Tag: narrative

  • Reclaiming the narrative of educational excellence despite the decline of educational gain

    Reclaiming the narrative of educational excellence despite the decline of educational gain

    There was a time when enhancement was the sector’s watchword.

    Under the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), concepts like educational gain captured the idea that universities should focus not only on assuring quality, but on improving it. Teaching enhancement funds, learning and teaching strategies, and collaborative initiatives flourished. Today, that language has all but disappeared. The conversation has shifted from enhancement to assurance, from curiosity to compliance. Educational gain has quietly declined, not as an idea, but as a priority.

    Educational gain was never a perfect concept. Like its cousin learning gain, it struggled to be measured in ways that were meaningful across disciplines, institutions, and student journeys. Yet its value lay less in what it measured than in what it symbolised. It represented a shared belief that higher education is about transformation: the development of knowledge, capability, and identity through the act of learning. It reminded us that the student experience was not reducible to outcomes, but highly personal, developmental, and distinctive.

    Shifting sands

    The shift from HEFCE to the Office for Students (OfS) marked more than a change of regulator; it signalled a change in the state’s philosophy, from partnership to performance management. The emphasis moved from enhancement to accountability. Where HEFCE invested in collaborative improvement, OfS measures and monitors. Where enhancement assumed trust in the professional judgement of universities and their staff, regulation presumes the need for assurance through metrics. This has shaped the sector’s language: risk, compliance, outcomes, baselines – all necessary, perhaps, but narrowing.

    The latest OfS proposals on revising the Teaching Excellence Framework mark a shift in their treatment of “educational gain.” Rather than developing new measures or asking institutions to present their own evidence of gain, OfS now proposes removing this element entirely, on the grounds that it produced inconsistent and non-comparable evidence. This change is significant: it signals a tighter focus on standardised outcomes indicators. Yet by narrowing the frame in this way, we risk losing sight of the broader educational gains that matter most to students, gains that are diverse, contextual, and resistant to capture through a uniform set of metrics. It speaks to a familiar truth: “not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”.

    And this narrowing has consequences. When national frameworks reduce quality to a narrow set of indicators, they risk erasing the very distinctiveness that defines higher education. Within a framework of uniform metrics, where does the space remain for difference, for innovation, for the unique forms of learning that make higher education a rich and diverse ecosystem? If we are all accountable to the same measures, it becomes even more important that we define for ourselves what excellence in education looks like, within disciplines, within institutions, and within the communities we serve.

    Engine room

    This is where the idea of enhancement again becomes critical. Enhancement is the engine of educational innovation: it drives new methods, new thinking, and the continuous improvement of the student experience. Without enhancement, innovation risks becoming ornamental: flashes of good practice without sustained institutional learning. The loss of “educational gain” as a guiding idea has coincided with a hollowing out of that enhancement mindset. We have become good at reporting quality, but less confident in building it.

    Reclaiming the narrative of excellence is, therefore, not simply about recognition and reward; it is about re-establishing the connection between excellence and enhancement. Excellence is what we value, enhancement is how we realise it. The Universitas 21 project Redefining Teaching Excellence in Research-Intensive Universities speaks directly to this need. It asks: if we are to value teaching as we do research, how do we define excellence on our own terms? What does excellence look like in an environment where metrics are shared but missions are not?

    For research-intensive universities in particular, this question matters. These institutions are often defined by their research outputs and global rankings, yet they also possess distinctive educational strengths: disciplinary depth, scholarly teaching, and research-informed curricula. Redefining teaching excellence means articulating those strengths clearly, and ensuring they are recognised, rewarded, and shared. It also means returning to the principle of enhancement: a commitment to continual improvement, collegial learning, and innovation grounded in scholarship.

    Compass point

    The challenge, and opportunity, for the sector is to rebuild the infrastructure that once supported enhancement. HEFCE-era initiatives, from the Subject Centres to the Higher Education Academy, created national and disciplinary communities of practice. They gave legitimacy to innovation and space for experimentation. The dismantling of that infrastructure has left many educators working in isolation, without the shared structures that once turned good teaching into collective progress. Reclaiming enhancement will require new forms of collaboration, cross-institutional, international, and interdisciplinary, that enable staff to learn from one another and build capacity for educational change.

    If educational gain as a metric was flawed, educational gain as an ambition is not. It reminds us that the purpose of higher education is not only to produce measurable outcomes but to foster human and intellectual development. It is about what students become, not just what they achieve. As generative AI reshapes how students learn and how knowledge itself is constructed, this broader conception of gain becomes more vital than ever. In this new context, enhancement is about helping students, and staff, to adapt, to grow, and to keep learning.

    So perhaps it is time to bring back “educational gain,” not as a measure, but as a mindset; a reminder that excellence in education cannot be mandated through policy or reduced to data. It must be defined and driven by universities themselves, through thoughtful design, collaborative enhancement, and continual renewal.

    Excellence is the destination, but enhancement is the journey. If we are serious about defining one, we must rediscover the other.

    Source link

  • How college leaders can own the narrative about a major restructuring

    How college leaders can own the narrative about a major restructuring

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Ricardo Azziz has held numerous executive positions in higher education and led the merger that resulted in Georgia Regents University, now Augusta University. He is principal at Strategic Partnerships in Higher Education, or SPH, Consulting Group.

    He writes the regular Merger Watch opinion series on corporate restructuring in higher education.

    In today’s higher education environment, colleges often must be part of a bigger enterprise to either survive or grow.  This calls for greater and more radical major institutional restructuring, such as mergers, acquisitions or even closures. 

    Much rests on the college leaders who — willingly or not — undertake these initiatives. 

    In a recent book I coauthored with other higher education experts, we interviewed some 50 or so leaders who had undertaken, successfully or not, major institutional restructuring. Most of those leaders, as well as others with whom my colleagues and I work, voice concerns about being able to lead in higher education again. 

    Would anybody hire them after the initiative had succeeded or, worse, had failed? The answer to that question depends on the narrative that builds around the leader and the restructuring they undertook. 

    A headshot image of Ricardo Azziz

    Ricardo Azziz

    Permission granted by Ricardo Azziz

     

    Major changes at a college or university are always met with resistance. Whether the merger was successful or not —and that will take years to determine — many campus stakeholders will be angry and happy to turn to the media, often accusing leaders of selling out the college, not caring about its history or being poor negotiators.  Those comments will in turn color the perspective of any subsequent hiring committee, particularly scaring off its faculty members.

    In speaking with college leaders and observing recent news, I have been struck by the ability of some of them to present a positive narrative of their experiences in leading major restructuring. For example, Joseph Chillo, who led the 2019 closure of Newbury College, and Marcheta Evans, who helped lead the merger of Bloomfield College with Montclair State University, have both been able to highlight the necessity of these difficult decisions in a thoughtful, humble and compassionate manner. 

    However, it was also obvious that many leaders are less able to craft a positive narrative of the restructuring and their involvement. These examples summarize the various perspectives I’ve observed as leaders share their experiences: 

    The victim: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career.”

    The knowing but ignored leader: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career and the fact that I told them it was a bad idea.”

    The resistance fighter: “I was pushed to do this, and I told them it was a bad idea, so I resisted in as many ways as I could, despite the great risk to my career.”

    The good soldier: “Regardless of my views on the initiative, I diligently followed orders and undertook the initiative.”

    The unwilling hero: “I was tasked with the initiative and undertook it diligently, despite the great risk to my career.”

    The distant leader: “I was part of the initiative but was somewhat removed from or had a limited role in what was happening.” 

    The (overly) enthusiastic leader: “I took on the initiative, as I saw only positives to its undertaking.”  

    The servant leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks and undertook it, as was my responsibility.”

    The growing leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks, and undertook it, as was my responsibility, and have learned much about what we did right and, more importantly, what we did wrong.”

    In fact, leaders involved in restructuring should only embrace the last two narratives — and perhaps only the last one. Those perspectives present their role with a degree of humility, recognizing that they must assume the responsibility for making difficult decisions for their students and community but also acknowledging that they have continued to learn from the experience. 

    Leaders are indelibly tied to any major restructuring they’ve overseen — these initiatives become part of their professional and life stories. A narrative will be crafted around an initiative that impacts heritage, history, community and the future as much as a major college restructuring does. Leaders can choose to actively and diligently manage that narrative — or others will craft it for them. 

    How can college leaders build a positive narrative when undertaking major restructuring? Here is a six-step plan:

    Be prepared: Have a clear narrative about the initiative and your role in it. Make it short, to the point and practiced. 

    Be consistent: Ensure you present your narrative consistently, regardless of the audience.

    Be positive: While some initiatives will succeed and others will fail, it is important to remain positive about why you needed to explore the initiative, as well as the continuing need for proactive and future-oriented action in today’s higher ed environment — for the sake of our students and our internal and external communities. 

    Be humble: Be clear that you have learned much when undertaking the initiative and that you believe successful leadership is about continued growth and addressing any mistakes responsibly.

    Source link

  • How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages. 

    In Part 1, I looked at how the low grades given at GCSE languages – up to a grade lower than in pupils’ other subjects – is a manufactured situation, easily solved at the stroke of a pen. The narrative around languages being harder is nothing to do with the content of the course or the difficulty of the exam. It is simply a historical anomaly of how the grades are allocated. There is also a false narrative that this unfair grading is due to pupils’ individual ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. And I made a subtle plea for commentators to avoid reinforcing this narrative to push their own diagnosis or solutions. 

    In Part 2, I will consider what happens in post-16 language learning. This has also been the subject of reporting in the wake of A-Level results and the recent HEPI report. I am not going to deny that A-Level languages are in crisis. But the crisis in A-Level and the crisis of language learning post-16 are not one and the same. 

    There are specific problems with the current A-Level specification for languages. The amount of content to be studied, comprising recondite details of every aspect of the Spanish / French / German speaking world, is unmanageable. Worse, as this post explains, the content is out of kilter with the exam. All the encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, history, popular culture and high culture which takes up the bulk of the course, is ultimately only required for one question in just one part of the Speaking Exam. The difficulty of the course is compounded by the extremely high standards required, especially for students who have learned their language in the school context. I personally know of language teachers and college leaders who have discouraged their own children from taking A-Level languages in order not to jeopardise their grades for university application. It is getting to the point where I can no longer, in good conscience, let ambitious students embark on the course without warning them of the overwhelming workload and doubtful outcomes. 

    So A-Level could be improved. But as an academic course, it will always remain the domain of a tiny few. Similarly, specialist Philology degrees at university – the academic study of the language through the intersection of literary and textual criticism, linguistics and the history of the language – only attract a very small minority. Neither university language degrees, nor A-Level, are a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    It is a particularly British mentality to only value language learning if its intellectual heft is boosted by the inclusion of essays, abstruse grammar, linguistics, literature, politics, history, and a study of culture. In other words, philology. Philology is not the same as language learning.  

    Universities do offer language learning opportunities for students of other disciplines. However, in sixth form, because of the funding requirement to offer Level 3 courses, there are no mainstream language learning options available to the vast majority of students who do not study A-Level languages. We have a gap in 16-19 provision where colleges do not offer a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    This gap is fatal to language study. It means GCSE is seen as a dead-end. It means that universities have a tiny pool of students ready and able to take up language degrees or degrees with languages as a component. 

    The crisis is not one of how to channel more people into studying A-Level languages. It is a question of finding radical new ways of offering mainstream language learning post-16, and how to make this the norm. We know from the HEPI report that young people in the UK are among the most avid users of the online language learning app Duolingo. Young people are choosing to engage with language learning, but in terms of formal education, we are leaving a two-year gap between GCSE and the opportunities offered by universities. 

    If this hiatus in language learning is the problem, is there a solution? I have two suggestions. One of which is relatively easy, if we agree that action is needed. If universities genuinely believe that a language is an asset, then they could send a powerful message to potential applicants. 

    Going to university means joining an international organisation, including the possibility of studying abroad, using languages for research, engaging with other students from across the globe, and quite possibly taking a language course while at university. The British Academy reports that universities are calling for language skills across research disciplines, so I hope that they would be able to send a strong message to students in schools and colleges. 

    The message around applications and admissions could be that evidence of studying a language or languages post-16 is something that universities look for. At the very least, they could signal that an interest in self-directed language learning is something they would value. 

    I understand that most universities would stop short of making a qualification in a language a formal entry requirement, because they fear it could exclude many applicants, especially those from disadvantaged groups. But a strong message could help reverse the situation where language learning opportunities are currently denied to many under-privileged school pupils, who aren’t getting the message around the value of pursuing a language. 

    And my second, more difficult suggestion? Would it be possible to plug the two-year gap with a provision at sixth form or college? An app such as Duolingo has attractions. There is the flexibility and independence of study, as well as the focus on motivation by level of learning, hours of study or points scored. It is very difficult to imagine how a sixth form or college could provide language classes for their varied intake from schools, with different language learning experiences in different languages. 

    Is there scope here for a new Oak Academy to step in and create resources? Or for the government to commission resources from an educational technology provider? Is there a role for universities here? The inspiring Languages for All project shows what can happen when a university engages with local schools to identify and tackle obstacles to language learning. The pilot saw Royal Holloway University working with schools across Hounslow, to increase participation at A-Level in a mutually beneficial partnership. Many of the strategies could equally apply to more mainstream (non A-Level) language learning partnerships. These included strong messaging, co-ordinated collaboration between colleges, face-to-face sessions and events at the university, and deployment of university students as mentors. 

    The aim would be to transform the landscape. Currently we have a dead-end GCSE where unfair grading serves as a deterrent, and where there is no mainstream option to make continuing with language learning the norm. A strong message from universities, along with an end to unfair grading, could make a big difference to uptake at GCSE. A realisation that A-Level and specialist philology degrees are not sufficient for the language learning needs of the country could lead to alternative, imaginative and joined-up options post-16. It could also boost the provision or recognition of self-study of a language and may even lead to the reinvigoration of adult education or university outreach language classes. And it could even see a larger pool of candidates for philology degrees at university. 

    Source link

  • How the manufactured narrative of “failure” is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part One.

    How the manufactured narrative of “failure” is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part One.

    Author:
    Vincent Everett

    Published:

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages at https://whoteacheslanguages.blogspot.com.

    We have to bring an end to the Culture Wars in “Modern Foreign Languages” in England. Since 2019 we have been convulsed in an internecine political fight over whether our subject is about Communication or Intellectual Conceptualisation. Of course, it’s both. The same goes for Literature, Linguistics, Content Integrated Language Learning (CLIL), and Culture. Likewise, we can encompass transactional travel language, personal expression, professional proficiency, creative or academic language. Teachers have all of these on their radar, and make decisions on how to select and integrate them on a daily basis.

    Our subject benefits from the richness of all these ingredients, and to privilege one or to exclude others, is to make us all the poorer. Teachers work in the rich and messy overlap between Grammar and Communication, engaging with pupils at every stage through their encounters with and progression through another language.

    Meanwhile, we have allowed the culture wars to allow us to be distracted from the very real problems facing our subject. The first is unfair grading at GCSE. The allocation of grades in languages is harsher than in their other subjects. Above a grade 3, this widens to a whole grade’s difference compared to a subject like History.

    The narrative that it is harder to succeed in languages is accurate. Not because of the difficulty of the course content or the exams, but because of the determination of the allocation of grades. It’s not accurate to say that this is a reflection of pupils’ progress or the quality of teaching compared to other subjects. That calibration has not been made. In fact, grades are not calibrated one subject to another. The only calibration that is made, is to perpetuate grading within the subject year on year.

    This was most famously set up in advance when we moved to a new GCSE in 2018. The unfair grading of the old GCSE was carefully and deliberately transferred across to the new GCSE. So pupils taking the new course and the new exam, even though it was proposed to be a better course and a better exam, had no chance of showing they could get better grades. Furthermore, where under the old A-G grading system, the difference between languages and other subjects had been around half a grade, the new 9-1 grading meant that the difference in the key area of grades 4 and above, was now stretched to a whole grade, because of the way the old grades were mapped onto the new ones.

    The lower grades given out in languages are a strong disincentive for take up at GCSE. There is the accurate narrative that pupils will score a lower grade if they pick languages, which acts as a deterrent not only for pupils, but also for schools. One way to score higher in league tables is to have fewer pupils taking MFL. There is also the inaccurate narrative that this is a reflection of the pupils’ own ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. The allocation of grades is a historical anomaly perpetuated year-on-year, not a reflection of actual achievement.

    This is the biggest issue facing modern languages. It would also be the easiest to fix. Grade boundaries in other subjects are used in order to bring standards in to line. If an exam is too easy  or too hard, and many pupils score a high mark or a low mark, the grade boundaries are used to make sure the correct number of pupils get the grade. Except, that is, in modern languages, where the thresholds are used to make sure that grades are out of line with other subjects. Imagine if languages grades were allocated in line with other subjects, would there be a clamour of voices insisting they should be made more difficult?

    There is a very real danger of misinterpreting this manufactured narrative of “failure” in languages. It features in every report or proposal, but often instead of identifying it as an artificial anomaly, it is used to diagnose a deficit and prescribe a solution. Often this is a solution taken from the culture wars, ignoring the fact that schools and teachers are already expertly blending and balancing the elements of our subject.

    Unfair grading at GCSE is the greatest of our problems, and the easiest to sort out. In Part 2, I shall look at the trickier question of what happens post-16.

    Source link

  • Own Your Narrative: Why Personal Branding Matters for University Leaders

    Own Your Narrative: Why Personal Branding Matters for University Leaders

    Many university leaders are uneasy about the idea of personal branding. It can feel self-promotional, even uncomfortable – and it’s often a concept that jars with their personal values, the culture of their institution, and indeed their perception of how higher education itself operates.

    However, personal branding should not be about ego or marketing. It’s about clarity, authenticity, and trust. In an environment where leadership visibility, credibility, and alignment with institutional values are increasingly scrutinised, shaping how you’re understood by others isn’t merely helpful, it’s essential.

    So, while we’re a bit uncomfortable with the term, personal brand, we think it’s extremely important for aspiring university leaders to think about how they go about developing one for themselves.

    Personal branding – it’s not just what you say about yourself

    It’s perhaps worth reflecting on what Jeff Bezos has said in this context because it’s helpful:

    “Your brand is what other people say about you when you’re not in the room.”

    Your title and role may open doors, but it’s your values, your expertise and your contribution that leave a lasting impression. Personal brand is the space you occupy in other people’s minds: your colleagues, students, and external connections. In today’s digital world, you are visible in search results, social feeds, LinkedIn and other platforms. If you’re not actively shaping your own narrative, others will do it for you – forming opinions and perceptions that may not be accurate or aligned with your values.

    Why should personal branding matter for aspirational university leaders?

    Thinking about your personal branding allows you to control the narrative. Essentially, if you don’t shape your story, someone else will. It allows you to build trust and credibility authentically. This is vital, we all know that a consistent, values-led brand is consonant with reliability in times of change. Where there is so much information out there, it can be a strong signal among confusion and noise. It also gives you a better handle on future-proofing your career.

    Executive search companies, partnerships, board appointments all begin with discovery, and if you can’t be found, you can’t be considered. Distilling your experience and expertise beyond the role you’re in now makes moves to other roles easier. People do their homework on you, they want to know what kind of person you are, not necessarily the nitty gritty detail (although bad social media lingers) but to know that you are real. And it’s not always about a positive career trajectory to the next job. In these times your role might be at risk, and you might need to consider your next position, even beyond your current role, institution and sector.

    This is about developing a personal mark, but it’s worth noting that an authentic personal brand also benefits your institution. Visible leaders attract talent and partnerships, and can draw top academics, high-calibre students, and external funders. People will engage because of what you stand for in terms of your values and your impact. And got right, it will help your students, staff, external connections and the public to be more confident about your vision and your decisions.

    Equally important, a clear and visible personal brand enables you to communicate more effectively – an essential skill for building strong teams, driving change, and leading through crisis. You are future-proofing yourself, becoming a trusted authority, so that you are known for more than just your job title and credentials. 

    It starts with how you present yourself in meetings, working groups, committees, stakeholder meetings, even corridor conversations and incidental interactions.

    Articulating your expertise beyond your job title

    To be able to develop your personal brand, you need to ask yourself several questions and answer them honestly. And bear in mind that ‘showing up’ is not showing off, you can’t make a difference if you’re invisible!

    Truly understand what your goals are: who you are trying to help, and what positive difference do you want to make? Understanding your reason for doing what you do makes being visible that much easier.

    1. Do I want to make a positive difference?
    2. What do I want to change and how?
    3. What do I want to be known for?
    4. Who do I want to help?

    Ask yourself these questions in the context of what you want to change or influence, such as Leadership & Change Management; Equity, Diversity & Social Mobility; Research Impact & Knowledge Exchange; Student Experience & Wellbeing; The Future of Work & Skills. These should, of course, be significant topics that reflect what you want to be known for and the people or communities you aim to support.

    Before you can become an authority on your topic, you need to have a proven track record of success in that area. Your credibility is built not just on what you say, but on what you’ve delivered; your demonstrable achievements and real impact that others can recognise and rely on. Without this foundation, personal branding risks sounding empty or a promissory note rather than coming from a position of authority and authenticity.

    When you are speaking to others about what you are doing, it is helpful to reflect on how you should structure what you say. Make sure, for example, that you’re clear about defining the issue: speak directly to the challenges your audience faces (e.g. navigating grant applications, improving departmental culture); position the challenges. Share frameworks, tips, or toolkits you’ve developed, and humanise your advice – weave in a short anecdote or lesson learned, for example.

    Do these things in the context of people you might be able to support by being more visible: students and research students, people more junior, and those wanting to get into HE, particularly those from minoritised backgrounds. Essentially, leadership isn’t just about climbing, your role should be to hold the ladder down for others.

    Practical Tips

    To help you maximise your impact – here are some ideas:

    1. Digital Footprint Audit

      • Search Yourself: Google your name in incognito mode. Note the top 10 results.
      • Review Social Profiles: Ensure consistency of photo, headline, and bio across LinkedIn, Twitter, ResearchGate, etc.
      • Clean Up: Archive or delete outdated posts or profiles that conflict with your current values.

      2. Think about Content, Calendar & Cadence

      • Plan regular outputs (blog posts, LinkedIn articles, micro-posts) aligned to your expertise, but don’t worry if you can’t maintain a consistent frequency right away.
      • It is important that they are insightful, add value and contribute.
      • Use simple tools (e.g. Trello or a shared spreadsheet) or agentive AI to track ideas, deadlines, and performance.

      3. Collect Metrics & Evaluation

      • Engagement: Likes, comments, shares on social platforms.
      • Opportunities: Invitations to speak, consult, sit on panels or boards.
      • Search Trends: Monitor Google Analytics (if you host a blog) or LinkedIn analytics for profile views and keyword searches.

      4. Network Activation

      • Identify, say, 10 key contacts (internal & external) each quarter to reconnect with.
      • Offer value first. Be gracious and share – share an article, congratulate them on their achievement, propose a brief call.
      • Leverage your network to co-author articles, co-host webinars, or nominate others for awards.

      And avoid:

      • Oversharing: While transparency is good, avoid extraneous personal detail that can detract from your message.
      • Inconsistency: Mixed messaging erodes trust. Align every post and presentation with your core values.
      • Neglecting Offline Presence: A strong digital brand should be backed up by consistent behaviour in meetings and events.
      • Ignoring Feedback: Listen to comments, direct messages, and 360-degree reviews to refine your approach.

      What Leaders Say

      Professor Shân Wareing, Vice-Chancellor and CEO, Middlesex University

      People are always going to draw conclusions from what they see you do, so you always need to be aware of that. I don’t use personal brand with the goal of ‘selling’ me. However, I do want to consistently communicate important and specific aspects of how I work – such as that I care about other people’s growth – and I try to align all my social media and other communications with that message.”

      Professor Simon Biggs Vice Chancellor and President, James Cooke University

      Senior leaders represent their organisation externally. A strong personal brand helps amplify and align their values with the organisation in public forums, industry discussions, and policy advocacy. Personal branding signals what a leader stands for ethically, strategically, and culturally. It helps align teams and attract talent who resonate with that leadership style.

      Professor Theo Farrell, Vice-Chancellor, Latrobe University, Australia

      I think aspiring leaders need to think carefully about the kind of leader they want to be – and this will involve reflecting on their own values, the ambitions they have for the organisation or unit they lead, and their aspiring leadership journey. For me, personal brand is simply the outward expression of this leadership ethos and style. It is expressed in communications, including social media, and also in every interaction with people inside and outside the organisation. Being consistent with your personal brand, in everything you do is important for authentic leadership. In terms of social media, the goal is to communicate your values. Being consistent is obviously important. At the same time, my experience is one of posting fewer personal reflections and more corporate content as I have become more senior, and in these senior roles increasingly represent my organisation.

      And finally

      Leadership and personal branding are inseparable in today’s higher education landscape. Your brand is not a luxury. It’s your strategic asset made up of your values, your story, your impact on others and ultimately your legacy.

    Source link

  • The widening access narrative must return to speaking about places

    The widening access narrative must return to speaking about places

    Widening access to higher education has experienced a precipitous fall from grace in the eyes of politicians over the last ten years – a fall that may have slowed slightly but as yet to stop under this government.

    This fall may have coincided with the shift away from place-based to institutional-focused approaches to the problem. The access and participation plan regime may have stopped widening participation slipping out of sight completely but as our latest report shows, they have done little to increase higher education participation for those from the poorest backgrounds, particularly in rural and coastal areas.

    Split geographies

    The report – Coast and country: access to higher education cold spots in England – looks at the data published annually by the Department of Education on participation in higher education by free school meal (FSM) backgrounds. There are things we know about what this data shows as outlined in previous reports I have written and more recent work such as that from the Sutton Trust – in particular that London does far better than everywhere else.

    In this report, though, we show exactly how much. The national higher education participation rate in 2022–23 for those from FSM backgrounds was 29 per cent. If you take out London, which has only 16 per cent of the population of England, it falls to 23 per cent. London is covering up a much more challenging situation in the rest of the country than we are prepared to admit.

    These challenges increase as areas get smaller. The report looks at the relationship between the size of an area and the FSM higher education participation rate. It drops steadily as population decreases from 43 per cent in big cities to 18 per cent in rural villages. Nor is the situation improving. The gap between London and the other 84 per cent of the population has increased 3 per cent from 2012–23 to 2022–23 and just under 3 per cent between predominantly urban areas and predominantly rural areas over the same period.

    Many coastal areas in England – especially seaside resorts – have well documented problems with poverty, unemployment and health inequalities and higher education participation can be added to that list. The higher education participation rate for those from FSM backgrounds coastal communities was 11 per cent lower than in inland areas in 2022–23 with in many areas less than one in five such young people going onto higher education. There is an overlap here between rural and coastal areas here with the South West especially including areas of lower higher education participation.

    It is often said that the differences in higher education participation described above are associated with attainment in schools. Increasing attainment was the priority where widening access work was concerned for the Office for Students for a number of years. In the report, we map GSCE attainment at the area level against FSM higher education participation – and the correlation is indeed strong.

    It is far weaker, though, in villages and coastal areas than the rest of the country. This suggest that in the places where the problems are the greatest, better GCSE results alone won’t be enough. In 2022–23, six of the ten areas with the lowest levels of higher education participation did not have a university campus within them. What provision exists also matters.

    We need new (old) stories

    If any progress in closing the gaps between regions described above is to be made then place must again become the central focus for widening access to higher education work – as it was when the last Labour government championed the issue so vigorously in the 2000s.

    The pendulum has swung too far since then toward what institutions themselves do. Consequently, that political link between widening access, opportunity and growth has been broken. It is possible that the government itself will swing the pendulum back to place, and some of the signs coming from the Office for Students in recent months have been promising.

    However, higher education providers themselves can take the initiative themselves here and look for new ways to form stronger partnerships – ones that take whatever replaces Uni Connect as the start, not the endpoint, of what regional collaboration means.

    While the sector’s financial challenges make competition for students more intensive than it has ever been – and thus collaboration in this area more difficult – the value of higher education itself is being questioned by young people more than it ever has been since participation increased rapidly in the 1990s. Fighting between each other for young people’s and their schools’ attention won’t convince those, especially from the poorest backgrounds, that higher education is worth it. But collaboration will.

    Collaboration won’t produce additional provision in rural and coastal areas, or the money to fund it. But unless we shift the story and the practice of widening access back to place, this additional provision will never come.

    Source link