Tag: Action

Support for action on ethnic and disability pay gaps demonstrates our commitment to our communities

By mirroring gender pay gap reporting, which was made mandatory in 2018, the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill would introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers with 250 or more employers.

In his foreword to the consultation on introduction of the Bill, the Minister for Social Security and Disability Stephen Timms notes that the UK is far away from achieving its goal of creating a more equal society in which people can thrive whatever their background. According to the Office for National Statistics, the current ethnicity pay gap in the UK ranges from 1.9 per cent to 9.7 per cent, depending on ethnicity and if individuals were born in the UK.

Diving into the data, we were concerned to find that no progress has been made in reducing the median gross hourly pay gap for Black, African, Caribbean or Black British employees compared to white employees, remaining “consistent since 2012”. The disability pay gap is even more pronounced, at 12.7 per cent, having remained “relatively stable since 2014.” The lack of progress in closing these pay gaps is as concerning as the lack of awareness of the problem.

Conversely, the practice of gender pay gap reporting will have contributed to the gender pay gap declining by approximately a quarter among full-time employees over the past decade. Greater transparency helped build the foundations for positive transformation, creating a strategic imperative to root out systemic inequalities and leading to many employers developing, and proactively publishing, action plans to close the gap within their organisations.

In pursuing the noble aim of creating a more equal – and socially cohesive – society, the same focus must now be placed on tackling racial and disability inequalities. Economic inequalities between ethnic groups are an important contributor to social unrest.

The government should be supported in its proposed introduction of the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and, speaking as vice chancellor of Birmingham City University (BCU), David would encourage fellow higher education leaders to join him in lending our public support to the government for this proposal.

There are two key reasons for higher education institutions publicising their ethnicity pay gaps in particular: to build trust with their internal community, and to strengthen authentically social cohesiveness in their local communities.

Building trust

BCU’s new strategy articulates a clear commitment to improve the diversity of our organisation at all levels and eradicate pay gaps. The first step in this will be to publish all our pay gaps with a clear plan to close them by 2030.

There are persistent racial inequalities in higher education. This is demonstrated most evidently in awarding gaps for ethnic minority students and Black students achieving a good honours degrees compared to white students, at 14.1 per cent and 21.6 per cent respectively in 2024. A lack of representation of ethnic minority staff in senior positions also conveys persistent inequities. Ethnic minorities now comprise one in three undergraduate students, but only one in four (20.2 per cent) of academic staff. Their representation is even lower among professors (15.1 per cent), senior managers (9.1 per cent) and executives (7 per cent).

The picture is more concerning in terms of Black representation in higher education. One in ten undergraduate students is Black (9.6 per cent), but only one in every roughly 27 academics share their ethnic identity. Only 1.6 per cent of all professors are black and 0.7 per cent of executives.

In contrast to the gender pay gap, information on the ethnicity pay gap in higher education is not routinely published. Combined with the lack of proportional representation of ethnic minority staff in senior positions, the lack of published data and strategy to tackle pay gaps has caused many staff to lose trust in institutional leadership and its commitment to tackle racial inequalities. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill would bring parity with mandatory gender pay gap reporting and offer greater transparency to our communities.

For reference, the median gender pay gap across higher education institutions, which stands at 11.9 per cent, reduced by 4.4 percentage points since reporting began in 2017.

Community cohesion

Universities play a crucial role in shaping their localities and are increasingly active in strengthening social cohesion – our institutions allow (mostly) young people to study in diverse settings, enable better understanding of different cultures, encourage active citizenship, and develop graduates who are more likely to show concern over racism, be more positive towards immigration, and less likely to view feminism as harmful. Our social mobility missions break cycles of poverty, research and innovation activities drive productivity, and graduates sustain vital public services.

Working effectively with our diverse local communities necessitates trust and the transparent reporting of systemic racial inequalities is paramount. For BCU, this means better reflecting and working in partnership with a community in which no ethnic group has a majority; the 2021 census identified that Birmingham’s population is more than twice as likely to come from an ethnic minority than the overall population in England. 51.4 per cent of people living in Birmingham are from an ethnic minority group, compared to a national average in England of 19 per cent. The data is much more profound for Ladywood, the constituency in which BCU’s city centre campus is based. Here, more than three in four (76.6 per cent) come from an ethnic minority, with the greater proportions of Asian (38.6 per cent) and Black (25.9 per cent) than White (23.4 per cent) citizens.

Birmingham’s “super-diversity” is seen as one of its biggest strengths, the city council opining that it stems from the city’s long-standing history for welcoming people from around the world. However, we must recognise that challenges persist, most notably in terms of engendering social harmony and tackling inequality. Those two challenges are interlinked: social harmony rests on our different racial and ethnic groups feeling valued and having trust in their local institutions providing equal opportunities and equitable outcomes, regardless of background.

Our 2030 strategy sets out a clear vision to be an exemplar anchor institution by 2030. This vision was co-created with representatives from our communities, who recognise and value the crucial role that universities like ours play in their locality. Our strategy explicitly recognises the responsibility we have in strengthening social cohesion in our home city of Birmingham.

From speaking with many vice chancellors, I know that we at BCU are not alone in championing our civic mission. Notwithstanding this, until we collective publish data on ethnicity pay gaps – alongside action plans to overcome these – our sector may find it difficult to build and sustain trust with our diverse internal and external communities. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill offers a timely opportunity for our sector to demonstrate its commitment to racial justice.

My fellow vice-chancellors would do well in voicing their support through this government consultation.

The consultation on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill closes on 10 June and can be accessed here.

Source link

May 29, 2025
Action on researcher career development must go beyond surface-level fixes

The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers was designed to drive culture change, not compliance. However, many institutional action plans suggest institutions are meeting the letter rather than the spirit of its commitments.

Financial constraints and the evolving REF 2029 people, culture and environment (PCE) guidance are shaping how institutions support research staff, and universities face a choice: stick with the easy, surface-level interventions that look good on paper, or commit to the tougher, long-term changes that could truly improve research careers.

The latter is difficult, resource-intensive, and politically fraught – but it is the only route to a research culture that is genuinely sustainable.

Progress and pressures

There has been real progress in embedding researcher development in UK higher education. The 2019 review of the concordat highlighted expanded training opportunities, strengthened mentoring schemes, and, crucially, the integration of researcher development into institutional strategies and governance. Many institutions have since used its principles to shape research culture action plans and strategies.

This progress has been uneven, however. Access to high-quality training and development opportunities varies across the sector, particularly for researchers in smaller, less well-resourced institutions. In addition, new initiatives frequently lack long-term sustainability beyond initial funding.

Institutional action plans tend to emphasise soft politics – awards, charters and resource hubs – which, while useful, may function as reputational signals more than mechanisms for change. Meanwhile, the concordat’s more challenging commitments, like improving job security, workload management, and the visibility of career pathways across sectors, receive less attention.

Financial constraints and shifting priorities

Universities are operating in an era of financial constraint forcing difficult decisions about what can be sustained and what must be scaled back. These financial pressures are already reshaping researcher development and career pathways, with potentially lasting consequences:

Shift toward low-cost interventions: Institutions may prioritise training, mentoring, and “off the shelf” development workshops as the most financially viable options, while more complex reforms – such as improving career pathways, addressing workload pressures, and ensuring meaningful career learning – are pushed aside.

Growing precarity and inequity in research careers: With the risk of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts and rising redundancies, instability may increase. The effects will likely be unequal – early-career researchers, those with caring responsibilities, and underrepresented groups are usually most affected in such situations, with workload pressures further widening existing inequities in career progression and retention.

Shifts in career trajectories: Financial pressures will push more researchers to seek opportunities beyond academia, not always by choice but due to diminishing prospects within universities. This is not in itself a bad thing, but the absence of robust career tracking data, limited engagement with non-academic sectors, and a lack of structured support for diverse pathways mean that institutions risk making decisions in a vacuum.

Without a clear understanding of where researchers go and what they need to thrive, researcher development may become misaligned with market realities – undermining both retention and outcomes. Initiatives like CRAC-Vitae’s new UK research career tracking initiative aim to close this critical evidence gap.

What makes researcher development sustainable?

What will actually make researcher development sustainable? The answer isn’t simply more initiatives, or cheaper ones – it’s about embedding development in institutional culture and building on evidence of what works. That means making time for development activities, creating space for strategic reflection, and encouraging researchers to learn from one another – not just offering mentoring or reciprocal schemes in isolation. Vitae’s refreshed Researcher Development Framework sets out the full breadth of what this encompasses.

Researcher development doesn’t necessarily require large budgets. Much of it comes down to embedding development in the culture: time to pursue meaningful opportunities, support from line managers and supervisors to do so, and the ability to learn in community with others. Yet in times of crisis, workloads tend to rise – and it’s often this development time that’s seen as non-essential and cut. Around half of research staff do not have time to invest in professional development – demonstrating just how limited that space already is.

These overlapping pressures are pushing institutions to make trade-offs – but it’s clear that the most effective and sustainable approaches to researcher development will depend not just on resource levels, but on institutional priorities and strategic leadership.

Unmet expectations

At the same time, the ongoing review of sector-wide concordats and agreements, meant to clarify priorities and improve alignment, seems to have stalled – raising concerns about whether it will lead to meaningful action. The Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, tasked with overseeing implementation and strategic coordination, has also been quiet over the last year, though the new chair has recently signalled renewed commitment to its activities.

This stagnation raises questions about the long-term value of the concordat, particularly in a landscape where institutions are grappling with resource constraints. Without strong leadership and coordinated sector-wide action, there is a real risk that institutions will continue to take a fragmented, compliance-driven approach rather than pursuing deeper reform.

If the concordat is to remain relevant, it must address the structural issues it currently skirts around – particularly those related to researcher employment conditions, workload sustainability, and career progression. Without this, it risks becoming another well-intentioned initiative that falls short of delivering real sector-wide change.

PCE and the concordat

The introduction of people, culture and environment (PCE) in REF 2029 was intended to shift the sector’s focus from research outputs to the broader conditions that enable research excellence. However, the way institutions interpret these requirements is critical.

REF PCE has the potential to drive meaningful change – but only if institutions use it as a platform for genuine reflection rather than a showcase of best practices.

PCE and the concordat share several ambitions: both emphasise inclusive research environments, professional development, and supporting leadership at all career stages. The concordat’s focus on employment conditions, researcher voice, and long-term career development also aligns with PCE’s emphasis on institutional responsibility for research culture.

This coherence is no accident – PCE was co-developed with the sector, and the concordats and agreements review recognised the overlaps between existing frameworks.

If institutions take a strategic, integrated approach, REF PCE could reinforce and enhance existing concordat commitments rather than becoming another compliance exercise. However, this requires institutions to go beyond superficial reporting and demonstrate tangible improvements in the working conditions and career pathways of researchers.

A call to action

If institutions want to move beyond just ticking boxes, they need to take bold, practical steps.

Job security must be redefined in the current climate. Researcher development should not just focus on career skills and knowledge but on career sustainability, accountability, and agility. While reducing reliance on fixed-term contracts remains a long-term goal, immediate priorities must also include clearer career progression routes (within and beyond higher education), cross-sector mobility, and support for career transitions.

Workload and pay transparency need urgent attention. As researchers face increasing uncertainty about their career trajectories, solutions must go beyond surface-level fixes. This requires coordinated policy reform at both institutional and sector levels, including meaningful workload management strategies, transparent pay equity audits, and governance processes that embed researcher voices. While wellbeing initiatives have value, they are not a substitute for structural reform.

Finally, the role of the concordat strategy group must evolve in response to the current climate. With institutions facing severe financial constraints and a shrinking research workforce, the group must take a more proactive role in advocating for sustainable researcher careers. This includes setting clearer expectations for institutions, addressing gaps in employment stability, and ensuring that commitments to researcher development are not lost amid cost-cutting measures. Without stronger leadership at the sector level, there is a risk that the concordat will become little more than a bureaucratic exercise, rather than a meaningful driver of change.

Source link

May 26, 2025
Legacy and Purpose: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett Calls Tougaloo Graduates to Action

–JACKSON, Mississippi

Texas Congresswoman Jasmine CrockettIn a powerful address that wove together civil rights history with present-day challenges, U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) delivered an impassioned commencement speech at Tougaloo College’s graduation ceremony on Sunday, urging graduates to embrace their purpose in continuing the fight for progress.

Standing on the historic grounds of the private Mississippi HBCU—once a sanctuary and launch pad for the Civil Rights Movement—the Congresswoman reflected on the paradoxical nature of the moment: that in 2025, her very presence as a speaker remained controversial.

“As I stand here in this safe space, still only one of the few places that an institution can invite me to speak… to think about the fact that people have to be fearful of having a sitting member of Congress come and address their graduates tells us that we still got a lot of work to do,” she told the graduates.

Drawing parallels between past and present struggles, she reminded the audience that Tougaloo was one of a few places in Mississippi where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could speak during the Civil Rights Movement. Now, decades later, she noted the irony of similar limitations placed on Black voices in positions of power.

“The president of the United States having a temper tantrum that strips funding because I’m Black and I’m proud should not be something that we are dealing with in 2025,” she stated, her voice rising with conviction.

The Congresswoman, who acknowledged working multiple jobs during her own college years, spoke candidly about personal struggles and the fatigue that comes with fighting systemic barriers. Invoking the refrain from the gospel song “I Don’t Feel No Ways Tired,” she encouraged graduates to persevere despite exhaustion.

“I just can’t give up now. I’ve come too far from where I started from,” she recited, asking graduates to reflect on their own journeys through college—the multiple jobs, the stepping away and stepping back in—all while excelling despite the challenges.

Her message anchored in both acknowledgment of weariness and the necessity of continued struggle, themes particularly relevant at an institution with Tougaloo’s civil rights legacy. The college was home to the “Tougaloo Nine,” students who organized sit-ins at segregated libraries, and alumni like Anne Moody and Memphis Norman, who participated in the historic Woolworth’s lunch counter sit-in in 1963.

“Sitting in these very classrooms is just as much of a protest as Anne and Memphis pulling up to Woolworths in 1963,” she said, emphasizing how education remains an act of resistance.

The Congresswoman warned graduates about attempts to erase this history, not just from textbooks but through policies targeting diversity initiatives and institutions serving Black communities. “Jim Crow never died,” she declared. “He just lied in wait.”

She shared personal experiences of being labeled “ghetto” and “unqualified” despite her impressive credentials—modern versions of racial epithets—connecting these attacks to historical patterns of undermining Black achievement and institutions.

Looking to the future, she issued a direct challenge to the graduates.

“If you are waiting on somebody to come and save you, they are not coming,” she warned. “You are the person that you’ve been waiting on.”

Reminding them that every significant social justice movement has been led by young people, she noted that she is now older than Medgar Evers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X were when they were assassinated.

“Your moment is not in the future. Your moment is now,” she urged. “This country is relying on each and every one of you to walk into your purpose and to walk in greatness with your head held high.”

The Congresswoman’s speech resonated deeply with the graduates and assembled families at Tougaloo, an institution that has persisted in its educational mission despite historical and ongoing challenges.

“She was dynamic and passionate,” said Rose Lucas, whose niece was among the more than 120 undergraduates to receive their diploma. “At a time when so many of our politicians are afraid to speak out against the injustices in Washington, I am encouraged by the Congresswoman’s passion and commitment.”

As Crockett concluded with a call to action, she left the new alumni with a poignant message about belonging.

“There are people that are going to tell you that there is not a table in which there is a seat for you, but I am here to remind you of Montgomery and those folding chairs.”

Source link

May 4, 2025
How universities can turn QILT data into action – Campus Review

Universities today have access to more data than ever before to assess student success and graduate outcomes. But having data is only part of the equation. The real challenge is turning insights into action.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

April 28, 2025
‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion
Dive Brief:
- Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work.
- The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.”
- The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.
Dive Insight:

In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”

He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”

In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria.

He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools.

The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements.

“Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.

Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.”

His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”

Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.

The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”

Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.

Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday.

It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”

AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”

Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”

Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.”

Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.

Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.

C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions.

“Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”

She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”
Source link
April 24, 2025
April 17, 2025 National Day of Action for Higher Ed (Higher Ed Labor United)

On April 17, HELU is partnering with the Coalition for Action in Higher Education (CAHE) for the National Day of Action for Higher Education. There are more than 175 events planned in 44 states for April 17. We urge you to join us however you can, either in-person or online.

As campus workers, students, and community members, we have a
unique power and responsibility to exercise our collective voice in this
moment of turmoil. It is our labor and our ideas which sustain higher
education, and higher education sustains our economy and communities.

The April 17 National Day of Action for Higher Education asserts our voice and our power, in a myriad of ways that reflect the diversity of our colleges and universities.

Learn more and find an action near you.

Source link

April 16, 2025
How to Participate in April 17 Day of Action for Higher Education

Higher Education Inquirer readers are encouraged to participate in Day of Action for Higher Education on Thursday, April 17. For more information, visit the Day of Action page at the the Coalition for Action in Higher Education website. The website also includes resources. The coalition includes the Debt Collective, AAUP, and Higher Education Labor United.

Source link

April 14, 2025
Communicate, repeat and compensate – OfS issues principles over industrial action
University and College Union (UCU) staged a national marking and assessment boycott (MAB) – delaying graduations, job starts, and transitions to postgraduate study.

UCU members took the action to tackle disputes including headline pay, gender and minority ethnic pay gaps, staff workload and the casualisation across the sector.

Whenever there’s industrial action, the hope in Carlow St is that students will see the bigger picture – but this time around, at least for some students in some universities, the impact was significant. At the time, UCU estimated that 30,000 students were unable to graduate on time or were affected in some other way.

In the aftermath, the Commons Education Committee held a mini inquiry to investigate the impact – it wrote to the then Conservative government to raise concerns about the lack of data, the role of the Office for Students (OfS) and the lack of clarity over students’ rights, and the eventual (post election) reply was predictably weak.

Now, two years on, OfS has published research that was commissioned to develop an understanding of what the impacts were from a student perspective – along with guidance for institutions on protecting the interests of students during industrial action, and a webinar event planned for mid-May on the regulator’s expectations on how providers should support students before, during and after industrial action.

OfS first ran a text-based focus group via YouGov in July 2024 that discussed short- and long-term impacts, what information they got from their institutions, and how those institutions handled the situation. A quantitative survey followed that gathered 763 responses (279 undergrads, 284 postgrads, and 200 graduates) that had been studying at impacted institutions during the boycott. You’d not be diving into demographic splits on that sample size.

The polling drilled into how the industrial action affected their academic lives – immediately and over time – along with the comms they received from their universities, and how they viewed their rights as students.

On the top line

In a “topline” results report and associated student insights brief, we learn that the industrial action caused delayed or unmarked coursework (53 per cent) and exams (46 per cent), reduced lecture time (68 per cent), and decreased contact with staff.

Most impacted students reported negative effects on academic work quality (49 per cent) and grades (42 per cent). The MAB’s psychological impact was significant – with 41 per cent reporting increased stress, 32 per cent experiencing poorer mental health, and 15-18 per cent noting negative effects on their social lives.

One student is quoted as follows:

I was waiting for the result of a resit that the progression of my masters’ depended upon but it was delayed so much I had to pay for the next module and would not get the results until halfway through.

International students faced particular challenges, with visa uncertainties arising from delayed results and qualifications. Some students couldn’t attend graduation ceremonies because their results came too late:

I didn’t manage to get graduation tickets in time due to how late results were, so I didn’t have a graduation ceremony.

Communication varied considerably across institutions – with most updates coming through emails (65 per cent) rather than during lectures (22 per cent). Students rated information from individual lecturers (78 per cent satisfaction) more highly than university-wide communications (64 per cent satisfaction).

Many students in the focus group:

…were not told which of their modules would be affected, or when they would get their marks and feedback.

OfS says that the institutional response was inconsistent across the higher education sector. Students directly affected by the MAB expressed significantly higher dissatisfaction (54 per cent) with their university’s handling of the situation compared to unaffected students (18 per cent). Just 46 per cent of affected students received alternatives or compensation, primarily through “no detriment” policies adapted from those developed during the Covid era (26 per cent).

Financial compensation and rights awareness was low – with only 30 per cent knowing they could request it, and a mere 9 per cent successfully receiving any. The boycott also negatively impacted perceptions of education quality (38 per cent reporting a decrease) and value for money (41 per cent reporting a decrease), with one student noting:

I ended up with a [postgraduate diploma] instead of my MSc, and I came out with a merit instead of a distinction.

The brief does note that universities employed various mitigation strategies, including awarding interim degree classifications, guaranteeing minimum classifications, improving mental health support, reallocating marking responsibilities, and engaging with employers to request flexibility for affected graduates.

Were they OK? Some students felt their institutions responded well, others reported that the experience contributed to decisions not to pursue further studies or work in higher education, with 42 per cent reporting decreased trust in their universities.

Behind the screams

Much of that won’t come as a surprise – although the sheer scale of the suggested impacts, as well as their depth and breadth on individual students (esp rer mental health and international students) ought to invigorate debates about the morality of the tactic, and how universities handled it to limit legal or financial exposure.

Arguably of more interest is the letter and “regulatory statement” that accompanies the publication from John Blake, Director for Fair Access and Participation.

Re-stressing that it’s not OfS’ role to intervene in labour disputes, Blake expresses concern about how strikes and the MAB disrupted students’ academic experiences, notes inconsistencies in institutional responses, sets out an aim to establish clearer expectations for fair treatment for all students in any similar future scenarios.

And there’s a fascinating section on compensation:

We want to be clear that we don’t see compensation as a substitute for the holistic experience of intellectual, professional and personal development that a student should expect from their higher education. Institutions should continue to focus their efforts during industrial action on delivering the education that students expect. The inclusion of an expectation in relation to compensation does, though, reflect the rights students have under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Given that many students got neither, the clear implication is that a large number of students should have received both.

Six principles

The core of the guidance letter then manifests in six principles:
1. Providers must remove contractual terms that inappropriately limit liability to students during staff industrial action or other circumstances within the provider’s control, as these breach consumer protection law.
2. Effective contingency plans must be developed to minimise disruption to students during industrial action, ensuring plans are actionable, timely, and protect qualification integrity.
3. When implementing contingency plans, providers should prioritise education delivery by: first avoiding impacts on students; if not possible, making minimal changes; and if necessary, providing timely repeat performance of missed teaching or assessment.
4. Fair compensation must be paid when contingency plans fail to deliver promised aspects of student experience, particularly for missed teaching without timely replacement, delayed assessment marking, or delayed progression decisions affecting jobs or visa status.
5. Clear communication with students is essential, including transparent information about rescheduled activities or compensation, with proactive identification of eligible students rather than requiring them to submit claims.
6. Providers must submit reportable events about industrial action to the Office for Students (OfS) in accordance with established regulatory requirements.
It’s an interesting list. The first one on the inclusion of industrial action in so-called “force majeure” clauses in student contracts – which limit liability for events that are outside of the predictability or control of of providers – is a long-running passive-aggressive row between the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and OfS on one side, and providers on the other.

OfS has previously published a referral to National Trading Standards involving the University of Manchester’s contract – but my spreadsheet suggests that there’s a large number of providers that either haven’t seen that, or are digging in for a battle over it.

That may be partly because those sorts of clauses – and CMA’s advice on them (which OfS requires providers to pay “due regard to”) – are a key point of dispute in the ongoing Student Group Claim, the UCL portion of which won’t get to court until early 2026.

From a student point of view, if those clauses shouldn’t exist, the snail’s pace of enforcement on this is as baffling as it is frustrating.

There won’t be many providers that weren’t developing contingency plans, notwithstanding that they can always be improved – and the one-two-three-four punch of avoid, adjust, repeat or compensate reflects (and translates) the position under consumer law.

Of course some will argue that a legal duty to undertake any/all of those steps under consumer law depends on those force majeure clauses not existing or being unlawful – and as it stands there’s a major silent standoff that’s unhelpful.

Even if you just look at compensation, the survey fails to differentiate between compensation paid for breach of contract, and “goodwill” payments where no such breach has been accepted by providers. As far as I’m aware, the former was vanishingly rare.

The other issue, of course, is with punch three of four – where university managements satisfy themselves that once a dispute is over, teaching or support is rescheduled “because we told them to”, despite the fact that most heads of department find it hard to actually implement those instructions with UCU members.

The “proactive identification of eligible students” for “repeat performance” or compensation is interesting too – especially over the latter, providers have long relied on students having to make complaints in order to get redress. This not only depends on the breach of contract or not issue being resolved, it also raises questions for universities’ legal advisors and insurers about the relative risks of doing as John Blake says, or waiting for students to raise concerns.

But as well as all of that, there’s three things we ought to be surprised not to see.

What’s missing?

For a set of documents seeped in the translation of consumer protection to a higher education setting, there’s nothing on the extent to which any alternative arrangements in a MAB – especially alternative arrangements over marking – should still be carried out with reasonable skill and care. Academic judgement can’t be challenged, but only if that judgement has been carried out in the way we might expect it to be by people who know their onions. That was a major issue in the dispute for plenty of students, even if it wasn’t a big issue in the polling.

The second is the lack of answer to the questions raised both in the polling and by the Commons Education Committee – which concern students’ understanding of what their rights are. If OfS thinks that it can vaguely pressure providers into proactively identifying students entitled to wads of cash, it’s misunderstanding the countervailing pressures on providers in similar ways to those identified by Mills and Reeve over provider collapse. And as I often say on the site, good regulatory design considers how individuals come to understand (or access information) on their rights should they need to use them without having to access a regulator or complaints adjudicator – there’s nothing on any of that here.

But the third is the lack of a clear link to the regulatory framework, and the lack of any enforcement carried out over what must amount to failings. If the guidance is grounded in OfS’ rules, students might well say “well what action have you taken given that the problems were widespread?”

If it’s not grounded in OfS’ powers, providers might well say “well notwithstanding that we like to look nice, why would we magnify the efficacy of an industrial action tactic if we don’t really have to”.

It’s all very well for OfS to be “give them guidance” mode, but over this set of issues the financial impacts of compliance with something that sounds contested, and partly voluntary, could be huge both in an individual dispute and in the long-term. That all (still) needs bringing to a head.
Source link
April 10, 2025
Adolescence and Boys will be Boys – time for concrete action

Having been involved in the world of men and boys’ issues (chairing charities, running campaigns, trying to get policy change) for a long time, the last few weeks have been potentially game-changing. We saw the Centre for Social Justice report Lost Boys, Netflix’s Adolescence and the Boys will be boys policy report from Nick Hillman and me for this Institute.

I felt that the Netflix programme raised serious issues facing some, not all, of our teenage boys, albeit it felt a little tick boxy in places (Tate – tick, Incels – tick, dad not around all the time – tick). I felt a little uneasy about how the dad was portrayed (leaving home at 6am and coming home at 8pm as if it was his fault and it was all his choice). Being the eldest son of a van driver, I am somewhat sensitive to negative portrayals of working-class dads doing the best they can to keep the lights on for their families.

The report Nick and I wrote highlighted the continuing gender gap between male and female teenagers going into higher education. We estimate it is half a million over a decade with no sign of any change on the horizon, given the main predictor is an attainment gap in school. Boys remain behind girls at every level. Therefore, they are not getting the grades and as a consequence, are not taking enough of the exams to qualify.

The main commonalities between both are that these issues have been hidden in plain sight. The issues raised by Adolescence about disengaged boys, negative influencers and their impact have been known for a long time. The same is true of the gender attainment gap. It shouldn’t, like last years’ Post Office Scandal drama, take TV to bring these to the fore.

The main difference between our report and the ensuing debate about Adolescence is what comes next.

We offered a range of policy solutions from schools taking up boy-positive principles to more male teachers and role models. Plus, there should be an increased focus on gender disparities in Access and Participation Plans, a Minister for Men and Boys and re-opening the Select Committee inquiry on boys’ attainment. Many more as well.

What has been missing with regard to Adolescence at a national political and education level is the lack of commitment for concrete action. More male teachers and role models, came the welcome call from Sir Gareth Southgate. But there was no commitment from anyone to act. The Prime Minister said he was concerned and would look at it, but he made no pledge on action or what that would look like. There was also no huge push on tackling the problems boys have, only talking about the problems boys cause. But of course, tackling the problems boys have reduces the problems some boys cause – to themselves and others, including women and girls.

My fear is that the media and political agenda will move on as it always does and nothing will change. The higher education attendance gap will remain, 150 plus teenage boys will die by suicide every year, well over 6,000 boys will continue to be excluded from school and 250,000 young men will still be unemployed.

The higher education sector needs more boys to do well, so more go to higher education, and they do better when they are there. Our economy and society depend on it, too. The lesson from both Adolescence and Boys will be boys is that a continual lack of concrete action will no longer do.

Source link

April 2, 2025
Collaboration in Action: The Third Sector Forum and the OfS Equality Agenda

Last month, the Office for Students (OfS) confirmed the successful bids for their £2 million Equality of Opportunity Innovation Fund, launched to ‘support institutions to undertake new and innovative collaborative work or projects that will reduce risks to equality of opportunity’.

It is the culmination of three years of collaboration, beginning in February 2022 when Impetus hosted John Blake in his first external speaking event as the OfS’s Director for Fair Access and Participation.

This seminal event gave rise to the Third Sector Forum – a quarterly dialogue between the Office for Students and third sector organisations working to support young people into higher education.  

As an impact funder supporting the best attainment, engagement, and employment interventions for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, we recognise the invaluable role of the third sector in addressing deep-seated barriers. We wanted to support this knowledge-sharing in the widening participation space.  

Three years on, I spoke to some of the CEOs of Third Sector Forum organisations on what’s made the forum a success.

Trust and openness  

I was struck by the number of CEOs who cited the forum’s format as key to its success. While we fund widening participation organisations, Impetus itself is not a direct delivery organisation, meaning we can provide an independent middle ground. As a result, many emphasised the forum’s open and trusting nature and the uniqueness of this set-up. Anna Searle, CEO of The Access Project, reflected on how ‘you don’t often have the [governmental regulatory body] being as open with their constituent group’.  

Another key factor in the success of the forum was the genuine engagement from the Office for Students, and particularly John Blake. Jayne Taylor, CEO of The Elephant Group, emphasised how John ‘genuinely listens to the voices around the table’, while Anna was quick to note how he went beyond discussing challenges for the OfS and what was next and provided his genuine views and reflections.  

Collaborating and knowledge sharing

Sam Holmes, CEO of Causeway Education, mentioned how participating in the sessions enabled him to form partnerships with other organisations in the space. Sitting next to Jayne when the Innovation Fund was announced, he says they were ‘immediately having conversations about […] potential collaboration’. 

For organisations such as Causeway, which occupy a different space to programmatic organisations, it was also valuable to hear from colleagues across the sector. Forum members were able to share updates which, for Sam, demonstrated the wealth of collective knowledge and painted a picture of the higher education landscape.

Shifting the narrative

Action Tutoring is another member of the forum who wouldn’t ordinarily describe itself as a widening participation organisation. Susannah Hardyman, then-CEO, initially wondered if it was the right place for Action Tutoring, whose tutoring stops at age 16.  Organisations focusing on Level 2 outcomes have not always been seen as part of the widening participation space, but John Blake’s conscious decision to widen the focus of the equality of opportunity agenda brought them within scope. Over time, Susannah began to feel Action Tutoring had a place, helping to shift the narrative of what ‘widening participation’ means.

At Impetus, we know that each step up the qualification ladder halves your chances of being NEET. We also know that early intervention is critical – before the barriers that young people face become acute – making the case for the importance of Level 2 pathways in achieving equality of opportunity. For Susannah, both the dialogue and John Blake’s emphasis on GCSE attainment, ‘[genuinely] did change the narrative of how we understand widening participation’. The implications of this reverberated beyond the four walls of the forum, opening up opportunities for organisations like Action Tutoring, which was later funded by the University of Brighton to work with two secondary schools on GCSE attainment.

What next? 

Policy professionals will know how rare it is to attribute policy change to their work. So, while Third Sector Forum members should undoubtedly shout about the fact that their expertise and dedication have helped to bring about £2 million of funding and a change to regulatory guidance, the work doesn’t end there.

Last year, the widening participation gap grew to 20.8 percentage points – its highest recorded level. The number is staggering, and even more bleak when coupled with a higher education sector on its knees and a ‘fiscal blackhole’ with seemingly no money to plug it up. It is clear that fighting to achieve equality of opportunity is more important than ever, but how?

That a key pillar of the updated regulatory guidance is collaboration with the third sector is a testament to the success of the forum, but we can and must go further.

For Jayne Taylor, this looks like working groups or direct-action areas to facilitate collaboration, leveraging the collective knowledge and resources of the sector. With further investment, the forum could even evolve into an ecosystem, with opportunities for publishing research, bidding and running events together.

Collaboration also looks like an ever-evolving partnership between third sector organisations and the regulator. Anna Searle suggested implementing mechanisms for feedback loops, such as regular newsletters, to continue to foster a transmission of knowledge between forum members and the Office for Students.

For some, it feels like public policy is waiting for a return to pre-pandemic conditions. They believe that to truly move forward, we need to adapt to the present socio-economic landscape. One CEO pointed out the need for realistic conversations about the economic realities of the sector. With 40% of higher education institutions thought to be in deficit in 2023/24, providers and organisations are operating in an unprecedented funding landscape. For Sam Holmes, clearer messaging for charities that have relied on university contracts is increasingly necessary. He suggests there may even be benefits to involving funders in these discussions, alongside considering alternative partnerships, funding models and strategies.

For others, such as Susannah Hardyman, we must continue to reevaluate our understanding of ‘equality of opportunity’. With a record 56% of students now working part-time while studying, foodbank usage doubling since 2022, and 60% stating that money concerns affected their university choice, the landscape has undoubtedly changed. Where two decades ago the focus was relatively narrow – focused mostly around supporting high-achievers from deprived areas into high tariff institutions – this understanding has moved on. For Susannah, this needs to be taken into account, not to quash ambition but to broaden the definition of opportunity to reach as wide a group as possible.

When we hosted the Director for Fair Access and Participation three years ago, he said,

‘We are not short on people who will give up days, weeks, years of their time to pour into projects supporting the vulnerable and disadvantaged. We are not short on good suggestions, possible solutions, and rough ideas how things could be better. No, what we lack, still, is enough commitment for all those dedicated people to work together…’

While the past few years have demonstrated the commitment that may have been missing previously, if we are to give every young person equal opportunity to succeed, our work is far from over.

Source link

March 28, 2025