Tag: Universities

EHRC is consulting on sex in the Equality Act. Universities should too
24 hours after it promised to, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has launched a consultation on updates to its statutory Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of “woman” in the Equality Act.

As a reminder, the kernel of the ruling was that the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) should be interpreted as “biological” sex only. This means that, for the purposes of that Act, a person’s legal sex is the one that was recorded at their birth.

That’s different to the previous interpretation adopted by the courts, which was that the definition of sex also includes people who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). According to the new ruling, obtaining a GRC does not change your legal sex for Equality Act purposes.

In this limbo period, the pressure from one side of the debate has been calling for X or Y to change now, and from another side arguing that it’s the Codes of Practice that matter.

Designed to help individuals, employers, and service providers understand and comply with equality laws, they cover areas like employment, services, education, and public functions – and while they are not legally binding, courts and tribunals often take them into account in discrimination cases.

Given the pressure, consultation was going to be rapid – open for two weeks – but EHRC has now announced that it will run until 30 June 2025. Once the consultation is done, it will review responses, make amendments to the Code of Practice, and it will then be submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval and laying in Parliament.

The consultation specifically focuses on sections of the Code of Practice that need to be updated following the judgment – the rest was consulted on between October 2024 and January 2025.

The idea is to gather views on whether its proposed updates clearly articulate the practical implications of the judgment and enable those who will use the Code to understand, and comply with, the Equality Act 2010. The EHRC is at pains to point out that the Supreme Court made the legal position on the definition of sex clear, so the EHRC is not seeking views on those legal aspects.

Thus far, my conversations around the sector indicate a “we’re waiting for the guidance” approach before anyone does anything – though there has been at least one case where a university has had to backtrack and apologise having taken a decision that anticipated the interpretation of the new ruling.

And that does create both some “race against time” pressure for universities (and SUs) intending to wait for the final guidance given the proximity to Welcome Weeks, and on the expectations people will have for what happens next, which I’ve explained below.

Enforcement

One of the major controversies has been about what we might call “enforcement” in a single-sex space, facility or service.

In other words, if a toilet is marked up as “women”, will those operating said toilet be able to, or even expected to find some way of checking on someone’s biological birth sex?

In the EHRC draft, asking someone about their birth sex publicly, or in a tone that is rude or combative, could amount to unlawful discrimination or harassment. Policies that apply different questioning standards to different people – for example, asking only those who “don’t look like they belong” in a particular space – also risk breaching indirect discrimination provisions, unless there is clear and justifiable reasoning behind them.

The draft guidance also stresses that verifying someone’s birth sex – or requesting documents like a birth certificate – is a step that should be taken only in rare cases, and even then with great care. As such, the ability to enforce a single-sex policy by removing someone is more limited than it may initially appear, particularly for those on one side of the debate.

If a trans person declines to answer a question about birth sex, or answers in a way that is later contested, a provider cannot simply demand proof unless they have a clear, lawful basis for doing so. And even then, their request must be framed within a structured policy that minimises legal risk and respects privacy. The idea that someone can simply be turned away on the basis of an appearance-based suspicion is not really viable under this framework.

Another complication is that direct discrimination by perception applies to sex, even if the person doesn’t legally hold that characteristic under the Equality Act. The draft confirms that a trans woman, though not considered a woman in law, could still claim sex discrimination if they were treated less favourably because they are perceived to be a woman.

This widens protection in practice – it confirms that discriminatory treatment based on how someone is seen, not just what they are, can still breach the Act – even where legal definitions of sex or gender reassignment wouldn’t otherwise apply.

On maternity, protection from pregnancy and maternity discrimination now clearly rests on biological sex – the previous reliance on case law to justify protection for trans men with a GRC has been removed, because under the clarified interpretation, their legal sex remains female for Equality Act purposes.

This simplifies the legal basis – trans men who are pregnant are now protected as women in law, not by exception or interpretation. It reinforces the Act’s grounding in biological sex across all protected characteristics, aligning pregnancy and maternity provisions with the rest of the guidance.

Objective discrimination

Changes to section 5 of the code mean that in EHRC’s view, the Equality Act’s provisions on indirect discrimination now more clearly include people who don’t share a particular protected characteristic but experience the same disadvantage as those who do. This reflects the “same disadvantage” principle that is more commonly understood re race or disability, and applies it explicitly to sex and gender reassignment.

A case study shows how a trans woman can claim indirect sex discrimination if they are disadvantaged in the same way as women – because of a shared experience with women of feeling unsafe. The protection doesn’t depend on whether they are legally female under the Act, nor on any formal association with women – it just depends on whether they face substantively the same disadvantage from the same policy.

This extends legal protection in practice – it allows a broader group of individuals to challenge policies that disproportionately harm one group, even if their own legal status differs. It also reinforces the role of objective justification – so organisations must be able to show that their decisions are fair, necessary, and proportionate, or risk breaching the Act.

Harassment

Section 8 explains the general test for harassment under the Equality Act, and the change here is that harassment based on perception is now explicitly covered in the context of sex and gender reassignment. A new example involves a trans woman – showing that even if someone is wrongly perceived to have a protected characteristic, such as being biologically female, they are still protected under the Equality Act if they face unwanted conduct related to that perception.

That broadens the scope of protection for trans people and others facing abuse based on assumptions, and it further clarifies that intent is irrelevant – what matters is the effect of the conduct and its link to a perceived protected characteristic.

Associations

Section 12 explains how the Equality Act applies to associations, and makes clear that women-only associations can lawfully refuse membership to trans women, based on the clarified interpretation that sex under the Equality Act means biological sex at birth.

The example given shows that a trans woman does not share the protected characteristic of “sex as a woman” under the Act and therefore can be excluded from an association that lawfully restricts membership to women.

But it doesn’t say that a trans woman must be excluded.

The complicator that isn’t covered in the draft runs something like this. If a women-only association excludes cis men, that is lawful – and always has been – because the Equality Act 2010 explicitly allows associations to restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic, such as sex.

But if that the association then permits trans women (whose legal sex is male under the Act, even if they have a GRC) but excludes cis men (also legally male), EHRC says that would be applying inconsistent treatment within the same legal sex category – undermining the justification for using the sex-based restriction in the first place.

So if that association wants to use the lawful sex-based exception, it in theory has to apply that restriction consistently based on biological sex – exclude all who are legally male under the Act, including both cis men and trans women.

If it instead admits some individuals with the legal sex of “male” (e.g. trans women), while excluding others (cis men), then the restriction is no longer based solely on sex, but on gender identity or appearance – and that is not a lawful basis for exclusion, and so could lead to claims of direct sex discrimination by cis men, since they are being treated less favourably than other legally male individuals (trans women).

So if there’s a staff women’s group or an SU has a women’s officer, converting the group or position into one that’s about a topic rather than a membership characteristic looks OK. Even if it was about a membership characteristic, as long as it isn’t actively excluding cis men while including trans women, that would seem to be fine – notwithstanding there may be arguments about feelings of exclusion, or expectations raised in an inappropriate way and so on.

Sport

This has been a key issue in the commentary – EHRC’s draft clearly permits organisers of gender-affected competitive sports (i.e. sports where strength, stamina, or physique create a meaningful performance gap) to exclude or treat trans people differently if it is necessary for reasons of fair competition or safety.

Crucially, the guidance affirms that exclusion must be justified, proportionate, and based on evidence. A blanket ban on trans participation would likely be unlawful unless organisers can show that it is essential to protect fairness or safety. For example, excluding a trans man from a men’s boxing event due to safety concerns is likely lawful – if justified with reference to physical risk.

The guidance also clarifies that if an event is mixed-sex and so does not invoke the single-sex exception, sex discrimination claims may arise – for example, from cis women disadvantaged by trans women competitors.

Basically it emphasises the need for clear, evidence-based policies, especially in sports where fairness and safety are contested. Organisers are encouraged to draw on medical guidance and national governing body rules, balancing inclusion with legal duties to all participants. For universities and SUs, there’s clearly a line to be drawn between what we might call “BUCS sport” and “a kickabout organised by reslife”, although that line is not especially clear here.

Single sex services

If you are operating a single-sex service, another revised section encourages service providers to develop clear, written policies on when and how they will deliver separate or single-sex services, while also allowing for limited, carefully considered exceptions in individual cases – such as admitting a male child to a women’s changing room – as long as it does not undermine the core purpose of the service (e.g. safeguarding women’s access, privacy, or safety).

Another section draws a clearer line around how and when trans people may lawfully be excluded from single- or separate-sex services, while reinforcing that such exclusions must always be proportionate, justified, and considered on a case-by-case basis.

And it reminds that admitting someone of the opposite biological sex – such as a trans person – to a single-sex service may legally change the nature of that service, making it no longer covered by the single-sex exceptions under the Equality Act, itself creating a legal risk of sex discrimination against those excluded from the redefined service.

Providers are therefore advised to consider less intrusive alternatives, like offering additional mixed or separate services, or adapting facilities (private, unisex toilets), where feasible. But if alternative arrangements would be impractical or undermine the service itself, exclusion may still be proportionate and lawful – but that decision must also consider how the trans person presents, what alternatives exist, and whether the exclusion leaves them without access to essential services like toilets or changing rooms.

Communal accommodation

This is less common in these days of cluster flats and ensuite, but again there’s competing rights to weigh up. It’s lawful to restrict access to communal sleeping or sanitary facilities based on biological sex, particularly where shared use would compromise privacy. But excluding someone because of gender reassignment – such as a trans woman from women’s dorms – can also be lawful, but only if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as protecting privacy or avoiding distress.

Upshots and implications

So what now? The wait and see approach does mean that where universities (and their SUs) are making changes to facilities, groups, services, positions and so on, or not making changes, those decisions will now likely need to be made over the summer – which means a storing up of trouble for the new academic year.

What’s clear from the guidance is that whether we’re talking about a women’s officer role in an SU, a changing room, a block of toilets or a women’s self defence group, there are going to be options.

The draft seems to indicate that a sign on a toilet that’s painted pink saying “trans inclusive, use the toilet you are most comfortable with” would be legally fine – but it could also trigger indirect sex discrimination claims, particularly if women argue that the policy has created a space where they no longer feel safe or comfortable, especially in settings where privacy, safeguarding, or trauma concerns are significant.

And that risk is heightened if an organisation fails to provide alternative single-sex spaces for those who need or expect them.

In other words, the single sex provisions in the Equality Act are mainly about the ability to enforce and exclude the “other” sex from something, any expectations that are set (and then not met), and the availability of alternatives.

If you can’t rely on the Equality Act to carry out your exclusion, you can’t exclude. As such if we imagine a block of toilets, there will be choices:

Option 1 is effectively to say “these toilets are open to all”, or “these are aimed at those who identify as women”. As long as it’s clear that the intention is not to actively exclude men from those toilets, and that people can use which ever toilet they feel most comfortable in, that appears to be legal.

Option 2 is to take a toilet block currently marked as “women” and to make clear that these are a single sex facility as per the Equality Act 2010 – in other words, these are toilets specifically for biological women.

The same goes for pretty much everything that’s currently gendered.

The complicator in the case of toilets is that under UK law, employers are required to provide separate toilet facilities for men and women unless each facility is a fully enclosed, lockable room intended for single occupancy – and the tricky part is that a lot of toilets on a university campus may well act both as staff toilets, and (service provider) student toilets.

But nevertheless, this still opens up considerable flexibility. Neither the ruling, nor the draft guidance, nor the finalised guidance, is going to tell universities (and their SUs) what to do about a given facility, service, group, scheme or position – and nor will it supply information on the expectations of staff and students on a given campus.

And that sets up a problem for September.
- If a toilet block currently marked “women” is marked up in an Option 1 way, some people on campus will be furious that it’s not been defined exclusively for biological women.
- If a toilet block currently marked “women” is marked up in an Option 2 way, some people on campus will be furious that it’s not been defined in a way that is trans inclusive.
The decisions across the portfolio of facilities, services, groups, schemes or positions almost by definition can’t be consistent – and so the way those decisions are made, and why, will be crucial – as will careful communication of them.

In other words, here in the dying days of May, the time to roll sleeves up and get consulting with staff and students is now – not during Welcome Week.
Source link
May 20, 2025
Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates
The Department of Defense is planning to cap indirect cost reimbursement rates for higher education institutions at 15 percent, according to a May 14 memo signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“The Department of Defense (DoD) is the steward of the most critical budget in the Federal Government—the budget that defends our Nation, equips our warfighters, and secures our future. That stewardship demands discipline. It demands accountability. And it demands that we say no to waste,” wrote Hegseth.

The memo directs the DOD to develop the new policy within 21 days, marking the fourth federal agency—including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation—that has enacted a plan to cap indirect cost rates at 15 percent. For decades, universities have negotiated with the federal government to calculate bespoke indirect cost reimbursement rates to pay for research costs that support multiple grant-funded projects, such as facilities maintenance, specialized equipment and administrative personnel. (The paragraph has been updated.)

Universities and their trade associations have already sued the NIH, DOE and NSF over these plans, arguing that capping indirect costs would hurt research production and compromise global competitiveness, all while violating multiple aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing congressional authority required to alter indirect cost rates. So far, federal judges have blocked indirect cost caps from taking effect at the NIH and DOE. The NSF agreed to pause the cap until June 13 in order to proceed to summary judgment, which is a way to resolve the case quickly without a full trial.

Matt Owens, president of COGR, which represents research institutions, condemned the DOD’s newly announced plan.

“DOD research performed by universities is a force multiplier and has helped to make the U.S. military the most effective in the world. From GPS, stealth technology, advanced body armor, to precision guided missiles and night vision technology, university-based DOD research makes our military stronger,” Owens said in a statement. “A cut to DOD indirect cost reimbursements is a cut to national security. Less funding for research means less security for our nation.”

Hegseth’s memo claimed that capping the Defense Department’s indirect cost rate for universities would “save up to $900 [million] per year on a go-forward basis,” while also claiming that the department’s “objective is not only to save money, but to repurpose those funds—toward applied innovation, operational capability, and strategic deterrence.” The NIH has also made similarly incompatible assertions. It touted on social media its indirect rate cap plan’s potential to save taxpayers more than $4 billion, while a lawyer for the NIH told a federal judge that the cut was simply a reallocation of funds.

The Defense Department’s plans “will not stop at new grants,” Hegseth wrote, adding that “meaningful savings can also be achieved by revisiting the terms of existing awards to institutions of higher education.” The memo directed the under secretary of defense for research and engineering to do the following within 30 days:
- Initiate a departmentwide effort to renegotiate indirect cost rates on existing financial assistance awards to institutions of higher education. “Wherever cooperative, bilateral modification is possible, it shall be pursued.”
- “Where bilateral agreement is not achieved, identify and recommend lawful paths to terminate and reissue the award under revised terms.”
- “Complete renegotiations or terminations for all contracts by 180 days from the date of this memorandum.”
Source link
May 19, 2025
U.S. Universities Eye Branch Campuses as Way to “Survive Trump”

Establishing branch campuses abroad—often used as a crisis mitigation strategy—could become more important for U.S. universities facing increasing threats at home, but scholars are divided on their likelihood of success.

Illinois Institute of Technology has announced that it is to build a campus in Mumbai, while Georgetown University, one of six U.S. universities with satellite campuses in Doha, recently renewed its contract in Qatar’s Education City for another 10 years.

Research-intensive colleges and universities in the U.S. are faced with “new and profound uncertainties” over future funding and the strength of their endowments under the Trump administration, said Geoff Harkness, formerly postdoctoral teaching fellow at Northwestern and Carnegie Mellon Universities’ Education City campuses.

“This means that R-1 institutions will have to seek alternative sources of revenue, including partnering with nations in the Middle East. For Georgetown, which has a long-established branch campus at Education City, the renewal was a no-brainer in 2025.”

It comes just a year after Texas A&M closed its campus in Education City, citing “instability” in the region. However, academics said the decision was more likely a reflection of growing pro-Israel politics in the U.S. and unease with Qatar’s role mediating for Hamas in the Gaza conflict.

Harkness, now associate professor of sociology at Rhode Island College, said the Israel-Palestine conflict put Qatar in a difficult position but warned that Texas A&M could regret its decision to leave from a fiscal perspective.

“The nation’s vast resources and relative political moderation make it an appealing partner for U.S. colleges and universities, particularly in light of current economic uncertainties.”

Although not all partnerships are as lucrative as those with the Qatar Foundation, research by Jana Kleibert, professor for economic geography at the University of Hamburg, found that uncertainty around Brexit triggered U.K. universities to explore opening campuses in continental Europe—as Lancaster University did in Leipzig, Germany.

“Branch campuses are often used as a crisis mitigation strategy by universities,” she said.

“In this sense, it is no surprise to me that in situations of financial and geopolitical turbulence, branch campuses become more attractive to decision-makers at universities.”

University leaders hope that overseas campuses can contribute financially to the well-being of the overall institution, either through direct transfers from these sites to the main institutions or through accessing a broader pool of students, said Kleibert.

Recent figures show that U.S.-Chinese collaborative campuses have experienced record-breaking application numbers from both domestic and international students over the past few years.

Illinois Tech began planning its Indian outpost long before President Trump’s unprecedented assault on the U.S. higher education system. But Nigel Healey, professor of international higher education at the University of Limerick, said Trump’s culture wars could increase the “push factors” toward overseas expansion in the future.

“In the medium to long term, branch campuses may offer elite U.S. institutions an alternative way of maintaining their internationalization, accessing international talent and maintaining a global profile at a time when Trump is fostering a new national culture of xenophobia and isolationism,” he said.

However, he warned that the risks of being pushed into a strategy by suddenly changing political winds is that poor, reactive decisions might be made.

“The winds may change in the opposite direction, leaving the institution with a branch campus that is suddenly a white elephant.”

Philip Altbach, professor emeritus at Boston College, agreed that there are significant risks in establishing branches overseas and that they are not a high priority for elite universities right now.

“In the current situation of total instability in U.S. higher education due to the Trump administration, U.S. universities will not be thinking much about branch campuses but about their own survival.”

Although partnering with many countries may be politically safe, he said universities are unlikely to want to risk making “controversial political moves in the current environment.”

“Top U.S. universities are more interested in establishing research centers and joint programs overseas that can help their research and be a kind of embassy for recruiting students and researchers for the home campuses.”

And Kevin Kinser, professor of education and head of the department of education policy studies at Pennsylvania State University, said overseas partners are not free from scrutiny from the White House.

“The turmoil in the U.S. also includes scrutinizing foreign donations, contributions, collaborations and investments. Looking overseas does not create a safe haven for current federal attention.”

As a result, he said, Texas A&M may have gotten ahead of the narrative on foreign activities by universities by quitting Education City when it did.

Source link

May 16, 2025
Collaborative IT Services in UK Universities: A Necessary Evolution
***Registration is now open for the HEPI Annual Conference on Thursday 12 June, Before, During, After: The route through higher education in changing times, with speakers including Neil O’Brien MP, Jo Saxton, Susan Lapworth and a video address from The Rt Hon Baroness Jacqui Smith. Sign up for your place here.***
- By Pete Moss, Business Development Director at Ellucian.
As resourcing pressures grow, the need for efficiencies in the UK higher education sector is well-known. Not only is every university reviewing its costs, systems and processes, but Universities UK too has set up a new Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce under Sir Nigel Carrington to accelerate solutions through collaboration.

The old adage, ‘don’t reinvent the wheel’ seems apt when thinking about shared services in UK higher education. In the USA, there is already a range of shared systems in operation in the university sector. While they differ on detail, they share the objective of saving money through strategies like systematisation, which can mean joining forces in a limited way, or full systems’ integration under one oversight. Forbes’ education writer, Derek Newton, explains in a report for education technology giant Ellucian, that ‘the benefits of system coordination or more complete integration are abundant and accessible, which helps explain the national trend in the direction of larger, more cohesive systems in higher education.’

Newton’s report, based on several weeks of interviews with US university experts and those going through change programmes, explores university systems’ consortia on the East and West coasts and everywhere in between, spanning private, non-profit and public institutions. Collaborations involve any or all of data sharing, regulation and compliance processes, course and resource management, procurement and cybersecurity. Even some competitor institutions have found ways to collaborate. The scale is eye-watering: California’s Community Colleges alone serve 2.1 million students, which is roughly the same size as the UK’s undergraduate population in its entirety.

Back in the UK, one voice which is critical to any efficiency drive is that of the Academic Registrar (AR). Most ARs lead teams at the coal face, delivering the best student experience that they can. Their insights are crucial to success both at an institutional and at a national level.

Ben Rogers, an experienced UK Academic Registrar, reflects below on the concept of collaborative models.

‘Higher education in the UK has been undergoing significant transformation. New initiatives, such as Degree Apprenticeships and Micro-credentials, have begun to reshape how institutions deliver education, particularly in terms of the skills and flexibility that they offer to more diverse and dynamic student body students as well as to employers.

Degree Apprenticeships combine academic study with workplace learning and require universities to collaborate closely with industry partners. Micro-credentials, on the other hand, offer short, targeted learning opportunities to individuals who want to upskill or reskill without committing to a full degree. Both models demand flexibility, responsiveness and innovation in educational delivery, all of which can be supported by a strong, unified IT infrastructure.

However, the current state of IT services in many UK universities is often bespoke and highly esoteric. Many institutions have their own systems which can lead to inefficiencies and inconsistent user experiences. The lack of standardisation often creates additional administrative burdens and can hinder new initiatives like the deployment of AI within their infrastructure.

This is where collaborative IT services can play a pivotal role. The concept of collaborative IT services refers to the practice of consolidating technology infrastructure, applications and support across multiple institutions.

The potential benefits of collaborative IT services for universities are significant. Firstly, collaborative IT services can provide a streamlined, consistent experience for students and staff. A centralised IT platform could allow students enrolled in Degree Apprenticeships to access both their academic materials and workplace-related resources through a single portal. Similarly, Micro-credential learners could benefit from a unified system that offers easy access to course content, assessment tools, and progress tracking, regardless of which institution or provider is delivering the learning.

Collaborative IT services can also enhance the flexibility and scalability of universities’ offerings. The rapidly changing nature of the job market, particularly in sectors such as technology, healthcare, and engineering, demands that universities are agile and can, for example, rapidly design and adopt new programmes. These systems can also help universities maximise their resources. By pooling their technology investments, universities can take advantage of economies of scale, leading to cost savings that can be reinvested. This is particularly important at a time of tightening budgets and has happened already in other parts of the world such as in the conglomerate universities in North America and Sweden.

However, the transition to new ways of working is not without its challenges. For many universities, particularly those with long-established IT systems, the process of moving to a shared infrastructure can feel like a monumental undertaking. But the challenges, whether at a technical, policy or behavioural level, can be overcome by a sensible change programme.

There are several steps that universities can take to ensure a successful transition. The first is to build strong relationships with the educational technology providers (especially providers with expertise in this area) to understand what is possible. The second is to build a strong case for change. Institutions must recognise that, to stay competitive and relevant in the face of new educational initiatives, they must embrace collaboration and innovation. Collaborative IT services offer the opportunity to enhance the student experience, streamline processes, save institutional money, and improve educational delivery. There is a strong rationale here to think about a future roadmap which brings all institutions up to speed over time.

The adoption of collaborative IT services in UK universities is a critical step towards realising the full potential of new educational initiatives. In the long run, collaborative IT services will not only improve the delivery of education but also contribute to the development of a more agile, adaptable, and future-ready higher education sector in the UK.’

While the US and UK higher education systems differ as outlined in HEPI’s report on the subject, they can still learn from one another when it comes to collaborative systematisation. Ultimately, they share the need to be efficient, agile, student and researcher-focused and ultimately the best that they can be.

Lucy Haire, Director of Partnerships at HEPI, also contributed to this piece.
Source link
May 16, 2025
The era of hyper competition between universities needs to end

When the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) closed in 2018 and its duties were carved up and distributed between the Office for Students and Research England, we have inadvertently wound up the very function that the sector and the government now need most.

As the sector struggles to find genuinely collaborative solutions to a perfect storm, we are weaker for not having the brokerage that HEFCE once provided between institutions themselves, and also between the sector and government.

We miss working closely with an organisation that understood the sector and its individual institutions intimately, so that it could both provide useful evidence and insight to shape government policy and corral us to develop and deliver new innovative approaches to programme delivery, technological developments or systems-level challenges.

The introduction of HERA 2017 exacerbated what competitive threads already existed in the sector, threads HEFCE often helped to overcome through its stewardship.

We are now confronted by the genuine problem of trying to identify opportunities for collaboration from within a formal and competitive marketplace, forces within which have been intensifying more recently due to volatile immigration policy, rising operational costs and reduced student demand in some areas, to name a few challenges currently around.

It’s a problem that the Department for Education’s HE Reform package should actively seek to resolve to usher in a new era that moves the sector towards greater collaboration in the national interest.

Defining the problem

In September 2015, then Minister for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson, delivered a speech proudly talking about a record number of students accepted into the UK’s universities, stating “we have no target” for “the right” size of the higher education system, but believe it should evolve in response to demand from students and employers, reflecting the needs of the economy’.

He went on to talk up the level of demand and credited the 2012 reforms as being a key driver of change:

This government values competition. We want a diverse, competitive system that can offer different types of higher education so that students can choose freely between a range of providers. Competition not for its own sake, but because it empowers students and creates a strong incentive for providers to innovate and improve the quality of the education they are offering.”

In many ways, those reforms and that competitive market led to growth in tuition fee income and student numbers, which contributed to investment in our facilities, community and civic agendas, mental health and student support.

There are of course some restrictions placed on that market by government to temper it (not least price caps), though there remain many ways in which it is expected to compete, perhaps particularly as institutions seek to attract students.

So, when a competitive market starts to falter, perhaps because of restrictions to a key source of demand (like international students) or funding (like a frozen tuition fee), government should consider interventions to address market failure.

Indeed, HERA2017 allows scope for even the regulator to address market failure, so it’s not a lack of imagination on the part of the founding legislation preventing this course of action.

The role of the Office for Students

Amongst its general duties, as set out in the HERA, OFS is intended to have regard to:

The need to encourage competition between English higher education providers in connection with the provision of higher education where that competition is in the interests of students and employers, while also having regard to the benefits for students and employers resulting from collaboration between such providers.

OFS was created to regulate the competitive market. The nod to “having regard to the benefits from collaboration” is difficult to administer in the current regulatory approach.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of how the OfS has invested in regulatory strategies and compliance, but much less of how it has used its scope to intervene where competitive barriers are too great to achieve a necessary goal like securing the sector’s financial footing.

It could be argued this approach reflects an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the powers and duties put forward in HERA 2017.

Collaboration

OfS could do more to align its relationships and approaches with a collaboration agenda. The burden of regulation could be reduced. Its focus could shift to fostering creative and collective thinking about responses to the vulnerabilities mentioned previously, alongside monitoring regulatory compliance in a risk-based, outcomes-oriented way.

Indeed, the UK’s own Regulator’s Code steers regulators to prioritise both ensuring compliance and providing support to grow. Given the current state of finances, highlighted just last week in OFS’s Financial Sustainability Report, it would be very welcome and appropriate for a rethink on how and what OFS could be doing to work purposefully with institutions to design responses to these critical risks.

Where competition divides, we convene

It is not down to OFS to solve this crisis, though we see a major role for them to play if we could reimagine a more effective regulatory approach for the sector. The reason we’ve author this as sector body leaders is because we recognise that our organisations may also have a role to play in this work.

Sector organisations like GuildHE, AHUA and others are well-placed to convene a wide variety of colleagues to help carve solution-oriented paths forward on behalf of the sector while navigating political sensitivities and delivering broader public benefits.

Rocks and hard places

The government now finds itself wedged between the desire to drive economic growth and the prospect that parts of the HE sector are weakening under the strain of protracted under-funding, with many already closing courses and actively shrinking their institutions, which will themselves deliver increased levels of unemployment and lower numbers of the types of skills graduates the economy will increasingly demand in the years ahead.

UUK’s Blueprint, and the follow-on Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce, has done a good deal of the mental heavy-lifting for us all, exploring what steps the sector can take together, beyond or without an increase in teaching funding or tuition fee levels.

But there is so much more to do – more thinking, more activating, and more effort to ensure that those beyond UUK’s membership are included and considered in any reimagining or business case developments that may provide useful paths forward. To be effective and complementary to the work UUK have done so far, we must be inclusive and expansive in what we consider possible.

Many of us have experience in securing benefits through collaborative solutions. Joint procurement initiatives have been successful, as shown by the Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium (SUPC).

Their 2023/23 impact statement shows they spent £2.4b through their agreements last year, generating £116.1m in cashable savings while embedding sustainability, ethics and innovation in their collaborative procurements.

GuildHE’s Research consortium demonstrates the tangible benefits of collective purchasing by providing services such as an open-access research repository and HIVVE impact tracker, which not only offers services at discounted rates, but also extends access to smaller institutions that would otherwise be unable to afford them.

Eating the elephant one bite at a time

We can build on these efforts to inform the art of the possible. Brokerage efforts, designed and delivered by our organisations working in partnership, could facilitate opportunities to reduce the risk of market failure or the need for acquisitions.

If successful, those efforts could give rise to collaborative initiatives that deliver real national and regional impacts, thereby underpinning the value of HE to local communities and, increasingly important, local politicians, some of whom not only reflect a laissez-faire attitude towards university closure, but also make statements about immigration and international students that courts further damage to us all.

The growing concern about the financial state of our sector has led the OFS to recommend recently that a special administration regime for HE institutions be established, building (unknowingly or otherwise) on arguments that have been swirling for years about the need to establish a restructuring fund or regime to support institutions at risk of failure. The time is now to help create solutions to avoid needing such a regime, but to support those going through it if we can.

We put our heads together and share this thinking outward as a call to arms for all those working on behalf of our higher education institutions.

We also make clear that the anticipated HE Reform package must acknowledge the tensions created and fostered by the current competitive market if it intends to plot a practical path forward towards prosperity.

Like OFS, we are not the whole solution, but we can be an important part of a vision which reinvests in higher education as the most impactful force within our democratic society to foster economic growth, deliver improved outcomes for society, and secure a legacy as global leaders – one we can all be proud of.

Source link

May 16, 2025
The era of hyper competition between universities needs to end

When the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) closed in 2018 and its duties were carved up and distributed between the Office for Students and Research England, we have inadvertently wound up the very function that the sector and the government now need most.

As the sector struggles to find genuinely collaborative solutions to a perfect storm, we are weaker for not having the brokerage that HEFCE once provided between institutions themselves, and also between the sector and government.

We miss working closely with an organisation that understood the sector and its individual institutions intimately, so that it could both provide useful evidence and insight to shape government policy and corral us to develop and deliver new innovative approaches to programme delivery, technological developments or systems-level challenges.

The introduction of HERA 2017 exacerbated what competitive threads already existed in the sector, threads HEFCE often helped to overcome through its stewardship.

We are now confronted by the genuine problem of trying to identify opportunities for collaboration from within a formal and competitive marketplace, forces within which have been intensifying more recently due to volatile immigration policy, rising operational costs and reduced student demand in some areas, to name a few challenges currently around.

It’s a problem that the Department for Education’s HE Reform package should actively seek to resolve to usher in a new era that moves the sector towards greater collaboration in the national interest.

Defining the problem

In September 2015, then Minister for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson, delivered a speech proudly talking about a record number of students accepted into the UK’s universities, stating “we have no target” for “the right” size of the higher education system, but believe it should evolve in response to demand from students and employers, reflecting the needs of the economy’.

He went on to talk up the level of demand and credited the 2012 reforms as being a key driver of change:

This government values competition. We want a diverse, competitive system that can offer different types of higher education so that students can choose freely between a range of providers. Competition not for its own sake, but because it empowers students and creates a strong incentive for providers to innovate and improve the quality of the education they are offering.”

In many ways, those reforms and that competitive market led to growth in tuition fee income and student numbers, which contributed to investment in our facilities, community and civic agendas, mental health and student support.

There are of course some restrictions placed on that market by government to temper it (not least price caps), though there remain many ways in which it is expected to compete, perhaps particularly as institutions seek to attract students.

So, when a competitive market starts to falter, perhaps because of restrictions to a key source of demand (like international students) or funding (like a frozen tuition fee), government should consider interventions to address market failure.

Indeed, HERA2017 allows scope for even the regulator to address market failure, so it’s not a lack of imagination on the part of the founding legislation preventing this course of action.

The role of the Office for Students

Amongst its general duties, as set out in the HERA, OFS is intended to have regard to:

The need to encourage competition between English higher education providers in connection with the provision of higher education where that competition is in the interests of students and employers, while also having regard to the benefits for students and employers resulting from collaboration between such providers.

OFS was created to regulate the competitive market. The nod to “having regard to the benefits from collaboration” is difficult to administer in the current regulatory approach.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of how the OfS has invested in regulatory strategies and compliance, but much less of how it has used its scope to intervene where competitive barriers are too great to achieve a necessary goal like securing the sector’s financial footing.

It could be argued this approach reflects an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the powers and duties put forward in HERA 2017.

Collaboration

OfS could do more to align its relationships and approaches with a collaboration agenda. The burden of regulation could be reduced. Its focus could shift to fostering creative and collective thinking about responses to the vulnerabilities mentioned previously, alongside monitoring regulatory compliance in a risk-based, outcomes-oriented way.

Indeed, the UK’s own Regulator’s Code steers regulators to prioritise both ensuring compliance and providing support to grow. Given the current state of finances, highlighted just last week in OFS’s Financial Sustainability Report, it would be very welcome and appropriate for a rethink on how and what OFS could be doing to work purposefully with institutions to design responses to these critical risks.

Where competition divides, we convene

It is not down to OFS to solve this crisis, though we see a major role for them to play if we could reimagine a more effective regulatory approach for the sector. The reason we’ve author this as sector body leaders is because we recognise that our organisations may also have a role to play in this work.

Sector organisations like GuildHE, AHUA and others are well-placed to convene a wide variety of colleagues to help carve solution-oriented paths forward on behalf of the sector while navigating political sensitivities and delivering broader public benefits.

Rocks and hard places

The government now finds itself wedged between the desire to drive economic growth and the prospect that parts of the HE sector are weakening under the strain of protracted under-funding, with many already closing courses and actively shrinking their institutions, which will themselves deliver increased levels of unemployment and lower numbers of the types of skills graduates the economy will increasingly demand in the years ahead.

UUK’s Blueprint, and the follow-on Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce, has done a good deal of the mental heavy-lifting for us all, exploring what steps the sector can take together, beyond or without an increase in teaching funding or tuition fee levels.

But there is so much more to do – more thinking, more activating, and more effort to ensure that those beyond UUK’s membership are included and considered in any reimagining or business case developments that may provide useful paths forward. To be effective and complementary to the work UUK have done so far, we must be inclusive and expansive in what we consider possible.

Many of us have experience in securing benefits through collaborative solutions. Joint procurement initiatives have been successful, as shown by the Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium (SUPC).

Their 2023/23 impact statement shows they spent £2.4b through their agreements last year, generating £116.1m in cashable savings while embedding sustainability, ethics and innovation in their collaborative procurements.

GuildHE’s Research consortium demonstrates the tangible benefits of collective purchasing by providing services such as an open-access research repository and HIVVE impact tracker, which not only offers services at discounted rates, but also extends access to smaller institutions that would otherwise be unable to afford them.

Eating the elephant one bite at a time

We can build on these efforts to inform the art of the possible. Brokerage efforts, designed and delivered by our organisations working in partnership, could facilitate opportunities to reduce the risk of market failure or the need for acquisitions.

If successful, those efforts could give rise to collaborative initiatives that deliver real national and regional impacts, thereby underpinning the value of HE to local communities and, increasingly important, local politicians, some of whom not only reflect a laissez-faire attitude towards university closure, but also make statements about immigration and international students that courts further damage to us all.

The growing concern about the financial state of our sector has led the OFS to recommend recently that a special administration regime for HE institutions be established, building (unknowingly or otherwise) on arguments that have been swirling for years about the need to establish a restructuring fund or regime to support institutions at risk of failure. The time is now to help create solutions to avoid needing such a regime, but to support those going through it if we can.

We put our heads together and share this thinking outward as a call to arms for all those working on behalf of our higher education institutions.

We also make clear that the anticipated HE Reform package must acknowledge the tensions created and fostered by the current competitive market if it intends to plot a practical path forward towards prosperity.

Like OFS, we are not the whole solution, but we can be an important part of a vision which reinvests in higher education as the most impactful force within our democratic society to foster economic growth, deliver improved outcomes for society, and secure a legacy as global leaders – one we can all be proud of.

Source link

May 15, 2025
Victorian universities table 2024 financial results – Campus Review

A majority of Victorian universities posted operating losses in 2024 but continued to boost the salaries of their vice-chancellors, annual reports reveal.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 14, 2025
43% of England’s universities face deficits

The latest report from the Office for Students (OfS) paints a stark picture of mounting financial pressures across the higher education sector.

The analysis suggests that 43% of institutions now forecast a deficit for 2024/25, in contrast with optimistic projections made by institutions that had looked to an improvement in financial performance for the year.

The key driver is lower-than-expected international student recruitment, according to Philippa Pickford, director of regulation at the OfS.

“Our independent analysis, drawn from data institutions have submitted, once again starkly sets out the challenges facing the sector. The sector is forecasting a third consecutive year of decline in financial performance, with more than four in ten institutions expecting a deficit this year,” she said.

“We remain concerned that predictions of future growth are often based on ambitious student recruitment that cannot be achieved for every institution. Our analysis shows that if the number of student entrants is lower than forecast in the coming years, the sector’s financial performance could continue to deteriorate, leaving more institutions facing significant financial challenges,” said Pickford.

We remain concerned that predictions of future growth are often based on ambitious student recruitment that cannot be achieved for every institution
^{_{Philippa Pickford, Office for Students}}

Total forecasts continue to predict growth of 26% in UK student entrants and 19.5% in international student entrants between 2023/24 and 2027/28. However, in its report, the OfS said that “at an aggregate level, providers’ forecasts for recruitment growth continue to be too ambitious”.

Speaking to The PIE News on the topic, David Pilsbury, secretary to the International Higher Education Commission (IHEC), said that university target setting is, and has been for many years, “disconnected from reality”.

“There are not enough people that really know what their recruitment potential really is and how to deliver it, not enough people who push back on finance directors and university executive groups that see overseas recruitment as a tap that can simply be turned on to fill the funding gap, and not enough people developing the compelling business cases that put in place the infrastructure necessary to deliver outcomes,” he said.

IHEC recently released a landmark report urging action across several areas of UK higher education, including international student recruitment.

Pilsbury described the need to build “coalitions of the willing” between universities and with private providers – of data, admissions services, recruitment and beyond – to drive innovation, execute new models and establish different outcomes for the UK sector. The IHEC report warned that “failing to secure the future of international higher education in the UK would be an act of national self-harm”.

Data for 2023/24 from the UK’s Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reflects the uncertain environment for international students lately, caused by tightened dependant rules, uncertainty about the UK’s Graduate Route and unwelcoming messaging from the previous Conservative government.

Total international student enrolment in the UK fell from 760,000 in 2022/23 to 730,000 last year. Currency devaluations in markets such as Nigeria and Ghana contributed to the decline, with Nigerian student levels dropping most dramatically by 23%.

Pickford does not expect to see multiple university closures in the short-term, but said that the “medium-term pressures are significant, complex and ongoing”.

“Many institutions are working hard to reduce costs. This often requires taking difficult decisions, but doing so now will help secure institutions’ financial health for the long term. This work should continue to be done in a way that maintains course quality and ensures effective support for students,” she said.

“Universities and colleges should also continue to explore opportunities for growth to achieve long-term sustainability. But some superficially attractive options, such as rapid growth in subcontractual partnerships, require caution,” Pickford warned.

Against a challenging operating environment, the OfS said it welcomes the work of Universities UK’s taskforce on efficiency and transformation.

The taskforce was announced earlier this year and was set up to drive efficiency and cost-saving across universities in England through collaborative solutions, including the exploration of mergers and acquisitions.

The report comes as UK stakeholders brace for the government’s imminent immigration white paper which is expected to include restrictions on visas from some countries and also changes to the Graduate Route.

Source link

May 9, 2025
Ripple effects of US DEI backlash: What should UK universities do?
- By Stephanie Marshall, Vice Principal (Education), Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of the forthcoming Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education (3rd edition, Routledge).
Warner Bros., Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Disney, Deloitte, Amazon, and Google – these are just some of the companies that have scaled back their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives or changed their language around such programs since Trump’s inauguration. This list, as we know, continues to grow more than three months into his administration. Meanwhile, universities around the world have anxiously watched the US Department of Education threaten to withdraw funding from institutions that consider race in their decision-making, with institutions like Columbia University under the axe.

Universities in the UK are not immune to the ideological shifts across the Atlantic. The Daily Mail, for example, has already drawn attention to DEI spending in UK higher education, with attention-grabbing headlines such as: ‘Spending on university campus diversity staff skyrockets to massive £28 million a year – with one boss on an eye-watering six-figure sum’.

Advocates of DEI have argued against such sentiments, emphasising that ethnic minorities are not the only ones to benefit from equitable and fair workplace policies and practices. The advantages of inclusion spread to first-generation learners, individuals with disabilities and others from underrepresented backgrounds. Proponents also remind us that social justice has a compelling business case. Yet even where a business case for DEI exists, it appears that ideological pressures are beginning to outweigh even commercial logic, let alone basic fairness.

The bigger picture

This pushback against DEI does not occur in isolation. It is part of a broader challenge to the values of openness, inclusion and global cooperation that have long underpinned and defined higher education. And as we have seen in the last few years in the UK, international students have become part of this debate.

The pressing question for university leadership is whether these trends will gain further traction in the UK. If so, what implications will they hold for the future of UK higher education – a sector that has prided itself on the collective efforts and advances made towards a more representative, inclusive offer?

‘The UK is not the US. That is a critical starting point for any approach we have’, Professor Tim Soutphommasane, Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Oxford, recently pointed out at a seminar hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

This distinction is important, yet ongoing political developments suggest that the UK remains susceptible to US influence while facing similar pressures against openness from within its own borders. So, what are some of the risks and opportunities?

On the one hand, growing anti-DEI and anti-immigration sentiment poses a shared risk to universities worldwide.

Leading study destinations such as the US, Canada, the UK and Australia often have an interdependent, shared approach to international student policy. To elaborate, in 2021 – four years ago – fears over declining international student numbers led the UK and Canada to implement measures that attracted more applicants, ultimately allowing them to surpass pre-pandemic enrolment figures. Meanwhile, Australia struggled and lagged behind until it lifted its cap on working hours, offered visa refunds and extended post-study work permits. (I discuss these trends and their implications in greater detail in my forthcoming book, Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education, 3rd edition, Taylor & Francis.)

Roll forward four years, and we can see that restrictive policies in one country create lucrative opportunities for others.

With Australia now tightening visa rules, Canada reducing student permits, and the US signalling an ‘immigration crackdown’, the UK government has a unique opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to assert its stance on cross-border education and research while strengthening its position as a preferred destination. The British Council’s Annual Five Trends to Watch 2025 report highlights how Trump’s first term (2017-21) saw consecutive declines in international student enrolment in US universities, and it would come as no surprise to anyone if enrolment were to drop again during his second term in office.

Way forward

As global uncertainties persist, it is more important than ever for the UK to demonstrate its commitment to diversity and inclusivity, both domestically and internationally. From an economic perspective, and contrary to popular rhetoric, it is worth remembering, as Dr. Gavan Conlon of London School of Economics stated:,

International students contribute nearly ten times more to the economy than they take out, boosting both local and national economic well-being.

Education is indeed one of the UK’s greatest exports.

But continuing to attract international students is not just a pragmatic move for financial sustainability – it is also a powerful statement of the values of collaboration, inclusivity, and global engagement that define UK higher education. Moreover, if there are financial gains brought by international students, they must be utilised to strengthen our ability to protect institutional autonomy and uphold our principles in these difficult times. As culture wars intensify, UK universities must stand firm as internationally highly respected centres of partnership and exchange.
Source link
May 8, 2025
Universities Sue NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

A coalition of universities and trade groups is suing the National Science Foundation over the independent federal agency’s plan to cap higher education institutions’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates at 15 percent.

In the lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the same day the NSF’s new policy went into effect, the coalition argued that a cut would risk the country’s standing “as a world leader in scientific discovery” and “the amount and scope of future research by universities will decline precipitously.”

It warned that “vital scientific work will come to a halt, training will be stifled, and the pace of scientific discoveries will slow” and that “progress on national security objectives, such as maintaining strategic advantages in areas like AI and quantum computing, will falter.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and 13 universities, including Arizona State University, the University of Chicago and Princeton University.

They attest that the NSF violated numerous aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing Congress to unilaterally institute an “arbitrary and capricious” 15 percent rate cap and failing to explain why it’s only imposing the policy on universities.

The NSF awarded $6.7 billion to some 621 universities in 2023.

Indirect costs fund research expenses that support multiple grant-funded projects, including computer systems to analyze enormous volumes of data, building maintenance and waste-management systems. In 1965 Congress enacted regulations that allow each university to negotiate a bespoke reimbursement rate with the government that reflects institutional differences in geographic inflation, research types and other variable costs.

Typical negotiated NSF indirect cost rates for universities range between 50 and 65 percent, according to the lawsuit.

And while the Trump administration has claimed that indirect cost reimbursements enable wasteful spending by universities, the plaintiffs note that an existing cap on administrative costs means that universities already contribute their own funds to cover indirect costs, “thereby subsidizing the work funded by grants and cooperative agreements.” In the 2023 fiscal year, universities paid $6.8 billion in unrecovered indirect costs, the lawsuit read.

The NSF is the third federal agency that has moved to cap indirect research costs since President Donald Trump took office in January; federal judges have already blocked similar plans from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.

“NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons,” the lawsuit read, “and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies.”

Source link

May 7, 2025