Tag: Institutions

  • Challenge of Leading Elite Institutions in Populist Age of Distrust

    Challenge of Leading Elite Institutions in Populist Age of Distrust

    In the face of the Gaza protests, presidents at the nation’s most prestigious campuses were caught between a rock and a hard place—and somehow managed to trip over both.

    Pressured on one side by students and faculty demanding moral clarity and action and on the other by donors, trustees and politicians insisting on firm leadership and institutional neutrality, they found themselves in a no-win situation.

    In attempting to balance these competing forces, they pleased no one, offering statements too vague to satisfy activists yet too equivocal to reassure their critics.

    Instead of navigating the crisis with principled leadership, many stumbled into a public relations disaster, alienating both their campus communities and external stakeholders.

    What should have been a moment for measured, thoughtful leadership instead became a showcase of hesitation, miscalculation and rhetorical gymnastics that satisfied neither moral conviction nor strategic pragmatism.

    Could Presidents Have Done Better?

    Yes, the leading university presidents could have handled the Gaza protests more effectively, but doing so would have required a combination of patience, strategic engagement and deft leadership—qualities that many struggled to summon under intense pressure.

    In his forthcoming memoir, former Harvard president Neil Rudenstine argues that navigating the crisis required time, strong relationships with key stakeholders, active faculty involvement and innovative problem-solving—qualities that were largely absent in the response.

    1. Patience: A Scarce Commodity in a Crisis

    Rudenstine’s call for patience underscores a fundamental challenge: Neither protesters nor institutional critics were willing to wait for careful deliberation. Protesters demanded immediate moral clarity and action, while external stakeholders—donors, trustees, politicians—expected firm and unequivocal leadership.

    University presidents, caught between these forces, often reacted hastily, issuing statements that satisfied neither side. A more patient approach would have required resisting the impulse to make rapid, reactive pronouncements and instead creating structured, ongoing dialogue with campus constituencies. It would have meant acknowledging the urgency of the moment while also emphasizing the need for thoughtful decision-making.

    1. Rapport With Stakeholders: The Perils of New Leadership

    Building trust with students, faculty, alumni, trustees and external critics is difficult in the best of times, and it is even harder for new university presidents who have not yet cemented their authority or personal relationships within their institutions. Many of the university leaders embroiled in the controversy were relatively new to their positions, inheriting polarized political environments without deep reservoirs of goodwill to draw from.

    In moments of crisis, long-standing relationships and credibility matter. Presidents who had not yet established rapport with key stakeholders found themselves viewed with suspicion from all sides, making it difficult to act decisively or persuasively. This underscores the importance of proactive engagement: University leaders must invest in relationship-building early, so that when crises inevitably arise, they have a foundation of trust to rely upon.

    1. Faculty Engagement: An Untapped Resource

    University faculty represent a deep well of institutional knowledge and intellectual expertise, yet in many cases, faculty were sidelined as presidents struggled to navigate the crisis.

    A more effective response would have involved drawing on faculty members—especially those with expertise in history, diplomacy, political science and conflict resolution—to help craft statements, advise on messaging and offer guidance on institutional policy.

    Faculty could have also served as intermediaries between student activists and administrators, helping to create structured conversations rather than performative clashes. By failing to engage faculty early, many presidents lost an opportunity to ground their responses in scholarly insight and institutional legitimacy.

    1. Creative Responses: Beyond the Standard Playbook

    The default approach to campus protests—issue a statement, enforce campus policies and hope the storm passes—was woefully inadequate in this case. Rudenstine’s emphasis on creativity suggests that university leaders needed to think beyond standard crisis-management tactics. Instead of simply trying to placate or rebuff different constituencies, presidents could have:

    • Convened structured debates or forums featuring scholars and public intellectuals with diverse perspectives, transforming conflict into an opportunity for rigorous academic engagement.
    • Established faculty-led committees to develop thoughtful, universitywide policies on how the institution engages with global conflicts, providing a long-term framework for future crises.
    • Created dedicated spaces for dialogue, ensuring that protesters had a platform for their voices to be heard while also setting clear boundaries on disruptions to academic life.

    The Leadership Test They Failed

    The Gaza protests revealed deep weaknesses in university leadership, exposing the inability of many presidents to navigate the complex intersections of free speech, academic integrity, donor pressure and campus activism. A better response would have required patience, trust-building, faculty engagement and creative problem-solving—qualities that were largely absent in the moment.

    The lesson for future leaders is clear: Effective university leadership is not just about managing crises when they arise but about laying the groundwork well in advance, ensuring that when the inevitable storm comes, the institution has the resilience and credibility to weather it.

    The High Cost of Leadership: Neil Rudenstine’s Harvard Presidency

    In a 2001 Harvard Crimson article entitled “The Final Word on Neil Rudenstine,” Catherine E. Shoichet, now a senior writer for CNN, offers a detailed account of that president’s tenure at Harvard—dissecting both his successes and the significant sacrifices and costs it exacted.

    Presidents are chosen to solve particular problems, and Rudenstine was tasked with two major challenges: overseeing Harvard’s first universitywide capital campaign and knitting together a sprawling, fragmented, disjointed institution. As president, he transformed the university’s financial standing—adding billions to its endowment—and initiated wide-ranging administrative reforms, including the re-establishment of the provost position.

    His most notable achievement was increasing Harvard’s endowment from roughly $4 billion to $19 billion in just 10 years, laying the financial foundation that sustains the university’s wealth today.

    However, the article also stresses the heavy personal toll these challenges took on him—a topic that Rudenstine’s own account surprisingly omits.

    Few presidents were better prepared for the job; he had been a respected faculty member, a productive scholar, a well-regarded dean of students, an effective provost and an extraordinarily hard worker. Yet his relentless focus on fundraising and institutional overhaul led to a three-month leave of absence in 1994, fueling rumors of a nervous breakdown. Remarkably, he went on to serve for another seven years after that difficult period.

    Shoichet notes that for all his accomplishments, including launching development of a new campus in Allston and revitalizing Harvard’s Afro-American Studies Department and establishing a then-novel interdisciplinary initiative in mind, brain and behavior, his presidency also resulted in a perceived disconnect between the administration and the student body—a criticism that has followed him since his Princeton days.

    His reserved public persona, which contrasted with the more overtly engaging styles of his predecessors, led to both admiration for his methodical, inclusive approach and criticism for being too detached from everyday campus life.

    The Shoichet article exposes the inherent trade-offs of his approach. Rudenstine’s intensive focus on high-stakes fundraising and administrative restructuring appears to have come at the expense of deeper engagement with the student body. His humility was confused with weakness and a lack of strong convictions. His leave of absence illustrates how the pressures of managing an institution as vast and complex as Harvard can affect even the most capable leaders.

    This duality—the balance between transformative success and the personal, institutional costs—forms the crux of Shoichet’s argument.

    Her narrative situates Rudenstine within a broader historical context. By comparing his tenure with those of former Harvard presidents such as Nathan M. Pusey and Derek Bok, Shoichet argues convincingly that the challenges Rudenstine faced were unique to a new era of higher education—one marked by rapid expansion, increased institutional complexity and a heightened focus on financial management.

    Despite his remarkable achievements, Rudenstine never garnered the same level of acclaim as his illustrious predecessors. In much the same way, many of his successors—including Lawrence Summers, Lawrence Bacow and Claudine Gay—have often been met with ambivalence or even disdain.

    The reality is that leading an institution as formidable as Harvard has become nearly impossible. It is no wonder that the average tenure of college presidents nationwide has shrunk from around eight years to just about five—hardly enough time to make a lasting impact.

    Rudenstine’s legacy, therefore, is not simply measured by his achievements but by the enduring questions it raises about the nature of leadership in a modern academic institution.

    The Daunting Realities of University Leadership: A Seat of Prestige, Not Power

    We often imagine university presidents as powerful figures—intellectual stewards shaping the future of higher education. But Rudenstine’s Our Contentious Universities flips this perception on its head. He’s not speaking truth to power; he’s speaking truth about power—revealing that university presidencies are as much about constraint as they are about command.

    The title of university president carries an air of authority, but Rudenstine’s message is clear: The power of the office is often more symbolic than substantive. Instead of wielding control, presidents juggle competing interests, manage crises and navigate the impossible demands of faculty, students, donors and politicians. The real truth? The presidency is more burden than throne.

    Holding the most prestigious seat in higher education, Rudenstine isn’t telling us how to wield power—he’s telling us how little of it university presidents actually have. His book dismantles the myth of the omnipotent academic leader and replaces it with a far grittier reality: that influence is fragmented, authority is constrained and leadership is often just crisis management in an ivory tower.

    If “speaking truth to power” is about confronting authority, Our Contentious Universities reveals an unexpected reversal: Often, those in power are the ones struggling to be heard. Rudenstine lays bare the paradox of university leadership—an office that looks commanding from the outside but feels impossibly constrained from within.

    The real work of a university president is not about wielding authority but about navigating limits, managing expectations and negotiating between forces that are often beyond their control.

    The power we imagine? It’s largely an illusion.

    Why University Presidents Have Less Power Than We Think

    Through a mix of historical analysis, personal experience and candid reflection, Rudenstine argues that the role of the modern university president is far more constrained than many outsiders assume.

    Three overarching arguments structure his book:

    1. The Paradox of Institutional Wealth and Administrative Complexity

    Elite universities have never been wealthier, yet they have become significantly more challenging to manage. The sheer scale and bureaucratic complexity of modern research institutions—coupled with the decentralized governance structures of many elite universities—make it extraordinarily difficult for a president to assert a unifying vision.

    Harvard, perhaps the most extreme case, operates under the philosophy of “every tub on its own bottom,” meaning that each of its schools, institutes and centers manages its own budget and academic affairs with substantial autonomy. Its endowment, divided into over 11,000 different funds with various restrictions, further complicates efforts to mobilize financial resources for cross-university initiatives.

    But Harvard is not unique in this regard—many elite institutions lack a clear common mission or identity beyond their reputation for excellence. As a result, university presidents often find themselves in the role of coordinators rather than decision-makers, navigating a complex web of faculty interests, donor expectations and institutional traditions.

    1. Student Protests: A Recurring but Intensifying Challenge

    Student activism has long been a defining feature of American higher education, and today’s campus protests are in many ways a continuation of past movements—whether over free speech, civil rights, the Vietnam War, South African apartheid, a living wage and labor rights, or fossil fuel divestment.

    Rudenstine reminds readers that campus unrest is not a new phenomenon and, in many cases, past protests were just as contentious as, if not more so than, those of today.

    However, he argues that contemporary campus protests present a unique set of challenges that make them especially difficult to resolve.

    First, the media and political spotlight on higher education is more intense than ever before, amplifying every controversy into a national debate. Social media accelerates and inflames conflicts, often distorting the reality of what is happening on the ground.

    Second, outside political actors—including legislators, donors and advocacy groups—now intervene more aggressively in campus affairs, using protests as flash points in larger ideological battles over academic freedom, free speech and institutional neutrality.

    Third, many of today’s most contentious issues—such as foreign conflicts, racial justice and free speech—extend far beyond the authority of any university administration. Unlike past movements that targeted specific institutional policies (e.g., divestment from apartheid South Africa), today’s protests often demand action on global or national issues that university leaders have little power to directly influence.

    1. The Constraints of the University Presidency

    While university presidents are often seen as the face of their institutions, their actual power is far more limited than public perception suggests. Much of their time is spent off campus, engaged in fundraising and alumni relations, rather than in direct governance. This distance often creates a perception—among both students and faculty—that they are out of touch with the daily realities of campus life.

    Moreover, while presidents are expected to be moral leaders, crisis managers and public intellectuals, they operate within institutional structures that limit their ability to enact significant change. The vast majority of academic decisions are made at the department and faculty level, not by the president’s office.

    Their financial resources, while seemingly vast, are often constrained by donor restrictions and endowment policies. And while they are expected to foster dialogue and intellectual engagement, they must also navigate intense political and ideological pressures that make consensus-building nearly impossible.

    The Unwinnable Presidency in a Populist Age of Distrust

    Leading an elite university in a populist era of distrust is an unwinnable job. University presidents are expected to be moral leaders, crisis managers and public intellectuals—yet they wield less power than ever before. They must balance the demands of faculty, students, donors, trustees, politicians and the public, all while navigating an institutional landscape that is more fragmented, more scrutinized and more politically charged than at any point in recent history.

    Between a rock, a hard place and a social media firestorm, university leaders face an impossible equation. Caught between student activists demanding moral clarity, faculty insisting on academic freedom, donors expecting institutional stability and politicians eager to score ideological points, they must navigate a minefield with no safe path forward.

    Every decision, no matter how carefully considered, is met with outrage from one side or another. When every choice is controversial, the safest option is still the wrong one.

    Speaking truth to power is one thing—leading an institution when you are the power, yet have none, is another. A university president’s job isn’t to lead; it’s to survive. The modern presidency is less about shaping the intellectual future of a university and more about managing crises, defusing conflicts and enduring public scrutiny.

    Part fundraiser, part diplomat, part scapegoat, today’s university leader embodies a paradox: prestigious, powerful and profoundly constrained.

    The university presidency is a job where everyone expects everything, but no one is ever satisfied. And yet, the ambitious vie for this job. The challenge for future university leaders is not just to weather the storm but to prove that, even in an era of distrust and division, higher education still has a role to play in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and the public good.

    Reclaiming the Visionary College Presidency: The Legacy of the Big Three B’s

    At a time when the university presidency has become synonymous with crisis management, political crossfire and institutional paralysis, we would do well to reclaim an older vision of academic leadership—one embodied by the Big Three B’s: Derek Bok, William Bowen and Kingman Brewster.

    These men were not just administrators; they were visionaries. They understood that a great university is not simply a collection of departments, endowments and buildings, but a living intellectual community that requires bold leadership, principled decision-making and a deep appreciation for the institution’s unique identity.

    Unlike today’s university presidents, who often appear hemmed in by competing pressures, Bok, Bowen and Brewster exuded a sense of command. They were coalition builders who understood how to navigate the tensions of their time—not by appeasement or retreat, but by articulating a clear and compelling vision for their institutions.

    They did not shy away from controversy; they faced it head-on, using their moral authority and intellectual gravitas to persuade rather than merely pacify. Their leadership was not about survival—it was about transformation.

    The Power of Institutional Identity

    One of the defining strengths of these presidents was their deep understanding of what made their universities distinctive. They did not try to turn their institutions into all-purpose, generic centers of higher learning. Instead, they leaned into their unique strengths and traditions, reinforcing the core values that defined them.

    • Kingman Brewster at Yale championed the arts and humanities, elevating Yale as a beacon of intellectual and cultural leadership. He understood that Yale’s prestige was not just in its research output, but in its commitment to a broad, humanistic education that shaped future leaders in the arts, government and public service.
    • William Bowen at Princeton preserved and reinforced the university’s distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, mentoring and close faculty-student engagement. He saw Princeton as the ideal blend of a research university and a liberal arts college, where students could experience the best of both worlds.
    • Derek Bok at Harvard expanded the university’s reach and redefined its role in shaping society. He recognized Harvard’s unique position as an institution that was not just educating students, but cultivating thought leaders in law, government, business and the sciences. Bok’s presidency was marked by efforts to bring in a broader, more diverse array of scholars and students who were shaping the world outside the academy.

    These men understood that universities are not interchangeable—they have distinctive missions, histories and cultures that must be nurtured, not diluted. They resisted the impulse to make their institutions all things to all people and instead worked to sharpen and deepen their defining strengths.

    Leadership With Gravitas and Moral Authority

    What made the Big Three B’s remarkable was not just their institutional savvy, but their personal presence and sense of moral authority. These were men who commanded respect, not because of their titles, but because they embodied the very ideals their universities stood for. They were not timid bureaucrats, nor were they detached figureheads. They were intellectuals, statesmen and educators who carried themselves with the weight of their institutions behind them.

    More importantly, they were unafraid to make tough decisions and stand firm in the face of opposition. Brewster took a bold stance in support of civil rights and coeducation and against the Vietnam War, even when it made him a target of political backlash. Bowen helped lead Princeton through transformative changes in financial aid and faculty governance, navigating opposition with both decisiveness and diplomacy. Bok spearheaded Harvard’s expansion into applied learning and professional education, while also defending the university’s core commitment to academic freedom.

    Each of these presidents had the ability to thread the needle—to stand up for their principles without alienating key constituencies. They were neither populists nor technocrats; they were strategic leaders who understood how to bring faculty, students, trustees and alumni into alignment around a shared purpose.

    Reclaiming a Lost Model of Leadership

    The contrast between the Big Three B’s and today’s university presidents is stark. Where they projected confidence and authority, many modern university leaders appear cautious and reactive. It’s quipped that their present-day counterparts can’t go to the bathroom without consulting their general counsel. Where the Big Three articulated grand visions for their institutions, many of today’s presidents are consumed by damage control. Where they commanded the respect of faculty and students, today’s leaders often seem disconnected from both.

    Of course, the world of higher education has changed. Universities are larger, more complex and more deeply entangled in political and cultural battles than ever before. But that is precisely why we need a new generation of university presidents who can reclaim the mantle of true leadership.

    The university presidency should not be reduced to a balancing act of donor relations, media messaging and political risk management. It must once again become a platform for vision, courage and institution-building.

    The lesson of the Big Three B’s is clear: Great universities do not thrive under timid leadership. They flourish when they are guided by bold, intellectually rigorous and morally grounded presidents who understand both the weight of their office and the enduring value of higher education. The future of our great universities depends on whether we can find leaders who, like Bok, Bowen and Brewster, embody the very ideals their institutions were meant to uphold.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and recipient of the AAC&U’s 2025 President’s Award for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Education.

    Source link

  • Students and Institutions in Limbo After Mass Layoffs at OCR

    Students and Institutions in Limbo After Mass Layoffs at OCR

    A month after the Department of Education closed seven of its 12 regional civil rights offices and laid off nearly half the staff in the Office for Civil Rights, there’s still uncertainty about how the agency will perform its functions with such reduced numbers.

    OCR was founded to ensure equal access to education for all students and is responsible for investigating claims that schools and institutions of higher education failed to protect their students from discrimination. But under the current administration, the office has shifted gears to focus on President Donald Trump’s top priorities: removing trans women from women’s sports teams, protecting against alleged discrimination against white students, and protecting students against alleged antisemitism.

    Back in February, the office’s acting head, Craig Trainor, told employees to pause all investigations except for a handful that aligned with those priorities, according to ProPublica. Trainor quickly told investigators they could once again begin investigating disability-related complaints, which made up the largest share of the pending complaints, but not those related to race- or sex-based discrimination.

    Tracey Vitchers, the executive director of It’s On Us, a nonprofit advocacy organization focused on combating campus sexual violence, says this harks back to the first Trump administration: At the time, a large number of complaints were “quietly ignored” by OCR, leading to a massive backlog for former president Joe Biden’s administration to handle when he came into office in 2021.

    “That was the playbook during the first administration, and it was just that they just sat on shelves, essentially—digital shelves. Those cases were put on the digital shelf, ignored, not opened, not investigated,” she said.

    When Trump took office, more than 12,000 cases were open with OCR, including over 3,000 at institutions of higher education, according to a database of open OCR cases.

    Over half of all OCR cases were being handled by a regional office that is now closed, according to a report from Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who is the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Following the layoffs, each investigator’s caseload—which was already at an all-time high of 42 cases—is expected to skyrocket to 86 cases as a result of the cuts, significantly reducing investigators’ ability to resolve each complaint, per the report.

    The data in the report reflects concerns from former OCR staffers who warned that the layoffs would make protecting students’ civil rights more difficult.

    Experts say that OCR complaints going unresolved can be a serious impediment to a student’s ability to learn.

    “At the postsecondary level, common complaints are refusals to accommodate,” said Paul Grossman, an attorney who worked at OCR for 41 years and is now executive counsel for the Association for Higher Education and Disability. “A student wants a particular kind of accommodation, and the school says, ‘No, that’s a fundamental alteration or an undue burden,’ and the student, as a result, may get dismissed because they don’t meet the academic standards, may get dismissed because they don’t meet conduct standards, whatever the case may be. Or the student may just be unhealthy—they may not be well enough to continue, because they don’t get the accommodation.”

    The public repository of open OCR cases, which used to be updated weekly, has not been updated since Jan. 14, just before Inauguration Day. But ProPublica reported in late February that only about 20 new cases have been opened since Trump took office, whereas about 250 cases were opened in the same period last year.

    That most likely comes down to OCR’s decisions about what to investigate. But Vitchers also noted that, since even before Trump’s second term began, she hasn’t been as eager to advise students to open a case with OCR in response to their institutions mishandling Title IX complaints. After the Biden administration finalized its Title IX regulations, which offered protections to transgender students and which organizations like It’s On Us said were much more sympathetic to victims of sexual violence than Trump’s previous regulations, in the summer of 2024, numerous states sued to block the regulations. The legal tussle made for a complicated environment for students seeking justice for sexual harassment or assault through Title IX, and the Biden rule was eventually vacated just over a week before Inauguration Day.

    “Very honestly, with the back-and-forth on Title IX, and particularly once we saw the Biden rule get challenged, we sort of, somewhat quietly, encouraged students to really pause and take a hard look at, what was the outcome that they were looking for? And help them assess, is the OCR complaint going to get you the outcome that you’re actually looking for here?” she said. “If it is, then we will support you in finding an attorney and filing a case. But with so many of the students that we work with, many of them made the decision to, essentially, protect their own peace.”

    ED did not respond to a request for comment.

    Mediation, Digital Accessibility and More

    On top of concerns about the backlog of complaints going unanswered, experts are also worried about other, lesser-known functions of OCR that likely are not currently happening.

    In some cases, complainants can opt for early mediation, a type of resolution that is more informal and generally quicker than an investigation. But it is unclear if such mediations are happening currently; Grossman said he has heard one example of a planned mediation being canceled, and ED did not respond to a question from Inside Higher Ed about the issue. Grossman also noted that OCR is responsible for continuing to monitor the aftermath of investigations that have already been resolved.

    Jamie Axelrod, director of disability resources at Northern Arizona University and a past president of AHEAD, pointed out that OCR is responsible for conducting digital compliance reviews, in-depth surveys of whether a school or university’s digital resources, such as its website and learning management systems, are accessible to students with disabilities. During the previous Trump administration, Axelrod said, ED stood up a specialized team to complete these reviews and provide technical assistance to institutions to help them make their digital resources more accessible. Now, that team has been reduced significantly, according to Axelrod.

    He also noted that OCR is supposed to be a tool schools and universities can turn to in order to answer any questions about how to appropriately accommodate their students.

    “The point of that is to avoid circumstances that wind up causing discrimination against students with disabilities, and so that’s a key role,” he said. “And it’s hard to really calculate how many instances of discrimination [that prevented from] happening in the first place. It’s hard to count what you prevented, but that is an important role, and I’m sure it leads to resolution of lots of complicated circumstances.”

    The impacts of the cuts are likely to go even deeper than the individual cases that have been displaced to new investigators and the specific programs that will likely fall by the wayside.

    “Like any postsecondary educational institution, there’s a lot of institutional memory that’s developed,” Grossman said. “You have to develop connections, relationships, understandings, insights, experience, and all these people who are going out the door, you’re just lighting a match to all that expertise and experience. And to me, that’s a really sad thing.”

    Source link

  • Heat networks could help institutions meet net zero targets

    Heat networks could help institutions meet net zero targets

    Heat networks enable heat and hot water to be distributed from a central ‘energy centre’, via mainly underground pipes, to multiple buildings.

    Boiler systems in connected buildings would be replaced with new infrastructure, to enable circulation of heat from the network. The energy centre becomes the source of the heat supply.

    Heat networks have a long history — with the first networks being tested nearly 150 years ago. Distribution of heat from a centralised heat source was taken forward in New York city in the late nineteenth century. In the UK, heat networks were used in blocks of flats in the 1960s and 70s. Denmark was one of the first countries to start using heat networks on a wide scale, in response to the oil crisis in 1973. Currently, heat networks are commonly used in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and in cities across the USA and Canada. There are around 14,000 heat networks in the UK with many being campus-style, providing heat to groups of social housing or hospital/NHS campuses.

    Modern heat networks can utilise sources of low carbon heat. These include energy from waste facilities, geothermal sources, solar thermal arrays, air and ground source heat pumps and data centres.

    Participating in a heat network is likely to be more environmentally friendly and, in some cases, more cost-effective than maintaining older, inefficient gas-fired heating systems.

    Funding available

    It’s estimated that fifty per cent of buildings in the UK are located in areas suitable for the construction of a heat network, which currently supply around 2 to 3 per cent of the UK’s heat. The Committee on Climate Change predicts that in order to meet net zero targets (with around 20 per cent of heat supply being from heat networks), it is estimated that investment will need to be around £60 to £80 billion by 2050.

    The government has confirmed its support for the sector, as re-iterated at November’s Association for Decentralised Energy Conference by Miatta Fahnbulleh, Minister for Energy Consumers. The government has set a target for at least 18 per cent of the UK’s heat demand to be met from heat networks by 2050. Over £600 million of government funding has been allocated to develop and improve heat networks.

    The government’s recently published “Clean Power 2030” action plan sets out that the national wealth fund will make available an expanded suite of financial instruments, as part of investment in heat networks and other clean energy sectors.

    The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero already significantly supports the sector via capital grant funding from the Green Heat Network Fund. Education institutions have a range of grant options available to them. One example is the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (via its delivery body, Salix Finance), being a fund dedicated to supporting energy efficiency and decarbonisation initiatives.

    Financial support for heat networks is supplemented by the work of other bodies such as the Heat Networks Industry Council, which is a joint industry and Government forum that aims to grow the heat network sector.

    Taken together, it is clear that there is genuine ambition to ensure that heat networks play a key role in helping the UK meet its net zero ambitions.

    Notable heat network developments

    A number of major heat network projects are underway, including the hugely ambitious South Westminster Area Network (referred to as “SWAN”), which will supply low carbon heating to the Houses of Parliament, the National Gallery and large areas of Whitehall, and the Leeds PIPES heat network, which connects to over 3000 dwellings.

    The existence of these projects, and numerous others, is evidence of a growing trend in the emergence of heat networks as a major contributor to the UK’s net zero ambitions.

    Campus based networks

    Heat networks can work well on campus-style facilities. Given the location of the projects mentioned above, city-based higher education institutions should also consider whether it is feasible for their buildings to connect to a heat network, and whether a heat network is planned in their area.

    There are a number of recent adopters of heat networks in the education sector, including the University of Liverpool, the University of Bradford and the University of Warwick, with many more universities considering becoming heat off-takers.

    Heat networks present academic institutions with an exciting opportunity to forge the way in supporting both new sources of heat, and decarbonising heat in urban areas.

    Regulation matters

    Aside from regulations that govern billing and metering, the heat network sector is not regulated. This, however, will change – the heat networks market framework regulations 2025 (currently in draft) is to come into force in stages over the next 12 months.

    Future regulation is subject to ongoing consultation, which includes consideration of how different groups of consumers are to be protected, and specific arrangements on standards of conduct and billing transparency.

    In particular, the proposed regulations do not specifically refer to a ‘supplier of last resort’ regime, which would enable a state-nominated entity to continue the operation of a heat network where the relevant operator had become insolvent. We understand that Ofgem and the government are considering how this would work, given the complexity of arranging for the ownership transfer of infrastructure and capital assets. We await further developments on this.

    The scheme rules of the Heat Trust, which operates to protect the interests of domestic and micro-business customers of heat networks, partly informed the content of forthcoming regulations. The Heat Trust’s voluntary scheme is intended to establish common standards of heat supply and associated customer service (with standards of service comparable to those required by Ofgem of electricity and gas suppliers). We therefore anticipate robust standards to be introduced within the regulations, for a wider group of consumers.

    Connecting to a heat network involves technical aspects relating to design, maintenance, service standards, and availability of a ‘green’ heat supply. Legal support is essential in navigating new networks as well as specialised technical support. For example, procurement risks, design and delivery risks, real estate and contamination issues, constructions issues, particularly around connection work and secondary side works, exclusivity arrangements and “change in law” provisions given forthcoming regulatory requirements.

    Mills & Reeve advises a number of Universities and other bodies on their participation in heat networks.

    If you are considering participating in a heat network and would like to speak to us about how we can help, please do contact any member of the M&R team.

    Source link

  • Effect of Institutional Autonomy on Academic Freedom in Higher Education Institutions in Ghana

    Effect of Institutional Autonomy on Academic Freedom in Higher Education Institutions in Ghana

    By Mohammed Bashiru and Professor Cai Yonghong

    Introduction

    The idea of institutional autonomy in higher education institutions (HEIs) naturally comes up when discussing academic freedom. These two ideas are connected, and the simplest way to define how they relate to one another is that they are intertwined through several procedures and agreements that link people, institutions, the state, and civil society. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy cannot be compared, but they also cannot be separated and the loss of one diminishes the other. Protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy is viewed by academics as a crucial requirement for a successful HEI. For instance, institutional autonomy and academic freedom are widely acknowledged as essential for the optimization of university operations in most African nations.

    How does institutional autonomy influence academic freedom in higher education institutions in Ghana?

    In some countries, universities have been subject to government control, with appointments and administrative positions influenced by political interests, leading to violations of academic autonomy and freedom. Autonomy is a crucial element in safeguarding academic freedom, which requires universities to uphold the academic freedom of their community and for the state to respect the right to science of the broader community. Universities offer the necessary space for the exercise of academic freedom, and thus, institutional autonomy is necessary for its preservation. The violation of institutional autonomy undermines not only academic freedom but also the pillars of self-governance, tenure, and individual rights and freedoms of academics and students. Universities should be self-governed by an academic community to uphold academic freedom, which allows for unrestricted advancement of scientific knowledge through critical thinking, without external limitations.

    How does corporate governance affect the relationship between institutional autonomy and academic freedom?

    Corporate governance mechanisms, such as board diversity, board independence, transparency, and accountability, can ensure that the interests of various stakeholders, including students, faculty, and the government, are represented and balanced. The incorporation of corporate governance into academia introduces a set of values and priorities that can restrict the traditional autonomy and academic freedom that define a self-governing profession. This growing tension has led to concerns about the erosion of academia’s self-governance, with calls for policies that safeguard academic independence and uphold the values of intellectual freedom and collaboration that are foundational to higher education institutions. Nonetheless, promoting efficient corporate governance, higher education institutions can help safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy, despite external pressures.

    Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of males and females regarding institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and their relationship?

    The appointment process for university staff varies across countries, but it is essential that non-academic factors such as gender, ethnicity, or interests do not influence the selection of qualified individuals who are necessary for the institution’s quality. Unfortunately, studies indicate that women are often underrepresented in leadership positions and decision-making processes related to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This underrepresentation can perpetuate biases and lead to a lack of diversity in decision-making. One solution to address these disparities is to examine gender as a factor of difference to identify areas for improvement and promote gender equality in decision-making processes. By promoting diversity and inclusivity, academic institutions can create a more equitable environment that protects institutional autonomy and promotes academic freedom for everyone, regardless of their gender.

    Methodology and Conceptual framework

    The quantitative and predictive nature of the investigation necessitated the use of an explanatory research design. Because it enabled the us to establish a clear causal relationship between the exogenous and endogenous latent variables, the explanatory study design was chosen. The simple random sample technique was utilised to collect data from an online survey administered to 128 academicians from chosen Ghanaian universities.

    The conceptual framework, explaining the interrelationships among the constructs in the context of the study is presented. The formulation of the conceptual model was influenced by the nature of proposed research questions backed by the supporting theories purported in the context of the study.

    Conclusions and Implications

    Institutional autonomy significantly predicts academic freedom at a strong level within higher education institutions in Ghana. Corporate governance can restrict academic freedom when its directed to yield immediate financial or marketable benefits but in this study it plays a key role in transmitting the effect of institutional autonomy. Additionally, there is a significant difference in perception between females and males concerning the institutional autonomy – academic freedom predictive relationship. Practically, higher education institutions, particularly in Ghana, should strive to maintain a level of autonomy while also ensuring that academic freedom is respected and protected. This can be achieved through decentralized governance structures that allow for greater participation of academics in decision-making processes. Institutions should actively engage stakeholders, including academics, in discussions and decisions related to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. This will ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in policy development.

    This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 02 January 2025) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2444609

    Bashiru Mohammed is a final year PhD student at the faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. He also holds Masters in Higher education and students’ affairs from the same university. His research interest includes School management and administration, TVET education and skills development.

    Professor Cai Yonghong is a professor at Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. She has published many articles and presided over several domestic and international educational projects and written several government consultant reports. Her research interest includes teacher innovation, teacher expertise, teacher’s salary, and school management.

    References

    AAU, (2001). ‘Declaration on the African University in the Third Millennium’.

    Akpan, K. P., & Amadi, G. (2017). University autonomy and academic freedom in Nigeria: A theoretical overview. International Journal of Academic Research and Development,

    Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education,

    Aslam, S., & Joshith, V. (2019). Higher Education Commission of India Act 2018: A Critical Analysis of the Policy in the Context of Institutional Autonomy.

    Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance.

    Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded
    assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial management & data
    systems,

    Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Routledge.

    Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). CSR governance and departmental organization: A typology of best practices. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.

    Neave, G. (2005). The supermarketed university: Reform, vision and ambiguity in British higher education. Perspectives:.

    Nicol, D. (1972) Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility: The Tasks of Universities in a Changing World, Stephen Kertesz (Ed), Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.

    Nokkala, T., & Bacevic, J. (2014). University autonomy, agenda setting and the construction of agency: The case of the European university association in the European higher education area..

    Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university Springer Netherlands.

    Tricker, R. I. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA.

    Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Zulu, C (2016) ‘Gender equity and equality in higher education leadership: What’s social justice and substantive equality got to do with it?’ A paper presented at the inaugural lecture, North West University, South Africa

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Here’s how institutions are faring in handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints

    Here’s how institutions are faring in handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints

    Evidence suggests that significant numbers of students experience or are affected by harassment and sexual misconduct each year. Yet student complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) about harassment and sexual misconduct have historically formed a very small proportion of our overall caseload.

    The number of complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct we have received has been rising slowly but steadily in recent months. This may in part be a result of greater visibility at providers about mechanisms to disclose, such as “report and support” tools. This is a positive step, but there is more to be done to raise students’ confidence in how their providers can respond to reports.

    Today we have published ten case summaries and a casework note on harassment and sexual misconduct, highlighting some key issues for providers to consider when addressing complaints. Although these examples focus on sexual misconduct, the broad principles of good practice can apply across other forms of harassment.

    Taking reports seriously

    Our recent casework shows that some providers are demonstrating, via the disciplinary action they take against students reported for harassment and sexual misconduct, how seriously they view breaches of their codes of conduct. We’ve seen providers taking swift action to investigate, make findings and apply penalties. In some cases, we have seen well-reasoned and documented decisions and clearly explained outcomes.

    However, we have upheld a high proportion of the complaints we have reviewed about harassment and sexual misconduct. We have identified procedural errors and unfairness that have significantly undermined the value of the process for reporting students, and the validity of findings made against reported students.

    Overall, providers seem to have more confidence in addressing the disciplinary aspect of these complaints. Disciplinary processes are usually well established and are supported by guidance and tools such as classification of the severity of any breaches of a code of conduct and accompanying tariffs of penalties.

    There is less certainty and consistency of approach across the sector in responding to the reporting student. There may be fine nuances between a disclosure, a report or a complaint about harassment and sexual misconduct, and the manner of response to each might be slightly different. Many providers intend to be led by the reporting student’s needs, which is an admirable principle – but not always effective if the student has not been clearly informed about the options available to them and the differences between these routes.

    Sharing an outcome

    In several cases, providers haven’t understood that informing a reporting student that a disciplinary process has taken place is not a complete outcome.

    Providers need to consider how they can support students and lessen the impact upon them of the harassment or sexual misconduct they have experienced. This is especially important when the report concerns the conduct of a member of staff. In our experience, providers have tended to be more transparent about incidents between two students than they have been when a member of staff is involved.

    While providers have particular responsibilities to their employees that may be different to the obligations they have towards students, the imbalance of power makes it even more important that students understand how their complaint has been investigated and what will happen next.

    Gathering and probing evidence

    We recognise that complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct are often complex, and may involve events that unfold over a period of time, multiple incidents or involve numerous individuals. There can be constraints because of concurrent police action, which may not result in a clear outcome for several months. Cases may involve claims and counter-complaints, or turn on the credibility of the parties on nuanced issues such as consent.

    Our experience suggests that in some cases, decision makers have not fully understood the importance of moving carefully through a process that genuinely gives all parties an opportunity to tell their own story and allows for gaps and inconsistencies to be explored. It is right that all parties in these processes must be treated with respect, with kindness, and with an awareness of the impact that re-visiting an experience of harassment or sexual misconduct may have.

    But panel members who must test evidence appear to feel constrained in asking questions. Trying to re-examine or gather additional evidence at a later date can place an undue burden on all parties and prevent individuals from moving forward.

    Consultation on a new section of the Good Practice Framework

    The increased focus on tackling harassment and sexual misconduct across the sector – including the new E6 OfS regulatory condition that applies to some of the providers in our membership – is to be welcomed. The emphasis on clear information that is easy to access, and on well-resourced training for both staff and students may go some way to addressing some issues we have seen in complaints.

    In 2025, we will consult on a new section of the Good Practice Framework addressing these complex issues. It will build on the learning we have identified from our rising volume of casework. Our intention will be to draw together in one place the principles that apply to complaints about harassment and misconduct.

    We look forward to engaging with the sector to benefit from the extensive expertise of hands-on practitioners, to make this as useful a resource as possible. If you’d like to feed in at an early stage, please get in touch with us at [email protected].

    Source link

  • Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Many readers might have had an experience along the following lines. You’re on a call, in a meeting, at an event – and someone just happens to let slip that they are doing a postgraduate apprenticeship through their work.

    Questions bubble up: isn’t this person someone in a position to fund their own studies? Or perhaps: don’t they already have a master’s degree? You might even be thinking: your manager really lets you duck out of work for training so often?

    Now this is pure anecdote – and forgive me if it’s not quite as frequent as I’m assuming – but it’s proved to be a pretty powerful one as debates over apprenticeships have percolated in the press and in the back of policymakers’ minds for the last few years. Allied with controversies over supposed “MBA apprenticeships” (or more recently, MBA top-ups and management training for senior executives), it’s led fairly directly to where we are now.

    The government has announced that “a significant number” of level 7 apprenticeships will be removed from levy eligibility in England. The accompanying enjoinder for employers to fund them by other means (if they so choose) is likely the death knell for most of the affected courses, given that without the incentive of levy spending they will largely look like ungainly, over-regulated and rather long bits of exec ed.

    Now we still don’t know exactly what decision the government is going to take. And Labour’s moves here do have other motivations – the policy intention is to stop employers spending their allowances on (older, already qualified) existing staff, and therefore give them a free hand to take on younger apprentices at lower levels, including with so-called “foundation apprenticeships”, though there is zero detail on how this shift in employer training priorities is expected to come about.

    But still – if this was the only priority, money could have come from elsewhere. The fact remains that level 7 apprenticeships have various black marks hanging over them, whether or not justified, which have made them a safe target to go after. Is it really a good use of taxpayers’ money to fund long and expensive courses of what is overwhelmingly in-work training?

    Whose fund is it anyway?

    A big part of the issue, however, is this sense that the levy is really “taxpayers’ money”. It isn’t – it’s half a per cent of an employer’s annual pay bill, assuming said pay bill is £3m or more. Alison Wolf’s recent report for the Social Market Foundation vividly spells out the issue here – employers have become hyper-aware of what they “owe” and are incentivised to spend it as fast as they can, a perverse incentive of the current system which has made level 7 programmes more attractive than policymakers assumed.

    Much of Labour’s current skills policies have their genesis in a period when employers were not successfully deploying their own levy contributions, and there was a question of how better to direct underspends. This is very much not where we are now. And there are many employers who are not well set-up to pivot to entry-level apprenticeships (think solicitors, for example), or who are stressing their own workforce’s need for higher-level upskilling and pursuing productivity gains rather than a larger headcount.

    It could be that the non-apprenticeship part of the growth and skills levy will help square this circle – employers will be able to invest in shorter, possibly more useful workforce training this way, rather than running headlong towards level 7 programmes as the only game in town. The problem is that the government has gone very quiet about this, and we have no sense of what kind of courses will be in scope here.

    And much like with the employer national insurance rise, it doesn’t seem to have been thought through how publicly-funded bodies are meant to respond here – NHS trusts and local councils being big users of the apprenticeship levy, by dint of their size. If the government doesn’t want them spending their levy funds on this type of provision, is it asking them to spend cash from elsewhere in their budgets?

    Caught in the middle

    Stuck between employers’ wishes and government’s aims (or the imagined taxpayer investment) are those education and training providers who have poured resources into making higher-level apprenticeships work. And when we’re talking about level 7 qualifications, it’s universities that have done a lot of the running.

    If you had said a decade ago that many if not most universities would be founding and scaling up teams dedicated to reaching out to employers, thinking about training needs, even coordinating levy transfers across partners and supply chains (as the Edge Foundation’s recent research found) – well, it would have sounded like something dreamed up by a think tank, a laudable ambition unlikely to ever come true. And yet, here we are.

    The Department for Education and Skills England may decide to limit only a couple of standards – as the chart below shows, simply scrapping the Accountancy and Taxation Professional and Senior Leader standards would dramatically change the landscape (though we’d likely be back in the same position in a few years having a similar conversation about the Senior People Professional and Systems Thinking Practitioner ones).

    But once the government starts taking a pick-and-mix approach to standards (as opposed to letting a properly independent arms-length body do so), it opens the door to it happening again and again. If there is a substantial defunding of level 7 apprenticeship standards, expect the next few years to see targets on the back of others, even at level 6 – and an accompanying disincentive for universities to keep pressing ahead seeking out partnerships with employers.

    The removal from levy eligibility of standards that currently have a high uptake will have an immediate impact on those providers invested in them. Below, DK has charted apprenticeship starts by higher education institution (and a few other public bodies as they are lumped together in the DfE data, though as you may have noticed above some for-profit universities appear in the private sector category instead).

    The default view in this chart shows level 7 starts in 2023–24, broken down by standards, so that you can plumb the impact on different providers of different approaches to defunding. And if you’re getting nervous about what else Skills England might fancy doing once it’s finally got the level 7 announcement out of the way, you can look at provision at other levels too.

    Source link

  • How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    • Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham.

    Whilst we are still waiting for the government to decide on the operationalisation of the future direction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), it is easy to agree that providing all new learners with a tuition fee loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use up to the age of 60 is a good thing in principle.

    In recent articles, Professor Deborah Johnston and Rose Stephenson have both presented useful positions and summaries on the status quo. For the University of Buckingham, the merits of the LLE are clear, but it is the relationship between the LLE and courses of different lengths that is central to our concern.

    At Buckingham, we take pride in our unique approach to education. As a disruptor institution and the only private university in the UK with a Royal Charter, we emphasise our small and independent nature. Our distinctive positioning has enabled us to create a unique learning environment. We have successfully developed ‘accelerated degrees’, including our flagship degree models: the two-year undergraduate degree and the four-and-a-half-year undergraduate medical degree.

    Where other institutions have a long summer holiday, at Buckingham we have a fourth term – the same amount of classroom time over a whole degree as in other universities, but a term in the summer which means that students can enter the labour market a year earlier and incur a year’s less accommodation and living expenses as well. 

    Alternatively, in three years, our students at Buckingham can undertake two qualifications: a foundation plus an undergraduate or an undergraduate plus a postgraduate degree. The year’s shape also more closely resembles the world of work and therefore ably prepares students more authentically for their future careers. We know this approach is working, and adds value. We are in the Top 10 for Graduate Prospects (outcomes) and:

    • 92% of our graduates agree their current activity is meaningful (sector 85%).
    • 88% of our graduates feel their current activity fits with their future plans (sector 78%).
    • 83% of our graduates say they are using what they learn while studying (sector 69%).
    • 97% of our graduates are in work or study (sector 89%).
    • 72% of our graduates are in full-time employment (sector 61%).

    Buckingham has been a beacon for accelerated degrees to help students achieve their degrees in a shorter period and get out into the workplace or onto further study sooner. We can also see this model allowing students to interrupt their studies and take their degrees in shorter chunks (each of our terms, for example), which would be possible with the LLE framework once it is implemented. However, there is a fundamental unfairness facing Buckingham and others that needs to be addressed.

    To understand this issue, we must first delve into the technical world of registering with the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England. Providers of higher education can (although not at the moment as new registrations are paused) register with the OfS under two categories:

    1) Approved (fee cap)

      Providers in the Approved (fee cap) category can only charge up to the fee cap of £9,250 (2024/25) / £9,535 (2025/26) for full-time students. Students can take out a tuition fee loan to cover their entire fee (for undergraduate courses). Approved (fee cap) providers can also access teaching and research grant funding. Most institutions are in this category.

      2) Approved

      Providers in the Approved category, which includes Buckingham, can charge tuition fees above the cap. However, students at these institutions can only access tuition fee loans up to the lower limit (£6,355 per annum for three-year programmes and £7,625 per annum for two-year programmes). Any additional fees charged need to be covered privately. Further, these institutions cannot access teaching and research grants.

      Because of our category of registration, students can only get the fee loan for the accelerated (two-year) degree programmes at the lower fee loan limit. Our students study for more of the year, and in each of their two years, yet they are entitled to less of a loan each year to support their learning, meaning that through the current category of registration they are discriminated against, even though our accelerated degrees are clearly better for getting students into the workforce and for the skills agenda being pushed by the new Labour government.

      What is also grossly unfair is that despite approved providers being unable to access direct government funding for learning and teaching, research, or capital activity, they remain subject to nearly every aspect of OfS regulation. One exception is the Access and Participation Plan (although we still produce an Access Statement). Yet, re-stating the above, students at approved category institutions cannot benefit from a full loan for the studying they do.

      So, as the government considers how to support the skills agenda and deliver on skills shortages, here at Buckingham we make a request on behalf of the sector and the potential students: implement the LLE and remove the disparities.

      We are calling for one of two developments:

      • A government review to address tuition fee loan eligibility (tied to current categorisations). Why should students be disadvantaged for the loan they can apply for by the category of their institution’s registration? In The University of Buckingham’s case, we have a TEF, we meet OfS requirements, and we even directly support the government’s desire to get students into work faster. Should it not be £9,250 (or now £9,535 from 2025/26) for all?
      • If not that, a change to loans for the credits studied will allow the students studying in that fourth term with us at Buckingham, and completing in two years, to be able to seek loans for the full amount of their two years of full-time study. The point here is that the implementation of the LLE means that the loan is for the credit instead, so this inequity is removed. All students can get a loan for the credit they study. Our students then would, as a bonus, gain the credit quicker, as they would study over two years.

      Most students, due to the cost of living and other responsibilities, should now be considered part-time students, and we need to consider ways to help them fit their lives around their studies – something we certainly pride ourselves on. To support those who also need to work during their intensive studies, we timetable differently and teach differently. Ultimately this is about helping every one of our students to study more effectively (and in a shorter timescale), and as presented in The University of Buckingham’s Strategic Plan 2023-28, supporting our students by embedding employability and entrepreneurship within the curriculum.

    Source link

  • Institutions may be holding themselves back by not sharing enough data

    Institutions may be holding themselves back by not sharing enough data

    Wonkhe readers need little persuasion that information flows are vital to the higher education sector. But without properly considering those flows and how to minimise the risk of something going wrong, institutions can find themselves at risk of substantial fines, claims and reputational damage. These risks need organisational focus from the top down as well as regular review.

    Information flows in higher education occur not only in teaching and research but in every other area of activity such as accommodation arrangements, student support, alumni relations, fundraising, staff and student complaints and disciplinary matters. Sometimes these flows are within organisations, sometimes they involve sharing data externally.

    Universities hold both highly sensitive research information and personal data. Examples of the latter include information about individuals’ physical and mental health, family circumstances, care background, religion, financial information and a huge range of other personal information.

    The public narrative on risks around data tend to focus on examples of inadvertently sharing protected information – such as in the recent case of the Information Commissioner’s decision to fine the Police Service of Northern Ireland £750,000 in relation to the inadvertent disclosure of personal information over 9,000 officers and staff in response to a freedom of information request. The same breach has also resulted in individuals bringing legal claims against the PSNI, with media reports suggesting a potential bill for those at up to £240m.

    There is also the issue of higher education institutions being a target for cyber attack by criminal and state actors. Loss of data through such attacks again has the potential to result in fines and other regulatory action as well as claims by those affected.

    Oversharing and undersharing

    But inadvertent sharing of information and cyberattacks are not the only areas of risk. In some circumstances a failure to ensure that information is properly collected and shared lawfully may also be a risk. And ensuring effective and appropriate flows of information to the governing body is key to it being able to fulfil its oversight function.

    One aspect of the tragic circumstances mentioned in the High Court appeal ruling in the case concerning Natasha Abrahart is the finding that there had been a failure to pass on information about a suicide attempt to key members of staff, which might have enabled action to be taken to remove pressure on Natasha.

    Another area of focus concerns sharing of information related to complaints of sexual harassment and misconduct and subsequent investigations. OfS Condition E6 and its accompanying guidance which comes fully into effect on 1 August 2025 includes measures on matters such as reporting potential complaints and the sensitive handling and fair use of information. The condition and guidance require the provider to set out comprehensively and in an easy to understand manner how it ensures that those “directly affected” by decisions are directly informed about those decisions and the reasons for them.

    There are also potential information flows concerning measures intended to protect students from any actual or potential abuse of power or conflict of interest in respect of what the condition refers to as “intimate personal relationships” between “relevant staff members” and students.

    All of these data flows are highly sensitive and institutions will need to ensure that appropriate thought is given to policies, procedures and systems security as well as identifying the legal basis for collecting, holding and sharing information, taking appropriate account of individual rights.

    A blanket approach will not serve

    Whilst there are some important broad principles in data protection law that should be applied when determining the legal basis for processing personal data, in sensitive cases like allegations of sexual harassment the question of exactly what information can be shared with another person involved in the process often needs to be considered against the particular circumstances.

    Broadly speaking in most cases where sexual harassment or mental health support is concerned, the legislation will require at minimum both a lawful basis and a condition for processing “special category” and/or data that includes potential allegations of a criminal act. Criminal offences and allegations data and special category data (which includes data relating to an individual’s health, sex life and sexual orientation) are subject to heightened controls under the legislation.

    Without getting into the fine detail it can often be necessary to consider individuals’ rights and interests in light of the specific circumstances. This is brought into sharp focus when considering matters such as:

    • Sharing information with an emergency contact in scenarios that might fall short of a clear “life or death” situation.
    • Considering what information to provide to a student who has made a complaint about sexual harassment by another student or staff member in relation to the outcome of their complaint and of any sanction imposed.

    It’s also important not to forget other legal frameworks that may be relevant to data flows. This includes express or implied duties of confidentiality that can arise where sensitive information is concerned. Careful thought needs to be given to make clear in relevant policies and documents when it is envisaged that information might need to be shared, and provided the law permits it.

    A range of other legal frameworks can also be relevant, such as consumer law, equality law and freedom of information obligations. And of course, aside from the legal issues, there will be potential reputational and institutional risks if something does go wrong. It’s important that senior management and governing bodies have sufficient oversight and involvement to encourage a culture of organisational awareness and compliance across the range of information governance issues that can arise.

    Managing the flow of information

    Institutions ought to have processes to keep their data governance under review, including measures that map out the flows and uses of data in accordance with relevant legal frameworks. The responsibility for oversight of data governance lies not only with any Data Protection Officer, but also with senior management and governors who can play a key part in ensuring a good data governance culture within institutions.

    Compliance mechanisms also need regular review and refresh including matters such as how privacy information is provided to individuals in a clear and timely way. Data governance needs to be embedded throughout the lifecycle of each item of data. And where new activities, policies or technologies are being considered, data governance needs to be a central part of project plans at the earliest stages to ensure that appropriate due diligence and other compliance requirements are in place, such as data processing agreements or data protection impact assessments are undertaken.

    Effective management of the flow ensures that the right data gets in front of the right people, at the right time – and means everyone can be confident the right balance has been struck between maintaining privacy and sharing vital information.

    This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve.

    Source link

  • A higher education institution’s relationship with technology crosses all its missions

    A higher education institution’s relationship with technology crosses all its missions

    Universities have a critical role to play at the intersection of academic thought, organisational practice, and social benefits of technology.

    It’s easy when thinking about universities’ digital strategies to see that as a technical question of organisational capability and solutions rather than one part of the wider public role universities have in leading thinking and shaping practice for the benefit of society.

    But for universities the relationship with technology is multifaceted: some parts of the institution are engaged in driving forward technological developments; others may be critically assessing how those developments reshape the human experience and throw up ethical challenges that must be addressed; while others may be seeking to deploy technologies in the service of improving teaching and research. The question, then, for universities, must be how to bring these relationships together in a critical but productive way.

    Thinking into practice

    The University of Edinburgh hosts one of the country’s foremost informatics and computer science departments, one of the largest centres of AI research in Europe. Edinburgh’s computing infrastructure has lately hit headlines when the Westminster government decided to cancel planned investment in a new supercomputing facility at the university, only to announce new plans for supercomputing investment in last week’s AI opportunities action plan, location as yet undetermined.

    But while the university’s technological research prowess is evident, there’s also a strong academic tradition of critical thought around technology – such as in the work of philosopher Shannon Vallor, director of the Centre for Technomoral Futures at the Edinburgh Futures Institute and author of The AI Mirror. In the HE-specific research field, Janja Komljenovic has explored the phenomenon of the “datafication” of higher education, raising questions of a mismatch and incoherence between how data is valued and used in different parts of an institution.

    When I speak to Edinburgh’s principal Peter Mathieson ahead of his keynote at the upcoming Kortext Live leaders event in Edinburgh on 4 February he’s reflecting on a key challenge: how to continue a legacy of thought leadership on digital technology and data science into the future, especially when the pace of technological change is so rapid?

    “It’s imperative for universities to be places that shape the debate, but also that study the advantages and disadvantages of different technologies and how they are adopted. We need to help the public make the best use of technology,” says Peter.

    There’s work going on to mobilise knowledge across disciplines, for example, data scientists interrogating Scotland’s unique identifier data to gain insights on public health – which was particularly important during Covid. The university is a lead partner in the delivery of the Edinburgh and south east Scotland city region deal, a key strand of which is focused on data-driven innovation. “The city region deal builds on our heritage of excellence in AI and computer science and brings that to addressing the exam question of how to create growth in our region, attract inward investment, and create jobs,” explains Peter.

    Peter is also of the opinion that more could be done to bring university expertise to bear across the education system. Currently the university is working with a secondary school to develop a data science programme that will see secondary pupils graduate with a data science qualification. Another initiative sees primary school classrooms equipped with sensors that detect earth movements in different parts of the world – Peter recounts having been proudly shown a squiggle on a piece of paper by two primary school pupils, which turned out to denote an earthquake in Tonga.

    “Data education in schools is a really important function for universities,” he says.”It’s not a recruiting exercise – I see it as a way of the region and community benefiting from having a research intensive university in their midst.”

    Connecting the bits

    The elephant in the room is, of course, the link between academic knowledge and organisational practice, and where and how those come together in a university as large and decentralised as Edinburgh.

    “There is a distinction between the academic mission and the day to day nuts and bolts,” Peter admits. “There is some irony that we are one of finest computer science institutions but we had trouble installing our new finance system. But the capability we have in a place like this should allow us to feel positive about the opportunities to do interesting things with technology.”

    Peter points to the university-wide enablement of Internet of Things which allows the university to monitor building usage, and which helps to identify where buildings may be under-utilised. As principal Peter also brought together estates and digital infrastructure business planning so that the physical and digital estate can be developed in tandem and with reference to each other rather than remaining in silos.

    “Being able to make decisions based on data is very empowering,” he says. “But it’s important that we think very carefully about what data is anonymised and reassure people we are not trying to operate a surveillance system.” Peter is also interested in how AI could help to streamline large administrative tasks, and the experimental deployment of generative AI across university activity. The university has developed its own AI innovation platform, ELM, the Edinburgh (access to) Language Models, which is free to use for all staff and students, and which gives the user access to large language models including the latest version of Chat-GPT but, importantly, without sharing user data with OpenAI.

    At the leadership level, Peter has endeavoured to put professional service leaders on the same footing as academic leaders rather than, as he says, “defining professional services by what they are not, ie non-academic.” It’s one example of the ways that roles and structures in universities are evolving, not necessarily as a direct response to technological change, but with technology being one of the aspects of social change that create a need inside universities for the ability to look at challenges from a range of professional perspectives.

    It’s rarely as straightforward as “automation leading to staffing reductions” though Peter is alive to the perceived risks and their implications. “People worry about automation leading to loss of jobs, but I think jobs will evolve in universities as they will elsewhere in society,” he says. “Much of the value of the university experience is defined by the human interactions that take place, especially in an international university, and we can’t replace physical presence on campus. I’m optimistic that humans can get more good than harm out of AI – we just need to be mindful that we will need to adapt more quickly to this innovation than to earlier technological advances like the printing press, or the Internet.”

    This article is published in association with Kortext. Peter Mathieson will be giving a keynote address at the upcoming Kortext LIVE leaders’ event in Edinburgh on 4 February – join us there or at the the London or Manchester events on 29 January and 6 February to find out more about Wonkhe and Kortext’s work on leading digital capability for learning, teaching and student success, and be part of the conversation.

    Source link

  • Diversity in the First-year Class at the Ivy Plus Institutions

    Diversity in the First-year Class at the Ivy Plus Institutions

     I’m not sure where to begin on this one, so let’s veer off topic a bit.  

    I’ve decided I’ll likely be phasing out Higher Ed Data Stories in the near future as I go into retirement and start my new venture, which is soft launched but not officially open for business.  When I do, I’ll be posting regularly on my blog over there, but won’t be putting everything out on the web for free, as I’ve been doing on this site.  I do appreciate the contributions people made on the Buy Me Coffee site, but the hosting, software, and labor costs never balanced with the revenue, and while there was a lot of good will that came from my work, I was still in a deficit situation (especially on the time part) and I’ll need to dedicate that to the business side of things.  Medicare Parts B and D ain’t free, you know.

    But this is some unfinished business, and it might be a good place to end.  You know I’ve been personally opposed to the very idea of the SAT and ACT for some time, while being professionally neutral: If colleges find value in it, I don’t care if they use one, the other, or both.

    But I do care about the truth.  On that note, two issues: The headlines suggesting that lots of colleges are returning to standardized tests for first-year admissions are just not true, of course, and everyone in the business knows this.  The testing agencies are curiously silent on the misinterpretation of this information, of course.

    The larger issue of “truth” is the justification put forth by the universities that are returning to the SAT or ACT.  They are all suggesting that they need the tests to find qualified students of color, or low-income students.  Is that true?  If it is, does it mean they denied admission to other, more highly qualified students of color with test scores? You can look at the data below, and while it’s not absolutely definitive, it is interesting.

    Before diving in, however, some caveats:

    • IPEDS reporting recognizes “two or more” as an ethnic category, but does not allow breakouts.  So many colleges will report some percentage of students in every category they check, and of course, there is good reason to do so.  There is no reason, however, to increase the numerator and not the denominator in the equation, as some of them do.  So you may notice that the numbers here don’t line up with what colleges have published.
    • IPEDS data on income or financial need is far less clear, as it only breaks out by Pell/Non-Pell.  Perhaps the researchers who have access to the unit record data can dive in more deeply.
    • We don’t have a lot data (at least not published as supporting evidence for the claim) that says there is a problem with performance among the students admitted without tests.  If that comes to light later, it might change your perception of this data, as it should.  What I have seen shows only minor differences, and given COVID and its disproportionate effects on students, I’m not sure the SAT would survive other testing.
    • Some of these charts show Simpson’s diversity, which is a different way of thinking about diversity.  It’s not the percentage of minority students; it is essentially the chance that two randomly selected members of a group will be different.  If your population was 100 and all 100 in the group were different, you’d have perfect diversity (a value of 1).  If all 100 were the same, you’d have a value of 0.  Higher numbers indicate greater diversity.

    OK.  Got it?

    There are four views in the visualization.  The first shows just Hispanic and Black/African-American enrollment in the first-year classes at the “Ivy Plus” institutions (The Ivy League institutions plus Duke, MIT, Stanford, and the University of Chicago.)  You can see the trend (in both numbers and percentage of the class) over time.  The denominator is the entire class. The blue bars show data up until 2020, and the purple bars show test optional years.

    The second shows the entire ethnic composition of the domestic students in the class.  Look at them collectively to start, then look at individual institutions using the control at right. 

    The last two views show the Simpson’s Index of Diversity for each institution over time.  The first is for domestic students, and the second is for everyone, including international students counted as an ethnicity.  Use the highlight control to focus on one institution.

    So, what do you think?  Do highly rejectives need the SAT to find students of color?  Let me know.

    Source link