Tag: level

Level 7 Apprenticeships: Babies and Bathwater

Last September, the Prime Minister announced a “rebalancing” of funding from the apprenticeship levy (shortly to become the Growth and Skills Levy). Employers’ ability to use the funds for postgraduate-level apprenticeships would be restricted in the hope of shoring up lower levels.

A couple of months later, Skills Minister Jacqui Smith followed up by confirming that the axing of Level 7 apprenticeships would be “pretty widespread”. What’s more, she didn’t rule out a blanket defunding.

The government’s thinking arises from a belief that employers are taking advantage of apprenticeship levy funding to upskill mostly existing, mostly relatively seasoned staff with MBAs and similarly expensive qualifications. At worst, some employers may be using a claw-back of their levy (which is paid by employers at 0.5% of annual wage bills that exceed £3 million) to give training perks to middle managers.

This activity may not only be offsetting those employers’ own training budgets such that the levy isn’t increasing the overall funding available, but in the process, it is also undermining what the government would prefer, namely that the money is used to address concerns about young people leaving school without more basic levels of employability.

The Government has a point. In 2021/22, nearly half of all Level 6 and 7 apprenticeships were in ‘Business, Administration & Law’. But the employers concerned (often professional services firms, accountants and legal services) may have a point too. They may feel their commercial interests are better served (and more economic activity is generated) by training up current employees who have high demonstrable potential rather than recruiting low-level apprentices who may be less reliable, loyal or productive in the longer term. After all, they might argue, businesses don’t exist to do the government’s job of workforce planning or social engineering.

In the second decade of this century many policy papers punningly declared that they were laying out a ‘2020 vision’. One such document in 2015 laid out the Cameron Government’s reform of English apprenticeships which heralded the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in 2017.

This new tax – sorry, ‘levy’ – would, it was envisioned, align skills supply with skill needs and provide a superhighway of progression for apprentices while simultaneously promoting wider access and higher standards.

Sadly, the vision was somewhat rose-tinted. At the time over half a million people started apprenticeships, but since then, the number has plummeted to barely a third of a million (339,580). At over 45%, the drop-out rates from apprenticeships are at a level that would make higher education blush and the system is “beset by widespread and deep-rooted quality issues”.

Meanwhile, apprenticeships have failed to be the hoped-for driver of social mobility for those who don’t pursue university pathways. Just 5% of apprentices were eligible for free school meals.

Given that employers recruit their apprentices and, unlike universities, they are not subject to any fair access requirements, opportunities have tended to follow traditional patterns of advantage.

Most of the fall in apprenticeships is accounted for by the 72% collapse of intermediate apprenticeships (equivalent to Level 2, ie. GCSEs), while higher apprenticeships (equivalent to Level 4 and above) have been the only part of the market to see an expansion – by nearly three times, such that they now make up more than a third of the (albeit lower) total.

There is no reason to suppose that excluding Level 7 apprenticeships from the funding system will suddenly make lower levels more attractive to employers. While it is true that the funding is drawn from the same pool, they are not seen as alternatives by employers: the Business Administration & Law sector is not likely to start offering intermediate apprenticeships to 16-year-old school leavers because they can’t offset their levy by training qualified professionals.

Rather it is in other sectors, where engagement in apprenticeships has been minimal, that the government wants to see the growth. For those employers, the fact that someone else may have been using their apprenticeship levy to fund an MBA was never stopping them from creating more junior opportunities.

What’s been stopping them is the red tape involved in setting up and running apprenticeships, the costs and inconvenience (such as the time of other staff to recruit, manage and train apprentices), and the limited perceived benefits.

Not only is defunding Level 7 apprenticeships not likely to solve the problems in the apprenticeship market, there is also a danger that babies (training that is critical to address skills gaps) might get thrown out with the bathwater (those MBAs which the government thinks should not be publicly subsidised).

For example, there are widely acknowledged and significant skills shortages (insufficient numbers) and gaps (insufficient skill levels) in the engineering sector, a sector that accounts for £645 billion – more than a third of the UK’s GDP. These deficits run the risk of derailing the government’s mission for economic growth.

But engineering is also critical to regional development as the spread of jobs and higher wages are not concentrated in any particular parts of the country. Indeed, often the greatest opportunities are in those parts of the country most in need of growth and improvements in productivity. Engineering higher education is also a major driver of social mobility and opportunity: graduate premiums in engineering are both higher and more equal for those from disadvantaged backgrounds than in other disciplines.

Level 7 apprenticeships in engineering are vital for up-skilling (and re-skilling), which is critical for the challenges outlined in the government’s industrial strategy, such as in defence, advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, and digital & technologies (particularly AI).

Engineering is a highly dynamic sector with an ageing population of skilled professionals. Even if we can meet the profound challenges of providing sufficient new engineers into the labour market, keeping them there and maintaining their level of expertise will rely on increasing the availability of – and demand for – a combination of in-work training and education at the highest level.

Achieving Level 7 qualifications in engineering (which are often instrumental in professional recognition) is generally too expensive for individuals to embark on at their own cost and, given the competitive demand for skilled labour in the context of shortages, employers are fearful that if they invest heavily in these staff they may be poached by competitors. This is a prime example of where a low-cost intervention by government can have large-scale impact.

In other words, Level 7 apprenticeships in engineering are strategically critical. My understanding is that they are similarly vital in certain other sectors such as health.

The government is right to ensure Growth & Skills Levy funds are spent as effectively as possible, but that will require a nuanced appraisal of what is working and what isn’t as well as a recognition that a slash and burn of waste won’t necessarily promote growth where the government wants it.

Source link

March 12, 2025
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

February 10, 2025
A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

Level 7 apprenticeship growth has been one of the higher education success stories of recent years.

Our technical education system is weak by international standards, yet high level technical skills will be vital to the urban planning and infrastructure improvement ambitions of our current government, while at the same time boosting social mobility by allowing those who can’t afford to study on a traditional course at university the opportunity to gain a postgraduate qualification.

It therefore would appear counterintuitive that the government has been hinting that many if not all level 7 apprenticeships could have their eligibility for levy funding removed, couched in language of prioritising spending on growing lower level and new “foundation” apprenticeships.

This proposed redistribution fails to acknowledge that progression benefits apprentices at all levels, as those moving into senior roles create new vacancies or advancement opportunities via the positions they vacate.

Build baby build?

Nowhere is this clearer than in the built environment sector. The UK’s housing crisis is the pivotal issue that this government has promised to tackle. Their promise to build 1.5 million new homes by 2030 is ambitious – it has been labelled unachievable by the CEO of the UK’s largest housebuilding company because of skills shortages, and most councils are reporting that it won’t be possible to achieve.

If such a goal is to be accomplished, it will demand highly skilled professionals to streamline planning processes, deliver housing projects, and support regional infrastructure development.

At my institution, London South Bank University (LSBU), 70 per cent of our level 7 apprentices are on the chartered town planner standard. On a day-to-day basis they address planning bottlenecks and ensure that housing and infrastructure projects meet the various regulatory and environmental standards. Only last month the first level 7 chartered town planner apprentices in England graduated successfully from LSBU having joined their employer with no prior experience in the planning sector aged 18 after completing school.

Over half of the employers we work with at LSBU on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful. The legacy of austerity has left one in four councils expecting to apply for an emergency government bailout in the next two years. If the Treasury decides to remove levy funding, employers will not be able to fill the gap.

If the UK hopes to comply with the Future Homes Standard and the National Retrofit Strategy V2, more highly trained architects are required. The profession is in high demand but short supply – it had been on the Shortage Occupation List until the previous government abolished the list last April.

Level 7 architect apprentices, of which LSBU currently train 78, design energy-efficient buildings and support urban regeneration. They contribute to both public housing schemes and private sector developments by driving innovation in sustainable construction and are already supporting the government’s ambition to retrofit five million homes by 2029.

Growth ambitions

In addition to their clear role in developing infrastructure, level 7 apprenticeships are vital for social mobility. They open doors for individuals from underrepresented groups, in part because apprentices earn whilst they learn and aren’t put off by the prospect of incurring student debt. A true leveller of the playing field, they provide excellent career progression opportunities and higher earnings potential. A greater proportion of our level 7 apprentices are from black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds (55 per cent) and are female (52 per cent) than those studying apprenticeships at lower levels.

Most of our level 7 apprentices are under the age of 25, so the characterisation that they are simply the reserve of older learners is unfounded. For example, at LSBU, we provide tailored pathways for young learners to embark on higher level apprenticeships in regionally relevant sectors from level 2 to level 7 through our unique group model which includes London South Bank Sixth Form (a new technically focused sixth form academy concept) and London South Bank Technical College (the first technical college for a generation).

Level 7 apprenticeships are central to this government’s ambitions around growth, sustainability, and equality of opportunity. Despite recent increases in uptake, they have actually accounted for a slightly smaller proportion of the total apprenticeship budget over the last couple of years.

Every standard addresses unique challenges and supports sector-specific needs. A blanket removal of funding from level 7 apprenticeships will risk planning reforms and housing developments. At the very least, apprenticeships in the ten sectors prioritised by Skills England as growth-driving need to be protected from Treasury cuts.

Source link

February 10, 2025
Excluding Level 7 modules from the LLE is a huge, missed opportunity
Ahead of a House of Lords debate on the topic of lifelong learning later this week, today’s blog features two posts on the topic.

Elsewhere on the site, Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham, highlights what is, in her view, a critical flaw in the LLE: the unfair funding gap facing students on accelerated two-year degree programmes, despite their clear benefits for employability and skills development. You can read that piece here.

And below, Dr. Michelle Morgan explores the gaps in the Government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), questioning why postgraduate taught courses have been left out and what this means for students, universities, and businesses.

So the Government has announced that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will come into effect in September 2026.

The government is arguing that the LLE will allow people to develop new skills and gain new qualifications at a time that is right for them. The LLE will focus on:
- full courses at level 4 to 6, such as degrees, technical qualifications, and designated distance learning and online courses
- modules of high-value technical courses at levels 4 to 5.
It is argued that it will help drive sustained economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, and support greater learner mobility between institutions.

However, yet again the sector’s postgraduate taught (PGT) provision has been ignored. By excluding this level of study, the ambitions of the Government will not be as great as they could be, and it is a huge, missed opportunity for higher education and this is why.

The first problem: Declining PGT participation of UK-domiciled students

In the past 10 years, the higher education sector has increasingly relied on international master’s students to fund itself. EU and non-EU PGT students are nearly all undertaking master’s degrees, whereas for UK-domiciled students, a master’s degree only constitutes around 55% of those on PGT courses. Taught courses include master’s, postgraduate certificates, diplomas, and institutional credits and postgraduate certificates in education.

For Master’s participation, 2019/20 was a pivotal year as non-EU participation surpassed UK-domiciled for the first time. In each year since 2021/22, UK-domiciled Master’s enrolments have declined (see Table 1). Although we do not have Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) return data to view for 2022/23 and 2023/24, there is a strong sense across the sector that we will see a decline in master’s participation, especially among international students.

Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

The decline is the same pattern that occurred leading up to 2010/11. The only reason why master’s participation continued to increase then was due to non-EU enrolments. The response by the Government to re-energise the UK-domiciled market after the Higher Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE, which was then the regulator) Phase 1 and 2 of the Postgraduate Support Scheme was to bring in the Postgraduate Loan. As soon as this happened, you could hear an audible sigh of relief across the sector, and there was an attitude of ‘that will solve the problem so let’s just focus on growing the master’s market’. The sector did not consider the demand for master’s qualifications by business and industry, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Employer demand for Master’s graduates

There are disciplines where a master’s is required for career progression such as professional accreditation. However, as the 11 University Postgraduate Experience Project found, which was one of 20 projects funded as part of the HEFCE Phase 1 Postgraduate Support Scheme, many SMEs did not need master’s graduates. Most useful to them was for higher education to provide short courses and modules that provided their staff with advanced skills in key areas such as Business and IT and emerging ones such as Generative AI. According to the Department for Business and Trade’s report on Business population estimates for the UK and regions in 2024, there were 5.6 million UK businesses in 2024 of which 5.5 million were SMEs, accounting for 99.8% of all businesses. By ignoring the needs of business and industry, we are losing an opportunity to engage with a critical market.

Funding and repayment

As soon as the Postgraduate Loan was introduced, most universities immediately raised their fees. The aim of the £10,000 loan was to cover fees and some maintenance. Although the loan for September 2024 English starters is now £12,471, for many this will not come close to covering their costs. What is also not factored into any discussion is that someone who has both an undergraduate and a postgraduate loan must pay them back concurrently. This equates to 9% for the undergraduate loan and 6% for the postgraduate, or 15% of someone’s salary on top of tax, National Insurance and any other employee-related costs. Although employers’ national insurance contributions are increasing next year, if there is any tax or National Insurance increase for the individual next year, this will further reduce their disposable income.

The Postgraduate Loan also differs between UK countries. In England, the loan does not cover stand-alone postgraduate certificates and diplomas, unlike in Scotland, where non-master’s postgraduate taught course participation is 56% compared to 44% in England. If they were included, then maybe the LLE as it stands would not be quite as restricted. The English loan system is not agile enough to support engagement in short or non-master’s courses, and English universities plan their finances for master’s enrolments and anticipated completions. A student should not have to register and enrol on a master’s if they only want or need to do a postgraduate certificate or diploma. If an individual needs a master’s for professional accreditation, this will not stop them from doing a master’s. In fact, we may see an increase in integrated degrees being undertaken where a master’s is incorporated into the undergraduate degree as a result.

Additionally, we have just had the announcement that undergraduate loans are slightly increasing, but no announcement has been made for postgraduate loans. The current system hinders engagement. It also adopts a deficit model approach, as these qualifications are deemed exit qualifications if someone fails to achieve the Master’s.

Ability to participate in master’s study

What is also overlooked in discussions are the debt levels of undergraduate alumni and how this could explain the decreasing number of UK-domiciled 21-24-year-old participants. The majority of PGT enrolments are for the age group of 30 years and over.

Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

When the Postgraduate Loan was introduced in 2016, only one cohort had graduated under the £9,000 a year fee regime introduced in 2012. We now have 10 cohorts who graduated under that regime. It is maybe not a surprise therefore that the largest group investing in postgraduate taught study are those with the smallest amount of undergraduate debt.

Last year, I got the results of a Freedom of Information request from the Student Loan Company regarding the debt levels for English-domiciled recipients entering postgraduate Master’s study in 2021/22 (see Figure 1). Of the 72,618, 74.8% had debt in excess of £40,000 and 11.9% over £70,000. This debt will include any repeated years as well as longer length undergraduate courses such as integrated degrees with placements. With the recent announcement that fee levels will rise by £285 to £9,535 in 2025/26, this will increase individual debt.

Figure 1: Debt levels of 72,618 English-domiciled master’s students who also have an undergraduate loan (fee and maintenance) in 2021/22 only

The recent Times and Sunday Times showed how parental financial support differs by student groups and universities. The universities where parents pay the most – up to £30,000 – are mainly Russell Groups. And when you explore postgraduate taught participation by ethnicity, 66% are White. How will the factors highlighted above enable widening participation at the postgraduate level which delivers advanced skills, competencies and knowledge?

We need a rethink

The LLE that will be introduced will not super-proof the pipeline for longevity of postgraduate taught study nor provide the advanced skills that are accessible, meaningful and needed for the individual, society or business and industry.

So we need to start thinking now about the long-term implications of student debt, and social and economic needs so we can develop policy, strategy and practice. To do this though, the sector needs to start thinking about how we can reimagine and do things differently, Government needs to listen to key stakeholders, and we must proactively work together and not against one another.
Source link
February 5, 2025
Universities need leaders at every level

It may be the season for giving. However, it looks unlikely that universities will find a gift-wrapped solution to their financial worries under the tree anytime soon.

There are busy times ahead for the higher education sector, what with boosting the economy, solving the evils of social injustice, and restoring civic accord to our troubled nation – as the government appears to expect. Realistically, however, most higher education institutions will be operating with reduced numbers of employees and leaner resources, for the foreseeable future. So, it is not entirely clear how this all adds up.

In a “more for less” environment, the institutions that will survive, perhaps even thrive, will be those that are able to get the very best out of each individual. What universities urgently need, therefore, is outstanding, engaged leadership.

Beyond the executive suite

But just to be clear, when I say “leadership”, I am not talking about stronger, tougher, more detailed decision-making at the top. With the best will in the world, the ten people who sit in the executive suite on a Tuesday morning with a pot of coffee can only do so much.

However, what can have a transformative impact on organisations is a willingness to mobilise, align and empower a distributed network of leaders at every level of an organisation to motivate, support and develop their staff, so that everyone can achieve more.

This isn’t a new idea. From Peter Drucker in the 1960s, through to more recent work by Martin Seligmann, Michael West, Brené Brown, and many others, the published wisdom on organisational psychology tends to show that command-and-control styles of directive authority are less effective than positive and collaborative methods of leading that harness knowledge and creativity across an organisation. This is especially so when responding to cultural issues and “wicked problems”. We might have a few of those.

This is not to say that everyone should get a vote on everything all the time. Nevertheless, the working principle that, within agreed limits, decisions should be taken as close as possible to the actual activity is a good one – and might well save time, money and trouble.

Leadership skills

Nobody says this is simple. Devolving decision-making calls for high levels of trust, skill and communication across leadership teams and for attention to personal development. The Institute of Leadership, a membership organisation with 75 years of experience in this game, identifies 49 principles of leadership, ranging from adaptability, and dealing with conflict, to ethics, managing upwards and resilience. (Anyone who has ever chaired a department meeting will probably have required most of these abilities before reaching item four on the agenda.)

Cappfinity, a global talent lifecycle management company, deeply embedded in global industry with 20 years of research, lists no fewer than 80 key workspace skills, highlighting eight “altitude leadership” strengths: agile thinking, relationship navigation, accountability, self-insight, inclusive leadership, courage, strategic vision and change facilitation. Surely, more of these things in daily university life could only help, whatever the next big policy change might be.

As a sector, and with some external prompting, universities and other higher education providers have recently become much better at articulating, assessing and developing employability skills for students.

However, there’s still some way to go on helping staff to identify, understand and optimise their technical, cognitive and behavioural strengths (to borrow a taxonomy from Cappfinity). Of course, some colleagues already display these skills; others clearly need to learn them. All too often, people in our organisations do have remarkable qualities and abilities, but don’t have the opportunities or the motivation to use them. These unrealised strengths constitute a potentially rich resource for universities, especially when other kinds of resource are in short supply.

Abi Parker of Cappfinity points out that tapping into these abilities can make a profound difference:

With skills development, at every level, everything starts with self-insight. What’s special about leadership development is that any positive movement is amplified, meaning that as a lever for improving organisational effectiveness, leadership development is a great place to start. This is especially true in difficult times.

The marzipan layer

If only there was a pan-institutional network of experienced colleagues able to communicate effectively, to take responsibility at local level, to promote strategic objectives, to motivate and support employees, and to innovate appropriately without excessive investment or risk.

Ah, yes. Right. So, the good news is that universities already have these highly developed internal structures in both academic and professional services teams, in the form of deans, directors, heads, section leads and their deputies. The bad news is that our large, bureaucratic institutions can sometimes ignore and elide what is going on at this level, or these leaders can end up overwhelmed and discouraged, unsure how to manage the apparently competing demands of their own staff and the senior team.

As Mark Smith, vice chancellor at the University of Southampton, observes:

The crucial layer of leadership in an institution is the senior leadership of academic departments and professional service directorates. If this layer is not trusted, empowered and sufficiently skilled there is relatively little those further up can do to bring about change.

This “marzipan layer”, as governance adviser Seamus Gillen of Value Alpha has memorably described it, may become more important than ever as universities navigate the more-for-less maze that lies ahead.

Not everyone loves marzipan, I know, but something has to hold together the crusty royal icing and the crumbly yet delicious fruit cake – just as someone has to localise change initiatives and restructures, to support individuals through difficult contract negotiations, to locate and realise efficiencies, to manage workloads, to resolve conflicts, and to ensure that somehow, against all odds, students continue to get the best possible education.

Thinking more expansively, if universities really are going to play a greater role in society, boost economic growth, drive new knowledge and be more active in cities and regions – I believe and hope they can – then it will be at the level of local leadership that new partnerships will be maintained, inequalities will be gradually eroded, and innovative models for education delivery will evolve.

As Gillen observes, for some people, the marzipan is the best bit:

Just because it’s squeezed in the middle doesn’t mean it’s all bad. If Deans and ‘Heads of’ could be empowered, and feel empowered, they could, would and can transform an institution’s future.

So, as you cut yourself a festive slice, consider that nurturing leadership competencies and behaviours at all levels of our knowledge industry might be the smart place to put your time and energy in the year ahead. Developing teams and individuals won’t provide a quick solution, but it will create the conditions from which future solutions for the sector can emerge. After all, we’re in the education business. Enabling and empowering people is what we do.

Source link

December 19, 2024