Tag: commitment

The UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership and its commitment to educational leadership
As we are marking three years since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and 11 years since the start of the Revolution of Dignity, it is impossible not to notice the scars and the suffering but also Ukraine’s resolve to continue rebuilding, innovating and even thriving among adversity.

Support from the UK remains unwavering. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minster Keir Starmer have signed a 100-year partnership agreement between Ukraine and the United Kingdom with historic significance to strengthen the ties between the two nations. It includes two “pillars” with items of particular significance to the education community: Pillar 8, focused on partnerships in science, technology, and innovation; and Pillar 9, focused on harnessing socio-cultural ties. These two pillars outline the development of new and the strengthening of existing links between higher education institutions and academic communities. It is this kind of constructive collaboration that creates hope against a background of the recent volte-face of the US towards Ukraine.

Twinning and British Council

Building on the success of the HE Twinning scheme, launched at the start of the full scale invasion, led by Cormack Consultancy with support from Universities UK International (UUKi), the 100 year agreement seeks to twin 100 schools in Ukraine and the United Kingdom to establish partnerships between learners and educators in secondary and primary education.

The British Council, a key funder and supporter of many educational initiatives, will continue to organise English language courses for Ukrainian civil servants and contribute to the professional development of English language teachers. In a more directed effort, the British Council has funded expertise exchange visits for senior leaders from Ukrainian universities to UK universities, and repeat-funded collaborations coming forth from such visits.

In our own case at Warwick, the visits from senior colleagues from V.N.Karazin Kharkiv National University have led to a flourishing research and expertise exchange on developing new forms of teacher training, educational leadership development, and trauma informed teaching and leadership practices. An international conference later this year will allow others in the HE sector to benefit from the insights the collaboration has brought forward.

Building leadership capacity for educational reforms

The UK has also made a commitment to “support education recovery and reform ambitions through policy exchanges, technical assistance, leadership training, education partnerships, and sharing best practice including on funding systems.” Warwick’s Leadership for Educational Transformation (LET) programme, founded in partnership with the Ukrainian Leadership Academy, has showed the significance and impact of such programmes on individual educational leaders as well as on building the cadre of educational leadership in Ukraine.

Programmes such as the Leaders of University Transformation for Ukraine’s Reinvention (LUTUR) Programme and the Training Programme for Academic Managers due to start in April 2025 have also sent significant ripples across the community. Under the 100-year partnership, British universities are also expected to expand educational offerings in Ukraine, including through pilot projects in transnational education.

Science, innovation and entrepreneurship

There is a commitment to “seek opportunities to collaborate in science, technology and innovation” including interest in developing AI and its related governance and regulation, building on Ukraine’s advancement in e-governance, transferring the experience into the gov.uk wallet (with, for example, an initial move to a digital driving licence).

Higher education in Ukraine is growing its stake in the rebuilding of the country and in innovation. There are many lessons that can be learnt from the UK experience, and indeed, thanks to the UK International Development and the Good Governance Fund, Kyiv Aviation Institute (KAI) will become one of the first universities in Ukraine to establish a science park, paving the way for the universities to become hubs for innovation where science, industry and education will join forces to develop Ukraine’s innovation potential. Having officially presented the concept of KAI Science Park at the end of January as part of the Win-Win 2030 strategy KAI will focus its research in deep tech, remotely piloted/unmanned aerial vehicles), cybersecurity, defence tech, AI, machine learning, materials, robotics and engineering.

There is also much to exchange in the entrepreneurship education space. Whilst the UK has some incredible success stories around knowledge transfer, student and regional entrepreneurship development, the European Startup National Alliance (ESNA), in 2024 ranked Ukraine fourth among 24 European countries (after Lithuanian, Spain and France) exceeding the average by 12 per cent for supporting start ups, enabled by its sophisticated digital ecosystem.

Other partnerships between the academic communities mentioned in the two pillars include space, increasing diversity in science, and particularly focusing on women in STEM, women’s rights more broadly, student mobility, sports and culture, youth programmes.

Of critical value is also medicine and healthcare innovation. As Ukraine faces unprecedented medical challenges due to the war, there is a pressing need to build expertise in hospital management, medical training, and rehabilitation – fields that remain underdeveloped. Collaboration between universities, research institutions, and healthcare professionals can lay the foundation for new academic programmes, joint research initiatives, and knowledge exchange in areas such as med tech, mental health, and especially trauma treatment.

A journey of 100 years

From our own experience working on the LET programme, we have seen the sense of purpose colleagues experience from collaborations between Ukrainian and UK institutions. Moreover, following Brexit and the current recasting of geopolitical alliances, the UK’s commitment to contributing positively to Europe may look different than before, but this is a prime opportunity to renew our commitment to prosperity and peace on the continent. With the financial squeeze on many UK institutions, we must also remain pragmatic as securing projects, funding and commitments is becoming harder. Seeking opportunities for win-win collaborations will be the way forward.

For instance:
- Exchanging guest lecturing opportunities to offer different perspectives in the classroom and support each other with developing international ties, presence and impact.
- Mentoring on all aspects of academic careers, building on the success of Science for Ukraine.
- Co-developing and seeking out Ukrainian cases to be used in the curriculum. The Ukrainian Catholic University Center for Leadership, for instance, champions and disseminates Ukrainian leadership research.
- Exchanging data access opportunities to build mutually beneficial research dissemination partnerships.
Education has always been and will remain a catalyst for peace, and unity during tough times can help to nurture hope. Educational partnerships are making a tangible difference. And whilst there are many challenges ahead of our two education communities, the shared commitment to building resilience outlined in the 100-year partnership makes one thing clear: we must continue standing with Ukraine, as there is much to be done and to be gained from working together.

In 2024 the authors coordinated a series on Ukraine, the UK and higher education on Wonkhe: you can see all the articles in the series and our coverage of the conflict in Ukraine here.
Source link
February 24, 2025
The higher education sector needs to come together to renew its commitment to enhancing student engagement

“Engagement, to me, is probably…getting the most out of university…taking and making the most of available opportunities.”

This quote, from Queen’s University Belfast students’ union president Kieron Minto sums up a lot of the essential elements of what we talk about when we talk about student engagement.

It captures the sense that the higher education experience has multiple dimensions, incorporating personal and professional development as well as academic study. Students will be – and feel – successful to the extent that they invest time and energy in those activities that are the most purposeful. Critically, it captures the element of student agency in their own engagement – higher education institutions might make opportunities available but students need to decide to engage to get the most from them.

In recent years “student engagement” has suffered from the curse of ubiquity. Its meanings and applications are endlessly debated. Is it about satisfaction, academic success, personal growth, or a combination of factors? There is a wealth of examples of discrete projects and frameworks for thinking about student engagement, but often little read-across from one context to another. We can celebrate the enormous amount of learning and insight that has been created while at the same time accepting that as the environment for higher education changes some of the practices that have evolved may no longer be fit for purpose.

Higher education institutions and the students that are enrolled in them face a brace of challenges, from the learning and development losses of the Covid pandemic, to rising costs and income constraints, to technological change. Institutions are less able to support provision of the breadth of enriching opportunities to students at the same time as students have less money, time, and emotional bandwidth to devote to making the most of university.

The answer, as ever, is not to bemoan the circumstances, or worse, blame students for being less able to engage, but to tool up, get strategic, and adapt.

Students still want to make the most of the opportunities that higher education has to offer. The question is how to design and configure those opportunities so that current and future students continue to experience them as purposeful and meaningful.

Fresh student engagement thinking

Our report, Future-proofing student engagement in higher education, brings together the perspectives of academic and professional services staff, higher education leaders, and students, all from a range of institutions, to establish a firm foundation of principles and practices that can support coherent, intentional student engagement strategies.

A foundational principle for student engagement is that students’ motivations and engagement behaviours are shaped by their backgrounds, prior experiences, current environments, and hopes and expectations for their futures – as explained by Ella Kahu in her socio-cultural framework for student engagement (2013).

It follows that it is impossible to think about or have any kind of meaningful organisational strategy about student engagement without working closely in partnership with students, drawing on a wide range of data and insight about the breadth of students’ opinions, behaviours, and experiences. Similarly, it follows that a data-informed approach to student engagement must mean that the strategy evolves as students do – taking student engagement seriously means adopting an institutional mindset of preparedness to adapt in light of feedback.

Where our research indicates that there needs to be a strategic shift is in the embrace of what might be termed a more holistic approach to student engagement, in two important senses.

The first is understanding at a conceptual level how student engagement is realised in practice throughout every aspect of the student journey, and not just manifested in traditional metrics around attendance and academic performance.

The second is in how institutions, in partnership with students, map out a shared strategic intent for student engagement for every stage of that journey. That includes designing inclusive and purposeful interventions and opportunities to engage, and using data and insight from students to deepen understanding of what factors enable engagement and what makes an experience feel purposeful and engaging – and ideally creating a flow of data and insight that can inform continuous enhancement of engagement.

Theory into practice

Our research also points to how some of that shift might be realised in practice. For example, student wellbeing is intimately linked to engagement, because tired, anxious, excluded or overwhelmed students are much less able to engage. When we spoke to university staff about wellbeing support they were generally likely to focus on student services provision. But students highlighted a need for a more proactive culture of wellbeing throughout the institution, including embedding wellbeing considerations into the curriculum and nurturing a supportive campus culture. Similarly, on the themes of community and belonging, while university staff were likely to point to institutional strategic initiatives to cultivate belonging, students talked more about their need for genuine individual connections, especially with peers.

There was also a strong theme emerging about how institutions think about actively empowering students to have the confidence and skills to “navigate the maze” of higher education opportunities and future career possibilities. Pedagogies of active learning, for example, build confidence and a sense of ownership over learning, contributing to behavioural and psychological engagement. Developing students’ digital literacy means that students can more readily deploy technology to support connection with academics and course peers, make active critical choices about how they invest time in different platforms, and prepare for their future workplace. Before getting exercised about how today’s students do not arrive in higher education “prepared to engage,” it’s worth remembering just how much larger and more complicated the contemporary university is, and with these, the increased demands on students.

While there is a lot that institutions can do to move forward their student engagement agenda independently, there is also a need for a renewed focus on student engagement from the higher education sector as a whole. The megathemes contributing to shifting student engagement patterns are shared; they are not distinctive to any institution type, geography, or student demographic.

The promise of higher education – that you can transform your life, your identity and your future through a higher education experience – only holds true if students are willing and able to engage with it. This demands a unified effort from all involved.

Institutions must prioritise student engagement, placing it at the heart of their strategies and decisions. Furthermore, the higher education sector as a whole must renew its focus on student engagement, recognising its fundamental role in achieving the goals of higher education. Finally, as regulatory bodies evolve their approach to the assessment and enhancement of academic quality, student engagement must once again be put front and centre of the higher education endeavour.

This article is published in association with evasys. You can download a copy of Future-proofing student engagement here.

Source link

February 3, 2025
Bridget Phillipson reaffirms commitment to free speech
Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson has delivered a statement to Parliament on her regulatory approach to higher education – specifically, the future of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.

Ahead of her day in court with the Free Speech Union – which is taking her to court over her implementation pause – she announced that key provisions will be brought into force, whilst “burdensome provisions” will be scrapped.

And the good news is that pretty much for the first time from a minister on this issue, there’s an explicit recognition of the fine lines, complexities and contradictions often in play on the issue. A press notice covers largely the same material.

You’ll recall that on taking office back in July, Phillipson paused further commencement of the Act in response to “concerns raised by a cross section of voices” – and controversially, at least for some, a “source” branded the Act as passed a “Tory hate charter”.

In the intro, Phillipson said she was still committed to ensuring the protection of academic freedom and free speech – “vital pillars” of the university system:

Universities are spaces for debate, exploration, and the exchange of ideas, not for shutting down dissenting views… extensive engagement with academics, universities, students, and minority groups revealed concerns about unworkable duties, legal system burdens, and potential impacts on safety, particularly amid rising antisemitism on campuses.

Insights from her work to consult with interested stakeholders (both for and against the act), says Phillipson, have shaped a “balanced, effective, and proportionate approach” to safeguard free speech while addressing minority welfare.

What stays

First up, the government will commence the following requirements currently in the act (in sections 1,2 and 6):
- The duties on higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure and promote freedom of speech within the law
- The duty on higher education providers to put in place a code of conduct [practice] on freedom of speech
Those are relatively uncontroversial – most providers were preparing in that spirit already, although the (very) detailed suggestions on compliance previously proposed by OfS may yet change.

Underpinning that, Phillipson also intends to commence the duties on the Office for Students (OfS) (section 5) to promote freedom of speech and the power to give advice and share best practice. And unsurprisingly, the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students making complaints about bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct will also remain.

There was a curious passage on the Director for Free Speech and Academic Freedom role – the Secretary of State said that she had “complete confidence” in Arif Ahmed who will be staying on – but then criticised how he’d been appointed, drawing on interim Chair David Behan’s review of the regulator that had recommended a look at how all OfS executive and board appointments should be made.

She said will decide on the process of appointing directors to the independent regulator “shortly”.

What’s going

A couple of other measures were “not proportionate or necessary”, so she’ll be seeking repeal.

The duties on students’ unions are to go – because they’re neither “equipped nor funded” to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and are already regulated by the Charity Commission:

But I fully expect students unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not, and expect providers to work closely with them to make sure that happens, to act decisively to make sure their students union complies with their free speech code of conduct.

That effectively returns us to the Education Act 1986 position – of providers taking reasonably practicable steps to get their SU to comply – and sensibly removes the prospect of a new student being told about two codes of practice to follow depending on who they’d booked a room with.

Most controversially for some, she will also repeal the legal tort, on the basis that it would have resulted in:

Costly litigation that risks diverting resources away from students at a time when University finances are already strained – remaining routes of redress have plenty of teeth.

Those pro the tort worry that that only leaves OfS’ powers to find as the compliance lever – although others worried that the threat of it would have resulted in more threatening letters than sensible, nuanced decisions.

What’s changing

On the OfS free speech complaints scheme, it will remain in place for university staff and visiting speakers – but there will be two changes. OfS will first be freed up to prioritise the more serious complaints – and be officially empowered to ignore others.

And the government will remove the “confusing duplication” of complaint schemes for students. Students will be diverted to using the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA, and OfS will take complaints from staff, external speakers and university members.

That doesn’t quite remove the potential duplication of the two bodies considering the same incident or issue from different angles/complaints – but it’s a sensible start.

And the government will also amend the mandatory condition of registration on providers to give OfS flexibility in how they apply those conditions to different types of providers – we’d expect that to cover issues like the obvious oversight of 14-year olds in FE colleges caught by the Act suddenly gaining free speech rights.

The government says it will also take more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures in the act as it “works at pace” on the wider implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme that was part of the National Security Act 2023. Those two bits of legislation never felt properly aligned – so that also feels pretty sensible.

In the debate that ensued, there was some lingering suspicion from the opposition that that all amounted to the government going soft on China – and regardless of the foreign funding clauses, there were some concerns from providers about the workability of the draft OfS guidance on the main duties re oppressive regimes and TNE. That will be one to watch.

Finally, we will also get a policy paper to set out the proposals in more detail, potentially alongside a decision on information provision for overseas funding.

What’s next

As we signalled back in March, the interaction with allegations and incidents of antisemitism appears to have been a big influence on the decisions – the press notice reminds readers that there were fears that the legislation would encourage providers to “overlook” the safety and wellbeing of minority groups, including Jewish students, and instead protect those who use hateful or degrading speech on campus:

Groups representing Jewish students also expressed concerns that sanctions could lead to providers overlooking the safety and well-being of minority groups.

Phillipson even referenced the faux pas from Michelle Donelan way back in May 2021 when, on the day the Bill was launched, she was unable to explain how the government’s proposals would prevent Holocaust deniers coming to campus.

Phillipson said that she could see “no good reason” why any university would invite a Holocaust denier onto campus to deny the overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust is an “appalling form of antisemitism”. Even when the last government had clarified the position on holocaust denial, it never confirmed that holocaust deniers could be banned – and the point about many external speaker edge cases is that they rarely fill the form in with “I’m going to say something unlawful”.

There’s still a way to go yet on these (and other) fine lines – in the ensuing debate, Phillipson said that she was worried that the regime that was due to launch would have “unduly prioritized” free speech which is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who feel harassed and intimidated – these issues, she said, can be “very finely balanced”. That may well see a push from the SOS that the two sets of guidance – on OfS’ new Harassment and Sexual Misconduct duties, and the drafts on this regime, are integrated more sensibly.

The ongoing questions surrounding the IHRA definition of antisemitism may also yet pop up again too – not least because of Arif Ahmed’s own apparent u-turn on it and the ensuing cases challenging its usage in disciplinary procedures. Questions of pro-Palestinian activism on camps and where that might stray into antisemitism were notably absent from OfS’ guidance drafts.

Overall, some in the debate will be furious at the government’s apparent watering down of the Act, others will be pleased that some of the arguably more unworkable aspects are being amended.

But probably the most important signal from Phillipson was a recognition that the area is complex and decisions often finely balanced – putting a degree of trust in universities (and their SUs) that they will also take it seriously.

Whatever else has happened over the past few years, there’s plenty of evidence that understanding has improved in the sector – it looks it has in Whitehall too. The question now is whether, next time an incident or issue comes along, it is handled by a university (or its SU) in a way that commands confidence.
Source link
January 15, 2025