes a little further and Ministers promise to ‘explore the feasibility of developing a new qualification for languages that enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points.’ We might not want languages always to be treated so differently from other subjects but I am still chalking that up as a win.
The CAR also ignores entirely one issue that is currently filling some MPs’ postbags – the defunding of the International Baccalaureate (IB). The IB delivers a broad curriculum for sixth-formers, is liked by highly selective universities and tackles the early specialisation which marks out our education system from those in many competitor nations. Back in the heady Blair years, Labour politicians loved the qualification and promised to bring it within touching distance of most young people.
As HEPI is a higher education body, it also feels incumbent upon me to point out that higher education is largely notable by its absence in the CAR, with universities being mentioned just nine times across the (almost) 200 pages and despite schools and colleges obviously being the main pipeline for new students. It is rather different from the days when universities were regarded as having a key direct role to play in designing what goes on in schools. Indeed, our exam boards tended to originate within universities.
The odd references to universities that do make it in to the CAR report are not especially illuminating. For example, more selective universities appear as part of the rationale for killing the EBacc ‘the evidence does not suggest that taking the EBacc combination of subjects increases the likelihood that students attend Russell Group universities.’ Universities also appear in the section on bolstering T Levels, with the review proposing ‘The Government should continue to promote awareness and understanding of T Levels to the HE sector.’ But that is about it.
Incidentally, there is also less in the report on extracurricular activities than the pre-publication press coverage might have led you to believe, even if the Government’s response to the review does focus on improving the offer here.
Trade-offs
Becky Francis used to head up the UCL Institute of Education (IoE), which is an institution that has always wrestled with excellence versus opportunity. Years ago, I sat in a learnèd IoE seminar on why university league tables are supposedly pernicious – but I had to walk past multiple banners boasting that the IoE was ‘Number 1’ in the world for studying education to get to the seminar and, while I was in the room, news came through that the IoE was going to cement its reputation and position by merging with UCL.
Such tension is a reminder that educational changes generally have trade-offs and the Executive Summary of the main CAR document admits: ‘All potential reforms to curriculum and assessment come with trade-offs’. Abolishing the EBacc as the CAR team want and watering down Progress 8 as the Department for Education want, might help some pupils and some disciplines while making the numbers we produce about ourselves look better – though the numbers produced by others about us (at places like the OECD) could come to tell a different story in time.
In the end, we have to recognise that there are only so many hours in the school day, only so many (ie not enough) teachers and only so much room in pupils’ lives, not to mention huge diversity among pupils, schools and staff, which together ensure there can be no perfect curriculum. More of one subject or more extracurricular activities are likely to mean less of other things because the school day is not infinitely expandable (and there is nothing here to free up teachers’ time or fill in all those teacher vacancies). Yet the school curriculum does need to be revised over time to ensure it remains fit for purpose.
The question now is whether the CAR report matters. Will we still be talking about it in 20 years time? Can a Government buffeted by all sides, facing a huge fiscal crisis and with a Secretary of State for Education who sometimes seems more focused on political battles (like the recent Deputy Leadership election of the Labour Party) than on engaging with the latest educational evidence really deliver Becky Francis’s vision? Or will the CAR’s proposals wilt as quickly as the last really big proposal for curriculum reform: Rishi Sunak’s British Baccalaureate? In all honesty, I am not certain but there are, in theory at least, four years of this Parliament left whereas Rishi Sunak spent more like four months pushing his idea.
My parting thought, however, is different. It is that, while the trade-offs in the CAR report partly just represent the facts of life in education, they do not entirely do so. Trade-offs are much trickier to deal with when you are also seeking to root out diversity of provision. And in the end, if there is one thing that marks this Government’s mixed approach to schooling out above all, it is the desire to make all schools more alike, whether that is reducing academy freedoms, micromanaging the rules on school uniforms, defunding the IB, forcing state schools to stop offering classical languages or pushing independent schools to the wall. Would it be better, and also make politicians’ lives easier, if we stopped pretending that the 700,000 kids in each school year group are more like one another than they really are?
Postscript: While the CAR paper is infinitely more digestible than the interim document, there is still some wonderful eduspeak, my favourite of which is:
A vocational qualification is aligned to a sector and is usually taught and assessed in an applied way. A technical qualification meanwhile has a direct alignment with an occupational standard. Despite the name ‘Technical Awards’, these qualifications are therefore vocational rather than technical.
Join HEPI and the University of Southampton for a webinar on Monday 10 November 2025 from 11am to 12pm to mark the launch of a new collection of essays, AI and the Future of Universities. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the collection’s key themes and the urgent questions surrounding AI’s impact on higher education.
This blog was kindly authored by Richard Brown, Associate Fellow at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.
Universities are on the front line of a new technological revolution. Generative AI (genAI) use (mainly large language mode-based chatbots like ChaptGPT and Claude) is almost universal among students. Plagiarism and accuracy are continuing challenges, and universities are considering how learning and assessment can respond positively to the daunting but uneven capabilities of these new technologies.
How genAI is transforming professional services
The world of work that students face after graduation is also being transformed. While it is unclear how much of the current slowdown in graduate recruitment can be attributed to current AI use, or uncertainty about its long-term impacts, it is likely that graduate careers will see great change as the technology develops. Surveys by McKinsey indicate that adoption of AI spread fastest between 2023/24 in media, communications, business, legal and professional services – the sectors with the highest proportions of graduates in their workforce (around 80 per cent in London and 60 per cent in the rest of the UK).
‘Human-centric’, a new report from the University of London looks at how AI is being adopted by professional service firms, and at what this might mean for the future shape and delivery of higher education.
The report identifies how AI is being adopted both through grassroots initiatives and corporate action. In some firms, genAI is still the preserve of ‘secret cyborgs’ – individual workers using chatbots under the radar. In others, task forces of younger workers have been deployed to find new uses for the tech to tackle chronic workflow problems or develop new services. Lawyers and accountants are codifying expertise into proprietary knowledge bases. These are private chatbots that minimise the risks of falsehood that still plague open systems, and offer potential to extend cheap professional-grade advice to many more people.
Graduate careers re-thought
What does this mean for graduate employment and skills? Many of the routine tasks frequently allocated to graduates can be automated through AI. This could be a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand, genAI may open up more varied and engaging ways for graduates to develop their skills, including the applied client-facing and problem-solving capabilities that underpin professional practice.
On the other hand, employers may question whether they need to employ as many graduates. Some of our interviewees talked of the potential for the ‘triangle’ structure of mass graduate recruitment being replaced by a ‘diamond-shaped’ refocus on mid-career hires. The obvious problem with this approach – of where mid-career hires will come from if there is no graduate recruitment – means that graduate recruitment is unlikely to dry up in the short term, but graduate careers may look very different as the knowledge economy is transformed.
The agile university in an age of career turbulence
This will have an impact on universities as well as employers. AI literacy, and the ability to use AI responsibly and authentically, are likely to become baseline expectations – suggesting that this should be core to university teaching and learning. Intriguingly, this is less about traditional computing skills and more about setting AI in context: research shows that software engineers were less in demand in early 2025 than AI ethicists and compliance specialists.
Broader ‘soft’ skills (what a previous University of London / Demos report called GRASP skills – general, relational, analytic, social and personal) will remain in demand, particularly as critical judgement, empathy and the ability to work as a team remain human-centric specialities. Employers also said that, while deep domain knowledge was still needed to assess and interrogate AI outputs, they were also looking for employees with a broader understanding of issues such as cybersecurity, climate regulation and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), who could work across diverse disciplines and perspectives to create new knowledge and applications.
The shape of higher education may also need to change. Given the speed of advances in AI, it is likely that most propositions about which skills will be needed in the future may quickly become outdated (including this one). This will call for a more responsive and agile system, which can experiment with new course content and innovative teaching methods, while sustaining the rigour that underpins the value of their degrees and other qualifications.
As the Lifelong Learning Entitlement is implemented, the relationship between students and universities may also need to become more long-term, rather than an intense three-year affair. Exposure to the world of work will be important too, but this needs to be open to all, not just to those with contacts and social capital.
Longer term – beyond workplace skills?
In the longer term, all bets are off, or at least pretty risky. Public concerns (over everything from privacy, to corporate control, to disinformation, to environmental impact) and regulatory pressures may slow the adoption of AI. Or AI may so radically transform our world that workplace skills are no longer such a central concern. Previous predictions of technology unlocking a more leisured world have not been realised, but maybe this time it will be different. If so, universities will not just be preparing students for the workplace, but also helping students to prepare for, shape and flourish in a radically transformed world.
UK universities are under mounting financial pressure. Join HEPI and King’s College London Policy Institute on 11 November 2025 at 1pm for a webinar on how universities balance relatively stable but underfunded income streams against higher-margin but volatile sources. Register now. We look forward to seeing you there.
This blog was kindly authored by Estefania Gamarra, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, and Marion Heron Associate Professor in Educational Linguistics, both from the University of Surrey Institute of Education. It was also authored by Harriet R. Tenenbaum Professor in Developmental and Social Psychology and Lewis Baker Senior Lecturer in Chemical and Process Engineering – Foundation Year, both from the University of Surrey.
Today’s higher education sector faces a need to increase student progression and improve retention. This goal is especially necessary for Foundation Year programmes. A proposed solution is active learning. Yet amid the push to make lectures more interactive, one approach stands out – dialogue.
Dialogue transforms students from passive listeners into active participants. But while universities increasingly encourage discussion in classrooms and put students in pairs, they often overlook a crucial question: do students know how to talk to each other in academic contexts?
For years, the emphasis has been on teaching students how to write academically, while teaching them how to engage in academic talk – how to reason aloud, build on others’ ideas, and disagree respectfully – has been largely ignored. Academic dialogue is not a natural skill: it is a learnt one. For many students, particularly those from ethnic minoritised or first-generation backgrounds, the language of higher education can feel like a second language. Expecting them to navigate complex, often implicit norms of discussion without support risks reproducing the very inequalities universities seek to address.
What we mean by educational dialogue
Educational dialogue refers to purposeful, structured talk that supports reasoning, collaboration, and shared understanding. It differs from casual conversation because it asks participants to listen actively, build connections between ideas, and make their thinking explicit. In this way, dialogue makes learning visible – students co-construct understanding through talk.
Despite a growing body of research in schools showing the benefits of educational dialogue for reasoning, collaboration, and attainment, there has been little work examining how this plays out in higher education. Our project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, aimed to fill that gap by exploring how Foundation Year students across six UK universities talk to one another when given structured opportunities for dialogue – and whether a targeted intervention could enhance the quality of these interactions.
What we found
We observed clear disciplinary differences in the ways students engaged in dialogue. Psychology students, for instance, tended to make more connections to topics beyond the classroom, while Engineering students often built on one another’s ideas in a collaborative effort to solve the problems presented. Recognising these differences is crucial: subject cultures shape how students learn to talk, and this understanding can help educators design more inclusive, discipline-sensitive approaches to active learning. At the same time, if our goal is to prepare students for an increasingly interdisciplinary world, we must also help them become aware of how other disciplines talk and encourage them to develop the flexibility to communicate across disciplinary boundaries.
The intervention itself had a tangible effect. Discussion time increased, and we observed a higher frequency of dialogic moves such as connecting ideas and making reasoning explicit. In simple terms, students were not just talking more; they were engaging in higher-quality dialogue.
Both students and teachers noticed the change. Students reported greater confidence in contributing to class discussions and felt more comfortable expressing disagreement respectfully. Teachers in the intervention group described classroom talk as ‘more professional’ and ‘more purposeful’, noting that students participated more readily and that discussions felt more structured.
Why this matters for policy
These findings underscore a simple yet powerful message: if universities want students to collaborate effectively and communicate professionally, they must teach them how to talk.
This is not merely a matter of classroom technique but of educational equity. All students are expected to adopt the norms of academic discourse without being taught what these norms are. By treating dialogue as a teachable skill – much like academic writing – universities can make participation more equitable and support a sense of belonging for all learners.
Embedding educational dialogue within curricula also has broader policy implications. It aligns directly with the sector’s commitments to widening participation, student engagement, and the development of graduate attributes. In an increasingly interdisciplinary world, helping students learn how to communicate across disciplinary and cultural boundaries is not an optional extra – it is essential preparation for both professional and civic life.
A call to action
Universities already invest heavily in teaching academic writing. It is time to afford talk the same status. Embedding structured opportunities for educational dialogue – and explicitly teaching the skills that underpin it – can help create classrooms where every student, regardless of background, can find and use their voice.
If higher education is serious about inclusion, engagement, and progression, it must teach students not just what to say, but how to say it.
This guest blog was kindly authored by Heidi Fraser-Krauss, Chief Executive Officer at Jisc.
The power of collaboration and shared services is now widely recognised in the higher education sector as an effective way for institutions to continue delivering outstanding student experiences, world-class teaching, and research and innovation, all against a backdrop of financial pressures. Jisc has played a leading role in driving these conversations, in partnership with UUK, KPMG and university leaders. However, it is now time to put our words into action and make collaboration the norm.
Achieving better outcomes collectively
Recent sector-wide initiatives, including the Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce commissioned by Universities UK, have explored opportunities for efficiency and innovation through shared services. Jisc contributed to practical strands of this work, focusing on collaboration utilising digital, data and technology. A UK-wide questionnaire inviting insights from the sector on which actions should be taken was distributed. More than 30 ideas were submitted, and three were explored in depth.
Shared services is the first of these three. The premise is simple: through sharing, collaboration and working together (whether by pooling knowledge, sharing risk or combining scarce skills) universities can achieve better outcomes together than they could alone.
Tools for collaboration already exist – so let’s put them to work
The sector already has examples of institutional collaboration – demonstrating the benefits of collective effort. However, not all services lend themselves well to being shared. For example, ambitious but complex projects such as a shared student record system for the sector is not an ideal place to begin.
We must also be careful not to assume that shared services are automatically more efficient simply by virtue of their being shared. Despite this, there are many that can be. Good examples of collaboration, involving sharing back-office functions (for example a joint out-of-hours IT service, or forming a consortium to strengthen research bids) already exist. In fact, both of these examples were highlighted by the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle during his speech at the recent Universities UK conference.
One of the key findings of the report, was that, although there are many shared services across the sector already, very few are used by large numbers of institutions. Many have been running for years and could achieve far greater impact if more institutions engaged with them. The lesson is clear: make better use of what already exists. An example of this is UMAL, the non-profit mutual insurer for universities and colleges across the UK.
Plenty of questions still to be answered
As collaboration gains momentum, important questions remain. Can processes be standardised? Can AI-enabled tools be developed jointly to avoid duplication, and could collaboration extend to industry and public sector partnerships, such as health? Examples like Cardiff’s Mental Health University Liaison Service and the Greater Manchester Universities Mental Health Service – both university–NHS collaborations – could be replicated elsewhere. Science Parks across the UK also show how universities and industry can work successfully together.
These are all important questions, and although we may not yet have all the answers, we shouldn’t let this get in the way of change.
What should happen now?
There are a number of practical steps we can take together in the very short term to make shared services a genuine force for positive change across higher education. For example, the creation of a central catalogue of existing shared services would raise awareness and uptake.
The sector must adopt a ‘shared services first’ mindset. Leaders should consider whether proven, collaborative solutions are already available – and use them. Where duplication exists, regional mergers or the strategic transfer of services into national bodies could strengthen sustainability and reduce wasted effort.
For their part, institutions sharing data on spend and contract reviews would help to provide an evidence base for smarter sector-wide decisions. In some cases, institutions should also consider mergers or broader consolidation of services across the sector, where combining resources offers long-term efficiencies and sustainability.
Supporting universities to collaborate
Collaboration isn’t idealism – it’s a rational response to cost pressures, and the means to make it happen is already in our hands. We can adopt a ‘shared services first’ approach – it just needs a firm commitment from institutional leaderships to make it happen.
At Jisc, our role remains to convene senior stakeholders, define shared negotiation objectives, and support universities to move from strategy to implementation – after all, everyone knows that actions speak louder than words.
Recommendations
To support a shift towards collaborative models, here are practical recommendations for institutions, sector networks, shared service operators and government.
Individual Institutions
Adopt a ‘shared services first’ mindset for new requirements
Evaluate existing shared services before creating an in-house service or procuring a commercial solution, prioritising long term value over short term cost savings
Collaborate with neighbouring institutions to replicate successful models
Explore regional opportunities to address shared needs and challenges where shared models have proved successful
Reassess internal operations and consider where there are opportunities to share services
Evaluate any area that could benefit from a shared service, except in student recruitment
Increase awareness of existing shared services through a central shared service catalogue
Create and promote a catalogue of shared services structured for direct contract awards or competitive tendering.
Convene groups of institutions, to consider potential joint commitments to subscribe to existing shared services, increasing their scale
Use sector networks to bring universities together for collective commitments to shared services, leveraging procurement rules that permit direct contracting with sector-owned organisations (known as the Teckal exemption) where appropriate.
Shared Service Operators
(e.g. UMAL, sector-owned IT or procurement services)
Shared service operators should meet regularly to increase coordination
Establish regular meetings between sector-owned shared services to improve collaboration and avoid duplication.
Consider forming a UK Shared Services Council to unify efforts, similar to UK Universities Procurement Consortia (UKUPC).
Regional shared services should consider merging, where online working has removed the original advantage of a regional operation
Non-profit operators in the same niche should merge to avoid unnecessary competition and improve service delivery. Merging can create more efficient, focused providers.
Individual universities operating shared services should consider transferring ownership of their shared service to other organisations, but only when natural opportunities arise
Universities should transfer shared services to sector agencies when it aligns naturally, allowing focus on core missions.
Government
Government should implement one of BUFDG’s proposed improvements to VAT Cost Sharing Groups. This would create new opportunities for shared services in areas currently considered unworkable due to an additional 20% VAT charge.
This blog was kindly authored by Richard Markham, Chief Executive Officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association (IBSCA).
At International Baccalaureate (IB) schools and colleges, we have always been ambitious for our students. We know what they can achieve and support them to reach their goals. Through its broad curriculum – including Maths, English, a humanities, science, arts and language subject – the IB Diploma Programme (DP) provides stretch and challenge, developing a thirst for lifelong learning in our 16 to 19-year-olds. And, through extended essays, theory of knowledge and service in the community, it produces confident, well-rounded citizens who thrive in life and work. Year after year, we join our students and their families in celebrating their outstanding destinations at top universities and apprenticeships.
That is why it is deeply disappointing that the Government is axing the financial uplift for schools and colleges delivering the IB DP in the state sector, as soon as the next academic year.
Disappointing, but also surprising. By axing the large programme uplift – the top-up funding awarded to schools and colleges to reflect the additional teaching time required to deliver the IB DP – the Government risks tripping over its own hurdles. The post-16 white paper sets “objectives” for the 16-19 sector, with the first being that it “delivers world-leading provision that breaks down the barriers to opportunity”. The imminent final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review will set out its recommendations to ensure that “every child” has “access to a broad range of subjects”.
On this front, it is vital that we keep the IB alive in the state sector. Far more extensive than A Levels, T Levels and now V Levels, the IB proves that creativity is not the preserve of the arts, nor logic the preserve of science. Both belong together in world-class education. It is a rigorous, aspirational study programme, offering all the advantages of a private school education, accessible to families who couldn’t dream of affording tuition. We should be expanding opportunities to an IB education, not shutting them down.
The second objective set for further education is that it supports the Government’s “ambition for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning” after they leave school. IB DP students in the UK are three times more likely to enrol in a top-20 higher education institution. Deep thinkers, broad skill sets – they excel at university-level study. DP students are 40% more likely to achieve a first-class or upper second-class honours degree. If the Government does not find a way through, the higher education sector will be poorer for it.
Moreover, UCAS data from the 2021/24 cycles gives us an indication of just how well the IB DP supports progression into courses that closely align with the UK’s Industrial Strategy priority sectors. The greatest proportion of DP students (4,900) accepted university offers in courses related to the life sciences sector, driven by medicine, dentistry and nursing. This was closely followed by professional and business services – with 3,365accepted offers for subjects like economics, law, management and politics – and upwards of 1,000 accepted offers in crucial science and engineering courses.
Evidently, this is a financial decision, not one taken in the best interests of our education and skills system. To dress it up in any other way does our educators a disservice. The large programme uplift given to IB DP schools is worth just £2.5 million a year. That is 0.0025 per cent of the Department for Education’s £100 billion annual budget. A drop in the ocean, and yet the programme delivers true value for money.
On Wednesday, MPs across the House united to fight for the future of the IB in Westminster Hall, calling for an urgent reversal of these cuts to provide certainty for school and college leaders, current and prospective IB students and their families, universities and employers. MPs questioned the very basis for the Department’s decision: “how can the Government can claim to want more students, particularly more girls, on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that?”
Let us not forget, it was a Labour Government under Prime Minister Tony Blair that pledged an IB school in every local authority, but subsequent Prime Ministers have recognised the value and championed a baccalaureate-style education system. Support for the IB cuts across party lines and nation’s borders – reflecting the shared values of its global community of alumni, prospective students, parents, teachers, and policymakers who see its potential to raise ambition and foster international understanding. That cross-party appeal is no accident: many MPs, former IB teachers and alumni, know first-hand what the programme can do. They recognise its power to develop deeper thinkers, broader skill sets and more adaptable young people – qualities our economy and universities urgently need right now.
This blog was kindly authored by Martin Blakey, the former Chief Executive of the student housing charity Unipol and a member of the British Property Federation’s Student Accommodation Committee.
On Wednesday, 22 October 2025, the Renters’ Rights Bill passed through its final stage in a thinly occupied Commons chamber, and obtained Royal Assent on 28 October. HEPI has taken a close interest in how the Act’s changes would affect students, and a number of previous blogs that have charted the Bill’s progress are listed at the end of this one.
The Bill has a long history, first appearing under the previous Conservative government under the title the Renters’ Reform Bill in May 2023 and then being resubmitted, after some redrafting, by the new Labour Government only 10 weeks into power in September 2024. Even under a Labour Government with a large majority, it has taken 13 months to progress the Bill through all of its stages, and that parliamentary process has had to deal with over 450 amendments in the last year.
This is a substantial Act, and its various provisions will be phased in over a period of time. The Act contains many enabling powers, allowing Ministers to implement more detailed proposals on aspects of policy as further consultations take place. The right to redress (the ombudsman proposals), the landlord database and the Decent Homes Standard are, or will be, consulted on and detailed regulation will appear over the next year.
Even in the final stages of the Bill, the Government did not give any timetable for implementation. Still, it is reasonable to conclude that tenure reform, which is not subject to much secondary regulation, will be implemented first. All the Government now has to decide is how long it should allow to raise the awareness of landlords and tenants about these significant impending changes, and how long it should give to those running private sector housing to make the necessary legal adjustments for existing and future tenancies.
Because the mechanics of the Act are now known, it is possible, for the first time, to say what will happen to student tenants and make a reasonable and educated guess at the timescale involved.
Timescale
It is now clear that today’s student tenants (studying across 2025/26) and new tenants signing up for the 2026/27 academic year will see their tenure status change.
As Matthew Pennycook said on 8 September 2025:
…we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector system in one stage. On this date the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies – existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after this date will also be governed by the new rules. Existing fixed terms will be converted to periodic tenancies…
So, all tenancies will change on a given date and the familiar fixed-term assured tenancy (AST) which has been used by virtually all students renting from the private sector will be replaced by the new assured tenancy. The fixed term within those ASTs will cease to exist, and rent payment periods in excess of four weeks’ rent will be unenforceable.
Depending on who you listen to, this change is likely to come into effect between April and June 2026 and so it will affect today’s student tenants.
There are a lot of questions about how these changes will come about, and it is now possible to provide a roadmap of how this will all work.
There are no ‘interim’ stages. So landlords signing students up in the past and now, and up to the implementation date of tenure change under the Act, will continue to use fixed-term ASTs because that is the current system.
Landlords and tenants on current contracts or signing up for the future would best see their agreement as entering into a general contract for a residential tenancy. That tenancy will have its precise status determined, in respect of these changes, at the point when a tenant actually takes possession and can move in (which is when the tenancy is actually granted).
So, let’s go through a variety of scenarios and see what is going to happen.
Students currently living in off-street shared houses – a house multiple occupancy (HMO)
These students will currently be on a joint or individual AST, almost always, with a fixed period stipulated in that agreement. On the date of the Act’s tenure implementation this will become an assured tenancy, and that means that the fixed-term nature of the agreement falls away.
The Government accepted that, in order to maintain the lettings cycle of student shared houses in line with the academic year, landlords would be able to seek repossession of their property by using a new ground for possession 4a. This allows landlords to give tenants notice of their intention to seek repossession on a given date between June and September.
Following implementation, landlords will have to notify tenants within the first 30 days of their intention to use ground 4a. After this transitional provision, landlords will have to notify tenants of their intention to use ground 4a at the time of signing the contract.
Under ground 4a landlords can give tenants 4 months’ notice to leave and can enforce that through the courts.
Some legal experts have pointed out that if implementation is between April and June, then, as many fixed-terms expire in June or July, there would not be sufficient time under ground 4a to give 4 months’ notice. So, in theory, tenants could simply choose to stay in the property and give 2 months’ notice whenever they wanted to move out. This is the case, and for the first few months of operation, landlords may find that they cannot take advantage of ground 4a – leaving them exposed if they have let the property to a new set of tenants without having a property with vacant possession to let. Whether a court would hold a landlord responsible for any financial claim or compensation sought by incoming tenants who would have to find alternative accommodation is unlikely, particularly if the landlord had tried to mitigate any loss by, say, finding and offering alternative accommodation.
But landlords have other things they can do to bring their tenancies to an end over the implementation period. Until the date when ASTs become assured tenancies, the landlord can still give notice using the current ‘no fault’ eviction procedure under Section 21 (S21), giving a minimum two-month notice period. A S21 notice can be given at any time after the first 4 months of the AST, so most landlords will issue a S21 notice to their resident students while the tenancy is still an AST, giving them, in most cases, a right of repossession at the end of their AST fixed term. The Renters’ Rights Act does not revoke a valid S21 notice. Only after tenure change has been implemented is it no longer possible to issue a valid S21 notice.
So long as the landlord gives notice under S21 on an existing AST before the introduction of assured tenancies, they will be able (as they are at present) to assume that tenants leave and new tenants will arrive as normal.
It is just worth noting that serving a notice of intention to seek repossession does not mean a tenant can be removed from the property, and only a Court can evict a tenant. This is the case now, but generally, very few students fail to leave at the end of their tenancy, so it is important not to predict problems where these have not occurred in the past.
Students currently living in smaller off-street houses
This is the same as stipulated above for a shared house in respect of serving a valid S21 notice, but here, once the Act has been implemented, ground 4a cannot be used because its use is restricted to only off-street HMOs. So once tenure reform has taken place and the time period for issuing S21 notices has expired, tenants in this kind of property can remain as long as they wish until they give 2 months’ notice to leave. Landlords letting these smaller houses and flats may well find that they are housing non-students.
Several attempts were made during the discussion of the Bill to extend ground 4a to all properties occupied by students, but the Government firmly rejected that approach.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage made the Government’s position clear on 15 October 2025:
The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure – such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area – being evicted more regularly.
So the Government expects that some property previously occupied by students is likely to remain occupied, and this stock will therefore leave the student market and enter the general rental market.
Students living in off-street housing after implementation
These students will have assured tenancy status and will fall fully under the provisions of the new Act. With the exception of ground 4a in shared student houses, they will be able to stay as long as they wish in the property until they give notice and will be able to give 2 months’ notice, at any stage of the year, to leave the property.
Currently, they will be signed up using ASTs but after implementation, most of those tenure conditions will be replaced by the provisions of the new Act.
Students currently living in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)
The Government decided that private PBSA that had signed up to the government-approved codes of practice (The ANUK/Unipol Code) should be removed from the effects of the Act by changing ‘specified educational institutions’ to ‘specified institutions’ under provisions to be found in the 1988 Housing Act. This technical change means that PBSA providers will become specified institutions (as most educational institutions already are) and their tenancies will be common law tenancies, and this means that fixed-term tenancies can continue in those properties.
But existing contracts in private sector PBSA will go through a ‘transitional period’ because only tenancies granted after specified status has been granted will be common law tenancies.
As the Government explained:
To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of these existing PBSA tenancies into what is known as a ‘common law’ tenancy: that is, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as those PBSA tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the assured shorthold tenancies they will have signed… We do not consider it to be the right approach, therefore, to simply exempt pre-existing PBSA tenancies from assured tenancy status.
So existing AST tenancies in PBSA will fall under the assured tenancy status. After specified status has been granted (which will be from the date of tenure implementation) then future tenancies will be common law tenancies.
The Government made some special concessions to minimise these ‘transitional effects’. This means the property will not have to be an HMO to use ground 4a repossession, and the July to September time frame 4a will not apply.
PBSA providers will still be able to use S21 notices (as detailed previously) before implementation, and after that they will be able to use new ground 4a on all PBSA properties. This is likely to be useful because tenancies ending in September (mainly relating to studios) will allow sufficient time to give those tenants 4 months’ notice under the new Act.
There will still be a moment of anxiety if a student who is not issued with a S21 notice decides simply to stay, although they could be given 4 months’ notice under new ground 4a at any stage after implementation. This risk is, however, much lower for PBSA where it is likely, if any inconvenience occurred for incoming tenants because of a ‘stayer’, that alternative accommodation may be available to be provided within the same building or in a nearby building, so the risk to the provider will be mitigated.
Students signing up to live in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in the future
At present, students will continue to be signed up on ASTs because that is the current system.
As mentioned previously, any new tenancy will have its status determined by when a tenant ‘takes possession’ and can move in (which is when the tenancy is actually granted). If the moving-in date occurs after the PBSA manager / supplier has specified status, then tenants will have a common law tenancy. This common law tenancy means that the terms of the letting are those outlined in the tenancy agreement between the tenant and the landlord, and these will fall outside of the tenure provisions of the Act, which applies primarily to assured tenancies. A common law tenancy allows for fixed-term tenancies where repossession can be granted on the contractual terms outlined in the tenancy agreement, and rent payment periods will be as detailed in the tenancy.
Although tenants in PBSA will have fewer rights under the Act than other tenants, membership of the Approved Code will ensure deposit protection continues and that tenants can give 4 weeks’ notice if they fail to get their required grades and no longer need their accommodation, if they stop studying and leave the institution, or they withdraw because of illness. The Code complaints system has also been tightened and improved. So tenants renting from PBSA will still see an improvement in tenure flexibility.
Most tenancies in PBSA for 2026/27 are likely to be common law tenancies because they will come into effect after specified status has been granted.
Conclusion
So long as implementation takes place around April to June 2026, the annual summer 2026 changeover should be relatively smooth. The use of S21 notices by landlords is likely to be widespread and should ensure most tenancies can be brought to an end. In the unlikely event that implementation is earlier than April, then the 4 months’ notice under new ground 4a can also be used.
The danger area relates to off-street non-HMOs and how many of those students, or ex-students, will choose to stay, reducing that supply of housing to future students. The prediction is that, over a couple of letting cycles, much of this type of housing will join the mainstream housing rental stock and move outside of the timing of the academic cycle. Educational institutions and students’ unions would be wise to try to monitor that shift and any loss of this accommodation to determine its effect on admissions.
One interesting provision, regarding the use of ground 4a is that, for future signings, it will not apply if students signed their contracts 6 months before they can move in. It will be interesting to see whether this has any impact on ‘early letting’ in the off-street market and whether this impacts current PBSA practices.
What can educational institutions and their students’ unions do to assist in the smooth implementation of the Act?
Anything to do with tenure is necessarily complex, but every effort should be made to explain to students what this change will mean for them. What information exists suggests that student awareness of the Act is very low, with StuRents reporting that 69% of students said they had never heard of the Renters Rights Bill, and only 15% saying they understood how it could affect them. A recent study by Unipol also reported that 62% of students had not heard of the Bill.
There will be real and immediate advantages for student renters who will be on assured tenancies, such as the ability to give two months’ notice and, perhaps the biggest gain of all for hard-up students, only needing to pay rent four weeks in advance. In the longer term, they will also have minimum standards set under the Decent Homes Standard and will have a right of redress through an ombudsman.
Of course, some may temper these immediate advantages by predicting that the Act will see a reduction in student housing supply resulting in rent rises, an increase in the use of guarantors with rising deposit levels (to counter-act the risk of shorter rent payment periods) and that most shared student houses (HMOs) already fall under licencing which should already ensure that the property is safe and being kept in good order.
The reality is that no one knows how the Act will affect the market and students specifically. With that in mind, it will be important for institutions to try to monitor how the Act affects their students in their local property market.
In PBSA, the Act will have less effect, but this also comes at a time of rapid change in that market, with issues such as a slow-down in development; the challenges of keeping ageing stock up to standard; the growth of commuter students; greater regulation post-Grenfell with the Building Safety Regulator; and problems associated with higher rent levels and affordability.
These market and legislative changes will mean that both housing suppliers and students are likely to see a significant transformation of student housing over the next couple of years. It is important that advice about housing rights and supply reflects those changes and assumptions that ‘things will continue as before’ are set aside.
Previous HEPI publications dealing with this issue are:
This blog was kindly authored by Viggo Stacey, International Education & Policy Writer at QS Quacquarelli Symonds. It is the fourth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the first blog here, the second blog here, and the third here.
The post-16 education and skills white paper, released last week, outlines how the UK government aims to ensure that universities can attract high-quality international talent and maintain a welcoming environment for them.
New data in the QS Global Student Flows: UK Report projects that international student enrolments will grow 3.5% annually to 2030. While this is ahead of anticipated growth in the US, Australia and Canada, where projections are between 2% and –1%, the forecast for the UK is significantly slower than the double-digit surge of 11% between 2019 and 2022.
When the Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, spoke about transformation in education in the UK on Monday, she may also have been speaking about the international education system worldwide. International education is changing, and the UK is facing unprecedented competition from international peers. Emerging study destinations are increasingly appealing to prospective international students. India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, and South Korea are just a handful of examples of places heavily investing in internationalisation, campus facilities, and English-language programmes. Additionally, unpredictable geopolitics, economic shifts and demographic changes are making the job of international student recruiters at universities in the UK extra challenging. In such an unstable global landscape, the QS Global Student Flows: UK Report urges universities to plan for a range of scenarios.
What can institutions and the sector do?
The latest HESA figures available are from the 2023/24 academic year. No other business would rely on such outdated figures. So why would a government make policy decisions based on them? And why would a university?
This new QS report identifies key areas where UK universities can expect to see heightened global student flows in the future and how they can best continue to attract international talent and skills.
Enrolments from South Asia are expected to rise from 245,000 in 2024 to 340,000 by the end of the decade, and Africa is projected to be the UK’s second-fastest-growing region, with an annual growth rate expected to reach 4-5%.
In Asia, growth is more mixed. Enrolments from Malaysia are expected to decline, Singapore is likely to remain stable, with places such as Thailand and Indonesia seeing upticks.
Student numbers from the Middle East to the UK are projected to slow to about 1% annually in the years to 2030, compared to the nearly 5% average growth recorded between 2018 and 2024.
However, enrolments from Europe, which have declined after Brexit on average by more than 8% annually between 2018 and 2024, are expected to grow modestly at around 2.5% through to 2030.
Leveraging their strong reputations, quality of provision, as well as the important Graduate Route visa (some 73% of international students are satisfied with the pathway), UK universities can drive growth, especially in Africa and South and Southeast Asia.
What can the government do?
The government has reiterated that it wants to maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s top providers of higher education; attract the best global talent; and project the UK’s international standing through strong international links and research collaboration.
It rightly acknowledges that volatility in international student numbers is one factor driving financial pressures in higher education. But if it is to succeed in its ambitions, universities need the right support and policy landscape.
Shortening the length of the Graduate Route visa to 18 months from two years and the possibility of hiking fees for students through the proposed International Student Levy could deter international students from choosing the UK.
Yet UK government policy is not the only factor limiting the potential of the UK.
Universities are grappling with heightened investment in higher education in key student source countries, with domestic provisions increasingly competing for quality students.
Prospective students are weighing up their options in unpredictable economic landscapes and governments are increasingly seeking to retain talent rather than encourage them to study overseas.
Examples of this include the UAE making criteria for joining its outbound mobility scholarship programme tougher; Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ambition to create an “education system in India that youngsters do not need to go abroad to study”; China, traditionally the top source for international students, is gradually transforming into a study destination in its own right.
The pressure is on higher education providers in the UK – they are already diversifying income streams. But this report shows that there are opportunities for growth. UK universities just need to identify what is possible for them.
The QS Global Student Flows: UK report is available here.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Hollie Chandler, Director of Policy at the Russell Group. It is the third blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the first blog here, and the second blog here.
When the white paper finally arrived, much of it confirmed the speculation that’s been rife all summer. Namely, that the Government wants a more joined-up skills sector where universities and FE collaborate more, offer a clearer set of pathways for post-16 choices, and widening opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There was also a strong focus on quality, presented as a deal for the increase in tuition fees – a step towards financial sustainability that will be significantly undermined by the international levy.
But alongside the paper’s focus on further education and vocational qualifications – most prominently the newly-announced V-levels – there was plenty of recognition for postgraduate skills and the UK’s world-leading research base.
This was a welcome moment of focus for the postgraduate research community. These students are the lifeblood of our research and development ecosystem, but the number of new researchers starting a postgraduate qualification is in decline – decreasing by 10.4% between 2018/19 and 2023/24. If the UK is to become a true world leader in high-growth R&D sectors, then this is a real concern. The government’s own labour market projections show demand for workers educated beyond graduate level will grow 53% by 2035: the biggest increase for any qualification level. So it’s encouraging to see the Government considering how to bolster this vital talent pipeline.
Part of this involves ensuring postgraduate study is more accessible to students from broad backgrounds, as well as increasing opportunities and support for people to use their skills and expertise in research settings. It’s an area that has long been overlooked in widening participation conversations, which is why the Russell Group recently launched a dedicated workstream to consider policies and share best practice. It’s about increasing opportunity, but also about ensuring we harness a wide spectrum of skills, knowledge and perspectives to inform vital research. For this to succeed, the conditions and culture of research must be set up to retain talent through the trickier early-career stages. It’s promising to see commitments to improving conditions, such as parental and medical leave, so postgraduate researcher students have the support they need.
As always, many of the challenges come back to funding. Cost recovery on research is at a historic low, threatening the sustainability and global competitiveness of valuable R&D. Although UKRI commits to funding 80% of the full cost of grants, the reality is UK universities are only receiving 67% of their costs from funders – down from 75% in 2015/16. The Russell Group has previously explored a number of drivers behind this, and the white paper does reiterate some of the useful steps UKRI is taking. This includes making sure equipment is funded at 80% and confirming that matched funding by universities, which increasingly eats into cost-recovery rates, is not required. These are not new announcements – and there’s a long way to go if we’re to reach that 80% funding benchmark – but the government is making the right noises on better understanding cost-recovery challenges and pledging a concerted effort alongside charities, funding bodies and universities to tackle the problem together.
The white paper places significant emphasis on the role of universities in regional economic growth and commits to creating a research system that enables collaboration and supports specialisation. We await further details on the “funding reforms” that will achieve this, but it’s encouraging to see a renewed commitment to dual support research funding and QR, and protecting curiosity-driven research through a new strategic objective for UKRI. We hope this means the government will be looking to address the real-terms decline in QR seen in recent years (down by 16.5% since 2010).
The white paper also confirms that we can expect a review of the HEIF as the Government looks to align it more closely with the growth mission. We know HEIF brings great returns on investment: every £1 invested yields £14.80 at sector-level. Large research-intensive universities deliver an even higher return on investment from their HEIF allocations, as much as £20 once spinout performance is accounted for. We have long called for caps on HEIF to be raised, given its potential. For example, our modelling suggests that tripling HEIF could deliver around £11bn for the economy.
There was no such funding boost indicated in the white paper, but there was recognition of HEIF’s power to generate growth by de-risking innovation, driving technology transfer and building entrepreneurial capacity locally and nationally. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions on how exactly HEIF could be pivoted towards the growth mission.
A major benefit of HEIF, just like QR, is its flexibility. Our universities use it for everything from boosting pre-seed investment capabilities to establishing regional business hubs and empowering student entrepreneurs. It’s natural that the government wants the return on public investment to meet national priorities, but any blanket tailoring of how the fund is spent could impact its regionally specific benefits. It will be important to consult closely with the sector to make sure any review of HEIF enhances how universities contribute to local economies and doesn’t restrict initiatives that are already performing well.
