Tag: Reform

  • English lessons: Review of Nick Gibb’s book on educational reform after 2010 – by HEPI Director Nick Hillman

    English lessons: Review of Nick Gibb’s book on educational reform after 2010 – by HEPI Director Nick Hillman

    • HEPI Director Nick Hillman reviews Reforming Lessons: Why English Schools Have Improved Since 2010 and How This Was Achieved by Nick Gibb and Robert Peal.
    • On Tuesday, 9 September 2025, HEPI will be hosting the launch of the OECD’s flagship Education at a Glance report. Book a place (in person or online) here.

    This is the second book on education in a row that I have reviewed on the HEPI website that comes from a right-of-centre perspective. The previous review (of a book by the President of the New College of Florida) garnered some pointed attacks underneath – ‘No doubt we’ll soon be seeing articles offering a “more balanced” perspective on Putin and Orban’s records in office’. So let me start by noting HEPI has also run many reviews (by me and others) of books written by left-of-centre authors as well as centrist authors, such as Sam Friedman and Aaron Reeve, Simon Kuper, Francis Green and David Kynaston, Melissa Benn, and Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin.

    Let me also note that we are always on the lookout for reviews of recent books that are likely to be of interest to HEPI’s audience, irrespective of where on the political spectrum the authors of the books in question or – indeed – the reviewers sit. When we started running book reviews on the HEPI site many years ago, they tended to receive less engagement than other output, but that has changed over the years and they are often now among our most-read pieces. We hope this remains true on our brand new website. So the door is wide open. Come on in.

    Now down to business. Reforming Lessons is a defence of the changes wrought by the long-standing and thrice-appointed Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb, and to a lesser extent his boss Michael Gove, co-written by Gibb himself. The other author is Robert Peal, who was one of a group of young state-school teachers (often, like Peal, powered by Teach First) who made up the advancing phalanx for the school reforms that were implemented by the Coalition and subsequent Conservative Governments. (John Blake, the Office for Students’s Director for Fair Access and Participation was another member of this front line and merits a mention in the book, as was Daisy Christodoulou, who has contributed a Foreword and who features multiple times.)

    At the risk of further brickbats, it would be absurd for HEPI to have ignored this particular book at this particular time, for it is currently a huge talking point among educationalists. But is not just about education; it is also a book about the practice of politics. As the authors themselves write, it is an account of ‘the virtues of a subject-specialist minister driven by conviction in a specific cause rather than personal ambition.’ It fulfils this brief very well indeed, so it should be read far beyond the education world, especially by aspiring ministers in any field where they want to make a difference. But, and I do not mean this to be in any way rude, I suspect it was not – in one important sense – all that hard for Gibb and Peal to make their case.

    This is because the key international data on school performance, which come from the OECD’s comparative PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment), show England forging ahead, including against other parts of the UK, between 2009 and 2022. So Gibb and Peal had a secure evidence base on which to build their story.

    We may argue that PISA is not a perfect measure: it tests only a small number of disciplinary areas and to a fairly basic level of knowledge and it has not always been completed the same way (sometimes on paper and sometimes on screen), but it is better than anything else we have when it comes to comparing school systems – and infinitely better than anything we have in higher education. So anyone who wants to shoot down the book’s central claim that Nick Gibb succeeded as a Minister will struggle to find equally robust performance data for their argument – though they could presumably focus on other evidence such as on an apparent narrowing of the curriculum (though Gibb and Peal get their defence on this in first – see pages 123 and 124).

    Near the start, the book takes a look at how any education changes begun in 2010 had to be extremely cost-effective – cost-cutting or else free – given the dire fiscal position which led every major political party to promise drastic spending cuts at that year’s general election. Gibb and Peal also paint a picture of the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of the expensive centralised initiatives based on existing orthodoxies that preceded the Coalition. The multi-billion pound Building Schools for the Future programme was perhaps the archetype for, as Gibb shows, tens of millions of pounds were spent on building individual schools with open-plan classrooms where staff struggled to teach and pupils struggled to learn. Another challenge during the 2000s is that schools were overwhelmed with bureaucracy: in 2006/07 alone, we are told, there were around 760 missives to schools from Whitehall and quangos – four-per-day for the whole school year.

    Yet Nick Gibb is far from being a free-for-all libertarian right-winger. He is, rather, someone who wants to use the power of the state to drive policy, including how to teach reading (synthetic phonics) as well as how to shape other aspects of the school curriculum. It is easy to see how this approach could have gone wrong but Gibb’s primary goal is always to follow the evidence as he sees it, and I cannot be the only parent who was amazed by how quickly their children started to read during their initial school years in the second half of the 2010s. Gibb has given more thought to schooling than any other modern politician and he rejects many of the ideas of his colleagues as much as those from the political left: he did not favour a wave of new grammar schools, he did not want GCSEs to be replaced by O-Levels and he opposed Rishi Sunak’s Advanced British Standard.

    The book might begin and end somewhat immodestly and uncollegiately by reminding readers that many commentators picked out education as the one and only really big success of the Coalition and Conservative years, yet this is not by any stretch of the imagination a selfish book. Nick Gibb shows how his worldview was built upon teachers like Ruth Miskin, academics like ED Hirsch and others – even his researcher Edward Hartman gets a namecheck (or rather two) for introducing him to Hirsch. He shows how his agenda was carried forward by people like Hamid Patel, Katharine Birbalsingh and Jon Coles.

    Political colleagues like Michael Gove and David Cameron are given credit for changing Whitehall’s approach to schooling. The triumvirate of advisers, Dominic Cummins, Sam Freedman and Henry de Zoete all receive praise, as does Nick Timothy for his stint in Number 10 as Theresa May’s Joint Chief of Staff. Andrew Adonis garners the most praise of all for starting ‘the revolution we undertook whilst in office’, and Kenneth Baker is lauded for getting the successful City Technology Colleges (the forerunners of academies) off the ground in the 1980s. Gibb and Peal note there have been ‘squabbles’ between Conservatives and Lib Dems over who designed the Pupil Premium policy but they do not join in, concluding instead that ‘we should celebrate that it was jointly pursued and agreed upon by the Treasury’.

    There is high praise even for the man who temporarily displaced Gibb as the Minister for Schools, David Laws, especially for the design of the school accountability measure Progress 8 as well as for Lord Nash, who oversaw academies and free schools from the House of Lords. Gibb admits he did not agree with Nicky Morgan, who replaced Michael Gove as the Secretary of State for Education in 2014, on pushing ‘character education’ as a discrete concept but he excuses her on the grounds that ‘she had been transferred to Education from the Treasury with no notice, so never had the luxury of time I had enjoyed to read up on education philosophies.’

    The tales from Gibb’s period as a backbench MP and then Shadow Minister also remind us that the most effective Ministers have typically learnt their briefs in the years before they take office rather than on the job. They then stay in post long enough to make a difference (or, in Gibb’s case, do the job more than once). Even for bold reforming ministers, like Gibb and Gove, good policy tends to be patient policy. In contrast, many of Gibb’s predecessors as the Minister for Schools (who include the current Minister for Skills, Jacqui Smith, who did the job in 2005 to 2006) were not in post for long enough to make a major sort of difference. Gibb’s account of his time in office also serves to remind us that it is wrong to think effective ministers must have worked in the field they are overseeing before entering Parliament: Gibb was an accountant, not a teacher, just like David Willetts, the well-respected Minister for Universities and Science during the Coalition, was a civil servant rather than an academic or scientist.

    The book is peppered by illustrative and illuminating anecdotes. The one I found most shocking is about a visit Nick Gibb made in the mid-1990s to a school in Rotherham, where he was fighting a by-election: a headteacher ‘explained how she had completed an “audit” of her school library, removing any old-fashioned books that simply conveyed information.’ (A few years later, Tory party HQ abolished their library altogether, so it was not just schools that fell down this hole.) The second most shocking anecdote, at least to me, concerns the first draft of the rewritten National Curriculum for primary schools: ‘when the first draft of the curriculum was sent out for informal consultation amongst maths subject associations, it returned with all 64 mentions of the word “practice” expunged from the document.’ The funniest anecdote is one about Gibb visiting a successful academy that had converted from being an independent school: ‘On my train up to Yorkshire, I saw a pupil’s tweet expressing disappointment to find out the politician visiting her school was not Nick Clegg, as she had been led to believe, but instead “some random” called Nick Gibb.’

    Personally, I dislike the language used by those who talk of an educational ‘blob’, not least because it paints all educationalists in the same negative light. Gibb dislikes the term too, and he was uncomfortable with his political colleagues throwing it about. He is pro-teachers and there were always some classroom teachers who held out against the knowledge-light ‘progressivist ideology’ even at its height. Gibb’s reforms were designed to dilute the educational orthodoxy of unions and quangos and to give power to trusted headteachers as well as to multi-academy trusts instead – the mantra was ‘high autonomy and high accountability’. His core goals were to find the best resources and teachers, then to free school leaders to make the biggest differences they could and finally to encourage others to emulate them, especially via high-performing multi-academy trusts. If Blair’s mantra was ‘education, education, education’, Gibb’s was ’emulation, emulation, emulation’.

    But while rejecting the ‘blob’ term, the book does help one to understand how the moniker came to gain such currency. Gibb tells a story, for example, of how, as an MP and a member of the Education Select Committee, he was summoned to the ‘salubrious offices in Piccadilly’ of the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Once there, the Chief Executive and Chairman demanded Gibb stop asking parliamentary questions about their work. It was an error of immense proportions – perhaps if they had known Gibb had circulated anti-communist propaganda in Brezhnev’s Russia, they would have had a better idea of how tough he is under the polite demeanour. Either way, the scenario served to remind Gibb not to back down in battles once he became a minister.

    One surprise in the book is the degree to which Gibb thinks his reforms have deep roots and are here to stay. He makes a persuasive case for this, especially in the Conclusion, when he notes how embedded and successful some multi-academy trusts now are. Yet his book also recounts how Scotland and Wales have in recent years moved in the opposite direction to England, downplaying knowledge in their school curricula (and suffering the consequences in international comparisons). So one-way travel is surely not guaranteed.

    Keith Joseph talked of a ‘ratchet effect’ in British politics and it might be too early to tell if the Gibb / Gove reforms are locked in or whether the pendulum could now swing back. What I saw after the 2024 general election from my vantage point of being a long-standing Board member of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) gives me less confidence that educational policy is now settled. Despite Gibb’s belief his reforms will last, even he notes in passing the recent attempt to water down the freedoms enjoyed by academies. What is taught in schools, and how, will surely continue to be fervently debated and it is why HEPI has sought to focus minds in higher education on the important Curriculum and Assessment Review under Professor Becky Francis.

    The book is all about the pipeline to higher education but it is not really about higher education except near the end, where the authors take a look at teacher training. Those running university education departments were among the people who did not take Nick Gibb seriously while in Opposition or in Government and they too paid the price for it:

    ‘Of all the different sectors of the education establishment, university education faculties were – by a stretch – the most difficult with which to work. … the main message I received whenever I visited university education faculties was, as Jim Callaghan had been told 40 years previously, “keep off the grass”. Meetings I had usually consisted of being talked at for 90 minutes in a boardroom with no appetite or opportunity for discussion. If I, as a minister, showed any interest in what they thought, they would mistily invoke the virtues of “academic independence”, and insist the government had no place stepping on their hallowed turf.’

    At the very end of the book, Gibb bemoans the fact that, when it comes to ‘the evidence revolution in English education’, ‘university education faculties have been – with one or two exceptions – notable only by their absence’. And when it comes specifically to school teaching, Gibb regards universities as part of the problem rather than the solution. (So perhaps we should not be surprised that Gibb and Peal do not mention the short-lived attempt by Theresa May’s Government to get universities to sponsor academies.) As Universities UK prepare to release new research on public perceptions of higher education institutions, I was left wondering whether there might be lessons for how the higher education sector can best engage with Ministers and officials. 

    While Twitter / X may often be a sewer today, Gibb argues that various education bloggers and tweeters (often from the political left) played a vital role in shoring up his reforms, for example in helping Michael Wilshaw sort out Ofsted, who we are told ‘succeeded where Chris Woodhead could not.’ Gibb may point the finger of blame at those who pushed the ‘progressivist ideology’ that he has fought against but when it comes to A-Level grade inflation, for example, he does not limit his criticism to the Blair / Brown Governments, also complaining about his Conservative predecessors. Yet despite the ferocious attacks he was subjected to as a Minister, Gibb does not respond in kind, confident instead that his policies rested on evidence from the UK and overseas rather than polemic.

    This is a lengthy book and a very very good one, though it does not stop me wanting to know more about what Gibb thinks in one or two areas. For example, we surely do not talk enough about demographics in education. Yet it was the growing number of young people that was part of the reason why the Treasury and others accepted lots of brand new schools called ‘free schools’, just as it was the falling number of school leavers prior to 2020 which helped persuade the Treasury to remove student number caps for undergraduates in England. Gibb does acknowledge the impact of changes to the birth rate in boosting his agenda, but personally I would like to have read more than the single paragraph on page 155 about it.

    Churchill is said to have remarked, ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. I kept thinking of this as I was reading the book, so it is perhaps too much to expect a deep dive into educational areas that the Conservatives failed to fix in their 14 years in charge. For me, these are: the educational underperformance of boys relative to girls, which does not merit any specific mentions; the current crisis in the supply of new teachers, which gets less than a page of dedicated text; and post-COVID truancy rates, which gets a paragraph and a couple of other fleeting mentions. But Nick Gibb is, and will rightly remain, one of the most important Ministers of recent decades – and to think he never even made it into the Cabinet.

    Source link

  • Fulbright at 75, Reform at 30: recasting US-Korea educational exchange

    Fulbright at 75, Reform at 30: recasting US-Korea educational exchange

    This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, one of the oldest and most robust binational educational exchanges in the world.

    Coinciding with this milestone is the 30th anniversary of South Korea’s landmark 5.31 Education Reform – a policy blueprint that sought to transform the nation’s education system into a more open and globally competitive ecosystem.

    The Fulbright legacy in Korea illustrates how long-term bilateral cooperation has scaffolded national education strategies and fostered intellectual diplomacy across generations.

    The strategic alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States has been underpinned by an enduring educational partnership. Education has always been more than a soft-power tool in this relationship; it has served as a central pillar for shared values, talent development, policy learning, and institutional co-evolution.

    At a time when the Indo-Pacific region is undergoing profound geopolitical, technological, and demographic shifts, reaffirming the educational ties between Korea and the US is a strategic imperative.

    Fulbright Korea: peacebuilding through knowledge

    Established through a 1950 agreement, Korea became one of the first countries to join the Fulbright Program, though the Korean War delayed its launch until 1960. Revised agreements in 1963 and 1972 created the Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) and introduced joint funding, making Korea one of 49 nations to co-finance the programme with the US.

    Since then, Korea has often matched or exceeded US contributions. Today, KAEC awards over 200 grants annually to Korean and American participants, supporting a global network of Fulbright scholars and more than 7,600 Korean alumni across diverse fields.

    Fulbright Korea exemplifies educational diplomacy at its best. Graduate fellowships support future policymakers and scientists, while English teaching assistants serve across Korea’s provinces, enhancing not just language acquisition but also cross-cultural understanding.

    These initiatives echo the lifelong learning ambitions embedded in Korea’s broader educational reforms, showing how international exchange and domestic innovation can reinforce each other. These long-standing programs have strengthened Korea’s education system while fostering mutual understanding, helping to build enduring people-to-people ties that support bilateral cooperation.

    Fulbright Korea exemplifies educational diplomacy at its best

    The US also supports student mobility and academic advising in Korea through EducationUSA, housed at KAEC, which offers Korean students up-to-date information on American higher education. Korea continues to rank among the top sending countries of international students to the US, with over 43,000 enrolled in 2023/24, making it the third-largest sender.

    While the Ministry of Education’s 2024 data reports 3,179 American students enrolled in Korean higher education, US study abroad figures suggest that nearly twice as many participate in programmes based in Korea. The US has also been recognised as a key partner in Korea’s Study Korea 300K Project, which seeks to host 300,000 international students by 2027.

    Institutional transformation and globalisation

    The 5.31 Education Reform, declared in 1995 amidst the waves of globalisation, aimed to modernise Korea’s education system through two core principles: globalisation and informatisation.

    These pillars reshaped how universities operate, allowing for greater curricular flexibility, the introduction of credit banking and recognition of prior learning, and the rapid adoption of digital tools. Competitive government initiatives like Brain Korea 21 and, later, the University Restructuring Plan incentivised research output and global benchmarking.

    Despite uneven implementation, the reform not only accelerated the internationalisation of Korean higher education but also deepened its ties with US institutions. By 2008/09, over 75,000 Korean students were enrolled in US higher education, placing Korea among the top sending countries globally.

    Given its relatively small population, this figure represented the highest per capita rate of US-bound students in the world. At the same time, Korea became an increasingly attractive destination for American students, with study abroad numbers growing substantially over the past two decades, growing from 2,062 in 2008/09 to 5,909 in 2022/23.

    Even before the 5.31 reform, US higher education institutions played a pivotal role. In the decades following the Korean War, American graduate programs served as critical training grounds for a generation of Korean scholars. These individuals returned not as passive recipients or brokers of foreign models but as active knowledge creators who adapted global ideas to local contexts, built research infrastructure, and mentored emerging academics.

    This process of intellectual circulation laid the groundwork for Korea’s ascent in global university rankings and research productivity. Foundational initiatives such as the Minnesota Project and the US-supported establishment of KAIST in 1971 were emblematic of this transformation.

    Transnational education and role of program providers

    Transnational education has added new depth to Korea-US educational co-operation. The Incheon Global Campus, which hosts the Korean branches of five US universities, enables local students to earn US degrees without leaving the country.

    These institutions bring American accreditation standards and pedagogical approaches into the Korean context, serving as important centres for cross-cultural learning and academic collaboration. Increasingly, they also function as supportive platforms for study abroad, facilitating intercultural engagement. Modest but meaningful forms of faculty and scholarly exchange further enrich these settings.

    Not-for-profit organisations such as IES Abroad have also become indispensable facilitators of educational exchange. Marking its 75th anniversary in 2025 as well, IES Abroad shares a parallel legacy with Fulbright Korea in advancing international education.

    Its recently established Seoul Center has already hosted over 220 US students, exemplifying the growing role of study abroad programme providers in fostering engagement with Korean society. By offering for-credit academic programmes, cultural and language immersion, and hands-on learning opportunities, these providers play a crucial role in sustaining the depth and accessibility of bilateral educational exchange.

    Toward mutuality and innovation

    Together, these developments have yielded significant accomplishments: a thriving academic pipeline, robust knowledge circulation, improved global rankings for Korean institutions, and a steady increase in intercultural literacy among students from both countries. Korean graduates with US degrees now occupy leadership roles in government, academia, and business. American students return with deeper cultural understanding, with many pursuing careers in diplomacy, education, or East Asia-focused industries.

    However, challenges remain. Some observers have raised concerns about the asymmetrical flow of talent, particularly during earlier decades when “brain drain” seemed more plausible than circulation.

    Others caution against over-Americanisation in curricula and institutional culture. Korea’s demographic decline and the rising cost of US education now pose additional obstacles to sustained exchange. National policy shifts, ideological realignments, and increasing public scrutiny of foreign involvement in higher education further complicate the outlook.

    Reimagining educational diplomacy

    The pressing challenges highlight the importance of rearticulating a shared vision for the future, particularly as the direction of bilateral commitments established under previous administrations continues to evolve.

    Mutual investment in scholarship funds, stronger collaboration among diverse stakeholders within the broader international education field, more accessible hybrid learning models, and enhanced joint governance of transnational campuses can all help to future-proof the Korea-US educational partnership.

    In 2025, as we commemorate 75 years of Fulbright Korea and IES Abroad, and reflect on 30 years since Korea’s 5.31 reform, it becomes evident that international exchange and domestic transformation are not separate trajectories but mutually reinforcing forces. Korea-US educational cooperation has evolved from aid-driven assistance to a platform for peer-to-peer growth and innovation.

    If approached strategically, the next chapter of this relationship can not only address pressing policy challenges but also reimagine the purpose of education in a world increasingly defined by brittleness, anxiety, nonlinearity, and incomprehensibility.

    Source link

  • With Reform UK on the rise, what impact would their higher education policy have?

    With Reform UK on the rise, what impact would their higher education policy have?

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Fred Jacques, a Year 12 student who recently completed a week of work experience at HEPI.

    (Have you completed the HEPI survey? If not, time is running out! It will only take a few minutes and will help inform our future output. You can access the survey here.)

    With Reform UK gaining significant ground in recent elections and opinion polls, the prospect of a future Reform government is now plausible. The party discusses education very little, instead focusing on their big, vote-winning issues such as opposing immigration and net zero. But what are Reform’s plans for higher education and what impact would these have? Their 2024 manifesto is lacking in detail, but it outlines a handful of proposals that suggest the direction a Reform government might take. They promised to:

    • bar international student dependents
    • make universities provide two-year undergraduate courses
    • cut funding for universities that undermine free speech; and
    • scrap interest on student loans.

    Scrapping tuition fees for STEM degrees

    Additionally, in an interview with ITV following the release of the manifesto, Nigel Farage stated that he would abolish tuition fees for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) degrees while maintaining them for all other courses. Although this policy was not included in the 2024 manifesto, it did appear in Farage’s 2015 UKIP manifesto, suggesting it is a long-standing idea of his and therefore one that could be implemented if Reform were to win power.

    While this proposal is intended to attract more students into these fields, it may not be effective. In his HEPI report, Peter Mandler argues that the current increase in the uptake of STEM degrees (the ‘swing to science’) is due to numerous factors: demographic and cultural changes, perceptions of future job prospects and subject choice at A level primarily. Government policy is less influential than these factors. Therefore, given that the swing to science is happening of its own accord because of high student demand, this policy is not even necessary, especially considering the enormous cost. If Reform do want to accelerate this trend, though, then removing the barrier of poor A level results by improving attainment in secondary schools may be more effective than targeting STEM at degree level.

    Despite its possible shortcomings in attracting more students to STEM courses, the policy could still accelerate the decline in the popularity of arts and humanities degrees. While those with arts or humanities A levels are unlikely (and probably unable) to switch to a completely different field purely for financial reasons, the disparity in fee structure may discourage them from pursuing a university degree altogether. This appears to be Farage’s intention: he suggests that arts and humanities degrees are not worthwhile and ’[students would] have been better off learning trades and skills’. If this aspect of the policy is successful, then it would negatively impact students, institutions and the country. Humanities degrees are incredibly valuable: they help students develop transferable skills like communication and critical thinking that are needed in any workplace and they are a pathway into careers in law, business, or media. And without humanities degrees, who will teach Reform’s ‘patriotic’ curriculum in primary and secondary schools? The arts, meanwhile, are also valuable to the economy and positively impact culture and society.

    Overall, while efforts to increase the number of students pursuing STEM degrees are commendable, this should not come at the expense of arts and humanities students. Higher education institutions should work with Reform to ensure that the contributions of these subjects are properly recognised and supported by the party, should they win power.

    Two-year undergraduate courses

    Reform’s policy of expanding two-year undergraduate courses to all universities across the UK would be beneficial to higher education, provided they do not replace the typical three-year degrees. These accelerated degrees are already offered by universities like Buckingham and Northumbria and have many benefits, such as allowing students to enter into work sooner and reducing the amount of debt they incur. Furthermore, students on accelerated courses are generally more focused and motivated and the more intensive nature of the courses prepares students for the workplace. These degrees are well suited to subjects like law or business and could therefore act as an alternative to some arts and humanities students who feel discouraged by Reform’s tuition fee policy.

    But although these courses are a good idea in theory, there is little evidence to suggest that there is a high demand for them. Slightly older students entering higher education for the first time and wanting to progress into the workplace faster may find these courses appealing, but most typical 18-year-old undergraduates prefer the more flexible three or four-year courses. Perhaps this is due to a lack of awareness, which Reform could work to correct, but as it stands, it is unrealistic for them to expect all universities to provide these accelerated programmes, given the low demand.

    Conclusion

    This blog has not covered the entirety of Reform’s higher education policy, and some proposals, such as cutting funding for universities that undermine free speech, raise challenges of their own. Nonetheless, the policies discussed here do show some promise: expanding the availability of two-year undergraduate courses and encouraging more people into STEM degrees could be beneficial to the country. However, the apparent lack of regard for arts and humanities degrees is concerning and the effectiveness of the tuition fee policy is debatable, as is the achievability of the accelerated degree policy.

    Perhaps the greatest flaw with Reform’s education policy, and wider policy platform, is the achievability. The party’s plans to scrap tuition fees on STEM degrees and encourage all universities to provide two-year undergraduate programmes will all come at a massive cost to the government and institutions. Reform’s policy of barring international student dependents (presumably beyond current restrictions) will also worsen the issue, as this could lead to lower numbers of international students, meaning that universities’ incomes are significantly reduced. Reform need a way to fund their policies, but according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Reform’s proposed savings did not add up in 2024, and they remain vague today.

    With this unrealistic funding, it is debatable whether these policies would be implemented, even if Reform do win power. And with the unpredictability of modern politics, who knows if they will even get to that stage. Regardless, universities have the opportunity to work with this emerging party to challenge and shape their policy proposals to produce the best outcomes for students and the nation as a whole.

    Source link

  • What it really takes to lead successful grading reform

    What it really takes to lead successful grading reform

    This post originally appeared on the Otus blog and is republished here with permission.

    Grading reform is messy, but it’s worth it.

    That was the central message from Jessica Espinoza and Alice Opperman of Emerson Public Schools (NJ), who shared their decade-long journey implementing standards-based grading during their session at ISTELive+ASCD 2025. 

    What started as a deeply rooted effort to promote equity has grown into a districtwide, cross-curricular system that blends teacher voice, clarity for families, and support from the right tools.

    Here’s what they learned along the way, and why they’re still learning.

    3 huge takeaways for school leaders considering a shift to SBG

    Clarity starts with fewer, better standards

    In the early stages of their grading reform, Emerson tried to be comprehensive; too comprehensive, perhaps. Their first report card included nearly every New Jersey Common Core standard, which quickly became overwhelming for both teachers and families. Over time, they shifted to focusing on broader, more meaningful standards that better reflected student learning.

    “So approximately 10 years ago, we started with a standard-based report card in grades K-6. Our report card at that time listed pretty much every standard we could think of. We realized that we really needed to narrow in on more umbrella standards or standards that really encapsulate the whole idea. We took away this larger report card with 50 different standards, and we went into something that was more streamlined. That really helped our teachers to focus their energy on what is really important for our students.” 
    –Jessica Espinoza, Principal, Emerson Public Schools (NJ)

    Lasting change doesn’t happen without teacher buy-in

    Grading reform can’t succeed unless educators believe in it. That’s why Emerson made intentional space for teacher voice throughout the process; through pilots, surveys, honest conversations, and, most importantly, time. The district embraced a long-term mindset, giving teachers flexibility to experiment, reflect, and gradually evolve their practices instead of expecting instant transformation.

    “We had some consultants sit with teams of teachers to work on these common scoring criteria. They were fully designed by teachers, and their colleagues had the chance to weigh in during the school year so that it didn’t feel quite so top-down…the teachers had such a voice in making them that it didn’t feel like we were taking their autonomy away.”
    –Alice Opperman, Director of Curriculum, Instruction & Technology, Emerson Public Schools (NJ)

    Progress means nothing if families can’t follow it

    Even with teachers aligned and systems in place, Emerson found that family understanding was key to making SBG truly work. While the district initially aimed to move away from traditional letter grades altogether, ongoing conversations with parents led to a reevaluation. By listening to families and adapting their approach, Emerson has found a middle ground, one that preserves the value of standards-based learning while making progress easier for families to understand.

    “Five years ago, I would have said, ‘We will be totally done with points. We will never see a letter grade again. It’s going to be so much better.’ But talking to parent after parent has led us to this compromised place where we are going to try it a little bit differently to give the parents what they need in order to understand us, but also keep that proficiency, competency, mastery information that we feel is so valuable as educators.” 
    –Alice Opperman, Director of Curriculum, Instruction & Technology, Emerson Public Schools (NJ)

    Still evolving, and that’s the point

    For Jessica and Alice, grading reform has never been about arriving at a perfect system (and certainly not achieving it overnight). It’s been about listening, learning, and improving year after year. Their message to other school leaders? There’s no one “right” way to do SBG, but there is a thoughtful, collaborative way forward.

    Emerson’s story shows that when you prioritize clarity, trust your teachers, and bring families into the conversation, the result isn’t just a better report card. 

    It’s a better learning experience for everyone involved.

    How the right grading solution supports Emerson’s SBG efforts

    Emerson put in the work, but sustaining grading reform at scale is nearly impossible without the right tools to support teachers, track progress, and communicate effectively with families.

    • Streamlined standards
      Focus on the standards that matter most by building custom, district-aligned grading scales. The right platform makes it easy to group standards, apply scoring criteria, and visualize mastery over time.
    • Transparent communication
      Share clear, standards-aligned feedback with families directly in a platform. Teachers can provide timely updates, rubric explanations, and progress reports, all in one place.
    • Flexible grading tools
      Support teacher autonomy with multiple assessment types and scoring options, including points, rubrics, and mastery levels, all aligned to district-defined standards.

    For more news on grading reform, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Michigan district agrees to reform seclusion and restraint policies

    Michigan district agrees to reform seclusion and restraint policies

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Michigan’s Montcalm Area Intermediate School District is ending the practice of secluding students, reforming its restraint policies and making other improvements to special education services, according to an agreement between the school system and the U.S. Department of Justice.
    • DOJ, in a July 3 statement, said the district “used seclusion and restraint improperly, including using emergency crisis responses as punishment for normal classroom discipline issues,” leading to a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district, in a June 27 statement, said it had begun taking steps to improve its restraint and seclusion practices prior to the agreement.  
    • Federal investigations into schools’ restraint and seclusion practices over the past few years have led to reforms across the country as school systems work to balance student safety with their civil rights protections.

    Dive Insight:

    Montcalm Area ISD is an educational service agency that includes seven local districts, a public school academy and one virtual school. It serves about 12,000 students collectively, including about 1,800 students with disabilities.

    DOJ’s investigation found that students with disabilities in the district were restrained or secluded more than 2,400 times between the 2020-21 and 2022-23 school years.

    Under the agreement, the district will:

    • End seclusion for addressing student behaviors.
    • Halt the use of school rooms or other facilities for seclusion purposes.
    • Appoint a district-level intervention coordinator as a liaison between school principals and the superintendent, among other duties.
    • Create classroomwide behavior management plans for all classrooms in the district’s special education program to document consistent and developmentally appropriate rules, routines and techniques.
    • Ensure that restraint is only used to protect staff and students and only after all appropriate de-escalation techniques have failed.
    • Review whether students who were restrained or secluded are eligible for compensatory services and counseling.

    “Students with disabilities should never be discriminated against by experiencing the trauma of seclusion or improper restraint,” said Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, in the July 3 statement.

    The week before, in a June 27 statement, Katie Flynn, superintendent of Montcalm Area ISD, said the district is “committed to providing a safe, nurturing, and welcoming learning environment.”

    According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection, about 105,700 public school students were physically restrained, mechanically restrained or placed in seclusion at schools across the country during the 2021-22 school year, the most recent year for which national data is available.

    Nationally, students with disabilities are disproportionally restrained and secluded in schools. Although students who qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act comprised 14% of the K-12 student enrollment in 2021-22, they represent 28% of students who were mechanically restrained, 68% of those who were secluded, and 76% who were physically restrained, according to the CRDC.

    Guidance issued in 2016 by the Education Department emphasizes that schools should never use restraint or seclusion for disciplinary purposes and that the practices should only be used if there is “imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others.”

    The guidance also said if a student’s behavioral challenges lead to an emergency use of restraint or seclusion, it could be a sign of a disability that is interfering with the student’s progress in school, and therefore they should be evaluated to see if they qualify for special education services.

    Additional guidance issued earlier this year by the Education Department urged districts to take a more proactive approach to student behaviors by supporting students’ social, emotional, physical and mental health needs through multi-tiered systems of support that provide individualized interventions based on students’ needs for students with and without disabilities.

    Source link

  • ATEC starts work with reform agenda – Campus Review

    ATEC starts work with reform agenda – Campus Review

    Tertiary education’s new steward will focus on allocating university funding, harmonising tertiary education and negotiating mission-based contracts, according to its Terms of Reference released on Tuesday.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Summer 2025 | HESA

    Summer 2025 | HESA

    So. This is the last blog of the academic year. Service resumes Tuesday, 2 September.

    It’s been a long year. I’m pretty tired. How about you?

    This was the year it all kind of came crashing down: not just here in Canda, but everywhere else too. It’s too long to go through and my more faithful readers already know the story. It’s not just in Canada. In France, Australia, and the UK, we saw institutions having similar problems: all these fantastic higher education institutions we’ve collectively built and, quite simply, nobody wants to pay for it. Not through public funds, not through private fees. Nobody wants to pay for it.

    And then there’s American higher education would probably be going through something similar this year, only a greater catastrophe arrived first. I’ll pass over this in silence.

    Here in Canada, the sector is increasingly friendless. Parents and students seem less convinced that universities in particular represent good value. And governments are simply indifferent, not because they dislike universities necessarily, but because they dislike or distrust the knowledge economy universities are built to serve.

    Unfortunately, I think it is going to get worse. Not a single government in Canada released a budget this year which took into account the effects of US tariffs. The result? Allegedly healthy federal and provincial balance sheets are going to get pounded this year and next (and the especially unhealthy ones — BC and Quebec in particular — are going to be especially ugly). Deficits as far as they eye can see. As the saying goes, no one is coming to save us.

    I have no doubt that community colleges will find ways to get through this, because they have so far through this crisis mostly shown themselves to have the ability to do what it takes to right the ship. They might not look too good after another round or two of cuts, and it’s not impossible that a few rural colleges might disappear or shrink radically because what they get from governments and domestic tuition fees just isn’t enough to properly serve their communities, but on the whole, I think they will be ok.

    Universities, on the other hand. Well, that’s a different story.

    About a year ago, I said that the biggest change universities were going to have to undergo in this new financial age was shifting from a belief that every problem had a revenue-side solution to one in which every problem has a cost-side solution. Institutions can no longer solve their short-term problems by just recruiting another hundred international students. They actually have to change the way they do business. They have to change processes. They have to think about production functions and work processes in a way they haven’t before. And they have to do it while trying to pivot to new missions that give them more traction with government and the public.

    I am here to say that I don’t think it’s going so well.

    The message that “there is no one coming to save us” has, thankfully, penetrated fairly deeply in universities. Maybe not quite everywhere (hello, VIU!), but in most places. But what I am not sure has penetrated quite so deeply is the corollary that actual change is necessary. My (admittedly limited) vantage point on the sector is that:

    • I still see universities spending inordinate amounts of time trying to come up with new revenue-based solutions. It’s a habit they have a hard time kicking.
    • Universities are deeply resistant to doing more than the bare minimum of restructuring to meet immediate financial needs. The idea that deep structural change might be necessary remains pretty much anathema. This bare minimum approach means that when the next round of government cuts come – due to recession, or national re-armament or whatever – they are just going to have to cut again, and again, and again. There is very little sign of anyone trying to get ahead of the curve to make both big cuts and big investments in new areas that will help them survive the turmoil.
    • I still hear, distressingly often, senior people in universities utter the worst seven words in all of higher education: “we just gotta tell our story better”. Universities are reluctant to face the possibility that governments and the mass public don’t love them the way they are and that they may need to actually, you know, change.

    We need to stop acting like the research university of today – which in Canada is really only a creature of the 1970s or perhaps 1960s — is eternal. Universities can die, and have done so rather frequently across history. Universities are the product of particular configurations of social and economic forces. And now, at the moment when the western world is basically re-considering the entire post-WWII order, the idea that universities are going to be uniquely immune to change is bananas. Past performance — which I think has been pretty good — is not a guarantee of future safety.

    I am not saying here that universities shouldn’t fight for their own corner: they should! Often more vigorously than they currently do (see my piece on Bill 33, or on how they need to gear up for a fight with Bay Street over whether temporary residents will be international students or TFWs). But they can’t do it by digging in on the status quo.

    And so, I will end the academic year by repeating something I said a few months ago. To survive this coming period, universities are going to need:

    1. Ambition. Don’t waste time doing small things.
    2. Experimentation. The worst possible thing right now is an addiction to “the way we’ve always done things”
    3. Dissemination. No one institution got us into the mess. No one institution is going to get out of it alone, either. Institutions need to commit to sharing the results of their experimentation.

    I know every university in Canada can, if it chooses, commit to those three things. I have faith. And I believe that if they do, our university sector will come out as strong or stronger than any system in the world.

    But any institution that chooses not to commit to them…well, I think they are going to have some issues in the next three years. Serious ones.

    It’s up to us. Rest up this summer. Re-charge. We’re all going to need it in ‘25–’26.

    Source link

  • Securing the Future: The case for Pension Reform in Post-92 Institutions

    Securing the Future: The case for Pension Reform in Post-92 Institutions

    • By Fiona Hnatow, Chief People Officer at the University of Portsmouth.

    In an era of mounting financial pressures across the UK higher education sector, the University of Portsmouth has not been immune to these difficulties. However, through considered efficiency programmes and an innovative approach to pension reform, we are emerging from the initial financial pressures into a stronger and sustainable position.  As one of the largest Post-92 institutions in the UK, the University plays a vital role in the local and national economy. With nearly 4,000 staff and 29,000 students, 6,000 of whom are international, the University is not only a major employer in the Solent region but also a hub of innovation, research and global engagement.

    In 2024 alone, the University contributed an impressive £1.4 billion to the UK economy, including £658 million in the Solent region and £505 million in Portsmouth, supporting over 8,800 jobs locally. These figures underscore the University’s critical role in regional development and its broader impact on the national landscape.

    By early 2023, it became increasingly clear that the UK higher education sector was heading towards a financial crisis. A combination of declining undergraduate and international student applications, rising utility and employment costs and inflexible pension obligations created a perfect storm, particularly for Post-92 universities.

    One of the most significant financial burdens facing these institutions is the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). Mandated by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, Post-92 universities are required to offer TPS to all academic staff, with no option to opt out. In contrast, non-Post-92 institutions can offer alternative schemes, such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which carry significantly lower employer contribution rates.

    As of April 2025, TPS employer contributions rose from 23.68% to 28.68%. This means that employing an academic on a £50,000 salary now costs Post-92 institutions nearly £9,000 more per year than their competitors. With further increases projected in 2026, the financial strain is only expected to intensify.

    The Reset Programme: A Strategic Pivot

    Recognising the urgency of the situation, the University of Portsmouth launched its ‘Reset’ programme in early 2023. This comprehensive initiative was designed to reduce both staff and non-staff costs, streamline operations and build a digitally enabled, efficient institution. The goal: to ensure both operational and financial sustainability in the face of unprecedented challenges.

    The Reset programme introduced a series of targeted workstreams over an 18-month period, including:

    • Creation of a staffing subsidiary (UASL) to employ new staff under a more affordable pension scheme.
    • Voluntary Severance Scheme to reduce the need for compulsory redundancies.
    • Enhanced vacancy management, filling only business-critical roles.
    • Non-pay budget reductions, including cuts to travel, training, printing, and consumables.
    • Removal of budget contingencies during annual planning.
    • Policy changes to limit professional accreditation and subscription costs.
    • Professional services reviews to centralise functions and reduce staffing levels.
    • Academic restructuring, including faculty mergers and rebalancing student/staff ratios.
    • Contracted services reviews to improve value for money.
    • Student retention initiatives to reduce withdrawals and protect tuition income.

    UASL: A Bold and Necessary Innovation

    In August 2024, the University launched University of Portsmouth Academic Services Limited (UASL), a wholly owned subsidiary created to employ new academic and professional services staff. While maintaining existing terms and conditions, UASL introduced a new Defined Contribution (DC) pension scheme through Aviva, offering a 12% employer contribution for permanent staff and 6% for casual staff. Additionally, the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) scheme was introduced for casual workers, primarily students.

    This move was not taken lightly as the University recognises how important pensions are to attract and retain staff. However, it was essential to avoid the unsustainable costs associated with TPS and the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). Importantly, all staff employed before August 2024 retained their existing pension arrangements, helping to maintain strong relationships with unions such as UCU and Unison.

    The TPS, and its statutory imposition on Post-92 providers, is a throwback to when institutions like the University of Portsmouth, as former polytechnics, were administered by their local authority. At the time, it made sense. But in the thirty years since we achieved full University status, it has become impossible to justify the retention of this outdated system. It is clear that those bodies responsible for setting and monitoring higher education funding, who are admittedly not known for their responsiveness, have failed to adapt to the realities of the higher education landscape. When vast swathes of the sector are faced with a worsening financial position, many of those being post-92 institutions, it is baffling that this outdated system remains to hinder determined efforts to manage institutional finances.

    The results have been significant. In 2024/25 alone, the University is on track to save over £1 million, with projected savings rising to £2.8 million in 2025/26 and £4.4 million in 2026/27. Moreover, the new pension schemes have proven attractive, particularly to early-career professionals, international staff, and those on lower salaries—groups that had previously opted out of TPS due to affordability concerns.

    Balancing Innovation with Risk

    While the creation of UASL has delivered substantial financial benefits, it has also introduced new challenges. Notably, Research England and UKRI have begun placing restrictions on the eligibility of subsidiary-employed academics for research funding and participation in the Research Excellence Framework (REF). This poses a significant risk to the University’s research ambitions and its ability to compete on a national and global scale.

    Despite these concerns, the University had to weigh the risks of innovation against the very real threat of insolvency. Without decisive action, the financial outlook would have been dire. In 2023/24, the University had budgeted for an income of £321 million but achieved only £304 million, resulting in a £9.2 million deficit—despite achieving £19.7 million in Resetsavings. For 2024/25, the budgeted income is £290.5 million, with a projected deficit of £2.9 million, inclusive of £24 million in planned savings.

    A Call for Sector-Wide Reform

    The University of Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. Many Post-92 institutions across the UK are being forced to consider similar measures, simply to remain viable. In Scotland, the government has stepped in to support institutions facing equivalent pension cost increases, highlighting the uneven playing field across the UK.

    The University is now calling on the Department for Education and the UK Treasury to reform elements of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that tie Universities to an outdated, restrictive and overly costly pension scheme and advocates for greater flexibility in pension arrangements. Such reform would allow institutions to manage their finances more effectively, attract and retain top talent, and avoid widespread job losses and regional economic disruption. Our view is that it is wholly unfair that the Government have subsidised schools and further education colleges in England to compensate for the rising cost of TPS, yet Higher Education Institutions have not.

    Conclusion: Leading Through Change

    The University of Portsmouth has demonstrated that with strategic foresight, bold decision-making, and a commitment to collaboration, it is possible to navigate even the most challenging financial landscapes. However, we continue to advocate that reform is urgently needed for the good of the sector as a whole, to ensure long-term sustainability.

    Source link

  • Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    In some countries, higher education policy just seems to sit still for decades. In others, hyperactivity is a more normal state. Today we’re looking at the 2020s poster child for higher education hyperactivity. It’s not the usual suspects, the UK or Australia, it’s little New Zealand where we’re making our fourth stop on this podcast in just over two and a half years.

    When last we were in Wellington, we talked to Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand about university underfunding the consequences of losing international students, and something called the University Advisory Group, which was supposed to set the national system on a new course along with a research advisory group who weirdly was made up of exactly the same people only following a different mandate.

    Since then, while these groups were noodling on how best to steer the system, the government made two big table flipping moves. One musing about creating a new type of institution, which was neither a university nor a college, and nobody knew what they were talking about, and the other simply deciding it wasn’t going to fund any more research in the social sciences and humanities through its research granting system. Fun times.

    Anyways, with all this excitement, we figured it was worth going back to the Tasman Sea to check in with one of our regular correspondents, Roger Smyth. He’s a former senior New Zealand public servant and now a consultant based in Canterbury. He’s got all the skinny for us. And so, over to Roger.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.32 | Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Roger, the last time we did a show about New Zealand, we had Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand on, and we talked a lot about the University Advisory Group process. How far along is that work, and what are people in the sector saying about it? What’s the view at this stage? Is there still interest and momentum behind the process, or has it stalled out a little?

    Roger Smyth (RS): Okay, so the advisory group submitted an interim report late last year, and it’s scheduled to submit its final report this month. I understand that the report has now been submitted, but nothing has been published yet. Neither the interim report nor the final report, nor any of the dozens of submissions made in response to the UAG’s questions, have been released publicly.

    In these sorts of cases, the report usually isn’t published until the government has had a chance to make its initial decisions on some of the high-level questions—and that could still be a little way off.

    Of course, as you implied, Alex, there are rumors. And in some of the face-to-face consultations, the UAG has given a bit of a steer as to where it was heading. For instance, it’s pretty clear that in their interim report, they were proposing a machinery of government change—a reorganization of some of the government agencies in higher education, such as the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the policy unit responsible for research and innovation. But we won’t know that for sure until the report comes out.

    One of the big challenges the advisory group would have faced is that the government is committed to returning to a financial surplus in the 2027–28 fiscal year. That’s a significant challenge, with major demands on the budget. So the advisory group would have been instructed to make their proposals fiscally neutral, and that’s a big constraint on what they could recommend.

    My main view on this whole process is that it was never really clear what problem the University Advisory Group was set up to solve—apart from a general instruction to look for improvement and to make the system work better. One of the most distinctive features of the New Zealand system is its homogeneity. That has a lot of positives—it means that wherever you go, you’re guaranteed a reasonable level of quality. But it also has the downside that there isn’t really any outstanding, world-leading university.

    AU: Let me stop you there, because alongside the University Advisory Group, there’s also been a commission on research—on research and science—a review going on at the same time. Why did that happen in parallel rather than together?

    RS: Yeah, I think that’s an important point. The first thing is that the two advisory groups were actually chaired by the same person—Peter Gluckman, a distinguished medical scientist and academic—and they began operating at roughly the same time.

    You can see there was a desire to think about knowledge transfer opportunities within universities and how they contribute to the broader economy and the wider science system.

    The Science Advisory Group has now completed its report. It’s been submitted, and the government has published its initial decisions. This is an area where the review proposed a very substantial overhaul of the machinery of government. They proposed creating a super ministry for higher education, science, technology, and innovation.

    The government, however, did not accept that proposal. Most governments are a bit wary of major machinery-of-government reshuffles unless there’s a very strong rationale. These kinds of changes often involve a settling-in period where the system can lose its way, as people jockey for position and the focus shifts away from the core goals the system is meant to achieve.

    Instead, the review also proposed merging the seven non-university research institutes into a single public research organization. The government opted for a partial reorganization, establishing three public research organizations—focused on the bioeconomy, earth sciences, and health and forensic science. They’re also creating a new organization to cover advanced technology fields like AI, synthetic biology, aerospace, and quantum tech. So that’s probably a reasonable foundation for advancing the science system.

    AU: But of course, before they even got to that point—before the advisory group had reported—the government unilaterally made a change to what’s called the Marsden Fund. That’s sort of like our combination of the social sciences, humanities, and natural science councils. And it effectively nuked the humanities and social sciences, as I understand it. They basically said, “We’re not going to fund those anymore.” Why did the government do that? Why undercut your own report before it even comes out?

    RS: Yeah, this was definitely a decision that caused a lot of pushback and consternation—real ill feeling in universities and across the broader community.

    Most of the government’s research funding is directed toward major national strategic priorities, so it tends to go to areas like health, the hard sciences, engineering, agriculture—things like that. The Marsden Fund was one of the few avenues where humanities researchers could secure external funding, outside of what universities provide internally.

    I think part of this decision reflects the government’s desire to place greater focus on the hard sciences. If you look at the Marsden Fund trends, the social sciences and humanities panel had been gaining a slightly larger share of the funding in recent years, which naturally came at the expense of the hard sciences. So in some sense, this was a declaration that the government wants to reorient support toward areas seen as having greater economic impact.

    That said, the main driver was probably to send a message. But in doing so, it sent a very negative signal to the humanities community. Even researchers in the now-favored areas were concerned about the loss of this funding stream—particularly given that social science research can produce huge social value.

    AU: This tension between favored STEM subjects and less-favored fields like the social sciences, humanities, and business is also playing out in discussions around the government’s funding model. My understanding is that in New Zealand, the funding model essentially funds places. So, the government allocates a certain number of places to each institution. Now we’re projecting that there will be more enrollments than there are funded places, and the government would like to provide a bit of additional funding for STEM subjects, but not for others. We’re very familiar with this in Canada—it’s exactly what’s happening in Ontario right now. I’m curious how you think that will play out in New Zealand?

    RS: Okay, well, just to give a bit of context on the financial situation of the universities: like most Anglophone countries with a heavy reliance on the international student market, COVID hit New Zealand universities hard. In 2021, the impact was cushioned by a surge in domestic enrollments. The labor market was weak due to the pandemic, so more people turned to study, and universities did okay financially.

    But in 2022, following government stimulus measures, the labor market recovered and became more robust. Domestic enrollments fell sharply, and the international student market still hadn’t bounced back. That made 2022 the worst financial year ever for the universities. Six of the eight were in deficit, and one was just breaking even.

    In 2023, when finances were still tight, there was a lot of concern about university viability. The government stepped in with a short-term funding rate boost—not an increase in the number of places, but an increase in the dollars per place.

    Then there was a small increase in funding again last year. But the broader funding review never happened. The government changed, and that process was superseded by the UAG process we discussed earlier.

    And that process, as we said, is likely to avoid anything that would seriously impact the government’s bottom line. So, the universities have been in a tough situation.

    But now, the international market is starting to recover. It’s been slower than in the other countries we compete with, but in EFTS terms—equivalent full-time students—2024 saw an 11% increase in international enrollments. It’s still below pre-pandemic levels, but the trend is positive. And that matters because each international student generates about 60% more revenue than a domestic student.

    Right now, we’re in the middle of the financial reporting season. Five of the universities have reported for 2024. One reported a small deficit on its core business, but it was much lower than expected and offset by a surplus on its wider trading operations.

    So, it’s still tough—marginal—but not as gloomy as it was a couple of years ago.

    Even though there’s still pressure, and enrollments may be shifting toward more expensive fields, financially speaking, the worst appears to be over. The system is beginning to grow again.

    And on the point about STEM versus other fields—it’s worth remembering this is a system driven by student choice. The government doesn’t have much influence over where students choose to go. So, no matter how the government might want to steer things, it can’t really control those choices under the current policy environment. So, I’d say that the universities are managing through this.

    AU: Roger, I want to get into something I read recently—there was a fascinating article where the government, or at least the minister, was musing about the idea of creating a new type of tertiary institution. Something that’s not quite a university and not quite a polytechnic.But before I ask you about that, I think we need to give our listeners a bit of background on polytechnics in New Zealand.

    Your system merged all the polytechnics into one big national institution just before COVID, right? That was Te Pūkenga. Why do that? What was the point of one national institution? It’s a big country—two islands, 15 campuses. That’s a lot to bring together. What was the thinking behind that?

    RS: These reforms had two separate sources.

    First, we talked earlier about the financial challenges in the university sector, but the polytechnics were facing a real financial crisis. They’d been growing for years and carried high fixed costs, with relatively small student numbers spread across multiple campuses.

    Between 2012 and 2019, domestic enrollments dropped by about 25%. By 2019, nearly all the polytechnics were running deficits, and the sector’s collective deficit was quite substantial. So something clearly had to be done.

    Second, the government looked at what had been done in Australia. In New South Wales, for example, they merged all the TAFE institutions into a single statewide TAFE. It worked reasonably well there, and in Queensland as well.

    So they decided to follow a similar path and merge all 16 institutions—along with all work-based training—into a single national organization. That was the rationale behind the creation of Te Pūkenga.

    AU: What about the un-merger? So, a few years later you get a new government—the National government—and they’re going to undo the whole thing. Was that because it was, as you said, a machinery-of-government issue? Or was it more about a shift in how the government views vocational education?

    RS: I think it was both.

    Let’s look at both sides. First, the merger didn’t go well. There were some good aspects to the reforms. For instance, they set up six Workforce Development Councils to set standards for training and take a forward-looking view of labor market needs in specific fields. That was a positive.

    The idea of reintegrating polytechnic and work-based training into one coherent trades training system was also a good one. But the merger was very poorly executed.

    Costs blew out, and after three years they still hadn’t settled on a functioning operating model. There was almost no progress on the actual integration of work-based and polytechnic-based training. The initial chief executive didn’t work out and had to go.

    So that was one rationale for reconsidering—or unpicking—the merger.

    But the second reason was political. The incoming minister in 2023 had previously been a very successful chief executive of one of the polytechnics that was merged into the national institution.

    She was deeply committed to undoing the merger and restoring control to regions and local communities. So, the government came in with a clear policy to do this, and she got the ministry, and things got moving quickly.

    But, of course, life’s not that simple. No one wanted to go back to a system everyone agreed had serious problems. So how do you reconcile those two positions?

    After two years of back and forth, we’re now getting close to the new model. Those six Workforce Development Councils—the best part of the previous reform—are being disbanded and replaced with smaller organizations focused mainly on setting standards.

    The polytechnics, which remained as divisions within the larger organization, have all gone through what are called ruthless efficiency reviews to determine what could be dropped or changed to make them financially viable.

    We haven’t seen the full results of those yet, but some institutions will likely be deemed viable and split off as standalone, autonomous polytechnics. These will focus partly on trade training, but also on foundation education and some degree-level programs. Those will become autonomous institutions.

    But for those polytechnics that aren’t viable in the long term, they’ll be required to join a federation anchored by the Open Polytechnic, which delivers programs online. The idea is that those institutions can draw on the federation’s expertise and infrastructure to complement their face-to-face delivery with online components.

    AU: So I don’t want to ask you what’s going to happen, but I do want to ask when it’s going to happen—because there are a whole bunch of moving parts here, and you’ve got an election coming up. Is there enough time for the government to unwind all of this before the next election? Because I know, for example, with the Universities Accord process in Australia, the report came out well before the election, and even then, they couldn’t get everything done before voting day. So, what’s the pace of decision-making here?

    RS: The first thing is that if we look at the University Advisory Group, we should see the results of that fairly soon. I’d expect it within a couple of months—possibly even sooner. It might come out all at once, or it could follow the science review model, where there were high-level interim decisions released first.

    My sense of the brief given to the UAG is that we’re not going to see truly transformational change—nothing on the scale of the three big reviews we’ve had in the past: 1961, 1989–90, and 2002–03.

    So I’d expect incremental change rather than sweeping reform. And because of that, I think the university review will largely settle before the election.

    In contrast, the un-merging of Te Pūkenga and the broader vocational education reforms will take longer.

    Under the new arrangements, there will be greater integration between workplace and institutional training. Polytechnics and private providers will be allowed to act as arrangers and supervisors of work-based training.

    But implementing that integration will take time. There’s a two-year transition period, starting in 2026—which is the election year. So the un-merging process will only be partly complete when voters go to the polls.

    That said, I think this process will continue to play out slowly over time. Hopefully, it results in something positive.

    Despite everything—despite what will have been six years of turbulence and ongoing uncertainty—I do believe the sector will move forward with reasonable operating models.

    AU: May you live in interesting times. Roger, thanks so much for joining us today.

    RS: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our listeners, viewers, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week when our guest will be David Lloyd. He’s the remarkable individual who serves as both the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia and the co–Vice Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. How does he manage it? Those two institutions are on the brink of what’s likely the biggest institutional shakeup in Australian higher education since the Dawkins reforms of 1988. He’ll be here to talk about the merger, how it came about, and what the future looks like. Until then—bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • Labour is learning the wrong lessons from Reform on immigration

    Labour is learning the wrong lessons from Reform on immigration

    The working classes are an easy foil for the dreams of conservative politicians. They are the salt of the earth, proper people who do real stuff, unlike the woke metropolitan elite who sit around and think things but are removed from the real world.

    As Joel Budd points out in his new book Underdogs The Truth About Britain’s White Working Class, they are to the conservative imagination “sensible truth-tellers and bulwarks against left-wing nonsense.” Even more so they are the consensus position on immigration “The mass immigration that the elite has tolerated is crushing their wages, burdening the public services they rely on and filling their neighbourhood with strangers.” As Budd also points out this, well, isn’t true. In 2024 they voted for Starmer’s Labour Party who campaigned on public finances, NHS, and inflation.

    New Labour old problems

    It is with this in mind that Labour’s response to Reform’s election performance is as wrong as it is entirely predictable. Its wrongness could have significant consequences for universities.

    Let’s start with the big results. In May’s local elections in England Reform gained 677 councillors,ten councils, two mayors, and an MP. The votes are spread across the country but as John Curtice points out for the BBC there is an education faultline.

    Reform did best in places that most overwhelmingly voted for Brexit. University graduates overwhelmingly did not vote for Brexit. Reform received less than 20 per cent of the vote in wards where more than two in five people have a degree compared to 43 per cent in wards where over half of adults have few qualifications. As Curtice states

    In summary, Reform did best in what has sometimes been characterised in the wake of the Brexit referendum as ‘left-behind’ Britain – places that have profited less from globalisation and university expansion and where a more conservative outlook on immigration is more common.

    The policy solution alighted on by outriders in the Labour Party has so far been to say that Reform has done well therefore Labour should do things that appeal to the kind of people that vote for Reform. Or, at least, the kind of things Labour assumes appeal to the people that vote for Reform. And one of the key assumptions is that getting immigration down, whoever those immigrants might be, including students, is necessary for their electoral survival.

    Blue Labour redux

    University of Oxford graduate, and Blue Labour standard bearer, Jonathan Hinder MP has said he would not be “that disappointed” if universities went bust because of reducing international student immigration. Presumably he does not mean his own alma mater. Jo White, of the Red Wall Caucus, has urged Labour to “take a leaf out of President Trump’s book” when it comes to immigration. The end of the Labour Party which purports to be closer to its working class roots is moving rapidly and decisively against immigration. Tightening restrictions on graduates, and by extension making the UK a less attractive place to study, has been reported as an idea winning favour at the Home Office.

    The issue with the general public is that it is complicated. On its own, reducing student immigration will not win Labour a single vote in Runcorn in Helsby where Reform most recently won an MP. For a start Runcorn does not have a university so it will certainly not address immigration issues brought up during the election. Runcorn does however have several organisations that benefit from a vibrant university sector. SME net-zero collaboration with Lancaster. INEOS which benefits from the proximity of a university workforce and industrial collaborations. And Riverside College, amongst other examples, as a franchise partner of the University of Staffordshire.

    It is also worth making entirely clear that people in Runcorn also go to university. It’s a particular fault of both an understanding of class and an understanding of universities that this conflation is often made.

    Immigration, immigration, immigration

    If reducing student immigration will not make a material difference perhaps it will signal a vibes shift that will bring places like Runcorn on side. Again, here is where the working class will let you down. Analysis of the British Election Study collated by Joel Budd demonstrates that “Young white working-class people are not as liberal as young white middle-class people. But when it comes to immigration and race, they resemble them more closely than they resemble old white working-class people.” Again, there is just not a long term winning strategy in discouraging student and graduate migration.

    For universities this might be comforting but it isn’t the point.

    The extent to which anyone is willing to defend student immigration is the question of the extent to which they are willing to defend the value of universities. The value of universities is felt in exports and jobs but it is most directly felt on the extent to which the effects of a university make a place feel better. The thing that Boris Johnson, or at least his advisors, understood that higher education consistently has not is that people see politics through their places. Crime. Clean high streets. Local shops. Good jobs. Green spaces. Feeling safe to go out at night. And the myriad of tangible things that make up a place.

    In policy terms the absolute antithesis of levelling up are reforms which will depress international student numbers. The last thing Runcorn needs is a poorer Liverpool and weaker universities. The challenge for universities is to tilt the scale toward being popular not just being valuable. So popular as to make decisions on cutting student immigration culturally and electorally harder not just economically wrongheaded.

    The question then is how can universities do things in places that feel like they are doing good as well as actually doing good.

    A day like today is not for soundbites

    A key question is how infrastructure can be use toward a broad and good civic end. For example, of all of the things that the University of Liverpool did during Covid (of which there were many I have direct experience of, having worked there), the one that looms largest in my memory is when it gave up its car parks for NHS staff. Not the vaccines it helped develop or the PPE it manufactured but a low cost, high kindness gesture that resonated with people at the time. The other part of this is how largely universities loom in local communities. The extent to which their infrastructure, offices, shops, cafes, and other buildings and amenities are dispersed across the towns, cities, and localities so their presence has a resonance with the lives of people from day to day. People will often be aware of a university where it precedes the word hospital. There are opportunities for other collaborative infrastructures.

    Universities tend to be pretty good at turning their research into lectures, experiments, and days out for young people in an education setting. They are less good at making their research experiential for adults. Light Years by the University of Durham (full disclosure: I volunteer in supporting this work) has taken research to places people actually gather, places of worship, highstreets, and places of local interest across Durham county, as opposed to just the city.

    And it’s harder to articulate or even work out, but the extent to which local people feel universities are on their side matters. The cultural closeness universities build to their populations is not always about what they do but whether local people feeling it’s “their” or “the” university. There is no magic bullet for this beyond the slow grind of knowing a local place and acting with it.

    The political vibes risk overtaking a political reality. The key to Labour winning back its voters is to make tangible differences in the places they live. The economic headroom for them to do that runs through higher education institutions and their success. The permission to do so depends on people feeling like universities are a thing worth saving even with difficult political trades offs.

    Source link