Tag: sector

How does the higher education sector sustain digital transformation in tough times?

Higher education institutions are in a real bind right now. Financial pressures are bearing down on expenditure, and even those institutions not at immediate risk are having to tighten their belts.

Yet institutions also need to continue to evolve and improve – to better educate and support students, enable staff to do their teaching and research, strengthen external ties, and remain attractive to international students. The status quo is not appealing – not just because of competitive and strategic pressures but also because for a lot of institutions the existing systems aren’t really delivering a great experience for students and staff. So, when every penny counts, where should institutions invest to get the best outcomes? Technology is rarely the sole answer but it’s usually part of the answer, so deciding which technologies to deploy and how becomes a critical organisational capability.

Silos breed cynicism

Digital transformation is one of those areas that’s historically had a bit of a tricky reputation. I suspect your sense of the reason for this depends a bit on your standpoint but my take (as a moderately competent user of technology but by no means expert) is that technology procurement and deployment is an area that tends to expose some of higher education’s historic vulnerabilities around coordinated leadership and decision-making, effective application of knowledge and expertise, and anticipation of, and adaptability to change.

So in the past there’s been a sense, not of this exact scenario, but some variation on it: the most senior leaders don’t really have the knowledge or expertise about technology and are constantly getting sold on the latest shiny thing; the director of IT makes decisions without fully coordinating with the needs and workflows of the wider organisation; departments buy in tech for their own needs but don’t coordinate with others. There might even be academic or digital pedagogy expertise in the organisation whose knowledge remains untapped in trying to get the system to make sense. And then the whole thing gets tweaked and updated to try to adapt to the changing needs, introducing layer upon layer of complexity and bureaucracy and general clunkiness, and everyone heaves a massive sigh every time a new system gets rolled out.

This picture is of course a cynical one but it’s striking in our conversations about digital transformation with the sector how frequently these kinds of scenarios are described. The gap between the promise of technology and the reality of making it work is one that can breed quite a lot of cynicism – which is the absolute worst basis from which to embark on any journey of change. People feel as if they are expected to conform to the approved technology, rather than technology helping them do their jobs more effectively.

Towards digital maturity

Back in 2023 Jisc bit the bullet with the publication of its digital transformation toolkit, which explicitly sought to replace what in some cases had been a rather fragmented siloed approach with a “whole institution” framework. When Jisc chief executive Heidi Fraser-Krauss speaks at sector events she frequently argues that technology is the easy bit – it’s the culture change that is hard. Over the past two years Jisc director for digital transformation (HE) Sarah Knight and her team have been working with 24 institutions to test the application of the digital transformation framework and maturity model, with a report capturing the learning of what makes digital transformation work in practice published last month.

I book in a call with Sarah because I’m curious about how institutions are pursuing their digital transformation plans against the backdrop of financial pressure and reductions in expenditure. When every penny counts, institutions need to wring every bit of value from their investments, and technology costs can be a significant part of an institution’s capital and non-staff recurrent expenditure.

“Digital transformation to us is to show the breadth of where digital touches a university,” says Sarah. “Traditionally digital tended to sit more with ‘digital people’ like CIOs and IT teams, but our framework has shown how a whole-institution approach is needed. For those just starting out, our framework helped to focus attention on the breadth of things to consider such as digital culture, engaging staff and students, digital fluency, capability, inclusivity, sustainability – and all the principles underpinning digital transformation.”

Advocating a “whole institution approach” may seem counter-intuitive – making what was already a complicated set of decisions even more so by involving more people. But without creating a pipeline of information flow up, down and across the institution, it’s impossible to see what people need from technology, or understand how the various processes in place in different parts of the university are interacting with the technologies available to see where they could be improved.

“The digital maturity assessment brought people into the conversation at different levels and roles. Doing that can often show up where there is a mismatch in experience and knowledge between organisational leaders and staff and students who are experiencing the digital landscape,” says Sarah.

Drawing on knowledgeable voices whose experience is closer to the lived reality of teaching and research is key. “Leaders are saying they don’t need to know everything about digital but they do need to support the staff who are working in that space to have resources, and have a seat at table and a voice.”

Crucially, working across the institution in this way generates an evidence base that can then be used to drive decision-making about the priorities for investment of resources, both money and time. In the past few years, some institutions have been revising their digital strategies and plans, recognising that with constrained finances, they may need to defer some planned investments, or sequence their projects differently, mindful of the pressures on staff.

For Sarah, leaders who listen, and who assume they don’t already know what’s going on, are those who are the most likely to develop the evidence base that can best inform their decisions:

“When you have leaders who recognise the value of taking a more evidence-informed approach, that enables investment to be more strategically targeted, so you’re less likely to see cuts falling in areas where digital is a priority. Institutions that have senior leadership support, data informed decision making, and evidence of impact, are in the best place to steer in a direction that is forward moving and find the core areas that are going to enable us to reach longer term strategic goals.”

In our conversation I detect a sense of a culture shift behind some of the discussions about how to do digital transformation. Put it like this: nobody is saying that higher education leaders of previous decades didn’t practice empathy, careful listening, and value an evidence base. It’s just that when times are tough, these qualities come to the fore as being among the critical tools for institutional success.

Spirit of collaboration

There’s a wider culture shift going on in the sector as well, as financial pressures and the sense that a competitive approach is not serving higher education well turns minds towards where the sector could be more collaborative in its approach. Digital is an area that can sometimes be thought of as a competitive space – but arguably that’s mistaking the tech for the impact you hope it will have. Institutions working on digital transformation are better served by learning from others’ experience, and finding opportunities to pool resources and risk, than by going it alone.

“Digital can be seen as a competitive space, but collaboration outweighs and has far more benefits than competition,” says Sarah. “We can all learn together as a sector, as long as we can keep sharing that spirit of internal and external collaboration we can continue that momentum and be stronger together.”

This is especially relevant for those institutions whose leaders may secretly feel they are “behind the curve” on digital transformation and experience a sense of anxiety that their institution needs to scramble to “catch up”. The metaphor of the race is less than helpful in this context, creating anxiety rather than a sense of strategic purpose. Sarah believes that no institution can legitimately consider itself “ahead of the curve” – and that all should have the opportunity to learn from each other:

“We are all on a journey, so some might be ahead in some aspects but definitely not all,” says Sarah. “No-one is behind the curve but everyone is approaching this in a slightly different way, so don’t feel ‘we have to do this ourselves’; use networks and seek help – that is our role as Jisc to support the sector.”

Jisc is hosting Digifest in Birmingham on 11-12 March – sign up here for online access to sessions.

Source link

March 10, 2025
The higher education sector needs to come together to renew its commitment to enhancing student engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh student engagement thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory into practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

February 3, 2025
The higher education sector should welcome the new proposals on franchise provision but still act to hold the Office for Students and Ministers to account – by Professor Nick Braisby

The Regulation of Franchise Provision

The Government have opened a consultation on the regulation of franchise provision, proposing that all franchisees (delivery partners) with more than 300 students should be regulated by the Office for Students (OfS). Smaller providers will not need to be regulated; larger providers that the OfS does not register in time will not be able to access student finance.

Regulating delivery partners is a positive step forward and the sector should welcome the Government’s proposals. Indeed, my colleagues and I called for just such a move in a recent HEPI report. But whether these proposals will work in practice depends on at least three different aspects of implementation: registration; quality; and duplication of regulation.

Registration

The Government propose delivery partners will need to have successfully registered with the OfS by September 2027 for their 2028/29 courses to be designated for student finance. In theory, given the Government’s final approach will be confirmed in the summer of 2025, delivery partners ought to have two years in which to meet the OfS’s conditions of registration.

However, the practice is likely to be very different. The OfS advise its timescale for registering a new provider is in the range of 41-to-50 weeks, implying delivery partners would need to apply no later than September 2026. But controversially the OfS have temporarily closed applications for registration and changes to the category of registration, including acquiring Degree-Awarding Powers and University Title. Applications are expected to reopen in August 2025, but the OfS is keeping this under review. When applications do reopen, the OfS will stagger recommencing existing cases. It is likely to face an influx of new applications too. Moreover, the sector’s financial pressures, which forced the temporary closure in the first place, will not have gone away. So, there is a very real concern that the OfS will be unable to admit franchisees to the Register quickly enough.

The consequences of not registering a larger delivery partner in time are potentially catastrophic. Even though existing students would retain access to student finance, some delivery providers would simply be unable to continue operating. This kind of failure would be catastrophic for students and for some franchisors (lead partners). If implemented in the wrong way, the Government’s proposals would simply introduce new and equally serious concerns for the financial sustainability of institutions.

There is an alternative, and one which would give stability to students and institutions. The OfS could open a new section of the Register for delivery partners – a probationary register – with more limited initial conditions of registration. This would enable the OfS to meet the Government’s intended timeframe and, critically, start engaging with delivery partners early, setting and agreeing action plans, for example. Delivery partners would then need to move from the probationary register to the full Register within a defined period – two years, for instance.

Quality

Many delivery partners operate in geographic and demographic cold spots. As the Minister for Skills, Baroness (Jacqui) Smith, puts it in the consultation:

good quality franchising has the potential to help more students access higher education, reaching areas under-served by other providers and tailoring delivery models to meet diverse needs.

At my University, delivery partners typically recruit an under-served population segment: 95% are mature entrants; two-thirds are from IMD quintiles 1 or 2. These partners therefore serve a striking demographic intersection. We know that continuation rates across the whole sector are affected by these factors: the OfS data dashboard indicates they suppress continuation rates by 8 percentage points and 5 percentage points respectively. Assuming these factors are independent, the probability of a mature entrant from quintiles 1 or 2 continuing is around 71%, much lower than the OfS threshold.

Registering with the OfS rightly involves an assessment of quality and standards, but the OfS’s current model of quality is too rigid for those operating within such niche demographics. To assess delivery partners, the OfS will need to reconsider carefully how it approaches quality.

Duplication of Registration

The Government’s proposals also include another element which is welcome, that which seeks to remove duplicate regulation. Where a delivery partner is already regulated, state-funded schools or further education colleges, for example, the Government proposes they would not also need to register with the OfS.

There are questions here too about the detail of implementation. Is it right, for example, that those Police and Crime Commissioners who are also delivery partners, need no further regulation in respect of quality and standards? But mostly what is worrying about this aspect of the proposals is the suggestion that delivery and lead partners should both be accountable for delivery. This seems straightforwardly an area of duplicated regulation and it is not clear how it would work in practice. Instead, the OfS should consult with delivery and lead partners to identify those aspects of delivery appropriate for dual accountability and those to which either the lead or the delivery partner will be held accountable.

Summary

In sum, the sector should welcome these proposals. The Government has clearly listened to the argument that franchise provision, when done well, brings many benefits, and has endorsed that position. There is still a need for a robust, sector code of practice; and the implementation of the Government’s ideas will be critical. But if it continues to listen during the consultation phase we should have every expectation that good quality franchise provision will continue to be supported and the concerns of stakeholders properly addressed.

Source link

January 31, 2025
Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable HE sector in England

Despite it being the season of cheer, higher education in England isn’t facing the merriest of Christmases.

Notwithstanding the recent inflationary uplift to the undergraduate fee cap, the financial headwinds in higher education remain extremely challenging. Somehow, in the spring/summer of next year, the Secretary of State for Education is going to have to set out not only what the government expects from the sector in terms of meeting the core priority areas of access, quality and contribution to economic growth, but how it will deliver on its promise to put the sector on a long-term sustainable financial footing.

The overall structure of the sector in terms of the total number of providers of higher education and their relationships to each other might arguably be considered a second-order question, subject to the specifics of the government’s plans. But thinking that way would be a mistake.

The cusp of change

There are real and present concerns right now about the short term financial stability of a number of providers, with the continued increased risk that a provider exits the market in an unplanned way through liquidation, making the continued absence of a regime for administering distressed providers ever more stark.

But on a larger scale, if, as some believe, the sector is on the cusp of entering into a new phase of higher education, a much more connected and networked system, tied more closely into regional development agendas, and more oriented to the collective public value that higher education creates, then the thinking needs to start now about how to enable providers to take part in the strategic discussions and scenario plans that can help them to imagine that kind of future, and develop the skills to operate in the new ways that a different HE landscape could require. It is these discussions that need to inform the development of the HE strategy.

The Office for Students (OfS) has signalled that it considers more structural collaboration to be likely as a response to financial challenge:

Where necessary, providers will need to prepare for, and deliver in practice, the transformation needed to address the challenges they face. In some cases, this is likely to include looking externally for solutions to secure their financial future, including working with other organisations to reduce costs or identifying potential merger partners or other structural changes.

Financial challenge may be the backdrop to some of this thinking; it should not be the sole rationale. Looking ahead, the sector would be planning change even if it were in good financial health: preparing for demographic shifts and the challenge of lifelong learning, the rise of AI, and the volatile context for international education and research. Strategic collaboration is rarely an end in itself – it’s nice to work together but ultimately there has to be a clear strategic rationale that two or more providers can realise greater value and hedge more readily against future risks, than each working individually.

There’s no roadmap

In the autumn of 2024, Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve convened a number of private and confidential conversations with heads of institution, stakeholders from the sector’s representative bodies, mission groups, and regional networks, Board chairs, and a lender to the sector. We wanted to test the sector’s appetite for structural change; in the first instance assessing providers’ appetite for stepping in to support another provider struggling, but also attitudes to merger and other forms of strategic collaboration short of full merger. Our report, Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable higher education system in England sets out our full findings and recommendations.

There is a startling dearth of law and policy around structural collaboration for HE; some issues such as the VAT rules on shared services, are well established, while others are more speculative. What would the regulatory approach be to a “federated” group of HE providers? What are merging providers’ legal responsibilities to students? What data and evidence might providers draw on to inform their planning?

We found a very similar set of concerns, whether we were discussing a scenario in which a provider is approached by DfE or OfS to acquire another distressed provider, or the wider strategic possibilities afforded by structural collaboration.

All felt strongly that the driving rationale behind any such structural change – which takes considerable time and effort to achieve – should be strategic, rather than purely financial. Heads of institution could readily imagine the possibilities for widening access to HE, protecting at-risk subjects; boosting research opportunities, and generally realising value through the pooling of expertise, infrastructure and procurement power. The regional devolution and regional economic growth agendas were widely considered to be valued enablers for realising the opportunities for a more networked approach.

But the hurdles to overcome are also significant. Interviewees gave examples of failed collaboration attempts in other sectors and the negative cultural perceptions attached to measures like mergers. There was a nervousness about competition law and more specifically OfS’ attitude to structural change, the implications for key institutional performance metrics, and a general sense that no quarter would be given in accommodating a period of adjustment following significant structural change. The risks involved were very obvious and immediate, while the benefits were more speculative and would take time to realise.

Creating conditions

We have arrived at two broad conclusions: the first being that government and OfS, in tandem with other interested parties such as the Competition and Markets Authority could adopt a number of measures to reduce the risks for providers entering into discussions about strategic collaboration.

This would not involve steering particular providers or taking a formal view about what forms of collaboration will best serve public policy ends, but would signal a broadly supportive and facilitative attitude on the part of government and the regulator. As one head of institution observed, a positive agenda around the sector’s collaborative activity would be much more galvanising than the continued focus on financial distress.

The second is that institutions themselves may need to consider their approach to these challenges and think through whether they have the right mix of skills and knowledge within the executive team and on the Board to do scenario planning and strategic thinking around structural change.

In the last decade, the goal for Boards has been all about making their institution stronger, and more competitive. While that core purpose hasn’t gone away, it could be time to temper it with a closer attention to the ways that working in a more collective way could help higher education prepare itself for whatever the future throws at it.

This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve. View and download Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable higher education system in England here.

Source link

December 16, 2024