Tag: change

  • A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    At first glance Liz Kendall may look like an odd choice for Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. She has never worked in science, she has rarely mentioned science directly in any intervention in her entire parliamentary career, and this is not a role with the kind of profile which will allow easy entry in any future leadership race.

    Although covering a related brief has never been a disqualifying quality for any predecessors, her move from the Department for Work and Pensions following her failed welfare reforms felt more like a hasty exit than a tactical manoeuvre.

    Her direct predecessor, Peter Kyle, often seemed more preoccupied with turning the UK into an “AI superpower” than he did the more tedious business of how the research ecosystem is governed and how it can be manipulated to fulfil the government’s ambitions. In truth, the business of research reform is not about more grand visions, frameworks, or strategies, but the rather grubbier work of deciding where to spend a finite amount of funding on an infinite amount of programmes.

    Practice and promise

    Kendall’s interest in research has so far been on the business of making the country better. As seen in her speeches during her time on the backbenches, research is about practical things like regional economies, skills, and curing diseases. For Kendall, “what matters is what works.” And in her speech at the Innovation for Growth Summit a management theory of research reform about balancing the speculative with the practical emerged.

    The premise of her speech was that the growth of the UK economy is reliant on making the most of the UK’s R&D strengths. To get the most out of the UK’s R&D strengths Kendall believes the government can neither be too directive and must allow curiosity-driven research to prosper. It should also not be too permissive, funding must be directed toward government priorities particularly when it comes to translation and application.

    It is a middle ground approach to research management for a third-way politician. In line with the three bucket model (outlined here by current Strathclyde professor of practice, research and innovation policy, and former DSIT and Research England person Ben Johnson) Kendall has clarified the government’s research funding allocations. There will be £14bn for curiosity driven R&D, £8bn toward the government’s priorities, and £7bn for scale up support. £7bn has also been announced in skills and infrastructure to secure the success of each bucket of activity.

    The label problem

    The labelling of existing funds in new ways is in itself not a strategy for economic growth. Clearly, doing the same thing, with the same people, in the same ways, would lead to exactly the same outcomes with a different name. A bit like when international research became about making the UK a “science superpower” or when every ambitious research programme was a “moonshot” or relabelling every economic benefit produced through research as “levelling up”.

    The boldest ambition of Kendall’s speech is perhaps the most understated. Kendall is committed to “doing fewer things better.” In a speech delivered at the same event by UKRI’s Chief Executive, Ian Chapman, this simple sentiment may have massive consequences.

    Chapman’s view is that the UK lacks any of the natural resources advantages of its major international competitors. Instead, the UK maintains its competitiveness through the smart use of its knowledge assets even if he believes these are “undervalued and underappreciated.”

    Chapman’s UKRI will be more interventionist. He will maintain curiosity driven research but warns that UKRI will not support the activities where it has no “right to win significant market-share in that sector,” and in backing spin-outs UKRI will be “much more selective.” The future being etched out here is one where there is much greater direction by government and UKRI toward funding that aligns with the industrial strategy and its mission for economic growth while maintaining a broad research base through curiosity driven research. Clearly, funding fewer programmes more generously means that some areas of research will receive less government funding.

    The government’s approach to research is coalescing around its approach to governing more broadly. Like the industrial strategy the government is not picking winners as such but creating the conditions through which some desirable policy outcomes like economic growth have a better chance of emerging. It’s a mix of directing funding toward areas where the UK may secure an advantage like the doubling of R&D investment in critical technologies, addressing market failures through measures like the £4.5m for Women in Innovation Awards, and regulating to shape the market with the emphasis of economic growth and sustainability in UKRI’s new framework document.

    Football’s coming home

    In her speech Kendall likened the selective funding approaches to the selective sports funding of the Olympics. Alighting on a different sporting metaphor Chapman recalled the time a non-specific European team he supports (almost definitely Liverpool) came back from 3-0 down to win the European Cup as a reminder that through collective support researchers can achieve great things.

    Perhaps, UK research has been more like the England men’s football team than it has the current Premier League champions. The right pieces in the wrong places with little sense of how the talent of individuals contribute to the success of the whole. In committing to funding fewer programmes better the government wants all its stars on the pitch in top condition. The challenge is that those who go from some funding to none are likely to feel their contributions to the team’s success have been overlooked

    Source link

  • Students don’t think anything will change. They’re probably right

    Students don’t think anything will change. They’re probably right

    The standout quote for me from new Office for Students (OfS) commissioned research on student consumer rights comes from a 21-year-old undergrad in a focus group:

    If you were unhappy with your course, I don’t know how you’d actually say to them, ‘I want my money back, this was rubbish,’ basically. I don’t think that they would actually do that. It would just be a long, drawn-out process and they could just probably just argue for their own sake that your experience was your experience, other students didn’t agree, for example, on your course.

    There’s a lot going on in there. It captures the power imbalance between students and institutions, predicts institutional defensiveness, anticipates bureaucratic obstacles, and reveals a kind of learned helplessness – this student hasn’t even tried to complain, and has already concluded it’s futile.

    It’s partly about dissatisfaction with what’s being delivered, and a lack of clarity about their rights. But it’s also about students who don’t believe that raising concerns will achieve anything meaningful.

    Earlier this year, the regulator asked Public First to examine students’ perceptions of their consumer rights, and here we have the results of a nationally representative poll of 2,001 students at providers in England, alongside two focus groups.

    On the surface, things look pretty healthy – 83 per cent of students believe the information they received before enrolment was upfront, clear, timely, accurate, accessible and comprehensive, and the same proportion say their learning experience aligns with what they were promised.

    But scratch a bit and we find a student body that struggles to distinguish between promises and expectations, that has limited awareness of their rights, that doesn’t trust complaints processes to achieve anything meaningful, and that is largely unaware of the external bodies that exist to protect them.

    Whether you see this as a problem of comms, regulatory effectiveness, or student engagement probably depends on where you sit – but it’s hard to argue it represents a protection regime that’s working as intended.

    Learning to be helpless

    Research on complaints tends towards five interlocking barriers that prevent people from holding institutions and service providers to account – and each of them can be found in this data.

    There’s opportunity costs (complaining takes time and energy), conflict aversion (people fear confrontation), confidence and capital (people doubt they have standing to complain), ignorance (people don’t know their rights), and fear of retribution (people worry about consequences). In this research, they combine to create an environment in which students who experience problems just put up with them.

    When they were asked about the biggest barrier to making a complaint, the top answer was doubt that it would make a difference – cited by 36 per cent of respondents. The polling also found that 26 per cent of students said they have “no faith” that something would change if they raised a complaint, and around one in six students (17 per cent) disagreed with the statement “at my university, students have a meaningful say in decisions that affect their education.”

    One postgrad described the experience of repeatedly raising concerns about poor organisation:

    People also just don’t think anything’s going to happen if they make a complaint, like I don’t think it would. With my masters’, it was so badly organised at the start, like we kept turning up for lectures and people just wouldn’t turn up and things like that […] We had this group chat and we were all like, ‘What’s going on? We’re paying so much money for this,’ and […] it just seemed like no one knew what was going on, but we raised it to the rep to raise it to like one of the lecturers and then […] it would just still happen. So it’s like they’re not going to change it.

    That’s someone who tried to work the system, followed the proper channels, raised concerns through the designated representative – and concluded it was futile.

    The second most common barrier captures the opportunity costs thing – lack of time or energy to go through the process, cited by 35 per cent. Combined with doubting it would make a difference, we end up with a decent proportion of students who have cost-benefit analysed complaining and decided it’s not worth the effort. Domestic students were particularly likely to cite futility as a barrier – 41 per cent versus 25 per cent of international students.

    They’ve learned helplessness – and only change their ways when failures impact their marks, only to find that “you should should have complained earlier” is the key response they’ll get when the academic appeal goes in.

    Fear of retribution is also in there. About a quarter of students cited concern that complaining might affect their grades or relationships with staff (25-26 per cent) or said they felt intimidated or worried about possible consequences (23-26 per cent). A postgraduate put it bluntly:

    I think people are scared of getting struck off their course.

    Another student imagined what would happen if they tried to escalate to an external body:

    I think [going to the OIA] would have to be a pretty serious thing to do, and I think that because it’s external to the university, I’d feel a little bit like a snitch. I would have to have a lot of evidence to back up what I’m saying, and I think that it would be a really long, drawn-out process, that I ultimately wouldn’t really trust would get resolved. And so I just wouldn’t really see it as worth it to make that complaint.

    That’s the way it is

    What are students accepting as just how things are? The two things students were most likely to identify as promises from their university were a well-equipped campus, facilities and accommodation (79 per cent) and high quality teaching and resources (78 per cent).

    Over three-quarters of students said the promises made by their university had not been fully met – 59 per cent said they had been mostly met, 14 per cent partially met and 1 per cent not met at all, leaving just 24 per cent who thought promises had been fully met.

    Yet fewer than half of respondents said these were “clear and consistent parts of their university experiences” – 42 per cent for physical resources and just 37 per cent for teaching and resources. In other words, the things students most clearly remember being promised are precisely the things that, for a large minority, show up as patchy, unreliable features of day-to-day university life rather than dependable fixtures.

    There’s also a 41 percentage point gap between what students believe they were promised on teaching quality and what they report actually experiencing – 78 per cent say high quality teaching and resources were promised, but only 37 per cent say that kind of provision is a clear and consistent part of their experience. Public First note that “high quality” wasn’t explicitly defined in the polling, so these are students’ own judgements rather than a technical standard – but the size of the mismatch is still striking.

    About a quarter of students (23 per cent) reported receiving lower quality teaching than expected, rising to 26 per cent among undergraduates. Twenty-two per cent experienced fewer contact hours and more online or hybrid teaching than expected, and twenty-one per cent reported limited access to academic staff.

    One undergraduate described being taught by someone who made clear he didn’t want to be there:

    One of our lecturers, he wasn’t actually a sports journalism lecturer, he’s just off the normal journalism course, and he made it pretty clear that he didn’t like any of us and he didn’t want to be there when he was teaching us. And we basically got told that we had to go and get on with it, pretty much. So there wasn’t any sort of solution of, ‘We’ll change lecturers,’ or anything, it’s just, ‘You’ll get in more trouble if you don’t go, so just get on with it and finish it.

    When presented with a list of possible disruptions and asked which they’d experienced, 70 per cent identified at least one type. The most common was cancellation or postponement of in-person teaching, reported by 35 per cent of undergraduates. Industrial action affecting teaching or marking hit 20 per cent of students overall, and 16 per cent said it had significantly impacted their academic experience.

    Limited support from academic staff affected 20 per cent overall, rising to one in four postgraduate students – and this was the disruption that students were most likely to say had significantly impacted their experience (23 per cent overall, climbing to 32 per cent among international students).

    Telling is how dissatisfied students were with institutional responses to disruptions. Forty-two per cent said they were not that satisfied or not at all satisfied with their institution’s response to cancelled or postponed teaching – 45 per cent said the same about the response to strikes or industrial action. In other words, students experienced disruption, they weren’t happy with how it was handled, and yet most didn’t complain, because (again) they didn’t think it would achieve anything.

    Informal v informant

    Unsurprisingly, most students (65 per cent) had never lodged a formal complaint against their institution. On its face, that could look like satisfaction – if students aren’t complaining, perhaps things are generally fine. But when you dig into the reasons students give for not complaining, about one in four students (24 per cent) who hadn’t complained said they weren’t confident they’d know how to go about it – that’s the ignorance barrier.

    And the bigger obstacles weren’t procedural – they were about believing it was pointless or fearing consequences.

    When students did complain, they were at least twice as likely to have done so through informal channels (such as course representatives or conversations, 23 per cent) than through formal procedures (11 per cent). That’s your conflict aversion in action – you try the informal route first, see if you can get something fixed quietly without escalating to a formal process that might create confrontation.

    But it also means the formal complaints processes that are supposed to provide accountability and redress (and documented institutional learning) are being bypassed by students who’ve concluded they’re not worth engaging with.

    Among those who did complain formally, around half (54 per cent) felt satisfied with their institution’s handling of it – which means nearly half didn’t. So if you’re a student considering whether to raise a complaint, and you believe there’s roughly a 50-50 chance it won’t be handled satisfactorily, if you’ve already concluded there’s a strong likelihood it won’t change anything anyway, why would you bother?

    Especially when you add in the other barriers – concern it might affect grades or relationships with staff, feeling intimidated or worried about consequences, lack of trust in the university to handle it fairly.

    The focus groups reinforce the picture of systematic dismissal. One undergraduate explained the calculation:

    If you were unhappy with your course, I don’t know how you’d actually say to them, ‘I want my money back, this was rubbish,’ basically. I don’t think that they would actually do that. It would just be a long, drawn-out process and they could just probably just argue for their own sake that your experience was your experience, other students didn’t agree, for example, on your course.

    That’s someone that has already mapped out in their head exactly how the institution would respond – they’d argue it’s subjective, other students were happy, your experience doesn’t represent a breach of contract. And, of course, they’re probably right.

    An entitled generation

    If students don’t believe complaining will achieve anything, part of the reason is that they don’t really understand what they’re entitled to expect in the first place. The research found that only 50 per cent of students said they understood and could describe their rights and entitlements as a student – which very much undermines the whole premise of students as empowered consumers able to hold institutions to account.

    When asked how well informed they felt about various rights, the results were even worse. Only 32 per cent of students felt well informed about their right to fair and transparent assessment – the highest figure for any right listed. More than half (52 per cent) said they felt not that well informed or not at all informed about their right to receive compensation. You can’t assert rights you don’t know you have.

    The focus groups then show just how fuzzy students’ understanding of “promises” really is. Participants found it difficult to identify what had been explicitly promised to them, with received ideas about higher education playing a significant role in shaping student expectations.

    They could articulate areas where their experiences fell short – reduced contact hours, poor teaching quality, limited access to careers support – but struggled to identify where these amounted to broken promises.

    One undergraduate captured this confusion as follows:

    I personally think I do get what I was promised when I applied to university. Not like I’m an easy-going person or anything, but I do get what I need in the university, yes.

    Notice the subtle shift from “promised” to “need” – the student can’t quite articulate what was promised, so they fall back on whether they’re getting what they need, which is a much vaguer and more subjective standard.

    This matters a lot, because if you don’t know what you were promised, you can’t confidently assert that a promise has been broken. You might feel disappointed, you might think things should be better, but you can’t point to a specific commitment and say “you told me X and you’ve given me Y.”

    Which means that even when students want to complain, they’re starting from a position of uncertainty about whether they have grounds to do so. It’s the perfect recipe for learned helplessness – you’re dissatisfied, but you’re not sure if you’re entitled to be dissatisfied, so you conclude it’s safer to just accept it.

    The one clear exception? Doctoral students, who were confident they’d been promised the support of a supervisor:

    When I was applying for a PhD, I applied to several universities, so I was selected and accepted in [Institution A] and [Institution B], but I decided to come to [Institution A] for the supervisor – he interviewed me, he sent me the acceptance letter.

    Getting on the escalator

    If the picture so far suggests a system where students lack confidence in internal complaints processes, the findings on external avenues for redress make sense. Only 8 per cent of all students had heard of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIAHE), and the focus groups confirm there was “little to no awareness of external organisations or avenues of redress for students”.

    More broadly, more than a third (35 per cent) of students said they were unaware of any of the external organisations or routes listed through which students in England can raise complaints about their university – rising to 41 per cent among undergraduates and 38 per cent among domestic students. The list they were shown included the OIA, the OfS, Citizens Advice, solicitors, local MPs, the QAA, and trade unions or SUs like NUS. More than a third couldn’t identify a single one of these as somewhere you might go with a concern about your university.

    As for OfS itself, just 18 per cent of students overall had heard of it, falling to 14 per cent among undergraduates. Let’s go ahead and assume that they’ve not read Condition B2.

    When asked where they would go for information about their rights, the most common answer was the university website (53 per cent) or just searching online (51 per cent). About 42 per cent said they’d look to their SU for information about rights. That’s positive – SUs are meant to provide independent advice and advocacy for students. But the fact that only 42 per cent think to go there, versus 53 per cent who’d go to the university website, suggests SUs aren’t being seen as the first port of call.

    Among postgraduates in the focus groups, there was “limited interest in the use of these avenues for redress”, with the implicit sense that if intra-institutional channels of redress seemed drawn-out, daunting and potentially fruitless, it was unlikely that “resorting to extra-institutional channels would make the situation better”. If students have concluded that internal processes are bureaucratic and ineffective, they’re not going to invest additional time and energy in external ones – especially when they don’t know those external routes exist in the first place.

    Explorations

    It’s an odd little bit of research in many ways. It’s hard to tell if recommendations have been deleted, or just weren’t asked for – either way, they’re missing. It’s also frustratingly divorced from OfS’ wider work on “treating students fairly” – I know from my own work over the decades that students tend initially to be overconfident about their rights knowledge, only to realise they’ve over or undercooked when you give them crunchier statements like these “prohibited behaviours” (which of course only seem to be “prohibited”, for the time being, in providers that will join the register in the future).

    More curious is the extent to which OfS knows all of this already. Six years ago this board paper made clear that consumer protection arrangements were failing students on multiple fronts. It knew that information available to support student choice was inadequate – insufficiently detailed about matters that actually concern students and poorly structured for meaningful comparisons between providers and courses, with disadvantaged students and mature learners particularly affected by lack of accessible support and guidance.

    It knew that the contractual relationship between students and providers remains fundamentally unequal, with ongoing cases of unclear or unfair terms that leave students uncertain about what they’re actually purchasing in terms of quality, contact time, support and costs, while terms systematically favoured providers.

    It also knew that its existing tools weren’t allowing intervention even when it saw evidence that regulatory objectives were being delivered, and questioned whether a model requiring individual students to challenge providers for breaches was realistic or desirable.

    So many things would help – recognition of the role of student advocacy, closer adjudication, better coordination between OfS and the OIA, banning NDAs for more than sexual misconduct are four that spring to mind, all of which should be underpinned by a proper theory of change that assumes that not all power over English HE is held in Westward House in Bristol.

    If students have concluded that complaining is futile, there are really three possible responses. One would be to figure that the promises being made raise expectations too high. But there are so many actors specifically dedicated to not talking down a particular university or the sector in general as to render “tell them reality” fairly futile.

    Another is to try to convince them they’re wrong – better communications about rights, clearer signposting of redress routes, more prominent information about successful complaints. You obviously can’t give that job to universities.

    The third would be to ask what would need to change for complaining to actually be worthwhile. That would require processes that are genuinely quick and accessible, institutional cultures where raising concerns is welcomed rather than seen as troublemaking, meaningful remedies when things go wrong, and external oversight bodies that can intervene quickly and effectively.

    But there’s no sign of any of that. A cynic might conclude that a regulator under pressure to help providers manage their finances might need to keep busy and look the other way while modules are slashed and facilities cut.

    Why this matters more than it might seem

    Over the years, people have asserted to me that students-as-consumers, or even the whole idea of student rights, is antithetical to the partnership between students and educators required to create learning and its outcomes.

    “It’s like going to the gym”, they’ll say. “You don’t get fit just by joining”. Sure. But if the toilets are out of order or the equipment is broken, you’re not a partner then. The odd one will try it on. But most of them are perfectly capable of keeping two analogies in their head at the same time.

    In reality, it’s not rights but resignation, when it becomes systematic, that corrodes the basis on which the student-university relationship is supposed to work. If students don’t believe they can hold institutions to account, then all the partnership talk in the world becomes hollow.

    National bodies can write ever more detailed conditions about complaint processes, information provision, and student engagement. Universities can publish ever more comprehensive policies about policies and redress mechanisms. None of it matters if students have concluded that actually using those mechanisms is futile.

    There’s something profoundly upsetting about a system where three-quarters of students believe promises haven’t been kept, but most conclude there’s no point complaining because nothing will change. It speaks to a deeper breakdown than just poor communications or inadequate complaints processes.

    It’s precisely because students aren’t just consumers purchasing a service that we should worry. They’re participants in an institution that’s supposed to be about more than transactions. Universities ask students to trust them with years of their lives, substantial amounts of money (whether paid upfront by international students or through future loan repayments by domestic students), and significant life decisions about career paths and personal development.

    In return, students are supposed to be able to trust that universities will deliver what they promise, listen when things go wrong, and be held accountable when they fail to meet their end of the deal.

    The parallels with broader social contract failures are hard to miss. Just as students don’t believe complaining will change anything at their university, many young people don’t believe political engagement will change anything in society more broadly. Just as students have concluded that formal institutional processes are unlikely to deliver meaningful redress, many citizens have concluded that formal democratic processes are unlikely to deliver meaningful change.

    The learned helplessness this research documents in higher education mirrors learned helplessness – which later turns to extremism – in civic life.

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any uni willing to reimburse or cover if they’ve done a poor job of teaching. That’s never come to me.

    They’re right.

    Source link

  • Managing Change Is a Skill; Here’s How to Teach It (opinion)

    Managing Change Is a Skill; Here’s How to Teach It (opinion)

    In every sector, including higher education, change has become the defining condition of professional life. Budgets shift, opportunities change, teams reorganize and expectations evolve faster than most of us can keep up. Students, postdocs and seasoned professionals alike are being asked to adapt constantly, often without ever being taught how to do it.

    As directors of career centers, our job is to spot the skills tomorrow’s leaders will need and to design ways to help them build those skills now. At the top of that list is the ability to navigate change and to help others do the same. It’s not a “nice-to-have” skill anymore; it’s part of how one leads, collaborates and makes their own work sustainable.

    We’ve been discussing how to help trainees and professional colleagues negotiate change for a long time. Naledi developed the Straight A’s for Change Management framework through National Science Foundation–funded work focused on training biomedical professionals in people management and managing-up skills. Dinuka has used this approach in his own leadership practice and integrated its lessons into his work supporting trainees and professionals. Together, we wanted to share what this looks like in real life.

    What’s often missing in professional skill development isn’t the outcome; it’s the process. The Straight A’s for Change Management framework offers exactly that. Built on four steps—acknowledge and accept, assess, address, and appreciate achievement—it helps people build agency: the capacity to act skillfully even when they can’t control external events.

    Acknowledge and Accept

    Step one is to acknowledge reality and then accept what it means to and for you.

    Many people we work with, from first-year students to senior leaders, stop short of even this first step. They can acknowledge the problem—funding has been cut, hiring has slowed or their people are struggling with change—but they don’t take the harder step of acceptance.

    Acceptance means internalizing that your long-standing plan or approach may no longer be viable and that you will need to adjust your goals or strategies. It can also mean accepting that you might need support or community beyond your institution to help hold this heavy truth. But this is the inflection point where agency begins: not wishing conditions were different, but accepting the need for you to think and act differently, too.

    For a postdoc, acceptance might mean recognizing that a principal investigator’s funding constraints could shorten the timeline of their project. That realization could prompt them to seek alternative support, accelerate a job search or pivot their research scope. For a student, acceptance might mean realizing that since their adviser’s experience is limited to academic careers, they will need to proactively seek additional mentorship to position themselves for biotech careers.

    For Dinuka, acceptance came during a period of leadership transition. The role he had taken on had quietly shifted beneath him—new expectations, new reporting lines and values that no longer aligned with what drew him to the work in the first place. He agonized over whether to stay and adapt or to acknowledge that something essential had changed. The moment he admitted that reality, uncomfortable as it was, he could finally see a path forward. Acceptance meant reclaiming his agency.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • What change in your environment are you resisting acknowledging?
    • What might acceptance make possible that resistance is currently blocking?
    • Who can help you process this shift with honesty and perspective?

    Assess the Change

    Once you’ve acknowledged and accepted a situation, the next step is to assess it strategically. This is where you shift from emotional reaction to analytical clarity.

    A useful tool here is a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). Ask yourself:

    • Strengths: What are your skills? Where can you leverage them in this situation?
    • Weaknesses: Where are you vulnerable?
    • Opportunities: What new directions might this open?
    • Threats: What could block your goals?

    Answering these questions encourages balance. Some start with weaknesses and threats; others begin with strengths and opportunities. What matters is that you consider all four dimensions.

    It’s also helpful to share your SWOT with a mentor or trusted colleague. Instead of laying out your situation and asking, “What should I do?” you can say, “Here’s how I’m assessing my situation. Can you help me identify what I might be missing?” Tools like a SWOT provide structure for both your reflection and your conversations with those who support you.

    When Dinuka reached this stage, he turned to trusted mentors, colleagues and family members to triangulate perspectives. His SWOT involved asking, what strengths could he draw on if he stayed? Where were the risks if he left? What opportunities might emerge if he stepped away? What threats might come from doing so? Speaking these questions aloud prevented him from getting stuck in his own echo chamber and restored clarity. Assessment gave his uncertainty a shape.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • How fully have you mapped the situation you’re in—emotionally and strategically?
    • Which perspective (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) do you tend to overemphasize or neglect?
    • Who could provide an outside view to help you see what you might be missing (trusted mentors, colleagues, friends or family members)?

    Address the Change

    To address change is to use what you’ve learned to respond skillfully.

    Sometimes it starts by envisioning your best possible outcome six to 12 months out and working backward from there. Other times it means short-term triage, only figuring out the next logical step rather than solving everything at once. That might mean updating your CV, signing up for job boards or reaching out to a mentor.

    One postdoc Naledi worked with wanted to keep his career options open. In response, he began carving out one hour a week to set up informational interviews with alumni in biotech and communication careers, learning which skills were in demand. With that insight, he added a side project that strengthened his technical skills, focused on service and leadership opportunities to communicate science, and kept his network apprised of his progress.

    In Dinuka’s case, addressing the change meant testing what was still possible before making a decision. He clarified expectations with new leadership, re-aligned priorities and gave the situation space to evolve. When it became clear that the trajectory no longer matched his values or goals, he made the intentional choice to step away. That decision, though difficult, came from a place of calm rather than crisis.

    Addressing change when the future is unclear means shifting from awareness to iterative forward motion, using your definition of integrity as your compass.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • What is one small, concrete step you can take this week to move forward?
    • If you imagine the best version of this situation a year from now, what would need to happen between now and then?
    • How can you act with integrity even when you can’t control outcomes?

    Appreciate Achievements

    The final step, often overlooked, is to appreciate achievements. Many wait for a situation to resolve before celebrating. But change often unfolds over a long arc, and there may never be a moment when everything “returns to normal.”

    That means recognizing that even small wins are a big deal. Did you talk to a friend to process your situation? Celebrate. Did you update your CV? Celebrate. Did you gain greater clarity about your direction? Celebrate!

    Shifting from celebrating only outcomes (a publication, a job offer, a raise) to also celebrating progress, milestones and effort helps sustain momentum and motivation.

    When Dinuka finally left that role, he felt grounded. He appreciated the mentors who guided him, the colleagues who supported him and the lessons learned in difficulty. He celebrated not the exit itself, but the growth that came with it. That sense of gratitude transformed what could have been resentment into renewal.

    Appreciating achievements is not self-indulgent; it is strategic. It focuses attention on what you have accomplished despite uncertainty, which builds confidence to keep going.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • What progress have you made in the past month that you haven’t acknowledged?
    • Whom can you thank or recognize for supporting your journey through change?
    • How do you remind yourself that growth often looks like struggle before success?

    Why Straight A’s Matter

    Taken together, the A’s—acknowledge and accept, assess, address and appreciate achievement—form a road map for agency. We may not control personal setbacks, professional disappointments, shifting organizational priorities, unfair practices or political turbulence. But with every new challenge, we can start responding intentionally, identifying where we can still move.

    Our experiences reinforced that agency is learned through practice. The Straight A’s provide both structure and language for something many of us attempt intuitively: turning uncertainty into direction. The framework accepts complexity and teaches us to meet it with clarity and integrity.

    By practicing the Straight A’s, we build the muscles of agency and leadership. If we teach the next generation of leaders these approaches as part of their training and development, they will be prepared to lead skillfully in a world where the only constant is change.

    Naledi Saul is director of the Office of Career and Professional Development at the University of California, San Francisco, She coaches and frequently presents on people management and managing-up skills for higher education and biomedical audiences.

    Dinuka Gunaratne (he/him) has worked across several postsecondary institutions in Canada and the U.S. and is a member of several organizational boards, including Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada, CERIC—Advancing Career Development in Canada, and the leadership team of the Administrators in Graduate and Professional Student Services knowledge community with NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

    They are both members of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization that provides an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Source link

  • Games for Change Opens 2026 Student Challenge to Game Creators and Innovators Ages 10–25

    Games for Change Opens 2026 Student Challenge to Game Creators and Innovators Ages 10–25

    The annual global game design awards $20,000 in grand prizes for creative and impactful games that advance the UN Sustainable Development Goals

    NEW YORK, NY — [NOV 10, 2025] — Games for Change (G4C), the leading nonprofit that empowers game creators and innovators to drive real-world change, today announced the kick off of the 2025- 2026 Games for Change Student Challenge, a global game design program inviting learners ages 10–25 years old to tackle pressing world issues that address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, through creativity, play, and purposeful design.

    Now in its eleventh year, the Student Challenge has reached more than 70,000 students and almost 2,000 educators and faculty across 600cities in 91 countries, inspiring the creation of over 6,600 original student-designed games that connect learning to action. From November to April 2026, participants will design and submit games for consideration in regional and global competitions, with Game Jams taking place worldwide throughout the season.

    “The G4C Student Challenge continues to show that when young people design games about real-world issues, they see themselves not just as players, but as problem solvers and changemakers,” said Arana Shapiro, Chief Operations and Programs Officer at Games for Change. “Through game design, students learn to think critically, collaborate, and build solutions with purpose. In a world shaped by AI and constant change, durable skills like problem solving, critical thinking, and game design will allow all learners to thrive in their communities and worldwide.”

    This year, students will explore three new themes developed with world-class partners to inspire civic imagination and problem-solving:

    Two grand-prize winners will receive a total of $20,000 in scholarships, generously provided by Take-Two Interactive and Endless. Winners and finalists will be celebrated at the Student Challenge Awards on May 28, 2026, in recognition of exceptional creativity, social impact, and innovation in student game design.

    “With 3.4 billion players worldwide, the video games industry has an unprecedented ability to reach and inspire audiences across cultures and our next generation of leaders,” said Lisa Pak, Head of Operations at Playing for the Planet. “We’re excited about our collaboration with Games for Change, empowering students to use their creativity to spotlight the threats to reefs, rainforests, and our climate. Together, we’re transforming play into a powerful tool for awareness, education, and action.”

    “More than 319 million people face severe hunger around the world today,” said Jessamyn Sarmiento, Chief Marketing Officer at World Food Program USA. “Through the ‘Outgrow Hunger’ theme, we’re giving the next generation a way to explore the root causes of food insecurity and imagine solutions through research, game design, and play. This collaboration helps students connect their creativity to one of the most urgent challenges of our time—ending hunger for good.”

    Additionally, G4C is expanding its educator support with the launch of the G4C Learn website, the world’s largest online resource library featuring lesson plans, tutorials, and toolkits to guide students, teachers, and faculty on topics like game design, game-based learning, esports, career pathways, and more. In partnership with Global Game Jam, educators worldwide can receive funding, training, and support to host Student Challenge Game Jams in their classrooms and communities.

    “Games turn learning into challenges students actually want to take on,” said Luna Ramirez, CTE teacher at Thomas A. Edison CTE High School based in New York City. “When students design games to tackle pressing global problems affecting their communities, they become curious about the world around them, experimenting, and bringing ideas to life. The best learning happens when students take risks, fail forward, and collaborate, and that’s exactly what the Games for Change Student Challenge empowers.”

    Educators, parents, and learners ages 10–25 can now registerfor the 2026 Games for Change Student Challenge and access free tools and resources at learn.gamesforchange.org.

    This year’s Student Challenge is made possible through the generous support of key partners, including Endless, General Motors, Verizon, Motorola Solutions Foundation, Take-Two Interactive, World Food Program USA, Playing for the Planet, Unity, and Global Game Jam.

    About Games for Change

    Since 2004, Games for Change (G4C) has empowered game creators and innovators to drive real-world change through games and immersive media, helping people learn, improve their communities, and make the world a better place. G4C partners with technology and gaming companies, nonprofits, foundations, and government agencies to run world-class events, public arcades, design challenges, and youth programs. G4C supports a global community of developers using games to tackle real-world challenges, from humanitarian conflicts to climate change and education. For more information, visit: https://www.gamesforchange.org/.

    Media contact(s):

    Alyssa Miller

    Games for Change

    [email protected]

    973-615-1292

    Susanna Pollack
    [email protected]

    Latest posts by eSchool News Contributor (see all)

    Source link

  • Leading Through Change: The Core Values That Guide Collegis and Higher Ed

    Leading Through Change: The Core Values That Guide Collegis and Higher Ed

    Higher education is undergoing rapid transformation — from shifting student demographics to the urgent need for digital agility. At Collegis Education, we’ve navigated a similar journey. What began as a services organization has evolved into a technology-enabled partner, helping institutions thrive amid disruption. And while the journey hasn’t always been easy, one thing has kept us steady through it all: our culture. 

    When we talk about culture, we’re really talking about who we are when things get hard — how we make decisions, how we treat one another, and how we stay focused on our shared mission even when the future feels uncertain. 

    At Collegis, our culture is built on four core values that have guided every step of our transformation: authenticity, innovation, commitment, and collaboration. These aren’t just words. They’re the foundation that enables us to stay grounded and keep moving forward — together. 

    Shared transformation with our partners 

    Institutions across higher education are also undergoing profound transformation — navigating demographic shifts, evolving technology expectations, and increasing pressure to deliver on access and affordability. 

    These pressures have tested the resilience of colleges and universities nationwide. Yet just like Collegis, many institutions have found strength by doubling down on their missions and values. 

    That’s why our relationships with our partners are so strong. We understand that mission-driven organizations operate with purpose, and so do we. Higher education is about service, learning, and impact. At Collegis, our purpose is to help institutions live that mission more effectively through innovation, data, and technology — while never losing sight of the human side of education. 

    Authenticity in action: How trust drives transformation 

    Transformation requires honesty. Honesty about what’s working, what isn’t, and what comes next. Like many institutions, we’ve made difficult decisions in recent years. We’ve rethought how we serve our partners, restructured internally, and evolved how we operate. 

    Throughout these moments, authenticity has been our anchor. We communicate openly, acknowledge challenges, and lead with transparency to build trust. 

    It also means bringing our true selves to work. The people who thrive at Collegis are those who lead with integrity, admit mistakes, and approach challenges with humility and purpose. That creates space for bold ideas and genuine growth. 

    Authenticity connects us to our partners as well. Institutions strive to build cultures of empathy, honesty, and integrity — just like we do. It’s a value that runs deep across the higher ed ecosystem. 

    Innovation that moves us forward 

    Change is accelerating. The ability to innovate isn’t just a differentiator — it’s a requirement. 

    At Collegis, innovation is about more than technology. It’s how we think. It’s how we tackle complex challenges, experiment with new ideas, and find better ways to deliver value. 

    We’ve seen innovation in action across our organization — in the development of Connected Core®, in our use of AI to personalize student experiences, and in our operations teams that continuously improve how we work. 

    Our partners are innovating too. From program design to data strategy to student engagement, institutions are finding new ways to serve their communities. Together, we’re helping higher ed adapt and thrive. 

    Commitment that never wavers 

    Change tests commitment. It’s easy to be dedicated when things are smooth. It’s much harder when goals shift, markets move, or resources tighten. 

    What’s impressed me most about our Collegis team is the depth of commitment I see every day. Our people lean in. They solve problems, meet deadlines, and show up for one another and for our partners. 

    That same spirit exists across the institutions we serve — a relentless focus on students, on mission, and on progress. It’s what fuels our shared success. 

    Collaboration that scales 

    No transformation succeeds in isolation. Every major milestone we’ve achieved at Collegis has happened because of collaboration across disciplines, departments, and partner campuses. 

    Our strength comes from diverse perspectives — technologists, strategists, enrollment experts, marketers, and more — working together to deliver real outcomes. 

    Higher education is built on collaboration, too. Shared governance, interdisciplinary research, cross-campus teamwork — it’s all about connection. And that’s where we thrive. 

    Culture is our constant 

    We’re living in an era of rapid change. The pace of advancement, the evolving needs of students, and the challenges facing institutions demand agility and resilience. 

    In that context, culture is our constant. It’s what grounds us. It defines how we show up for one another and for our partners. 

    Culture doesn’t eliminate uncertainty. But it gives us confidence in how we face it — with respect, dignity, and shared purpose. 

    Staying grounded in what matters most 

    We’re proud of how far we’ve come, and we’re even more excited about where we’re headed. Our transformation didn’t happen by chance. It happened because our people chose to lead with authenticity, innovate boldly, stay committed, and collaborate with purpose. 

    Those values mirror the best of what higher education stands for. We’re honored to work alongside mission-based institutions shaping lives and strengthening communities. 

    As we continue to evolve, one thing won’t change: our shared belief in dignity, respect, and building organizations that reflect the best of who we are. 

    If we stay grounded in those values — as a company and as a community of partners — there’s nothing we can’t achieve together. 

    Source link

  • The time for change is now: reducing pension costs in post-92 universities

    The time for change is now: reducing pension costs in post-92 universities

    This blog was kindly authored by Jane Embley, Chief People Officer and Tom Lawson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost, both of Northumbria University.

    It is welcome that the government’s recent white paper acknowledges the very real funding pressures on the university sector and outlines some measures to address them. It is rather disappointing, however, that one of the causes of that financial pressure recognised by both employers and trade unions – is somewhat sidestepped – namely the crisis in the post-92 institutions caused by the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). While the government has pledged to better understand the problem, this will presumably lead to a period of consultation before any new proposals come forward. The cost of TPS compounds the financial difficulty of many institutions, and the severity of the current situation means the moment for change is now.

    The TPS cost crisis

    At the beginning of 2025, we wrote a piece for this website that outlined the problem in general terms, and particularly, for Northumbria University. To briefly summarise, post-92 institutions are all required to enrol their staff who are engaged in teaching in TPS. The cost of TPS for employers (and employees) is rising, and having historically been similar to other pension schemes in the sector is now much more expensive than schemes such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) or the local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). TPS employer contributions are now 28.68% whereas for USS they are 14.5%, and for Northumbria’s LGPS fund are 18.5%.

    This means that for an academic salary of £57,500, in addition to NI costs, the employer pension cost is £8,300 per annum for USS, but for a TPS employee it is £16,500. Put simply, it is now considerably more expensive to employ a member of staff to do the same job in one part of the sector than another.

    The figures are striking. For every 1,000 staff, an institution would face more than £8M per annum of additional costs if their colleagues were members of TPS rather than USS. For Northumbria, given the number of colleagues we have in TPS, the additional cost of this scheme compared to USS is more than £11M per annum. To put it another way, the fees of more than 800 Northumbria students are fully consumed by paying the additional cost of TPS, versus USS.

    Why alternatives fall short

    There are ways that universities can find alternatives to TPS – institutions can take steps to employ their academic staff via subsidiary companies and reduce pension costs by using defined contribution schemes. This has multiple disadvantages for individuals as well as institutions – not least because colleagues employed by that mechanism are not counted within the HESA return, for example, and as such are not eligible for participation in the Research Excellence Framework or for Research Council funding. As such, colleagues employed via such mechanisms cannot fully contribute across teaching and research and may find it difficult to progress their careers or move between institutions in the future.

    At Northumbria, as a research-intensive institution, we did not consider the above to be a path we could take. As there are no clear proposals forthcoming from government we have had to seek recourse to a different solution.

    Northumbria’s strategic response

    As we predicted in our previous blog, individual institutions have no choice but to take control of the total cost of employment. Since then, at Northumbria, we have been thinking about how we might do just that. We have settled on an approach that follows a three-part solution, something which we believe offers flexibility and choice while managing the University’s pension costs down to an acceptable level in the medium to long term.  

    First, we are offering colleagues in TPS an attractive alternative – the main pension scheme in the sector, USS, following a recent agreement to change our membership terms. Over 200 colleagues at Northumbria are already members (having joined Northumbria with existing membership), and going forward, USS membership will be available to all our academic colleagues. Of course, we acknowledge that there are differences in the membership benefits of each scheme. USS is a hybrid scheme with defined benefits up to a threshold and then defined contributions beyond that. TPS is a career average defined benefit scheme. We will help our TPS members with this transition by providing personalised, independent financial information and guidance, as pensions are complex and any decision to move from TPS to USS will need careful consideration.

    However, we do need to be confident that we can address the very high cost of TPS employer pension contributions, and have recently begun discussions within our university about moving to a total reward approach to remuneration.

    Using the two pension schemes, we want to provide colleagues with the choice as to how much of their total reward they receive as income now and how much we pay in pension contributions.

    For each grade point in our pay structure, we are aiming to establish a reward envelope, based on the total cost of salary plus employer pension contributions, reflecting USS rather than TPS rates. As such, a colleague remaining in TPS would have no reduction in their salary, although they will, initially, have a total reward package that exceeds the envelope for their grade point.

    Our goal will be to increase the total reward envelope for each grade point each year by the value of the pay award determined via national collective pay bargaining. In this model, the cost of the total reward envelope will be the same, but colleagues will be able to choose how they construct their reward package based on their own personal preference or circumstances. Salaries for colleagues who are members of USS will increase in line with the rest of the sector. Those colleagues who choose to remain in TPS will not see an increase in their take-home pay, as this, plus the cost of their pension contributions, exceeds the envelope for their grade point. However, over time, when the value of the total reward envelope for colleagues in USS and TPS has equalised, the salaries for those choosing TPS will increase again.

    Looking ahead: a fairer, sustainable future

    We understand that many of our colleagues might find this change unpalatable; however, we feel the additional monthly cost of almost £1M cannot be justified. While to some this will be controversial, ultimately, our proposed approach will mean that over time (likely to be up to seven years) the reward envelope (or cost) for USS and TPS employees will have equalised and as such we will have eliminated the differential costs of employing these two groups of colleagues undertaking the same roles, and be on an equal footing with other universities.

    We anticipate that by adopting this approach USS will, in time, become the normalised pension scheme for our academic staff, as it already is across the pre-92 universities. Along with competitive pay, colleagues will be members of an attractive sector-wide scheme, with lower personal contribution levels resulting in higher take-home pay. Of course, we will keep the whole approach under review as the employer pension contribution rates change over time, and we will be actively engaging with our colleagues over the coming months to seek their views on our proposal and to shape our future plans.  

    Finally, we are also encouraging our colleagues to consider carefully whether to opt out of TPS and join USS now. In order to gain traction and make earlier progress, we are offering existing salaried staff in TPS the choice to move early, with the University recognising this decision via a one-off payment, which shares the longer-term financial benefit of this with the University. Colleagues may receive the value of the savings made over the first year – typically between £5,800 and a maximum of £10,000 – as a taxable payment or via a payment into their pension, subject to a number of conditions in relation to their future employment.

    As we have outlined, the time for change is now, and we cannot wait for the outcome of a consultation or for the government to decide how it will seek to address this obvious disparity in the sector. Ultimately, we believe that moving towards a total reward approach, as outlined above, is advantageous for both the University and for our colleagues. It provides choice – no one will be forced to leave TPS, and as such, colleagues can continue to choose to receive the benefits of that scheme by more of their total reward being paid in pension contributions than salary. Or colleagues can choose to access more of their total income now in their salary, while joining a hybrid pension scheme that is already in place across the sector and which delivers defined benefits, and defined contribution benefits for higher earners. We believe that this is a novel approach to what has been, for some time, an intractable problem in the sector.

    Source link

  • Why so much confusion over climate change?

    Why so much confusion over climate change?

    Bwambale estimates that less than 1% of the global population truly grasps the implications of climate change. “Even worse are Ugandans,” he said.

    Gerison pointed out that much of the population of Uganda is young. “With 80% below the age of 25, many haven’t witnessed the full extent of climate changes,” he said.

    A diminishing crop is easily understood.

    Janet Ndagire, Bwambale’s colleague, said it is difficult for Ugandan natives to connect with climate campaigns. They often perceive them as obstacles to survival rather than crucial interventions.

    “Imagine telling someone who relies on charcoal burning for survival that cutting down a tree could be hazardous!” Ndagire said. “It doesn’t make sense to them, especially when the tree is on their plot of land.”

    Reflecting on personal experiences, Ndagire recalled childhood days of going to sleep fully covered. Nowadays it is too hot to do that, he said.

    Ssiragaba Edison Tubonyintwari, a seasoned bus driver originally from western Uganda but currently driving with the United Nations, recounts the challenges of driving between 5 and 9 AM in the Albertine rift eco-region especially around the Ecuya forest reserve.

    “It would be covered in mist,” said Tubonyintwari. “We’d ask two people to stand in front, one on either side of the bus, signalling for you to drive forward, or else, you couldn’t see two metres away. Currently, people drive all day and night!”

    Irish potatoes in the African wetlands

    What happened? Tubonyintwari pointed to unauthorised tree cutting in the reserve, residential constructions and the cultivation of tea alongside Irish potatoes in the wetlands. The result was rising temperatures.

    His account supplements a Global Forest Watch report which puts commodity-driven deforestation above urbanisation.

    It’s notable that Tubonyintwari didn’t explicitly use the term “climate change,” yet the sexagenarian can effectively explain the underlying concept through his detailed description of altered environmental conditions.

    Global Forest Watch reports alarming deforestation trends, with 5.8 million hectares lost globally in 2022. In Uganda, more than 6,000 deforestation alerts were recorded between 22 and 29 November this year.

    The consequences of such environmental degradation are dire. Ndagire emphasised that those who once wielded axes and chainsaws for firewood are now the very individuals facing reduced crop yields due to extreme weather conditions.

    Even as Uganda grapples with the aftermath of a sudden surge in heavy rains from last October, Bwambale questions the country’s meteorological department, highlighting the failure to provide precise explanations and climate-aware preparations.

    These interconnected narratives emphasise the need for accessible climate campaigns and community-driven solutions. As COP28 gathers elites, the call for a simplified narrative gains prominence, mirroring successful communication models seen during the Covid-19 pandemic; else it’s the same old throwing of good money after bad.

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why does deforestation continue in places like Uganda when people know about its long-term consequences?

    2. In what ways are high level discussions about climate change disconnected from people’s everyday experiences?

    3. In what way do you think scientists and environmentalists need to change the climate change narrative?

    Source link

  • Change the incentives to change the economy

    Change the incentives to change the economy

    Incentives are a delicate thing.

    As we learned from the former chief executive of UKRI, if you try to measure every single outcome, every pound spent, and direct every bit of the ecosystem toward something (whatever that something is) it’s possible to cause an enormous amount of damage. Get the input wrong, follow the wrong priority, or make a decision on a less than full picture amongst all of the complexities in an ecosystem and then enormous sums of money can be wasted.

    The underlying assumption in the public theory of research is that directing research toward a clearer end is desirable, possible, and value for money. Intuitively this makes sense. The central feature of modern economic thought is that firms should specialise within a market. In doing so they develop expertise, market advantage, and the wider economy benefits from the most innovative and efficient firms. Market competition then dictates who gets to be the most profitable firms until new firms come along and old firms die through a process of creative destruction.

    Advantages

    In business R&D forms part of the critical advantage. In theory, the firms that can make the most use of the right R&D assets (tangible and intangible) should be the most innovative, secure the greatest market share, and then grow their profits. R&D spending has natural constraints within business. A defence firm is not going to spend money on research outside of defence any more than a carpenter is going to spend money on hypersonic missiles.

    Universities do not face any such natural constraints. In fact, they have precisely the opposite incentive where to maximise income (not profitability) they should do as much research and research adjacent activity as possible. As long as a link between volume, income, and reputation exists, the rational seeking university should do as much as possible. As a secondary benefit is that it is also easier to tell staff, governments, funders, that universities will do more, not less.

    The three major constraints in universities are capital, capacity (staff and facilities), and the direction of funding bodies. If the funding incentive is toward doing more then if the government wishes to introduce greater specialisation in the sector, as set out in the post-16 white paper, it must therefore introduce some new incentives. In particular, as purely from an incentive perspective, it makes very little difference to universities whether their research is economically useful or not.

    The white paper sets out lots of things the government might do including moving teaching incentives through research, changing the REF, rewarding research potential, and encouraging universities to do fewer things better. Post white paper there have been two key research announcements that highlight the difficulty in setting out the right incentives. The funding allocations to UKRI which we will know more about in December and some mooted reforms of HEIF.

    The reform of HEIF promises to introduce new accountability statements tied to a reform of the funding formula over the next few years. The first part of the reform is that universities will be expected to demonstrate how HEIF funding is contributing to economic growth amongst other goals. There is very little knowledge exchange activity where if you squint hard enough it does not contribute to economic growth. This isn’t a strong incentive but a useful nudge toward what universities should be doing. Over time, it is possible to see how the new methodology with a greater focus on causal links and inputs could lead to a different kind of HEIF.

    Outcomes

    If the HEIF is going to be “outcomes focussed” this implies that HEIF should be more actively driving university activity toward specialisation within a local, national, and regional context. This would align closely with the white paper but HEIf is only a small portion of the overall funding research mix. Should the government think there needs to be more economic-growth align university activity, and it thinks HEIF is a tool to do that, it should consider whether it can improve the HEIF incentives with greater funding.

    The proof will be whether the changing accountability statements produce and new activity or whether universities simply account for their existing activity in a different way. Perhaps the more interesting reforms will come in 2027-28, at the earliest, where there will be a review to the funding formula to support contributions to economic growth.

    It would be an error if this was carried out in isolation and not as part of a wider look at the incentives in research. HEIF cannot move the sector toward more useful economic research ends alone and nor will it change the underlying unit of resource which encourages universities to do everything all of a time. HEIF can be a message, a guide, a statement, but without shifting funding it will not be a bigger enough incentive to move the sector.

    It would also be an error if HEIF’s accountability statements and any funding revisions flow to the same places to cover the same activity. Specialisation implies winners and losers but aggregate benefit across the sector and for the economy. The revision to funding formula could, for example, fund different kinds of economic activities differently, add regional multipliers, reward collaborations different, or any other number of useful economic objectives.

    The challenge is that however the incentives are constructed they must be coherent with the wider direction of travel set out in the white paper. The opportunity is to use research funding to reward the places doing economically interesting things that aren’t always recognised in traditional research metrics.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The Renters’ Rights Act: How will students’ tenancies change and when?

    WEEKEND READING: The Renters’ Rights Act: How will students’ tenancies change and when?

    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:

    Renters (Reform) Bill and the impact on higher education 24 May 2023 by Rose Stephenson https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/24/renters-reform-bill-and-the-impact-on-higher-education/

    How the Renters (Reform) Bill can deliver for all tenants – including students 13 November 2023 by Calum MacInnes https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/11/13/how-the-renters-reform-bill-can-deliver-for-all-tenants-including-students/

    Students and the Renters (Reform) Bill: the government has listened but it needs to listen some more parts I and II run across 29 and 30 January 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/29/students-and-the-renters-reform-bill-the-government-has-listened-but-it-needs-to-listen-some-more-part-i/ and https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/30/students-and-the-renters-reform-bill-the-government-has-listened-but-it-needs-to-listen-some-more-part-ii/

    The Renters Reform Bill: after the fall – Where should student housing go from here? 19 June 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/06/19/the-renters-reform-bill-after-the-fall-where-should-student-housing-go-from-here

    Renters’ Rights Bill and Student Accommodation: The Final Stretch? 9 October 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/10/09/renters-rights-act-and-student-accommodation-the-final-stretch/

    Renters’ Rights Bill Update – into the Lords 2 February 2025 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/02/03/renters-rights-bill-update-into-the-lords/

    Source link

  • Advance HE must deepen our expertise in supporting transformation and change

    Advance HE must deepen our expertise in supporting transformation and change

    The challenges for higher education and research institutions – both in the UK and in many countries across the world – are acute and immediate.

    A combination of funding pressures, changing student demands, the rapid development of AI, international conflict and restrictive visa regimes are necessitating significant change and transformation.

    These tough challenges require all those working in higher education to think differently about how we lead, teach, support students and operate. Yet within these challenges lie opportunities for innovation and positive change.

    I am three months into the role as chief executive of Advance HE. My recent conversations with many of our members have reinforced the need for us to focus on how we can enhance our support for transformation and change.

    Time for a change

    I believe that to be successful, higher education institutions need good leadership; effective governance; they should promote excellence in teaching and learning; and embed equality, promote diversity and inclusion. These are the four key pillars of Advance HE’s work and will continue to be so. However, we cannot stand still. Supporting higher education institutions in this difficult and changing context means that Advance HE needs to change and modernise. Our portfolio, programmes and products need regular review, refreshing and revamping, to remain relevant, to be high value and high impact.

    There has been excellent work led by Universities UK’s transformation and efficiency taskforce, which set out a number of recommendations and challenges for the sector. Advance HE can play an important role in supporting transformation and change both at a sector level and an institutional level. In the context of financial pressures, changing student needs, international uncertainty and digital developments – we need to be an enhancement agency – a trusted partner for higher education and research institutions.

    Supporting enhancement, change and transformation will now be at the heart of what Advance HE does – embedded across our member benefits, our programmes and our consultancy. To help institutions through these challenging times we will apply our expertise, experience and resources to best support enhancement and service improvement, where it is needed.

    Collaborating with partner organisations that are supporting transformation and change will be central to our approach. Blending our expertise in leadership development, educational excellence, equality and inclusion, governance effectiveness with the experience of partners that have different but complementary skills and capabilities.

    Overall, our focus is primarily on people. We can play a role to enhance capabilities at all levels to lead and manage transformation and change – academics, professionals services, governing bodies.

    What we will do

    There are three practical steps I am taking now to strengthen our support for transformation and change:

    Firstly, we have made supporting transformation and change a core part of our membership offer. We are drawing on the areas where we have deep expertise – leadership development, educational excellence, governance effectiveness – to apply our expertise directly to the most pressing issues facing our members.

    For example, the new Educational Excellence Change Academy, a structured virtual six-month programme designed to help higher education staff to lead systemic educational transformation. The programme provides practical support to redesign curriculum to align with workforce needs, reimagine pedagogy to be inclusive, digital, and engaging; and enhancing student support models to strengthen wellbeing and retention.

    Additionally, we have launched the Merger Insights and Roadmap, a new resource for navigating institutional collaboration, partnerships and mergers. Drawing on recent case-studies from successful transformations, it considers early option-testing and due diligence through to culture integration and regulatory engagement.

    Secondly, later this autumn I will announce a new strategic advisory group who will work with our in-house expert to further enhance our support for transformation and change. We will further evolve our membership offer; review our portfolio of products and services; lead new research to share insights; and bring knowledge and learning from other sectors that have delivered significant transformation. We will also recruit new associates with deep and relevant transformation experience to work with our in-house experts.

    Thirdly, we will do more to realise the benefits of Advance HE being a global organisation with an international membership. Our 470 members are from 34 countries – with almost a third of our members outside the UK – in Australia, Ireland, in the Gulf, across Europe, in South-East Asia and beyond. The challenges facing higher education institutions in one part of the world are often mirrored in another. The solutions, approaches and innovations being developed in different contexts can offer fresh perspectives and practical ideas that translate across borders. We will do more to draw on the fact that we have a diverse, global membership to share insights, solutions, and good practice across our membership.

    At a time of significant challenge for higher education and research, institutions are increasingly needing to deliver transformational change in the way they operate. Advance HE is committed to supporting people working in higher education to do this successfully.

    Source link