Tag: WEEKEND

  • WEEKEND READING: Hard, Soft, Green, Mad, AI: The Skills Squeeze

    WEEKEND READING: Hard, Soft, Green, Mad, AI: The Skills Squeeze

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Fadime Sahin, Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Finance at the University of Portsmouth, London.

    According to the latest available data, approximately 264 million students worldwide were enrolled in higher education in 2023. Reasons for attending include the desire to acquire knowledge and skills, enhance employment prospects, boost social mobility and contribute meaningfully to society. Nearly three million students were enrolled at UK higher education institutions in 2023/24 (the most recent figures).

    The role of universities is increasingly debated across public discourse, shaping policy documents and household discussions, considering the tension between traditional academic skills, employability demands, sustainability imperatives and the accelerating influence of AI. The skills agenda currently sits at the heart of policymaking in England due to the skills gap facing the UK. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement, a flagship UK policy initiative that was introduced as a central plank of this agenda, seeks to expand access to flexible, modular study across a lifetime, reinforcing the policy emphasis on reskilling and employability.

    In a recent HEPI blog, Professor Ronald Barnett argued that policy discourse speaks almost exclusively of skills (employability, reskilling, skills gap) – the new currency of education – moving away from education and knowledge acquisition; while academic discourse speaks of education, but rarely of skills, especially in the humanities and social theory, resulting in a polarised and disconnected debate.

    Dr Adam Matthews, in another HEPI blog, echoed that policy discourse has become increasingly concerned with doing (skills) rather than knowing (knowledge). He analysed both the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper and TEF (2023) submissions and found a similar imbalance: ‘skills’ outnumbered those to ‘knowledge’ by a ratio of 3.7, even higher among large, research-intensive universities that might be expected to focus more on knowledge production. The Post‑16 Education and Skills White Paper used the word ‘skills’ 438 times, but ‘knowledge’ only 24. The shift has been shaped by economic and growth imperatives, accountability and the instrumental role of universities for economic and social engineering, however it also risks eroding universities’ identity as knowledge producers. The same pattern is evident in the WEF’s Defining Education 4.0: A Taxonomy for the Future of Learning, which references ‘skills’ 178 times, but ‘knowledge’ only 32.

    In a blog post, Professor Paul Ashwin cautioned that a tertiary education system built only on skills, without knowledge, will deepen inequality and suggested a knowledge-rich understanding of skills. He stressed that skills without knowledge are hollow and insufficient, because they lack the contextual and disciplinary knowledge that makes them meaningful and adaptable. He pointed out that the Skills England report champions skills, but offers little clarity on what they actually mean. The listed skills (teamworking, creative thinking, leadership, digital literacy, numeracy, writing) are generic and detached from a specific context.

    The knowledge society was built on this promise. Yet in a post-truth era, that promise is faltering. Over the years, the emphasis on knowing – the pursuit of structured, disciplinary knowledge – has diminished, eroded by information overload, easy accessibility, erosion of trust in experts and an increasing policy focus on application and skills, even before the advent of AI. This decline sets the stage for Ashwin’s concern that a skills‑only system risks becoming hollow and inequitable.

    Understanding skills

    Amid this tension, it is useful to trace how different categories of skills have been constructed and prioritised within higher education.

    Hard skills

    Over the decades, hard skills have dominated classrooms, a result of education systems built around industrial-era priorities, reinforced by measurability bias through standardised testing and the privileging of tangible qualifications. These skills refer to technical, tangible, quantifiable,  job-specific and measurable abilities that are closely linked to knowledge acquisition and reflected in formal qualifications. Hard skills include coding/programming, engineering, data analysis, bookkeeping/accounting, foreign languages and other technical and occupational skills. Yet, the balance has shifted in recent decades as employers and policymakers emphasise 21st‑century competencies, including soft skills, green skills, digital and global skills and now increasingly AI skills. The fastest-growing skills (AI) category in higher education did not exist in mainstream curricula three years ago.

    Soft skills

    Soft skillshave long been undervalued and sidelined in classrooms. Strikingly, the term itself was first formalised not in education by the U.S. Army in 1972, when the Continental Army Command defined interpersonal and leadership capabilities as ‘soft skills.’ What began as military doctrine has since become central to employability discourse. Soft skills are interpersonal, intangible, non‑technical, transferable and context‑dependent abilities. They are closely linked to personal attributes and social interaction and reflected in behaviours, relationships and adaptability rather than formal qualifications. Soft skills can be categorised as personal qualities and values; attitudes and predispositions; methodological and cognitive abilities; leadership, management and teamwork; interpersonal capabilities; communication and negotiation; and emotional awareness and labour.

    Digital skills and AI literacy

    Computer literacy emerged in the 1980s and 1990s; with the spread of the Internet, this evolved into digital literacy, which in turn laid the foundation for today’s broader category of digital skills. The digital revolution prompted reforms. The core 21st-century digital and global skills include technical proficiency, information literacy, digital communication and networking, collaborative capacity, creativity, critical thinking, problem‑solving, intercultural understanding, emotional self-regulation and wellbeing. Since the end of 2022, the rapid uptake of generative AI tools has further expanded this landscape, introducing new forms of AI literacy and human-AI collaboration as essential competencies.

    Green skills

    Beyond interpersonal competencies, sustainability imperatives have introduced a new category: green skills. Green skills have emerged as a central focus in policy frameworks, driven by growing awareness of climate change, environmental degradation and the imperative of sustainability. Green skills refer to ‘the knowledge, abilities, values and attitudes needed to live in, develop and support a society which reduces the impact of human activity on the environment’, together forming green human capital. Green competencies are increasingly linked not only with green jobs, but with the broader transition toward sustainable economies. Green skills include technical and practical (heat pump installation, domestic recycling, energy grid engineering, peatland restoration), enabling skills (project management, collaboration, public engagement, digital skills) and knowledge and attitudinal capacities (carbon and climate literacy, systems thinking, environmental stewardship).

    Mad skills

    Alongside sustainability imperatives, a newer emergent HR discourse is the so‑called ‘mad skills’ – unconventional, disruptive and non-linear thinking or experiences in a rapidly changing labour market. Mad skills stem from personal passions, hobbies, creative ventures or extraordinary experiences or resilience stories. Although mad skills haven’t found its place in academic literature, it might have become part of the vocabulary of recruiters.

    Taken together, these categories illustrate the expanding and overlapping landscape of skills. Yet the very language we use to describe them is increasingly problematic. The label ‘soft skills,’ for instance implies that they are secondary, less important or less measurable than ‘hard’ skills, which risks undervaluing them. As AI increasingly automates hard skills (coding, data analysis, translation), the distinction begins to blur. What remains uniquely human – empathy, judgement, creativity – becomes central, better captured by the term ‘human skills.’ After all, we may end up dealing only with human skills and human‑AI collaborative skills.

    The role of the university

    Hard, soft, green, digital, global, AI… the list keeps expanding. Today’s workplace pressures candidates to master them all to stand out. These categories are overlapping and often co-developed. Universities, increasingly framed as providers of every imaginable skill, risk being reduced to training centres. When universities behave like training centres, the focus of education shifts from broad academic exploration, research and innovation to specific, narrowly vocational skill acquisition, designed for immediate employment needs. In the process, their identity as institutions of knowledge and civic purpose begins to erode. The problem is not the existence of these skills, but their policy dominance as output metrics. It is important to recognise that universities have historically embedded broad, intellectual and transferable capabilities alongside disciplinary knowledge; the current shift is toward narrow, vocational, immediately marketable packages. Cross-cutting skills are valuable when embedded within knowledge-led curricula, not as substitutes for knowledge production.

    Yet employment needs are never static. The skills taught today may lose relevance within five or ten years after graduation, with AI expected to further compress the lifespan of many skills. Universities will inevitably try to keep pace with the ever-evolving skills agenda, but graduates may still find themselves holding qualifications in skills that have become obsolete, even more so now with AI. This emphasis places considerable weight on cross-cutting competencies such as soft skills, green skills, digital/AI literacy and global awareness.

    However, in certain disciplines, e.g., accounting and finance, the accreditation requirements of major professional bodies (ACCA, CIMA, ICAEW) remain heavily exam‑driven, privileging technical knowledge and hard skills while leaving only a limited scope for the development of broader competencies. Universities do adjust, increasingly embedding diverse skills alongside technical skills, but structural constraints, sometimes necessary, remain.

    Changing student landscape adds a layer to this dynamic. HEPI’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey shows that almost 70% of full-time students in the UK – 65% of home students and 77% of international students – are engaged in paid employment during the academic term. More students are trading off study time for work to manage financial pressures. Students are now expected to master more skill categories than any previous generation, with less time to learn them. Universities must therefore navigate not only the shifting skills agenda, but also the reduced availability of students for independent study – and, in some cases, even class attendance – to develop these skills.

    Amid these pressures, universities are increasingly judged by the employment status of their graduates, yet such measures often ignore the realities of the job market, particularly for the young. A mismatch arises when well-prepared graduates with relevant skills remain unemployed, underscoring that graduate outcomes alone are not a reliable proxy for educational quality. In fact, the latest Graduate Labour Market Statisticsshow that only 67.9% of graduates in England were in high-skilled jobs in 2024. Nearly a third were in roles not requiring graduate-level skills. The proportion of graduates in high-skilled employment has hovered around 65–67% for a decade (2015-2024). The 2024 figure (67.9%) is the highest in the series, but only marginally above previous years. This pattern is not new. High-skilled employment rates for graduates were 69.5% in 2006, 67.3% in 2009, 65.3% in 2012 and 66.2% in 2015. In other words, for nearly two decades, the proportion of graduates entering high-skilled roles has remained stubbornly flat. This persistent underemployment, despite years of skills-focused reform, may challenge the assumption that expanding skills provision alone can resolve graduate underemployment.

    Universities find themselves caught between competing pressures: policymakers emphasising immediate employability skills; students juggling financial pressures and limited study time; and labour markets struggling to provide suitable graduate opportunities.

    This tension ultimately circles back to the principle of lifelong learning. We need to recognise that education cannot be reduced to a finite set of skills, but must remain a continuous process of adaptation, renewal and knowledge creation.

    Faced with the skills squeeze, it seems increasingly likely that ‘human skills’ and ‘human‑AI collaborations’ may matter most.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Knowledge and skills in higher education: coherence, conflict or confusion?

    WEEKEND READING: Knowledge and skills in higher education: coherence, conflict or confusion?

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Adam Matthews, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham.

    Skills have dominated the policy and political discourse in recent years. In a recent HEPI blog, Professor Ronald Barnett observed how the education policy world has been dominated by the language of skills, whilst academic discourse has focused on education and knowledge. Professor Barnett argues that these two discourses are speaking past each other, disconnected and polarising.

    In this blog I look at how skills have come to dominate policy, political and institutional discourse, present some speculations and provocations as to why this might be, and call for precision in language when it comes to knowledge and skills policy. Here, in both simple and more philosophical terms, we are looking at discursive binaries which are concerned with doing (skills) and knowing (knowledge) in higher education.

    The 2025 Post-16 Education and Skills whitepaper is clear in its opening:

    Skills are at the heart of our plan to deliver the defining mission of this government – growth.

    The skills turn in policy and political discourse has, in many cases, sidelined or muted knowledge. This is not the case in academic literature. The Oxford Review of Education, recently published a special issue Knowledge crises and democratic deficit in education.

    Where does this then leave many universities who are, and have been for centuries producers, co-producers and distributors of knowledge? Burton Clark summed up a universities’ core mission well in 1983:

    If it could be said that a carpenter goes around with a hammer looking for nails to hit, then a professor goes around with a bundle of knowledge, general or specific, looking for ways to augment it or teach it to others. However broadly or narrowly we define it, knowledge is the material. Research and teaching are the main technologies.

    This is despite many universities starting life in the 20th century as civic institutions with a focus on the training of professions. Immanuel Kant described these two sides as a Conflict of the Faculties in 1798. In The Conflict of the Faculties, Kant argues that universities contain a necessary tension between “higher” faculties that serve the state’s skills needs and train professionals, and the “lower” faculty of philosophy, which must remain autonomous to pursue knowledge through free inquiry.

    The Post-16 Education and Skills Government white paper, uses the word ‘skills’ 438 times and ‘knowledge’ just 24 times. So, what has happened to knowledge in higher education? Professor Barnett thinks that there is something else going on other than the traditional liberal (education and knowledge) and vocational (skills) polarisation.

    With all of this in mind, I was interested in how universities described their teaching practice in the 2023 TEF submissions (a corpus of 1,637,362 words and 127 qualitative provider submissions). The pattern of a focus on skills continued. Across the whole corpus, in total, ‘skills’ was used 4,785 times, and ‘knowledge’ 1284 times – that means that skills trumped knowledge by a ratio of 3.7.

    I wondered if it made a difference about the type of institution. We might think large, research-intensive universities would be more interested in knowledge in educational terms or, be more balanced on knowledge and skills. So, I divided those numbers up by institution type using the handy, KEF classifications.

    Cluster Skills (per thousand)  Knowledge (per thousand)  Ratio difference 
    All   4785 (2.92)  1284 (0.78)  3.7 
    ARTS (Specialist) 648 (2.28)  220 (0.77)  2.9 
    STEM (Specialist) 384 (4.27)  89 (0.99)  4.31 
    E (Large broad disciplines) 1243 (2.94)  350 (0.82)  3.55 
    J (Mid-size teaching focus) 411 (2.74)  109 (0.72)  3.77 
    V (Very large, research-intensive) 745 (3.28)  184 (0.81)  4.05 
    M (Smaller with teaching focus) 672 (2.9)  197 (0.85)  3.41 
    X (Large, research-intensive, broad discipline) 682 (2.93)  135 (0.58)  5.05 

    As shown above, the pattern holds – skills are being written about more than knowledge.  Institutions in the clusters X and V (large and very large, broad-discipline and research-intensive) show the widest disparity in the balance between knowledge and skills (with the balance in favour of skills). This is surprising as these are the institutions, one might think are more interested in knowledge production alongside and integrated with education.

    Taking a slightly different line of inquiry, the shift does not appear to be drawn within political party lines. In 2022, Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, Robert Halfon spoke at the Times Higher Education Conference as Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (no ‘knowledge’ in his job title) and used the word ‘knowledge’ just once.

    At the turn of the century, the political discourse was dominated by knowledge and a knowledge economy, and then Prime Minister, Tony Blair claimed in 2002 that this was the route to prosperity:

    This new, knowledge-driven economy is a major change. I believe it is the equivalent of the machine-driven economy of the industrial revolution.

    This was just as the internet became accessible to all and globalisation dominated, promising an opening up and democratising of knowledge. As we enter the AI revolution, why have skills become the dominant policy and political narrative? Skills-based or knowledge-rich curricula debate has been linked to the emergence of AI technologies.

    Ideologically, knowledge and skills have produced dividing lines in education systems politically. Moreover, knowledge and skills are hotly contested in binary terms in schooling.

    In 2016, the Conservative Party held that knowledge was the route to economic growth, arguing that higher education played a key part in achieving success as a knowledge economy. In the same year, the UK voted to leave the European Union, kicking off a decade of political instability, coinciding with political orders being disrupted globally.

    During the liberal consensus of the Blair to Cameron era, governments in England aimed to keep taxes low and markets open, whilst expanding the nation’s knowledge capabilities through graduates and research. They had a broad faith in the benefits of growing knowledge and stimulating enterprise, rather than shaping the economy. They also expected communications technologies to empower citizens in a climate of open debate.

    Now, as we enter 2026, the pendulum has swung firmly toward skills dominating policy and political discourse. Rather than swinging between the two polarising discourses, it is important to develop a practical coherence between skills and knowledge.

    Professor Barnett calls for a rebalancing in debates, our language and our practice. Surely, it’s reasonable for educators, students, researchers, policy makers and politicians to expect higher education to consider doing (skills) and knowing (knowledge) as equals rather than sides to be taken. It can be argued that separating these two very human capabilities is not possible at all. However, Skills England have developed a new classifications for skills which could prove useful but needs careful integration with higher education curriculum, knowledge production and pedagogy.

     The question of why the pendulum has swung towards skills at this current moment, I can only speculate and offer provocations to be picked up in the HEPI blog and beyond:

    • The push towards a knowledge economy and 50% of young people attending university failed to result in economic growth (we might argue that the 2008 financial crash, Brexit, pandemic and many other things could have contributed too).
    • Liberalism, globalisation and knowledge came together within the notion of a knowledge economy and society. A populist backlash to knowledge and liberal higher education has resulted in a shift towards skills.
    • A genuine attempt to remedy a left behind 50% of the population who do not pursue a knowledge based academic degree.
    • The internet did not deliver on social or economic positives and growth – as Peter Thiel famously said “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters”.
    • Artificial intelligence is, or could disrupt knowledge and white collar work.
    • Often, knowledge and skills are used as synonyms for each other leading, to confusion.

    Knowing (knowledge) and doing (skills) should be at the heart of economic growth, social change and flourishing societies and not two binaries to be fought over. Precision in the language we use to make these cases needs to be sharpened and made clearer in order to avoid confusion and aid policy and practice.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: On legal education: is AI churning out super or surface-level lawyers?

    WEEKEND READING: On legal education: is AI churning out super or surface-level lawyers?

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Utkarsh Leo, Lecturer in Law, University of Lancashire (@UtkarshLeo)

    UK law students are increasingly relying on AI for learning and completing assessments. Is this reliance enhancing legal competence or eroding it? If it is the latter, what can be done to ensure graduates remain competent?

    Studying law equips students with key transferable skills – such as evidence-based research, problem solving, critical thinking and effective communication. Traditionally, students cultivate doctrinal (and procedural) knowledge by attending lectures, workshops and going through assigned academic readings. Thereafter, they learn how to apply legal principles to varying facts through assessments and extracurriculars like moot courts and client advocacy. In this process, they learn how to construct persuasive arguments and articulate ideas, both orally and in writing. However, with widely available and accessible Gen AI, students are taking shortcuts in this learning process.

    The HEPI/Kortext Student Generative AI Survey 2025 looked into AI use by students from a range of subjects. It paints a grim picture: 58% of students are using AI to explain concepts and 48% are using it to summarise articles. More importantly, 88% are using it for assessment related purposes – a 66% increase compared to 2024.

    Student Generative AI Survey 2025, Higher Education Policy Institute

    Rooted in inequality

    Students are relying on shortcuts largely due to rising economic inequality. Survey data published by the National Union of Students shows 62% of full-time students work part-time to survive. This translates into reduced studying time, limited participation in class discussions and extracurriculars. Understandably, such students may find academic readings (which are often complex and voluminous) as a chore, further reducing motivation and engagement. In this context, AI offers a quick fix!

    Prompt and output generated by perplexity.ai on 7 November 2025 showing AI-produced case summaries.

    The problem with shortcuts

    Quick fixes, as shown above, promote overreliance: resulting in cognitive replacement. Most LLB first-year programmes aim to cultivate critical legal thinking: from the ability to apply the law and solve problems in a legal context to interpreting legislative intent to reading/finding case law and developing the skills to spot issues, weigh precedents and constructing legal arguments. Research from neuroscience shows that such essential skills are acquired through repeated effort and practice. Permitting AI usage for learning purposes at this formative stage (when students learn basic law modules) inhibits their ability to think through legal problems independently – especially in the background of the student cost-of-living crisis. 

    More importantly, only 9 out of more than 100 universities require law degree applicants to sit the national admission test for law (LNAT) – which assesses reasoning and analytical abilities. This variability means we cannot assume that all non-LNAT takers possess the cognitive tools necessary for legal thinking. This uncertainty reinforces the need to disallow AI use in first-year law programmes to ensure students either gain or hone the necessary skills to do well in law school.

    Technical discussion

    Furthermore, from a technical perspective, the shortcomings of AI summaries are well known. AI models often merge various viewpoints to create a seemingly coherent answer. Therefore, a student relying on AI to generate case summaries enhances the likelihood of detaching them from judicial reasoning (for example, the various structural/substantive principles of interpretation employed by judges). It risks producing ill-equipped lawyers who may erode the integrity of legal processes (a similar argument applies to statutes).

    Alongside this, AI systems are unreliable: from generating fake case-law citations to suggesting ‘users to add glue to make cheese stick to pizza.’ Large language models (LLMs) use statistical calculation to predict the next word in a sequence – therefore, they end up hallucinating. Despite retrieval-augmented generation – a technique for enhancing accuracy by enabling LLMs to check web sources – the output generated can be incorrect if there is conflicting information. Furthermore, without thoughtful use, there is an additional concern that AI sycophancy will further validate existing biases. Hence, despite the AI frenzy, first year students will be better off if they prioritise learning through traditional primary and secondary sources.   

    How to ensure this?

    Certainly, we cannot prohibit student’s from using AI in a private setting; but we can mitigate the problem of overreliance by designing authentic assessments evaluated exclusively through in-person exams/presentations. This is more likely to encourage deeper engagement with the module. Now more than ever, this is critical. Despite rising concerns of AI misuse and the inaccuracy of AI text detection primarily due to text perplexity (high false positives; especially for students for whom English is not their first language), core law modules (like contract law and criminal law) continue to be assessed through coursework (for either 50% or more of the total module mark).

    However, sole reliance on in-person exams will not suffice! To promote deeper module engagement (and decent course pass rates), the volume of assessments will need to be reduced. As students are likely to continue working to support themselves, universities could benefit from the support and cooperation of professional bodies and the Office for Students. In fact, in 2023, the Quality Assurance Agency highlighted that universities must explore innovative ways of reducing the volume of assessments, by ‘developing a range of authentic assessments in which students are asked to use and apply their knowledge and competencies in real-life’.   

    To promote experiential learning, one potential solution could be to offer assessment exemption based on moot-court participation. Variables such as moot profile (whether national/international), quality of memorial submitted, ex-post brief presentation on core arguments, and student preparation could be factored to offer grades. Admittedly, not all students will pursue this option; however, those who choose to participate will be incentivised.

    Similarly, summer internships or law clinic experiences can be evaluated through patchwork assessment where students can complete formative patches of work on client interviews, case summaries and letters before action, followed by a reflective stitching piece highlighting real world learning and growth.

    Delayed use of gen AI – year II and onwards

    It is crucial to emphasise that despite the critique of Gen AI, its vast potential to enhance productivity cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, what merits attention is that such productivity is contingent on thoughtful engagement and basic domain specific knowledge – which is less likely to be found in first year law students.

    Thus, a better approach is to delay approved use of AI until the second year of law. To ensure graduates are job ready, modules such as Alternative Dispute Resolution and Professional Skills could go beyond prompting techniques to include meaningful engagement with technology: through domain specific AI tools, contract review platforms and data-driven legal analytics ‘to support legal strategy, case assessment, and outcomes’.

    Communication skills remain key

    Above all, despite advances in tech, law will remain a people-centred profession requiring effective communication skills. Therefore, in the current climate, law school education should emphasise oral communication skills. Prima facie, this approach may seem disadvantageous to students with special needs, but it can still work with targeted adjustments.

    In sum, universities have a moral responsibility to churn out competent law graduates. Therefore, they must realistically review the abilities of AI to ensure the credibility of degrees and avoid mass-producing surface-level lawyers.

    Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Rachel Nir, Director of EDI at the School of Law and Policing, University of Lancashire, for her insightful comments and for kindly granting the time allowance that made this research possible.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Three reasons why the TEF will collapse under the weight of OfS  and DfE expectations

    WEEKEND READING: Three reasons why the TEF will collapse under the weight of OfS  and DfE expectations

    Author:
    Professor Paul Ashwin

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Paul Ashwin, Professor of Higher Education, Lancaster University.

    The Office for Students (OfS) and the Department of Education (DfE) have big plans to make the TEF much more consequential. They want future TEF outcomes to determine whether institutions can increase their intake of students and their undergraduate tuition fees in line with inflation, which could mean the difference between survival or merger/closure for many institutions. These plans require that the OfS to show that the TEF provides a credible measure of institutional educational quality, whilst also fulfilling the OfS’s central remit of acting in the interest of students. The OfS consultation on the future approach to quality regulation provides an opportunity to assess the OfS’s latest attempt at such a justification. To say it looks weak is a huge understatement. Rather, unless there is a radical rethink, these proposals will lead to the collapse of the TEF.

    There are three reasons why this collapse would be inevitable.

    Firstly, the TEF provides a broad, if flawed, measure of institutional educational quality. This was fine when the main consequence of a TEF award was the presence or absence of a marketing opportunity for institutions. However, if the TEF has existential consequences for institutions, then a whole series of limitations are suddenly cast in a deeply unflattering spotlight. The most obvious of these is that the TEF uses programme level metrics to make judgements about institutional quality. It is both conceptual and methodological nonsense to attempt to scale-up judgements of quality from the programme to the institutional level in this way, as has been routinely stated in every serious review of the National Student Survey. This didn’t matter too much when the TEF was lacking in teeth, but if it has profound consequences, then why wouldn’t institutions consider legal challenges to this obvious misuse of metrics? This situation is only exacerbated by the OfS’s desire to extend the TEF to all institutions regardless of size. The starkest consequence of this foolhardy venture is that a small provider with insufficient student experience and outcomes data could end up being awarded TEF Gold (and the ability to increase student recruitment and tuition fees in line with inflation) on the basis of a positive student focus group and an institutional statement. How might larger institutions awarded a Bronze TEF react to such obvious unfairness? That the OfS has put itself in this position shows how little it understands the consequences of what it is proposing.

    Second, in relation to the OfS acting in the student interest, things look even worse. As the TEF attempts to judge quality at an institutional level, it does not give any indication of the quality of the particular programme a student will directly experience. As the quality of degree programmes varies across all institutions, students on, for example, a very high quality psychology degree in an institution with TEF Bronze would pay lower tuition fees than students on a demonstrably much lower quality psychology degree in an institution that is awarded TEF Gold. How can this possibly be in the student interest? Things get even worse when we consider the consequences of TEF awards being based on data that will be between four and ten years out of date by the time students graduate. For example, let’s imagine a student who was charged higher tuition fees based on a TEF Gold award, whose institution gets downgraded to a TEF Bronze in the next TEF. Given this lower award would be based on data from the time the student was actually studying at the institution, how, in the name of the student interest, would students not be eligible for a refund for the inflation-linked element of their tuition fee?

    Thirdly, the more consequential that the TEF becomes, the more pressure is put on it as a method of quality assessment. This would have predictable and damaging effects. If TEF panels know that being awarded TEF Bronze could present an existential threat to institutions, then they are likely to be incredibly reluctant to make such an award. It is not clear how the OfS could prevent this without inappropriately and illegitimately intervening in the work of the expert panels.  Also, in the current state of financial crisis, institutional leaders are likely to feel forced to game the TEF. This would make the TEF even less of an effective measure of educational quality and much more of a measure of how effectively institutions can play the system. It is totally predictable that institutions with the greatest resources will be in by far the best position to finance the playing of such games.

    The OfS and DfE seem determined to push ahead with this madness, a madness which incidentally goes completely against the widely lauded recommendations of the TEF Independent Review. Their response to the kinds of issues discussed here appears to be to deny any responsibility by asking, “What’s the alternative?” But there are much more obvious options than using a broad brush mechanism of institutional quality to determine whether an institution can recruit more students and raise its undergraduate tuition fees in line with inflation. For example, it would make more sense and be more transparent to all stakeholders, if these decisions were based on ‘being in good standing’ with the regulator based on a public set of required standards. This would also allow the OfS to take much swifter action against problematic providers than using a TEF-based assessment process. However things develop from here, one thing is certain: if the OfS and DfE cannot find a different way forward, then the TEF will soon collapse under the weight of expectations it cannot possibly meet.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING The art of reimagining universities: a vision for higher education

    WEEKEND READING The art of reimagining universities: a vision for higher education

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Rathna Ramanathan, Provost, Central Saint Martins; Executive Dean for Global Affairs and Professor of Design and Intercultural Communication, University of the Arts London.

    The structure of our universities is stuck in the past. The recent post-16 education and skills white paper praises our universities as globally excellent institutions but calls for a reorientation towards national priorities and greater efficiency. As academics and creatives functioning as outsiders, we can use this position productively to define future pathways.

    We’re living through multiple crises at once – climate emergency, polarization, AI disruption – yet most universities still organize themselves around departments created decades ago. Institutions talk endlessly about ‘interdisciplinary collaboration’ and ‘preparing students for the future’, yet their actual structures often make both nearly impossible.

    At Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, we have tried something different. We have redesigned the College by rethinking what an art and design college should focus on and how it can work, guided by shared principles that emerged from asking: ‘What does it look like when we work together at our best?’

    The real question

    We ask students to be creative, adaptive, bold. To embrace complexity and imagine different futures. What could our universities achieve if we reorganised ourselves with the same creativity we demand from students?

    The institutions that thrive in the coming decades won’t be those defending traditions most fiercely. They will be those with the courage to redesign themselves for the world emerging, not the one they were built for. That’s uncomfortable. Structural change is difficult and uncertain. Letting go of familiar categories and hierarchies requires trust. Building new collaborative cultures alongside new organisational structures demands sustained effort. This discomfort might be precisely the point. If universities can’t model the adaptive, experimental, principles-led thinking we claim to teach, why should anyone trust us to prepare the next generation for an uncertain future? More bluntly, if we don’t practice what we teach, do we deserve to thrive?

    The problem: structure shapes everything

    For over a century, universities have organised themselves into disciplinary silos. This made sense when knowledge was more stable, and career paths were more predictable. But today’s urgent challenges  don’t heed disciplinary boundaries and require insights from science, policy, economics, ethics, design, and creative practice simultaneously.

    Most universities recognise this. They create joint programmes and support cross-department initiatives. Yet the fundamental architecture remains unchanged: separate budgets, isolated governance structures, academic staff working within disciplinary lanes. It’s like trying to renovate a house by rearranging the furniture while leaving the walls intact.

    For students, this disconnect is glaring. They see interconnected problems everywhere, yet are asked to choose a single discipline and stay within it. They want to learn how to think, not just master a predetermined skill set. Traditional university structures also inadvertently reinforce whose knowledge counts and whose doesn’t, often privileging Western over non-Western perspectives, theory over practice, and individual achievement over collective wisdom. In an era demanding intercultural, community-centred, and future-focused approaches, these inherited biases have become institutional liabilities.

    The experiment: principles before structure

    Central Saint Martins’ transformation began with a fundamental question: ‘What does it look like when we work together at our best?’ From this inquiry emerged five core principles that now guide decision-making at College level: address shared conditions that transcend disciplines; seek common ground through equitable collaboration; treat the whole life of the College as creative material; bring practice to every space; and deepen connections with communities beyond our walls. These aren’t aspirational statements. They’re operational principles that inform the creation of a new structure: ‘Schools of Thought’.

    Three schools of thought: foundations, not hierarchies

    Most university ‘schools’ function as management layers above departments with administrative structures for top-down control. At Central Saint Martins, we are inverting this model. Our Schools of Thought establish shared foundations beneath courses and programmes, creating common ground where disciplines naturally converge.

    Each school aims to be transdisciplinary (integrating ways of thinking), not merely multidisciplinary (putting disciplines side-by-side). They’re collective, not just collaborative. The naming strategy – C + S + M = CSM – emphasises the whole over parts. Rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries, they create space for working across schools while adapting to changing conditions.


    C School [Culture]     explores culture as a vital form of enquiry and expression, developing thinking and practice across art, performance and curation. It recognises culture in the immediate world around us, understanding it as a sense-making activity.


    S School [Systems]     explores how different forms of designing allow us to understand and intervene in the complex human systems shaping our world through graphic communication, product and industrial design, architecture, business innovation, and creative enterprise.


    M School [Materials]     investigates radical approaches to materials, making, and meaning-making through fashion, textiles, and jewellery to digital interaction, scientific innovation, and multi-species regeneration.

    Why principles matter more than plans

    What makes this transformation different from typical restructuring is its foundation in shared principles rather than predetermined outcomes. The principles emerged from collective reflection on the College’s actual lived experience, examining when authentic collaboration and meaningful impact happen. They aim to capture the heart of the College’s culture rather than imposing an abstract ideal. They create coherence without rigidity, alignment without conformity.

    Schools of Thought are not viewed as resolved but as vehicles for ongoing transformation. They provide low-walled frameworks for continuous evolution, adapting to changing conditions while staying true to core values. As communities and conversations develop, the schools themselves will transform, shaped by the very practices they enable.

    The deeper shift: embedding justice and sustainability

    Traditionally, art and design education has reinforced colonial perspectives, unsustainable production and cultural hierarchies; biases that reproduce invisibly through inherited disciplinary structures. The principle of ‘addressing shared conditions’ makes complicity in global crises unavoidable rather than optional, preventing justice and sustainability from being relegated to elective courses or diversity initiatives.

    ‘Seeking common ground’” creates space for marginalised knowledge systems, while ‘taking the whole life of the College as material’ reveals institutional truths through the lived experiences of our staff and our students rather than stated values alone.

    We can’t truly prepare students for the climate crisis, technological disruption, or polarisation by adding modules to unchanged systems. The structure needs to embody the values and capacities these challenges demand.

    What creativity teaches

    Creative education isn’t primarily about self-expression or beautiful objects. But approached as Central Saint Martins has, creativity becomes a methodology for engaging with uncertainty as traditional certainties collapse.

    ‘Bring practice to every space’ makes thinking-in-formation visible, cultivating comfort with ambiguity and the capacity to learn from failure—all critical for navigating unpredictable futures. “Deepen external connections” recognises that knowledge develops through genuine dialogue with communities beyond institutional walls, not expert pronouncements.

    These approaches value prototyping and iteration over perfect solutions, holding contradictory ideas simultaneously, collaborating across difference, and making abstract possibilities tangible. We want to apply creative principles to institutional transformation, treating the restructuring as an experimental, collaborative, and iterative process rather than a top-down plan.

    Lessons for all higher education

    Although rooted in creative arts, the principles-led approach transfers across sectors. Imperial College London’s recently launched Schools of Convergence Science reflects similar recognition that traditional structures no longer serve contemporary challenges. Structural change requires more than new organisational charts. It requires:

    • Culture shifts embedded in governance: Principles that guide decision-making at every level, ensuring new structures don’t simply replicate old patterns.
    • Foundation-level transformation: Creating common ground where collaboration becomes natural rather than requiring special initiatives.
    • Recognition of complicity: Acknowledging how inherited structures perpetuate problems, then actively working to transform those conditions.
    • Treating institutional structure as material: Applying the same creative, experimental, iterative approaches we teach students.
    • Making the whole life of the institution visible: Valuing informal experience alongside formal roles, practice alongside theory, collective wisdom alongside individual expertise.

    Any university can ask itself: What principles characterise when we work at our best? How could we design structures that enable rather than constrain that work? What would it mean to organise around shared conditions rather than inherited categories?

    As higher education gets increasingly othered in new policies, outsiders can provide the breakthroughs needed by taking a fresh perspective. As ‘The genius of the amateur’ points out, outsiders often succeed because progress is about generating models which we then test, apply and refine. We can’t do this alone at Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, we need to do this collectively: to genuinely practice for ourselves what we teach and to create a space which isn’t about silos or othering but where all of us are welcome.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The teacher training placement crisis

    WEEKEND READING: The teacher training placement crisis

    This blog was kindly authored by Juliette Claro, Lecturer in Education St Mary’s University Twickenham.

    Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers across England are facing an escalating crisis: a growing inability to secure sufficient school placements for trainee teachers. With an average of 20 to 25% of unplaced trainee teachers, September 2025 has been challenging for universities and ITE providers. Despite policy ambitions to strengthen teacher supply, the reality on the ground is that many trainees’ hopes to start their first school placement in September were shattered due to a lack of school placements, especially in the secondary routes. This bottleneck threatens not only the future workforce but also the integrity of teacher training itself.

    A system under strain

    According to the Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2025 by the National Foundation for Educational Research, recruitment into ITE remains persistently below target, with secondary subjects like Physics and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) facing the most acute shortages. In 2024/25, Physics recruitment reached just 17% of its target, while MFL hovered at 33%. These figures reflect a long-standing trend, exacerbated by declining interest in teaching and competition from other professions.

    But even when trainees are recruited, sometimes through international routes at considerable expense, placing them in schools has become increasingly difficult. The Department for Education’s Initial Teacher Education Thematic Monitoring Visits Overview Report (2025) highlights that many providers struggle to find schools with sufficient mentor capacity and subject expertise. The report reinforced the point that mentoring pre-service teachers in schools often relies on the goodwill of teachers, and when too many providers operate in one local area, competition becomes unsustainable. This is particularly problematic in shortage subjects, where schools may lack qualified specialists to support trainees effectively, for example, in Physics or Languages.      

    Mentoring is a cornerstone of effective teacher training. Yet research in 2024 from the National Institute of Teaching (reveals that mentors are often overstretched, under-recognised, and inadequately supported. Many people report sacrificing their own planning time or juggling mentoring duties alongside full teaching loads. As a result, there may be a rise in reluctance among teachers to take on mentoring roles, especially in high-pressure environments.

    The government offers funding that aims to support mentor training and leadership, including grants for lead mentors, mentors and intensive training. However, these are often paid in arrears and come with complex conditions, making them less accessible to schools already grappling with budget constraints. Moreover, the funding does not always reflect the true cost of releasing staff from teaching duties to support trainees in schools.

    Routes into teaching: a fragmented landscape?

    The diversity of routes into teaching (School Direct, university-led PGCEs, Teach First, apprenticeships was designed to offer flexibility. But for ITE providers, it has created logistical headaches. Each route comes with its own placement requirements, mentor expectation, and funding mechanisms. Coordinating placements across this fragmented landscape is time-consuming and often leads to duplication or competition for limited school capacity.

    As universities continue to battle through their own funding crises, competition for recruitment and placements clash with other local providers and alliances of School- Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT), resulting in a lot of demands but not enough offers for placements.

    The 2024 ITE market reforms, which led to the de-accreditation of 68 providers, further destabilised the system. While many have partnered with accredited institutions to continue offering courses, the disruption has strained relationships between providers and with placement schools, resulting in reducing the overall number of placements available, where too many ITE providers end up saturating the same local areas for school placements.

    The subject specialist shortages

    The shortage of subject specialists is not just a recruitment issue: it is also a placement issue. In their 2025 report and recommendations for recruitment, retention and retraining the Institute of Physics (IoP)  revealed that 58% of GCSE lessons in England are taught by non-Physics specialists.

    When 25% of secondary schools do not have a Physics specialist teacher in-house and 63% of schools struggle to recruit specialist MFL teachers (British Council Language Trends 2025), it is no surprise that priorities for some school leaders is on the teaching of their students and not the mentoring trainee teachers. In many schools, Biology or Chemistry teachers cover Physics content, making it difficult to offer meaningful placements for Physics trainees. The same applies to Modern Foreign Languages, where schools often lack the breadth of language expertise needed to support trainees effectively. As non-core subjects may suffer from reduced curriculum time, finding enough teaching hours to allocate to a trainee teacher can become another challenge for some schools. Finally, as the recruitment crisis becomes more acute in more deprived areas, finding suitable mentors for trainee teachers in these areas become increasingly complex.

    Without subject specialists, trainees may be placed in environments where they cannot observe or practise high-quality teaching in their discipline. This undermines the quality of training and risks having Early Career Teachers feeling ill-prepared for the classroom.

    Teacher workload: the silent barrier

    Teacher workload remains one of the most significant barriers to placement availability. The Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders Wave 3 Report (DfE, 2025) found that 90% of teachers considering leaving the profession cited high workload as a key factor. With rising demands around behaviour management, curriculum delivery and accountability, many teachers simply do not have the bandwidth to mentor trainees. Reduced school funding, less staff and more demands on schoolteachers has meant that it is not uncommon to have weekly meetings between teachers and trainees organised out of school hours, at 8am or at 5pm, after school meetings. This is particularly acute in schools serving disadvantaged communities, where staffing pressures are greatest and the need for high-quality teaching is most urgent. Ironically, these are often the schools where trainees could have the most impact, if only they could be placed there.

    The perfect storm

    As ITE providers navigate the currents and the storms of recruiting and placing trainee teachers into schools, the strain on school funding directly impacts the recruitment of future teachers. If ITE providers cannot provide school placements, teachers and schools cannot recruit. Is it, therefore, time to reconsider and revalue the mentors in schools who are the running engine of the training process whilst on school placement? 

    New for school mentors could include:

    • Streamlining mentor funding to recognise fully and value the time spent by mentors to fulfil their role in supporting with lesson planning, giving feedback to lessons, meeting the trainee weekly and supporting international trainee teachers adapting to new curricula where necessary.
    • Invest in subject specialist development, particularly in Physics and MFL.
    • Reduce teacher workload through policy reform and flexible working arrangements where mentors can co-share the responsibility with colleagues.
    • Clarify and coordinate training routes to ease the burden on providers and schools.
    • Elevate the status of mentoring through formal recognition, qualifications, and career pathways.

    The future of teacher supply depends not just on recruitment, but on the ability to train teachers well. Without sufficient placements and adequate training, we risk building a pipeline that leaks before it flows. It is time for policymakers to recognise the strains on a suffocating system if recruitment targets are to be met.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND ESSAY: Summarising and responding to the post-16 white paper

    WEEKEND ESSAY: Summarising and responding to the post-16 white paper

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Roger Brown, the former Vice Chancellor of Southampton Solent University and Dr Helen Carasso, Honorary Norham Fellow of the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. Their previous book, Everything for Sale? The Marketisation of UK Higher Education was published by Routledge in 2013.

    It is eighth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the others in the series here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    We need a reset to ensure the system can play its critical role in delivering provision aligned to the government’s growth and Industrial Strategy ambitions, support training at scale, deliver opportunity and outcomes for all, and reduce the persistent gaps in outcomes for the most advantaged students.

    (HM Government, 2025, p.46).

    As this statement of intent shows, the post-16 Education and Skills White Paper published last month has ambitious aims for the higher education sector in England. These are framed in the context of a wide range of proposals covering not only higher education but also further education and what used to be called ‘industrial training’. So far as higher education is concerned, the main proposals are:

    • To promote greater provider specialisation, including through greater collaboration
    • To increase financial sustainability and efficiency
    • To improve access and participation
    • To strengthen the incentives on providers to promote growth
    • To improve quality

    Specialisation and collaboration

    The Government wants to see greater specialisation: ‘over time there will be fewer broad generalist providers and more specialists’ (p.49). The White Paper seems to envisage two types of specialisation (a) by broad orientation, ‘teaching only’, ‘research’ and ‘teaching with applied research in specific disciplines’ (p.49) and (b) by discipline ‘a provider may decide to specialise across multiple disciplines or to focus on one or two where they are strongest’ (p.49). It is not clear how this will be achieved, but the White Paper speaks of ‘incentivising a more strategic distribution of research activity across the sector’ (p.50). This would be done through reforms to research funding. There will be a more permissive approach to collaboration on the part of the regulators. The Government declares that it will work with the Office for Students ‘to ensure there is a more robust process for market entry’ (p.50) but nothing is said about market exit.

    Financial sustainability and efficiency

    The White Paper confirms the earlier announcement by the Secretary of State that the undergraduate tuition fee cap for all providers will be increased in line with forecast inflation in the academic years 2026-27 and 2027-28. These ad hoc increases are intended to support the financial sustainability of institutions until legislation can be put in place to make such increases automatic. The Government will work with the sector to improve research cost recovery, with measures including improvements to TRAC (Transparent Approach to Costing) and support for collaboration and sharing of infrastructure. The White Paper also notes the potential of AI for dramatic improvements in research productivity. However, future Government support for research will be tied to ‘three distinct priorities’:

    Protecting and promoting curiosity-driven research; supporting the delivery of government priorities, missions and the Industrial Strategy; and providing targeted innovation, commercialisation and scale-up support to drive growth.

    (p.50)

    Moreover, improving cost recovery may ‘result in funding a lower volume of research [but] at a more sustainable level’ (p.52) and the research assessment system will be reformed ‘to better incentivise excellence and support the Government’s vision for the sector’ (p.53).

    Improving access and participation

    There are signs that the Government has registered the scale of the financial pressures on students with maintenance loans increasing with forecast inflation each year. Means-tested maintenance grants for students from the lowest income households (funded by the new International Student Levy) will be introduced. However these will be confined to those who are studying courses that support the Government’s missions and Industrial Strategy. The long-awaited introduction of modular teaching funding through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will also be focused on ‘key subjects for the economy, informed by the Industrial Strategy’ (p.56). However, given that the LLE model is to be used to operate loans for all eligible home undergraduates, it is unclear what this will mean in practice.

    To reduce administrative burdens, the regulation of Access and Participation Plans will be refined to focus on those parts of the sector where there is the greatest room for improvement. The Government will ‘develop options to address cold spots in under-served regions and tackle the most systemic barriers to access’ (p.57). It will also explore the reasons for the declining proportion of UK doctoral applicants in some fields. This could include reducing the financial barriers for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    Incentives for growth

    The Strategic Priorities Grant will be reformed so as to align with the priority sectors that support the Industrial Strategy, the Government’s Plan for Change and future skills needs. Providers will be expected to review their curricula to increase flexibility and strengthen progression. Student support (i.e. eligibility for SLC loans) for Level 6 courses may be made conditional on the inclusion of accredited break points in degree programmes. Universities will be required to engage with Local Skills Improvement Plans. There will be ‘a new market monitoring function, drawing together key datasets to provide a clear, single picture of higher education supply and demand’ (p.61).

    The Government has protected the overall funding of UKRI (at £8.8bn). It will continue to ensure that there is ‘the right balance’ between the three research funding priorities. Some of UKRI’s funding will be ‘pivoted to align to areas of strategic importance as described in the Industrial Strategy sector plans’ (p. 62).

    The country’s ‘global leaders’ will be placed on a more sustainable footing through the linking of fee cap increases to quality (as discussed below) and the projected improvements in research cost recovery. The Government will work with the sector ‘to maintain a welcoming environment for high-quality international students’ (p.63). However, there will be tighter enforcement of visa approvals and monitoring of international students’ course enrolments and completions. Finally, providers will be encouraged to develop ‘civic plans’ that fit with their strengths and priorities.

    Improving quality

    Even though three-quarters of providers received Gold or Silver ratings in the last (2023) TEF, ‘we need to raise the bar across the system…with pockets of poor provision undermining the reputation of the sector’ (p.64). On the REF, the White Paper acknowledges the risk that research funding and assessment frameworks can incentivise ‘perverse behaviours’ with publication becoming ‘the main aim’ (p.65) (why did it take them so long?).

    There will be an increase in the OfS’s capacity to conduct ‘quality investigations’. Ultimately, the Government will legislate to ensure that the Office is able to impose recruitment limits where growth risks poor quality and future fee uplifts will become conditional on providers achieving a higher threshold through the Office’s quality regime.

    The Government will work with UCAS, the OfS and the sector to improve the quality of information for individuals ‘informed by the best evidence on the factors that influence the choices people make as they consider their higher education options’(p.66). An OfS review of its approach to degree awarding powers will include the role of external examiners and ‘the extent to which recent patterns of improving grades can be explained by an erosion of standards, rather than improved teaching and assessment practices’ (p.67). Employers will be consulted on whether the academic system is giving graduates the skills and knowledge they need for the workplace (p.67). Using the model of Progress 8 in the schools, the Government will work with the OfS to develop options for measuring and comparing progress in higher education.

    The Government will also consider its approach to research assessment ‘to ensure it meets our needs and ambition for research and innovation’ (p.68). There will be a pilot ‘to seek better information on how our strategic institutional research funding is used’ (p.68).

    The White Paper in its historical context

    In our forthcoming book Every Student Has Their Price: The Neoliberal Remaking of English Higher Education,to be published by Policy Press next year, we identify the progression of reforms that have enable the marketisation of English higher education. These reforms to funding, regulation and market entry have enabled a significant growth in the number of competing higher education providers to more than 400 (see the December 2023 HEPI Debate Paper Neoliberal or not? English higher education in recent years Roger Brown and Nick Hillman).

    The White Paper vigorously reaffirms the official view, evident in the 1985 Green Paper The Development of Higher Education into the 1990s (Department for Education and Science, 1985) that the role of higher education is first and foremost about meeting the needs of the economy: what Salter and Tapper many years ago termed ‘the economic ideology of higher education’ (The State and Higher Education, 1994). But whereas most previous White Papers have at least paid lip service to the wider functions of higher education this one doesn’t even bother. It is, in fact, the most wide-ranging attempt yet to tie the future development of the sector to the Government’s perceptions of the present and future requirements of the economy, and specifically the presumed requirements of the labour market.

    The White Paper’s impacts can be expected to mostly reinforce those of the earlier reforms in at least six areas: demand and equity, supply, funding, the higher education workforce and the system.

    Demand and equity

    The White Paper is silent on the future size of the sector. So far, the neoliberal reforms have done little to check the huge increases in numbers and participation rates that we have seen. Nor have they made much difference to the continuing gaps in participation by different social groups or the tendency for students from wealthier backgrounds to go to better-resourced institutions. This is because – as nearly every independent analysis has shown – the major barriers to wider participation lie much further back in the education system and these in turn largely reflect the structure of our society and economy. So it is very hard to see the White Paper proposals making much difference to access or demand. But there are one or two warning signs. The stipulation that maintenance grants will be restricted to students on courses closer to the Industrial Strategy will not only constrain student choice but perhaps also reinforce the divisions between higher and lower tariff providers that were exacerbated by the abolition of the numbers limits in 2015. Is there perhaps another potential binary line here, with better off students free to pay to study humanities and social science at wealthier and more prestigious institutions and go on to well-paid jobs in the City or the professions, while poorer students are obliged to study ‘practical and applied’ subjects at less well resourced and less prestigious ones?

    Supply

    It is striking that there are no proposals for expanding the number of providers, indeed the White Paper envisages toughening the rules for market entry, as we have seen. The Government appears to assume that it will be existing providers that will cater for the cold spots in under-served regions, rather than new ones. This will at least mean some greater stability.

    Funding

    It seems highly unlikely that the proposals for fee indexation will be sufficient to redress the post-2016 funding squeeze, wean universities off of their reliance on international student fees (even without the tax represented by the International Student Levy) or restore the unit of resource in real terms. UUK analysis suggests that there will be an overall £2.5bn reduction in sector funding across the academic years 2024-25 to 2026-27 compared to 2023-24. Whilst the intention to improve research cost recovery is welcome, it will almost certainly be insufficient to reverse the long-term decline in research funding since 1980, and indeed the Government partially accepts this.

    This combination of some additional funding, together with a strong drive towards increasing efficiency and encouragement for institutions to consider specialisation, collaboration and restructuring as options, is placed within the context of recognition that ‘the higher education sector is rightly and proudly autonomous’(p.53). This freedom, the Government states, has its consequences, so ‘the leadership of the sector must take responsibility for managing their institutions robustly and in the public interest’ (p.53). The OfS will therefore be supported to tighten the management and governance requirements of institutional registration. Indeed, there will be a ‘….focus on targeting sharp regulation where it is most needed, to drive the positive change required to maintain our world-leading higher education system.’ (p48)

    Quality

    The White Paper notes some of the quality issues that have arisen over the period, including grade inflation and (some) sub-contracting (franchising), most of which are in fact due to the combination of increased competition and reduced funding that has characterised the period of the reforms. The proposal that future fee increases should be linked to quality raises as many questions as it answers. Whilst this idea has often been floated in the past, it has not been seriously applied in the UK since the days of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council when sector committees advised the funding council on the allocation of additional funded student numbers to ‘deserving’ institutions on a broadly disciplinary basis.

    The proposal that the OfS should be able to confine future fee uplifts to ‘providers achieving a higher quality threshold through the OfS’s quality regime’ is also par for the neoliberal course. The potential weight that this places on TEF outcomes makes the current review of the exercise even more crucial, including the importance of designing a process that acknowledges the role of a variety of institutions offering forms of education that might be different but not automatically ‘better’ or ‘worse’.

    The proposal that the OfS should review the degree awarding powers process and the role of external examiners in protecting standards also raises many questions.  But the issue is the same, namely, how and to what extent can the traditional ways in which the academic community has, generally, successfully guarded its standards resist the combined pressures of competition, consumerism and inadequate funding.

    The proposals on information for students continue with the hopeless – in the authors’ view – quest for the Holy Grail of information that will quickly and cheaply enable students and other ‘users’ of the system to make reasonable choices about subjects, courses and providers, the insuperable difficulties of which were explained at length in the HEPI Debate Paper referred to earlier. Similarly hopeless is the idea of a progress measure for higher education along the lines of Progress 8 in the schools. We can only sympathise with the hapless individuals who will be tasked with taking these ideas forward.

    The proposal to review research assessment raises concerns that future exercises could be tilted, like research funding, towards greater emphasis on (a) impact, and (b) subjects considered most relevant to the Industrial Strategy. Haven’t the reforms to increase the role of impact in research assessment over the years already gone far enough?

    Staff

    The White Paper breaks new ground in one respect at least, in that the position of staff, and in particular the precarity of many early career researchers, is mentioned. However, what will happen here will depend very much on how much of a financial recovery there will be (if any), on how much system restructuring takes place and on what form any increased collaboration takes. If this takes the form of institutional mergers, we can expect more redundancies and potentially worsening of terms and conditions. The experience of mergers in HE indicates that the only significant, permanent savings come from disposing of assets: any savings on things like shared services are offset by the greater costs of the managerial coordination required.

    The system

    The Government clearly hankers after a more streamlined system that is both more efficient in its use of resources and offers a wider, or at least clearer, set of choices for students, employers and other ‘users’. As with so many other aspects of the White Paper we have been here before. In the early 1980s the old University Grants Committee consulted on designating the existing universities as ‘R’, ‘X’ or ‘T’, depending on their research intensity. The proposals were universally rejected. In the early 2000s, HEFCE toyed with the notion of dividing institutions into separate and distinctive groups depending on their overall orientation, but this also foundered. The institutions were almost all strongly opposed, the criteria and data for selection were insufficiently robust to be a basis for policy and the Funding Council anyway lacked the necessary powers. The same seems likely to be the case here, especially given the renewed emphasis on institutional autonomy built into HERA(2017).

    Where does the sector go next?

    In our forthcoming book, we argue that the post-80s reforms of higher education in England are a reflection of the key planks of neoliberalism: privatisation, marketisation and reduced claims on the taxpayer. The press release accompanying the White Paper speaks of it being a ‘landmark statement’. This it certainly is, if not in the sense seemingly meant by its authors. If the essence of neoliberalism is the subordination of all social and cultural activities to the needs of the economy, then this is indeed a ‘landmark’ document of which the authors of neoliberalism would have been justly proud.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The future of languages in a multilingual Britain

    WEEKEND READING: The future of languages in a multilingual Britain

    This blog was kindly authored by John Claughton, Co-Founder of The World of Languages and Languages of the World and former Chief Master of King Edward’s School, Birmingham.

    The other day, there was a big crowd packed into the Attlee Room in Portcullis House to celebrate the European Day of Languages – it was a comfort that no one had deemed it necessary to wear a sombrero or lederhosen. It was a co-production by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Languages and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Europe. The French and EU Ambassadors to London were the guests of honour, and the meeting was chaired by that rara avis, Darren Paffey, an MP who had been a languages academic. And he even has a wife who teaches languages. Is there, after all, a candle of hope for us all?

    The event was, like Gaul, divided into three parts. The first part was the noble land of diplomacy, with emphasis on the need for mutual understanding, co-operation and mobility in pursuit of global prosperity and harmony. At least everyone agreed that it was time for Erasmus to return – the programme, not the author of In Praise of Folly.

    Part Two was less to do with the noble sentiments of the Republic of Plato than the sewers of Romulus. It was about the grim facts of language learning presented by Megan Bowler, the harbinger of darkness, who wrote the HEPI report on the ‘language crisis’:

    • only 3% of A-level entries are in languages, and a mighty slug of those would come from independent schools;
    • undergraduate enrolments in languages are down by 20% in five years;
    • language teacher recruitment is less than half of what it needs to be;
    • there would still be language teacher shortages if every languages graduate went into teaching.
    • 28 out of 38 post-1992 universities have closed their language departments:
    • it is now quite common for Oxbridge colleges to get fewer than 10 applicants each for languages. That’s less than Classics, by Jove.

    Nor did the recent announcement about the end of IB funding bring any cheer: after all, every IB pupil has to study a language between the ages of 16 to 18.

    After the cold wind of reality had blown through the room, Vicky Gough, the Schools Adviser at the British Council, and Bernardette Holmes, the Director of the National College for Language Education (NCLE), talked of the tracks across this bleak terrain which might lead to better days. The HEPI report itself makes ten recommendations, and there are clearly things that universities can do to make languages more appealing – ‘Bring back Erasmus,’ they cry. However, the future of languages in university cannot lie in the hands of universities. The landscape can only be changed by a fundamental rethink about the teaching of languages at the very beginning of this journey. And that rethink has to reflect the fundamental change that has taken place in the pupils who now sit in our classes. Here are some ‘facts’ which show that fundamental change:

    • 20% of primary school pupils are categorised as EAL, i.e. English is not their first language;
    • this figure materially understates the percentage of pupils who are multilingual in our schools: for example, I know that over 50% of the pupils in the school where I was head were bilingual, even though none of them were categorised as EAL.
    • in many areas of many of our cities, there are primary schools where 90% of pupils are classed as EAL pupils.
    • there are many, many schools in London, or Birmingham, or Leicester, or Bradford where 30, or 40, or even 50 languages are spoken.
    • the schools with the greatest linguistic diversity are very often the schools in the most disadvantaged areas, areas where language uptake is at its lowest.

    And yet, little or no attention, or regard or honour is given to these languages, or to the pupils that speak them. Instead, in 96% of primary schools, it is French or Spanish which is taught, often by primary school teachers who don’t even have a GCSE in the subject. It may be no surprise that too few pupils arrive keen to study a language at GCSE when their language experience has been limited and, to their already multilingual minds, irrelevant.

    So, if there is to be progress, if there is to be a halt in the decline in languages and in the regard for languages, the answer may not lie in doing a bit better what we have always done, but in doing something different. If primary school pupils were taught not French and Spanish, but about languages, their own languages, as well as English and ‘modern foreign languages’ – and even Latin – the following things might happen:

    • pupils might see that languages are relevant, interesting, valuable, even fun;
    • pupils might learn more about themselves and each other, engendering mutual understanding and respect;
    • pupils might feel that they belong in school, and feel that there is not so great a gap between their life at home and their life at school;
    • parents might feel that what was going on at school had some regard for their history and their culture;
    • pupils might be more inclined to study languages, whether their own family/heritage language, and this could be a massive asset for their futures, in human and economic terms;
    • and, as these young people grow up, they might become the kind of adults who can build an integrated, cohesive, respectful and diverse society, and thus silence the voices of division in our political debate.
    • and this approach would demolish the hierarchy of languages which has so beset us for so long.

    Thus, it would place languages at the heart of our society. That would be nice, wouldn’t it? By strange chance, I have been working with some colleagues for several years to create a programme that does just that, but I’ve reached my word limit.

    But wait, dear reader. As a special dispensation, I have been granted more words in a HEPI blog. O frabjous day. So, I’d better be quick. It’s called WoLLoW, World of Languages, Languages of the World, a brilliant palindromic acronym with an Egyptian faience hippopotamus as a logo – just look at all those Greek words – in honour of the Hippopotamus Song by Flanders and Swan. So, if that’s its wondrous name, what does it do? Well, here are some examples:

    • a WoLLoW lesson can encourage boys and girls to talk about their own language, their own family, their own history.
    • it can explore why and how English is the most mongrel of all languages, a dog’s breakfast of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman French, and polysyllabic Graeco-Latin inventions.
    • it can prove that the pupils can learn the Greek alphabet more quickly than their teachers, and thereby discover why physics isn’t spelt fisiks and dinosaurs have such preposterous names.
    • it can ask why Tuesday is Tuesday here and lots of different things everywhere else – and a WoLLoW lesson might even ask why there are seven days in a week.
    • in a WoLLoW lesson pupils can learn braille and/or sign-language, or even create their own language.

    This looks quite good fun, and it turns out that it is. Another word limit looms, but I can say that it not only cheers up pupils but it also has an impact on those who teach it. The last of my words must go to a pupil at my old school, a Malaysian Muslim, who, whilst in Year 11, taught WoLLoW in a local, Birmingham primary school:

    Working on these lessons, from the very first session, has not only given the children we have taught the opportunity to have their languages and cultures represented in class discussions, but has also allowed me to reconnect with my language and feel more confident in reclaiming it as a part of who I am. I am someone who, like, I suspect, a lot of the children we have taught, has felt disconnected from his language for a long time, and has been given the chance to once again put it front and centre and find their sense of self within it again.

    The rest is silence.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

    WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

    This blog was kindly authored by Naimat Zafary, PhD student at The University of Sussex and a former Afghan Chevening Scholar.

    As I mark my fifth year in UK higher education, a journey that began with a Chevening Scholarship and an MA at the Institute of Development Studies before leading to my PhD in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, a single, recurring image encapsulates a profound contrast.

    From my study window on campus, I watch the vibrant flow of students: a tide of ambition pouring into and out of lecture halls. In a silent, personal ritual, I often count them. Invariably, I find more young women than men, a sight that swells me with pride to be part of an institution that offers equal and abundant opportunities to female students.

    Yet, this everyday scene instantly transports me to my home of Afghanistan, where this picture is hauntingly absent. For nearly three years – around 1,050 days – the Taliban has barred Afghan girls and women from their fundamental right to higher education. Their university campuses, once symbols of hope, are now forbidden ground.

    Beyond internationalisation

    The start of the academic year is a time of new beginnings for UK universities. There is a mood of anticipation, proudly announcing numbers of new starters and, on my own diverse campus, a commitment to internationalisation. Students arrive from across the world, a myriad of stories behind each of them. For some, a struggle, for others, lifelong dreams of individuals and families.

    If we are lucky, we will share some of these experiences and perspectives with the people around us. We will define our possibilities differently as a result. This focus on global reach is commendable and a deep privilege. We are – we become – international.

    But I ask myself a sharper question too. What of those who do not, cannot travel? How do we consider the community which includes the missing, the trapped?

    So, as I look across campus, I see these faces too. Will institutions that are committed and measured in part in relation to the sustainable development goals –  every one of which is behind – take a step to localise, to go to those who cannot come to them?

    British higher education has a long history of outreach. Many of its now great universities began as an effort to take learning and opportunity to provinces where it was absent, or to include within its potential those who, at one time, were told education was not for them.

    That widening participation agenda is now under strain at home and abroad. If you measure the outcomes only of those blessed with an environment and the support to succeed, you implant a bias away from risk. If you effectively close off the means of access, the hopeful will turn away. Participation can narrow as well as widen. In some cases, participation can stall completely –  those desperate to continue their dreams, whose voices are screaming to be heard, and who are simply waiting for a chance?

    Who will answer the call?

    In the worst of times, those who step forward, demonstrate they care and –  despite their own challenges – stand against this injustice are living the most profound values of education.

    Here again, I look out at my campus at The University of Sussex with pride, and I believe there are lessons for others too.

    It begins with leadership and with kind-hearted teams, but also a desire to turn feeling into action. In this case, despite headwinds of practical barriers, the university has undertaken a pilot and has awarded online distance learning master’s degree scholarships for a small group of talented Afghan women and girls.

    The inspiration for this initiative was born out of a stark contrast. As female Afghan Chevening scholars walked across the Sussex graduation stage with pride, in Afghanistan, not a single woman could enter a university, let alone a graduation ceremony. I longed for those with the potential of taking action to hear the voices of Afghan women and somehow open a door, even for just a few.

    Developing an outreach programme in such a sensitive context isn’t easy. Universities have their own urgent challenges close to home, and the many demands they face don’t pause while they innovate in global education.  But principled leaders took the challenge of the absence of women in higher education a world away to their own core, and recognised that this too was their business. 

    Finding a possible solution took time: more than two years of proposals; assessing the situation; back-and-forth communication; and ensuring we were always working in line with advice on ensuring the safety of participating students. It was modest, but it matters beyond words.

    The logic was beautifully simple and necessary: if Afghan women are banned from stepping into the higher education arena, then higher education must step into their own room. This is a practice the Western world embraced during the pandemic; we simply need to apply it now to find a light in the darkness.

    An undefeated hope

    The proof of this need was instantaneous. In early July 2025, the University of Sussex’s announcement went live. Within the first 48 hours, more than eight hundred women and women sent an inquiry and applied for the scholarships.

    That response sent a clear, undeniable message of a thirst and love for education, of persistent talent, eligibility, and an undefeated hope for the future. And now it begins. The five talented women awarded these scholarships have started on the first of these courses with an unwavering commitment.

    One of the awardees described her gratitude this way:

    As an Afghan woman achieving this milestone under such challenging circumstances has been both difficult and deeply meaningful. I am committed to making the most of this opportunity and to using the knowledge and skills I gain to contribute toward strengthening and supporting our fragile communities.

    These students are proof that Afghan women are not defeated even in this brutal hour. They may have to learn behind legal bars for now, but they believe in a better future, they are determined to serve their community and contribute to wider society — given the chance, they will change their lives and the lives of those around them.

    Deeds not words

    To my colleagues and friends in UK higher education, I humbly say this. Our institutions are built on the foundational motto of “leaving no one behind” – no one, not even the women whose doors are bolted but whose spirits still crave learning.

    I profoundly hope the UKhigher education community will look closely at the successful case of the University of Sussex, draw on the experience of this pilot and follow its lead. One programme could become many. A single voice could become a chorus.

    Afghan girls and women are navigating one of the most catastrophic times in their history. The education of women is core to the UN Sustainable Development Goals for good reason. Those who step up now, who provide a lifeline through education in this moment of darkness, will not only be remembered – they will be helping to shape the very future of Afghanistan. As the suffragists once chanted in this country, this is a time for Deeds Not Words.

    I ask each of you not to write off hope.  A dear friend shared a poem with me, which is much loved across this country. It was written by the great War poet Siegfried Sassoon at a time of despair, but it continues to move people because it defiantly imagines a time of release and redemption.

    Everyone suddenly burst out singing;

    And I was filled with such delight As prisoned birds must find in freedom…

    My heart was shaken with tears; and horror Drifted away … O, but Everyone

    Was a bird; and the song was wordless; the singing will never be done.

    There are times a university keeps hope alive, where a pilot programme is a flame visible across the world. It is the promise of a better future through the empowerment of those who wish desperately to build it.

    A good deed can be multiplied. If Afghan women students cannot come to us, let us join together as a band of scholars and go to them.

    If any university colleagues would be interested in understanding more about the Sussex pilot to offer online postgraduate access to Afghan women, please contact [email protected].

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Axing IB funding in the state sector harms our ambitions for higher-level education and training

    WEEKEND READING: Axing IB funding in the state sector harms our ambitions for higher-level education and training

    This blog was kindly authored by Richard Markham, Chief Executive Officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association (IBSCA).

    At International Baccalaureate (IB) schools and colleges, we have always been ambitious for our students. We know what they can achieve and support them to reach their goals. Through its broad curriculum – including Maths, English, a humanities, science, arts and language subject – the IB Diploma Programme (DP) provides stretch and challenge, developing a thirst for lifelong learning in our 16 to 19-year-olds. And, through extended essays, theory of knowledge and service in the community, it produces confident, well-rounded citizens who thrive in life and work. Year after year, we join our students and their families in celebrating their outstanding destinations at top universities and apprenticeships.

    That is why it is deeply disappointing that the Government is axing the financial uplift for schools and colleges delivering the IB DP in the state sector, as soon as the next academic year.

    Disappointing, but also surprising. By axing the large programme uplift – the top-up funding awarded to schools and colleges to reflect the additional teaching time required to deliver the IB DP – the Government risks tripping over its own hurdles. The post-16 white paper sets “objectives” for the 16-19 sector, with the first being that it “delivers world-leading provision that breaks down the barriers to opportunity”. The imminent final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review will set out its recommendations to ensure that “every child” has “access to a broad range of subjects”.  

    On this front, it is vital that we keep the IB alive in the state sector. Far more extensive than A Levels, T Levels and now V Levels, the IB proves that creativity is not the preserve of the arts, nor logic the preserve of science. Both belong together in world-class education. It is a rigorous, aspirational study programme, offering all the advantages of a private school education, accessible to families who couldn’t dream of affording tuition. We should be expanding opportunities to an IB education, not shutting them down.

    The second objective set for further education is that it supports the Government’s “ambition for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning” after they leave school. IB DP students in the UK are three times more likely to enrol in a top-20 higher education institution. Deep thinkers, broad skill sets – they excel at university-level study. DP students are 40% more likely to achieve a first-class or upper second-class honours degree. If the Government does not find a way through, the higher education sector will be poorer for it.

    Moreover, UCAS data from the 2021/24 cycles gives us an indication of just how well the IB DP supports progression into courses that closely align with the UK’s Industrial Strategy priority sectors. The greatest proportion of DP students (4,900) accepted university offers in courses related to the life sciences sector, driven by medicine, dentistry and nursing. This was closely followed by professional and business services – with 3,365accepted offers for subjects like economics, law, management and politics – and upwards of 1,000 accepted offers in crucial science and engineering courses.

    Evidently, this is a financial decision, not one taken in the best interests of our education and skills system. To dress it up in any other way does our educators a disservice. The large programme uplift given to IB DP schools is worth just £2.5 million a year. That is 0.0025 per cent of the Department for Education’s £100 billion annual budget. A drop in the ocean, and yet the programme delivers true value for money.

    On Wednesday, MPs across the House united to fight for the future of the IB in Westminster Hall, calling for an urgent reversal of these cuts to provide certainty for school and college leaders, current and prospective IB students and their families, universities and employers. MPs questioned the very basis for the Department’s decision: “how can the Government can claim to want more students, particularly more girls, on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that?”

    Let us not forget, it was a Labour Government under Prime Minister Tony Blair that pledged an IB school in every local authority, but subsequent Prime Ministers have recognised the value and championed a baccalaureate-style education system. Support for the IB cuts across party lines and nation’s borders – reflecting the shared values of its global community of alumni, prospective students, parents, teachers, and policymakers who see its potential to raise ambition and foster international understanding. That cross-party appeal is no accident: many MPs, former IB teachers and alumni, know first-hand what the programme can do. They recognise its power to develop deeper thinkers, broader skill sets and more adaptable young people – qualities our economy and universities urgently need right now.

    Find out more about the ‘Save the IB’ via the IBSCA website: www.ibsca.org.uk/save-the-ib-with-ibsca

    Source link