Category: Place

  • Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Given the likely media habits of Wonkhe’s astute and cerebral readership, you’ve probably had a good fill of Andy Haldane in recent days.

    The former chief economist of the Bank of England has hardly been off the news and current affairs shows. First describing the pre-budget speculation as a “fiscal fandango,” and then continuing his sharp critique by lamenting the prospects for economic growth following the announcement last week.

    Haldane is best known for his economic analysis but as the author of the Levelling Up white paper (RIP) he is also a thoughtful commentator on all things related to “place” and has taken a keen interest in the civic university agenda. If you are not feeling too over-saturated with Haldane content, it is worth revisiting his essay for the Kerslake Collection last year. In it he celebrated the impact of the civic movement within the sector and the great practice it has fostered, but politely pointed out that the Civic University Commission that Lord Kerslake chaired, and its aftermath, had very little impact on policy.

    A place to call home

    This government, like the last one, has often spoken about the importance of place. Whether we think of geographical inequality or “left behind places,” across the political spectrum it is recognised that this complex issue is behind much of the political instability we have seen over the last decade. When it comes to why this matters Cabinet Office minister Josh Simmons put it well the other day when he said “Everything we do in policy should focus on place. We all experience the world through where we live and who we live with.”

    Policy action has not always matched the rhetoric but to be fair to this government, while critics may argue there is a lack of much needed radicalism when it comes to place, there have been a range of welcome place-based initiatives announced during the budget and over the last few months including the Pride in Place strategy, place-based budget pilots, and local economic growth zones.

    For higher education policy specifically, the government has of course included civic engagement as one of its five priorities and the industrial strategy highlights universities as “engines of innovation and skills” that are key to driving economic growth. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that civic engagement is a priority the Whitehall machine is struggling to get to grips with. Universities are inherently policy-domain-spanning institutions – and yet policy ownership of their “civic mission” is restricted to one Whitehall department (Education), where the much more expansive role of universities in driving economic and social growth within their cities and regions is not considered alongside their role in skills and education.

    It is not just the fact universities are often thought of as “big schools” by government which limits their role in place-based policymaking, but, as the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA)/Civic University Network outlined recently there is a “profound fragmentation in both policy and place.” The siloed nature of government departments adds complexity and can limit ambition and potential for unlocking the role of universities in supporting their place. As the NCIA report outlines, the different layers of devolution also presents a fragmented landscape in which universities work.

    Civic 2.0

    So, what can we do about it? Following the NCIA programme we want to build on the success they have had in developing great practice in the sector. We are delighted that the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement has agreed to host the Civic University Network, convene a national community of practice, and maintain the assets of the Civic University Network and National Civic Impact Accelerator. This ensures continuity for the sector and provides a platform for sharing knowledge and accelerating civic leadership.

    In addition to sector-practice we want to start making a difference to policy and overcoming the Haldane critique! A group of universities and funders – the universities of Birmingham, Newcastle and Queen Mary alongside Midlands Innovation and the NCCPE – have got together to establish a programme to develop policies and ideas which would enable universities’ place-based role to grow.

    We are at the start of this journey but our intended approach is to be both ambitious and pragmatic. What this means in reality is that we do not anticipate a radical departure from the current system in the near or medium term. While we recognise the higher education market and the way research is funded is often at odds with the place agenda, the fiscal environment and challenges faced by government means there is little appetite for structural change.

    Instead, we want to identify significant themes universities could play a role in tackling, such as social cohesion and rebuilding institutional capacity in local communities, as well as a small number of policy shifts or ideas across different parts of Whitehall to ensure universities are enabled to be more active players in supporting local growth and civic engagement over the next few years.

    In turn this will also help us to provide the sector with additional momentum, leadership and representation on the civic/place agenda – ensuring greater visibility, highlighting excellent practice, developing spokespeople and case-studies for policy makers to engage with and to facilitate partnerships between university leaders, other sectors and national/ regional policymakers.

    We are starting out as a small group of universities and funders committed to the civic agenda, but we recognise there are many other institutions from across the country with different missions and specialisms who really care about the role they play in the places they are part of.

    We would welcome you to join our programme, with the intention that over time we will be able to build a sustainable entity which wouldn’t just look at “civic wins” for the medium term but could also explore the system changes we need to better serve our places for the decades to come.

    More information on the Civic 2.0 programme can be found here.

    Source link

  • Super-universities and human sized art schools

    Super-universities and human sized art schools

    The creation of a new super university in South East England, through the merger of Kent and Greenwich, signals both a turning point and a warning.

    Advocates see consolidation as the promise of scale and resilience.

    Critics fear homogenisation, loss of identity, and narrowing of choice.

    Both could be right.

    What matters most is not the merger itself but the logic that underpins it. In the absence of a shared national mission for higher education, mergers are now framed as solutions: a form of market rationalisation presented as vision.

    The vacuum where mission should be

    Since the 2012 funding reforms, higher education has been treated less as civic infrastructure and more as a competitive market. Public investment was replaced by loans. Students were told to think like investors. Degrees became receipts.

    Into the gap left by an absence of national purpose rushed hyper-regulation: metrics, thresholds, and questions of fiscal viability. Within this narrowed frame, mergers appear logical. Bigger looks cheaper. Consolidation looks like progress. But without a shared mission, the deeper questions go unanswered.

    The long contraction

    For much of the last century, almost every town in Britain had its own art school: civic in origin, modest in scale, and rooted in place. In the 1960s there were over 150 across England. Over time, that dispersed civic network was redrawn. Some schools were absorbed into polytechnics, some federated into new structures, many disappeared.

    From this history, four models emerged: the consolidated metropolitan brand, uniting multiple colleges under one identity; the regional federation spread across towns and cities; the specialist regional provider rooted in place; and the art school absorbed into a larger university. All four persist, but history shows how quickly the civic and regional variants were erased in the pursuit of scale. That remains the risk.

    The limits of consolidation

    Super universities are most often justified through promises of efficiency and resilience. The patterns of merger and acquisition are familiar, exercised through cuts, closures, and the stripping back of provision. Contraction is presented as progress.

    And what follows: a merger into an “Ultra Super University”, a “Mega University”? The logic of consolidation always points in that direction. Fewer institutions. The illusion that size solves structural problems.

    But what if the future of universities is regional, hybrid and networked? Do mergers enable this? Or do they reduce it, by erasing local presence in the pursuit of efficiency?

    The risk is not only that provision shrinks, but that our regional and civic anchors are lost. A university’s resilience lies not in the absence of difference but in its presence: in the tolerance of variety, the recognition of locality, and the capacity to sustain attachment.

    Federation of art schools

    UCA grew from a federation of art schools, distributed rather than centralised, holding to a civic model of place. This has been hard to sustain in today’s free market. However, our University has become a place for those who find belonging in community, for outliers and outsiders at home in the intimacy of a civic setting, rather than the intensity of the metropolis. Our resilience shows how creative specialist schools can generate strength from vulnerability. Our story also foreshadows the systemic pressures now confronting universities everywhere.

    The Kent–Greenwich merger now brings new possibilities for Medway, positioned between Greenwich and Kent and home to a university campus for them both. If approached with care, it could restore creative presence to a place long on the periphery.

    Our civic project persists at Canterbury School of Art, Architecture and Design. Our founder, Sidney Cooper, a local painter, established Canterbury’s School of Art in 1868 as a gift to the city. It has survived every reform since. In the 1960s it moved into a modernist building, future-facing yet rooted in the Garden of England.

    That identity carried it through polytechnic consolidation, university expansion, and marketisation. It remains its strength now: an art school for the city, of the city, and in the city. Creativity is lived as much as it is taught.

    A human-sized proposition

    For us at UCA Canterbury, the alternative is clear. Ours is a human-sized proposition: intimate, civic, distinctive. A place where students are known by name, where teaching is close, and where creativity is inseparable from civic life.

    We intend that our graduates remain in creative professions for life, not because of economies of scale but because of the depth of their formation. Small institutions enable what scale cannot: intimacy, belonging, and the tolerance of difference. They cultivate attachment to place, the character of community, and the fragile conditions in which nuture and trust can grow. These are not marginal gains. They are the essence of education itself. Vulnerability, when named and advocated for, becomes strength.

    This is the measure against which any super university must be judged: not whether it scales, but whether it sustains the human scale within it. The crisis in higher education is not only financial but cultural. It is about whether universities can still act as places of meaning, attachment, and public need.

    Our founder, Sidney Cooper, understood in 1868 that education was not about scale but about purpose. That mission still speaks. In the shadow of consolidation and the spectre of Artificial Intelligence, what must endure is the human scale of learning and belonging.

    To sustain it is a choice we must keep making.

    Source link

  • It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

    It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

    The industrial strategy is not only an economic document it is also a roadmap for how the country will be governed.

    At its heart is a simple premise. Places know what is best for people locally and power should be devolved to them. Not all powers, because some things like defence have to be coordinated at a national level, and certainly not lots of fiscal policy like taxation, but powers over things like spatial planning (where the government allows it), investment, and some parts of the R&D ecosystem.

    The ideal body for distributing these powers is the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). These are the collection of councils in one area, usually a city, that work together to achieve more than they could alone. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority are just two examples

    Process not an event

    In 1997 then Secretary of State for Wales Rob Davies called devolution “a process not an event”, and he was right. Powers are not spread evenly through the UK, London has quite a lot and a local town council has very few. And the propensity for government to operate through pots of money that local government bid for to do stuff is unusual by international comparisons. This level of financial control limits many places to being the delivery arm of government more so than independent decision makers in their own right.

    This patchwork approach also means higher education providers have a mixed relationship with the devolution story.

    Solely through an academic lens research intensive universities have done well out of (even if they do not like it) how centralised the UK is. The REF just isn’t interested in geography. It follows quality, impact, and environments wherever they may be. Previous research pots like the Regional Innovation Fund which apply a funding multiplier to places underserved by research funding are the exception not the norm.

    The industrial strategy is different in that it at least attempts some kinds of rebalancing in acknowledging that if the government funds the same things in the same places the same kinds of research outputs will be produced. The fact there is some money behind it is even better. As DK noted in his review of research in the industrial strategy:

    The £500m Local Innovation Partnerships Fund is intended to generate a further £1bn of additional investment and £700m of value to local economies, and there are wider plans to get academia and industry working together: a massive expansion in supercomputer resources (the AI research resource, inevitably) and a new Missions Accelerator programme supported by £500m of funding. And there’s the Sovereign AI Unit within government (that’s another £500m of industry investments) in “frontier AI”. On direct university allocation we get the welcome news that the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is here to stay.

    The places that are located outside of major cities without large research portfolios have more reason to be sceptical about devolution. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has called for local leaders to “fill in the map” of devolution but this is easier said than done. Places have distinct histories, geographies, and can’t as easily be accommodated into MCAs as places like Greater Manchester.

    While there has been interest in towns from time to time, the Towns Fund provided some funding to some places on some research projects, they risk being left behind within a devolution system that prioritises larger conurbations.

    The universities problem

    Let’s take the government’s proposals at face value and assume it is going to implement the full version of the devolution agenda it is proposing. This would mean local government has more funding to buy land, freeports and investment zones will be streamlined to provide even more business incentives, the British Business Bank (among other funders) will release and coordinate capital aligned to regions and the eight industrial strategy priorities, a further £200m will be spent on further education in England, and a series of growth funds will run directly through mayors.There are more announcements to come on skills, local economic regulation and infrastructure.

    Universities are not losers in any of these measures but nor are they inevitably complementary to everything the governments wants to do. Former universities minister David Willetts, who had some reservations about the draft strategy, has softened his tone writing:

    Most of the key industries set out in that visual [the one explaining the industrial strategy priorities] are heavy users of higher education. Universities will play a crucial role in the strategy. One of the biggest risks to delivering it is the financial fragility of these core institutions. It is good to see them getting a vivid illustration as well – on page 73. But the Government has not yet taken the decisions needed to ensure they can thrive and continue to be such a national asset.

    This is the core problem. It is possible to imagine how industries may rely on universities but it is more difficult work out how universities, specifically, can deploy their capacity in the most effective ways. Universities cannot expect government money for everything they do but it is also true that if they fall over the industrial strategy will fall with them.

    Philosophically, the industrial strategy neither supports enormous state intervention nor is it a hands off document of supply-side reform. It sees the state as an enabling force which can reduce risks to business, catalyse investment, and reconfigure the public sector. The industrial strategy does not tell universities what to do, or even what they might do in great detail, because that is not what it is designed to do. It gives an approach and it is for universities to choose whether and how they follow it.

    Adapt or perish

    This suggests a significant period of adaptation for universities. If more investment and political attention is flowing through their places then being involved in their places becomes significantly more important. Fundamentally, the industrial strategy is not an instruction manual but it is a guide to the things that the government will and will not fund.

    There are lots of devolved things that universities would generally find unpalatable like top-slicing QR funds to MCAs. There are lots of things that universities could do and are doing to set an example which might one day be backed up by legislation. Organising regional bodies to coordinate the provision of education to meet local labour market needs. Forming joint research programmes and investment vehicles to form one front door for research in their area. Using their own research capacity to interrogate the best forms of devolution and devolved structures. And, perhaps most importantly, being embedded in the important but unglamorous business of transport and spatial planning.

    The bigger mental shift is that the industrial strategy has two core centres of control. Its eight priority industries and regions and clusters within them. The challenge for universities, if they want to see sustained government support for their work, is to answer how what they do supports those two agendas. This is not a PR exercise but a careful interrogation of the limits and approaches of universities in their places and within those core industries.

    In some places this might mean tweaking existing work, in others it might mean new partners or new projects, and in some it might mean a more fundamental reimagining of the shape of the education sector in a region. Given the perilous state of university finances it is the institutions that look like they have solutions that will do well in the era of uncertainty.

    The industrial strategy does not leave universities behind, but it might. The opportunity is for universities to shape the settlement they want through being proactive in shaping their regions. This is not about another civic strategy but about creating the governance apparatus to support economic growth. Anything short of this risks an economic agenda which is done to universities rather than with them.

    Source link

  • The widening access narrative must return to speaking about places

    The widening access narrative must return to speaking about places

    Widening access to higher education has experienced a precipitous fall from grace in the eyes of politicians over the last ten years – a fall that may have slowed slightly but as yet to stop under this government.

    This fall may have coincided with the shift away from place-based to institutional-focused approaches to the problem. The access and participation plan regime may have stopped widening participation slipping out of sight completely but as our latest report shows, they have done little to increase higher education participation for those from the poorest backgrounds, particularly in rural and coastal areas.

    Split geographies

    The report – Coast and country: access to higher education cold spots in England – looks at the data published annually by the Department of Education on participation in higher education by free school meal (FSM) backgrounds. There are things we know about what this data shows as outlined in previous reports I have written and more recent work such as that from the Sutton Trust – in particular that London does far better than everywhere else.

    In this report, though, we show exactly how much. The national higher education participation rate in 2022–23 for those from FSM backgrounds was 29 per cent. If you take out London, which has only 16 per cent of the population of England, it falls to 23 per cent. London is covering up a much more challenging situation in the rest of the country than we are prepared to admit.

    These challenges increase as areas get smaller. The report looks at the relationship between the size of an area and the FSM higher education participation rate. It drops steadily as population decreases from 43 per cent in big cities to 18 per cent in rural villages. Nor is the situation improving. The gap between London and the other 84 per cent of the population has increased 3 per cent from 2012–23 to 2022–23 and just under 3 per cent between predominantly urban areas and predominantly rural areas over the same period.

    Many coastal areas in England – especially seaside resorts – have well documented problems with poverty, unemployment and health inequalities and higher education participation can be added to that list. The higher education participation rate for those from FSM backgrounds coastal communities was 11 per cent lower than in inland areas in 2022–23 with in many areas less than one in five such young people going onto higher education. There is an overlap here between rural and coastal areas here with the South West especially including areas of lower higher education participation.

    It is often said that the differences in higher education participation described above are associated with attainment in schools. Increasing attainment was the priority where widening access work was concerned for the Office for Students for a number of years. In the report, we map GSCE attainment at the area level against FSM higher education participation – and the correlation is indeed strong.

    It is far weaker, though, in villages and coastal areas than the rest of the country. This suggest that in the places where the problems are the greatest, better GCSE results alone won’t be enough. In 2022–23, six of the ten areas with the lowest levels of higher education participation did not have a university campus within them. What provision exists also matters.

    We need new (old) stories

    If any progress in closing the gaps between regions described above is to be made then place must again become the central focus for widening access to higher education work – as it was when the last Labour government championed the issue so vigorously in the 2000s.

    The pendulum has swung too far since then toward what institutions themselves do. Consequently, that political link between widening access, opportunity and growth has been broken. It is possible that the government itself will swing the pendulum back to place, and some of the signs coming from the Office for Students in recent months have been promising.

    However, higher education providers themselves can take the initiative themselves here and look for new ways to form stronger partnerships – ones that take whatever replaces Uni Connect as the start, not the endpoint, of what regional collaboration means.

    While the sector’s financial challenges make competition for students more intensive than it has ever been – and thus collaboration in this area more difficult – the value of higher education itself is being questioned by young people more than it ever has been since participation increased rapidly in the 1990s. Fighting between each other for young people’s and their schools’ attention won’t convince those, especially from the poorest backgrounds, that higher education is worth it. But collaboration will.

    Collaboration won’t produce additional provision in rural and coastal areas, or the money to fund it. But unless we shift the story and the practice of widening access back to place, this additional provision will never come.

    Source link