Tag: WEEKEND

  • WEEKEND READING: The Renters’ Rights Act: How will students’ tenancies change and when?

    WEEKEND READING: The Renters’ Rights Act: How will students’ tenancies change and when?

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Blakey, the former Chief Executive of the student housing charity Unipol and a member of the British Property Federation’s Student Accommodation Committee.

    On Wednesday, 22 October 2025, the Renters’ Rights Bill passed through its final stage in a thinly occupied Commons chamber, and obtained Royal Assent on 28 October. HEPI has taken a close interest in how the Act’s changes would affect students, and a number of previous blogs that have charted the Bill’s progress are listed at the end of this one.

    The Bill has a long history, first appearing under the previous Conservative government under the title the Renters’ Reform Bill in May 2023 and then being resubmitted, after some redrafting, by the new Labour Government only 10 weeks into power in September 2024. Even under a Labour Government with a large majority, it has taken 13 months to progress the Bill through all of its stages, and that parliamentary process has had to deal with over 450 amendments in the last year.

    This is a substantial Act, and its various provisions will be phased in over a period of time. The Act contains many enabling powers, allowing Ministers to implement more detailed proposals on aspects of policy as further consultations take place. The right to redress (the ombudsman proposals), the landlord database and the Decent Homes Standard are, or will be, consulted on and detailed regulation will appear over the next year.

    Even in the final stages of the Bill, the Government did not give any timetable for implementation. Still, it is reasonable to conclude that tenure reform, which is not subject to much secondary regulation, will be implemented first. All the Government now has to decide is how long it should allow to raise the awareness of landlords and tenants about these significant impending changes, and how long it should give to those running private sector housing to make the necessary legal adjustments for existing and future tenancies.

    Because the mechanics of the Act are now known, it is possible, for the first time, to say what will happen to student tenants and make a reasonable and educated guess at the timescale involved.

    Timescale

    It is now clear that today’s student tenants (studying across 2025/26) and new tenants signing up for the 2026/27 academic year will see their tenure status change.

    As Matthew Pennycook said on 8 September 2025:

    …we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector system in one stage. On this date the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies – existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after this date will also be governed by the new rules. Existing fixed terms will be converted to periodic tenancies…

    So, all tenancies will change on a given date and the familiar fixed-term assured tenancy (AST) which has been used by virtually all students renting from the private sector will be replaced by the new assured tenancy. The fixed term within those ASTs will cease to exist, and rent payment periods in excess of four weeks’ rent will be unenforceable.

    Depending on who you listen to, this change is likely to come into effect between April and June 2026 and so it will affect today’s student tenants.

    There are a lot of questions about how these changes will come about, and it is now possible to provide a roadmap of how this will all work.

    There are no ‘interim’ stages. So landlords signing students up in the past and now, and up to the implementation date of tenure change under the Act, will continue to use fixed-term ASTs because that is the current system.

    Landlords and tenants on current contracts or signing up for the future would best see their agreement as entering into a general contract for a residential tenancy. That tenancy will have its precise status determined, in respect of these changes, at the point when a tenant actually takes possession and can move in (which is when the tenancy is actually granted).

    So, let’s go through a variety of scenarios and see what is going to happen.

    Students currently living in off-street shared houses – a house multiple occupancy (HMO)

    These students will currently be on a joint or individual AST, almost always, with a fixed period stipulated in that agreement. On the date of the Act’s tenure implementation this will become an assured tenancy, and that means that the fixed-term nature of the agreement falls away.

    The Government accepted that, in order to maintain the lettings cycle of student shared houses in line with the academic year, landlords would be able to seek repossession of their property by using a new ground for possession 4a. This allows landlords to give tenants notice of their intention to seek repossession on a given date between June and September.

    Following implementation, landlords will have to notify tenants within the first 30 days of their intention to use ground 4a. After this transitional provision, landlords will have to notify tenants of their intention to use ground 4a at the time of signing the contract.

    Under ground 4a landlords can give tenants 4 months’ notice to leave and can enforce that through the courts.

    Some legal experts have pointed out that if implementation is between April and June, then, as many fixed-terms expire in June or July, there would not be sufficient time under ground 4a to give 4 months’ notice. So, in theory, tenants could simply choose to stay in the property and give 2 months’ notice whenever they wanted to move out. This is the case, and for the first few months of operation, landlords may find that they cannot take advantage of ground 4a –  leaving them exposed if they have let the property to a new set of tenants without having a property with vacant possession to let. Whether a court would hold a landlord responsible for any financial claim or compensation sought by incoming tenants who would have to find alternative accommodation is unlikely, particularly if the landlord had tried to mitigate any loss by, say, finding and offering alternative accommodation.

    But landlords have other things they can do to bring their tenancies to an end over the implementation period. Until the date when ASTs become assured tenancies, the landlord can still give notice using the current ‘no fault’ eviction procedure under Section 21 (S21), giving a minimum two-month notice period. A S21 notice can be given at any time after the first 4 months of the AST, so most landlords will issue a S21 notice to their resident students while the tenancy is still an AST, giving them, in most cases, a right of repossession at the end of their AST fixed term. The Renters’ Rights Act does not revoke a valid S21 notice. Only after tenure change has been implemented is it no longer possible to issue a valid S21 notice.

    So long as the landlord gives notice under S21 on an existing AST before the introduction of assured tenancies, they will be able (as they are at present) to assume that tenants leave and new tenants will arrive as normal.

    It is just worth noting that serving a notice of intention to seek repossession does not mean a tenant can be removed from the property, and only a Court can evict a tenant. This is the case now, but generally, very few students fail to leave at the end of their tenancy, so it is important not to predict problems where these have not occurred in the past.

    Students currently living in smaller off-street houses

    This is the same as stipulated above for a shared house in respect of serving a valid S21 notice, but here, once the Act has been implemented, ground 4a cannot be used because its use is restricted to only off-street HMOs. So once tenure reform has taken place and the time period for issuing S21 notices has expired, tenants in this kind of property can remain as long as they wish until they give 2 months’ notice to leave. Landlords letting these smaller houses and flats may well find that they are housing non-students.

    Several attempts were made during the discussion of the Bill to extend ground 4a to all properties occupied by students, but the Government firmly rejected that approach.

    Baroness Taylor of Stevenage made the Government’s position clear on 15 October 2025:

    The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure – such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area – being evicted more regularly.

    So the Government expects that some property previously occupied by students is likely to remain occupied, and this stock will therefore leave the student market and enter the general rental market.

    Students living in off-street housing after implementation

    These students will have assured tenancy status and will fall fully under the provisions of the new Act. With the exception of ground 4a in shared student houses, they will be able to stay as long as they wish in the property until they give notice and will be able to give 2 months’ notice, at any stage of the year, to leave the property.

    Currently, they will be signed up using ASTs but after implementation, most of those tenure conditions will be replaced by the provisions of the new Act.

    Students currently living in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)

    The Government decided that private PBSA that had signed up to the government-approved codes of practice (The ANUK/Unipol Code) should be removed from the effects of the Act by changing ‘specified educational institutions’ to ‘specified institutions’ under provisions to be found in the 1988 Housing Act. This technical change means that PBSA providers will become specified institutions (as most educational institutions already are) and their tenancies will be common law tenancies, and this means that fixed-term tenancies can continue in those properties.

    But existing contracts in private sector PBSA will go through a ‘transitional period’ because only tenancies granted after specified status has been granted will be common law tenancies.

    As the Government explained:

    To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of these existing PBSA tenancies into what is known as a ‘common law’ tenancy: that is, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as those PBSA tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the assured shorthold tenancies they will have signed… We do not consider it to be the right approach, therefore, to simply exempt pre-existing PBSA tenancies from assured tenancy status.

    So existing AST tenancies in PBSA will fall under the assured tenancy status. After specified status has been granted (which will be from the date of tenure implementation) then future tenancies will be common law tenancies.

    The Government made some special concessions to minimise these ‘transitional effects’. This means the property will not have to be an HMO to use ground 4a repossession, and the July to September time frame 4a will not apply.

    PBSA providers will still be able to use S21 notices (as detailed previously) before implementation, and after that they will be able to use new ground 4a on all PBSA properties. This is likely to be useful because tenancies ending in September (mainly relating to studios) will allow sufficient time to give those tenants 4 months’ notice under the new Act.

    There will still be a moment of anxiety if a student who is not issued with a S21 notice decides simply to stay, although they could be given 4 months’ notice under new ground 4a at any stage after implementation. This risk is, however, much lower for PBSA where it is likely, if any inconvenience occurred for incoming tenants because of a ‘stayer’, that alternative accommodation may be available to be provided within the same building or in a nearby building, so the risk to the provider will be mitigated.

    Students signing up to live in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in the future

    At present, students will continue to be signed up on ASTs because that is the current system.

    As mentioned previously, any new tenancy will have its status determined by when a tenant ‘takes possession’ and can move in (which is when the tenancy is actually granted). If the moving-in date occurs after the PBSA manager / supplier has specified status, then tenants will have a common law tenancy. This common law tenancy means that the terms of the letting are those outlined in the tenancy agreement between the tenant and the landlord, and these will fall outside of the tenure provisions of the Act, which applies primarily to assured tenancies. A common law tenancy allows for fixed-term tenancies where repossession can be granted on the contractual terms outlined in the tenancy agreement, and rent payment periods will be as detailed in the tenancy.

    Although tenants in PBSA will have fewer rights under the Act than other tenants, membership of the Approved Code will ensure deposit protection continues and that tenants can give 4 weeks’ notice if they fail to get their required grades and no longer need their accommodation, if they stop studying and leave the institution, or they withdraw because of illness. The Code complaints system has also been tightened and improved. So tenants renting from PBSA will still see an improvement in tenure flexibility.

    Most tenancies in PBSA for 2026/27 are likely to be common law tenancies because they will come into effect after specified status has been granted.

    Conclusion

    So long as implementation takes place around April to June 2026, the annual summer 2026 changeover should be relatively smooth. The use of S21 notices by landlords is likely to be widespread and should ensure most tenancies can be brought to an end. In the unlikely event that implementation is earlier than April, then the 4 months’ notice under new ground 4a can also be used.

    The danger area relates to off-street non-HMOs and how many of those students, or ex-students, will choose to stay, reducing that supply of housing to future students. The prediction is that, over a couple of letting cycles, much of this type of housing will join the mainstream housing rental stock and move outside of the timing of the academic cycle. Educational institutions and students’ unions would be wise to try to monitor that shift and any loss of this accommodation to determine its effect on admissions.

    One interesting provision, regarding the use of ground 4a is that, for future signings, it will not apply if students signed their contracts 6 months before they can move in. It will be interesting to see whether this has any impact on ‘early letting’ in the off-street market and whether this impacts current PBSA practices.

    What can educational institutions and their students’ unions do to assist in the smooth implementation of the Act?

    Anything to do with tenure is necessarily complex, but every effort should be made to explain to students what this change will mean for them. What information exists suggests that student awareness of the Act is very low, with StuRents reporting that 69% of students said they had never heard of the Renters Rights Bill, and only 15% saying they understood how it could affect them. A recent study by Unipol also reported that 62% of students had not heard of the Bill.

    There will be real and immediate advantages for student renters who will be on assured tenancies, such as the ability to give two months’ notice and, perhaps the biggest gain of all for hard-up students, only needing to pay rent four weeks in advance. In the longer term, they will also have minimum standards set under the Decent Homes Standard and will have a right of redress through an ombudsman.

    Of course, some may temper these immediate advantages by predicting that the Act will see a reduction in student housing supply resulting in rent rises, an increase in the use of guarantors with rising deposit levels (to counter-act the risk of shorter rent payment periods) and that most shared student houses (HMOs) already fall under licencing which should already ensure that the property is safe and being kept in good order.

    The reality is that no one knows how the Act will affect the market and students specifically. With that in mind, it will be important for institutions to try to monitor how the Act affects their students in their local property market.

    In PBSA, the Act will have less effect, but this also comes at a time of rapid change in that market, with issues such as a slow-down in development; the challenges of keeping ageing stock up to standard; the growth of commuter students; greater regulation post-Grenfell with the Building Safety Regulator; and problems associated with higher rent levels and affordability.

    These market and legislative changes will mean that both housing suppliers and students are likely to see a significant transformation of student housing over the next couple of years. It is important that advice about housing rights and supply reflects those changes and assumptions that ‘things will continue as before’ are set aside.

    Previous HEPI publications dealing with this issue are:

    Renters (Reform) Bill and the impact on higher education 24 May 2023 by Rose Stephenson https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/24/renters-reform-bill-and-the-impact-on-higher-education/

    How the Renters (Reform) Bill can deliver for all tenants – including students 13 November 2023 by Calum MacInnes https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/11/13/how-the-renters-reform-bill-can-deliver-for-all-tenants-including-students/

    Students and the Renters (Reform) Bill: the government has listened but it needs to listen some more parts I and II run across 29 and 30 January 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/29/students-and-the-renters-reform-bill-the-government-has-listened-but-it-needs-to-listen-some-more-part-i/ and https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/30/students-and-the-renters-reform-bill-the-government-has-listened-but-it-needs-to-listen-some-more-part-ii/

    The Renters Reform Bill: after the fall – Where should student housing go from here? 19 June 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/06/19/the-renters-reform-bill-after-the-fall-where-should-student-housing-go-from-here

    Renters’ Rights Bill and Student Accommodation: The Final Stretch? 9 October 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/10/09/renters-rights-act-and-student-accommodation-the-final-stretch/

    Renters’ Rights Bill Update – into the Lords 2 February 2025 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/02/03/renters-rights-bill-update-into-the-lords/

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Moving home for the start of the academic year

    WEEKEND READING: Moving home for the start of the academic year

    UK universities are under mounting financial pressure. Join HEPI and King’s College London Policy Institute on 11 November 2025 at 1pm for a webinar on how universities balance relatively stable but underfunded income streams against higher-margin but volatile sources. Register now. We look forward to seeing you there.

    This blog was kindly authored by Philip Bakstad, Diversity and Inclusion Manager at Liverpool John Moores University.

    Chris’s mum died soon after his birth and his dad was out of the picture. He was brought up by his Nan, living with her in her council house. Chris’s Nan passed away while Chris was doing his foundation year at Liverpool John Moores University. The council wanted the house back. Still grieving for his Nan, Chris was at risk of becoming homeless and dropping out of university.

    Stories like Chris’ are not uncommon, yet they are at risk of being overlooked as university staff across the country gear up for the return of students each September. More on Chris later…

    The start of the academic year is both an exciting and hectic time for students and staff on university campuses across the country. For care-experienced and estranged students (CEES), this time of year often comes with a unique set of anxieties and challenges, as they not only navigate the usual issues around meeting new friends, understanding timetables and deciding which Freshers events to attend, but also transition into new living set-ups which will often now be their permanent home while studying at their new university.

    A diversity of experience

    The terms ‘care-experienced’ and ‘estranged’ encapsulate a broad range of lived experiences of students who have faced particular challenges related to their family circumstances while growing up. This can include having previously lived in a formal foster care arrangement with a Local Authority; being raised by another family member in kinship care or becoming estranged from their parents after the age of 16.

    Much has been done across the sector over the past two decades to address the under-representation of care-experienced and estranged students in higher education, but there remains a great deal of inconsistency. Young people who meet the formal definition of a ‘Care Leaver’ are eligible for a level of statutory support but this varies by Local Authority. For students who do not meet this legal definition but have experience of care or have faced other family disruption, there remains no national benchmark for what key support should be offered by all institutions across the higher education sector.

    Organisations such as NNECL, the Unite Foundation and the much-missed charity StandAlone have been invaluable partners as universities have developed Access and Participation Plans and specific interventions to not only improve the number of care experienced and estranged students accessing higher education, but also ensure that each care-experienced or estranged student receives a holistic support package, tailored to their individual needs.

    A home for success

    A key element of most institutions’ offer will be the provision of extended tenancies or ‘all year round’ accommodation. This recognises that many care-experienced and estranged students will be making their new accommodation their permanent base once the academic year begins. While this is now broadly accepted as best practice across the sector, many students still face difficulties in providing a guarantor or raising the funds for a deposit to secure the accommodation that will best suit their needs.

    At Liverpool John Moores University, we have long operated a ‘Guarantor Waiver’ scheme as part of our partnership arrangements with our accommodation providers in the city, ensuring that no care-experienced or estranged student should be excluded from accessing accommodation at this key transition point in their lives.  The Unite Foundation, led by students on their scholarship programme, are now campaigning for all universities to provide similar support.

    The following case studies provide some insight into the experiences of care experienced and estranged students and highlight the importance of accommodation as an invaluable support during their degree studies. Some details have been changed to protect anonymity.

    Case study 1 – growing up in kinship care

    Chris had been raised by his grandmother since an early age. During his Foundation Year at LJMU his grandmother sadly passed away and he contacted the Student Advice team for support as he would no longer be able to return home to their council house at the end of the academic year. Chris’ mother had passed away shortly after his birth and he had no contact with his biological father so he was at immediate risk of becoming homeless over the summer period.

    In the first instance, our accommodation partnership meant the university was able to reassure Chris that he would be able to extend his tenancy over the summer. At the same time, LJMU provided academic and wellbeing support to ensure his studies weren’t adversely impacted. 

    Chris’ key worry was having a stable home for the duration of his studies. He was very clear that living in halls worked for him as he had built up good relationships with the staff there. Moving into private accommodation and the logistical issues that posed caused him a great deal of anxiety.

    The university signposted him towards the Unite Foundation Scholarship and his application was a success. Chris lived in a Unite Students property, with his rent and bills covered by the Scholarship, for the duration of his studies at LJMU.

    As he navigated this complex period in his life, knowing that his university accommodation was guaranteed for three years was an anchor for Chris. He graduated with a 2:1 and is currently working in the IT sector.

    Case study 2 – becoming estranged at 18

    Alice became estranged from her mother aged 18, following a breakdown in the relationship between her and her mother’s new partner. She was asked to leave the family home and slept on friends’ sofas before her college became aware of her circumstances. She then moved into a young person’s foyer – a supported living space for young people who would otherwise experience homelessness.

    Alice’s Foyer Support Worker contacted LJMU as she was unable to provide a deposit or guarantor to secure her accommodation and had questions about how to apply for student finance as an independent student. Our partnership agreement enables LJMU to request that partner accommodation providers waive the need for a guarantor for care experienced and estranged students, so the university was able to quickly provide reassurance that the absence of a guarantor and deposit would not be a barrier to Alice booking her chosen accommodation.

    Upon arriving at LJMU, Alice met other estranged students at a social meet-up and chose to live in an LJMU partner hall with three other students for years 2 and 3 of their studies. While their family circumstances were all different, this sense of community and peer support was invaluable to Alice and her flatmates. She is now a high school teacher and keeps support staff at LJMU updated on new developments in her life.

    In conclusion

    There is so much to be excited about at the start of each academic year. Meeting new students and supporting them to step into independence is a privilege for both academic and Professional Service staff at universities across the country. It is an important milestone in every young person’s life but, for care experienced and estranged students, can be an even more pivotal moment of change and uncertainty. While I’ve only touched on the importance of accommodation in providing stability in this blog, it’s worth reflecting on the fact that not every student moving into university accommodation will be doing so with the support (and ‘Bank of’) Mum and Dad and that, for this group of students, we need to continue to go the extra mile to ensure they are able to get in and get on in higher education.

    Further information on LJMU support for care experienced and estranged students: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/discover/student-support/inclusion/care-leavers

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Building the transatlantic cyber bridge: what ‘Careers-First’ really means for the future workforce

    WEEKEND READING: Building the transatlantic cyber bridge: what ‘Careers-First’ really means for the future workforce

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Paul Marshall, Vice-President (Global Campus) and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Careers & Enterprise), University of East London.

    As the UK Government prepares its long-awaited White Paper on the future of higher education, it is timely to reflect on the purpose and impact of our universities. At their best, they are not simply sites of knowledge creation – they are instruments of national capability. Few challenges illustrate that more vividly than cybersecurity.

    When I joined a panel at the CyberBay Cybersecurity Conference in Tampa earlier this month, Dr Richard Munassi, Managing Director of Tampa Bay Wave, opened with a warning that set the tone for the discussion:

    We are in a cyber war – a war waged by well-financed, state-backed criminal organisations so sophisticated that they have their own HR divisions.

    He was right. Earlier this year, Jaguar Land Rover was forced to suspend production after a ransomware attack that rippled across its global supply chain. The UK Government’s intervention – with a support package approaching £1.5 billion – made clear that cybersecurity is not an IT issue; it is economic infrastructure.

    As the sector awaits the Government’s vision for the future, one truth already stands out: higher education must not only prepare individuals for work –  it must prepare the nation for risk.

    At the University of East London (UEL), that challenge sits at the heart of our institutional strategy, Vision 2028, which seeks to transform lives through education, innovation, and enterprise. The strategy’s organising principle – Careers-First – redefines employability as capability.

    Rather than positioning careers as an outcome of study, it embeds professional practice, enterprise, and resilience into every degree and partnership. The test for every programme is simple: does it equip our students to adapt, contribute, and lead in industries defined by constant change?

    Nowhere is this approach more tangible than in cybersecurity. Our BSc Cyber Security & Networks, MSc Information Security & Digital Forensics, and Cyber Security Technical Professional Degree Apprenticeship all combine rigorous academic study with live, industry-based application. 

    Students work directly with BT, IBM, Fujitsu, and Ford, tackling real-time challenges in threat analysis, data forensics, and network defence. By the time they graduate, they are not simply work-ready — they are work-proven, having contributed to the resilience of the very sectors they will soon join.

    The results speak for themselves:

    • With Siemens UK, students tested firmware vulnerabilities in industrial systems, informing Siemens’ internal training programmes.
    • With Barclays Eagle Labs, they created a fraud-analysis dashboard now in pilot testing.
    • With NHS Digital, they developed a ransomware-simulation tool to train hospital teams in incident response.

    Each collaboration demonstrates a single idea: learning is most powerful when it changes the world beyond the classroom.

    UEL’s Institute for Connected Communities (ICC), led by Professor Julia Davidson OBE, anchors this model in research excellence and policy leadership. The ICC brings together computing, criminology, psychology, and social science to examine the human, technical, and organisational dimensions of online safety.

    Its research informs the UK Council for Internet Safety, Ofcom, UNICEF, and multiple international governments. Through projects such as Global Kids Online, ICC research directly shapes teaching, ensuring that our graduates understand not only how to secure systems, but why digital trust matters to society.

    As policymakers consider the future role of universities in the forthcoming White Paper, the ICC already provides a working example of how academic research translates into practical and regulatory impact.

    The White Paper will also need to consider how global collaboration strengthens national capability. UEL’s Global Campus model demonstrates how this can work in practice — connecting students and employers across India, Greece, Egypt, and the United States to create shared pathways for study, innovation, and employment.

    Our developing partnership with Tampa Bay Wave, framed within the UK–Florida Memorandum of Understanding (2023), offers one illustration. We are building both virtual and physical experiences that will enable UEL students to engage with Florida’s growing cybersecurity and fintech ecosystem through mentoring, live projects, and placements, while providing a London base for US start-ups entering the UK market.

    A genuine transatlantic bridge is being constructed –  designed for movement in both directions, connecting students, researchers, and entrepreneurs to co-create secure-by-design technologies and governance frameworks. It is the Careers-First model, scaled globally.

    The next phase of cybersecurity will occur where AI, data, and physical systems converge. Attacks will target intelligent infrastructure –  transport grids, hospitals and manufacturing. UEL is already embedding these challenges into its curriculum, guided by ICC research. Students design adversarial-AI tests, examine supply-chain vulnerabilities, and develop frameworks for organisational resilience.

    This approach recognises that technology evolves faster than any static syllabus. Students are therefore treated as co-creators, working alongside academics and employers to design the solutions industry will need next.

    As the UK Government prepares its White Paper, one principle should underpin the national conversation: universities are not peripheral to resilience –  they are central to it. They educate the workforce, generate the research, and sustain the partnerships that keep the nation secure.

    UEL’s Careers-First model, aligned to Vision 2028, embodies that principle. It fuses employability, enterprise, and global engagement into one coherent system of capability. Our collaboration with Tampa Bay Wave is a single, tangible expression of this –  connecting East London’s lecture theatres to innovation ecosystems across the Atlantic.

    In a global cyber war, the question is not whether universities should respond, but how fast they can. At UEL, that response is already underway –  this is what Careers-First looks like.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: How will universities respond to the 6 per cent international student levy?  

    Weekend Reading: How will universities respond to the 6 per cent international student levy?  

    Author:
    Vincenzo Raimo

    Published:

    This guest blog was kindly authored by Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant 

    The UK government’s proposed 6 per cent levy on international tuition fees has added yet another layer of complexity to the already fragile international student recruitment landscape. The levy is intended to fund the introduction of targeted maintenance grants for home students, but for universities it represents an additional cost that could reshape recruitment strategies and, in some cases, make international activity unviable. 

    Higher education providers will not all respond in the same way. Their choices will be shaped by their position in the market, their pricing power, and their cost of acquisition (CoA) – the real cost of recruiting through to enrolment of each international student. 

    In a previous blog I set out five institutional archetypes in international student recruitment: Prestige Players, Volume Hunters, Strategists, Opportunists, and Outsourcers. These archetypes can help us think through the likely responses to the levy, and where the risks and opportunities lie. 

    Levy Responses: From Resilience to Retreat 

    • Pass-throughs (High Brand, Low CoA): These are the strong Prestige Player institutions with the brand power to raise fees by 6 per cent (or more) without losing applicants. For them, the levy will likely be passed straight on to students. In fact, some may look back and wonder why they had not already increased fees earlier. The impact on recruitment will be minimal. 
    • Squeezed Prestige (High Brand, High CoA): Some universities occupy a less comfortable position. They may have strong brands, but their recruitment costs are high often due to heavy scholarship spending and dependence on expensive marketing and recruitment strategies. They can pass on some of the levy, but margins will erode. Expect this group to look carefully at their agent portfolios, renegotiate commission deals, and cut back on scholarships. Opportunists often sit here, swinging between good years and bad. 
    • Absorbers (Low Brand, Low CoA): A number of institutions will choose to absorb the levy, keeping international fees flat to remain competitive. Margins will tighten, but recruitment volumes are likely to remain stable. These are often Strategists or Outsourcers, who have already kept their CoA under control through efficiency or partnerships. They will see absorbing the levy as a necessary cost of staying in the game. 
    • Exits (Low Brand, High CoA): For some, the levy may be the final straw. Institutions already dependent on discounting and agent commissions who charge low international fees to chase volume, may no longer see international recruitment as viable. Volume Hunters are the most exposed here. Their models are built on fragile margins, and the levy risks pushing them into unsustainable territory. For some, exit will not mean giving up on international students altogether. But it may mean dramatically scaling back, consolidating markets, and retreating from high-risk geographies. 

    Alternative Paths 

    Alongside these responses, two further groups are worth highlighting. 

    • Innovators: Some universities will take the levy as a trigger to rethink their model entirely. Expect more to explore transnational education, offshore hubs, or pathway partnerships as a way of diversifying income and reducing exposure to UK-based fee inflation. Innovation may prove the most sustainable long-term response, if vice-chancellors and governing bodies have the stomach for it. 
    • Niche/Selective Recruiters: For specialist institutions – arts, theology, agriculture, or mission-driven providers – international student recruitment has never been about volume. For them, the levy is simply the cost of doing business. They will continue to recruit selectively, valuing diversity and global presence more than surplus. 

    What Does This Mean for the Sector? 

    The archetype framework helps us see that there is no single sector response. Institutions will react in line with their pricing power, cost base, and strategic orientation. Prestige Players may pass through the levy with little concern. Absorbers will hold their nerve and tighten margins. Volume Hunters, by contrast, risk being forced out of the game altogether. 

    For these institutions, scaling back international recruitment will not just be a strategic shift but a financial shock. The loss of international fee income raises an uncomfortable question of how they will fill the gap – whether by yet more cost cutting, chasing riskier sources of income, or considering more fundamental changes to their operating models.   

    The levy therefore brings the deeper issue into sharp focus: the sustainability of international student recruitment. Chasing volume is no longer enough. Institutions must use this moment to confront the costs of recruiting and support these students, rethink pricing, and reconsider the value they offer. Those that do so will be far better placed to build resilient, sustainable futures in international education.  

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: University Collaboration – the case for admissions and professional registration  

    WEEKEND READING: University Collaboration – the case for admissions and professional registration  

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly written by James Seymour, who runs an education consultancy focusing on marketing, student recruitment, admissions and reputation and Julie Kelly who runs a higher education consultancy specialising in registry and governance challenges. Julie and James have worked for a range of universities at Director level in recent years.  

    The Challenge  

    All through August and September, many admissions and faculty/course teams have been working hard to get thousands of new students over the line and onto the next stage of their lives. It is more than just their UCAS application, interview, selection and firm acceptance or journey through Clearing – they have to actually enrol and succeed too.  

    Many of these students are training to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, social workers and doctors amongst many other allied health professional and education courses. They all need to go through essential and important Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements and additional compliance checks, from passports, to Disclosure and Barring Service questionnaires, to health questionnaires and more. Many are mature students who must demonstrate GCSE or equivalent competency at Grade C/4 or above. They are less likely to have support navigating this process as they are less likely to be in full-time education.  

    Most of these applicants have already been interviewed, attended selection days or Multiple Mini Interviews – MMIs (like selection speed dating) involving lots of competency stations.  

    These health students also must apply for their Student Finance loans in good time to trigger the all-important £5K+ NHS learning support fund – essential to enable them to succeed and even get to their clinical placements via bus, train or car.  

    It’s a very onerous process for applicants, their supporters, and the academic, admissions, and compliance teams, who must arrange and record all of this.  

    Clearly, getting all this information recorded and verified is important, but does it have to be so admin-heavy and time-consuming? Are we putting up barriers and disincentives deterring students from starting their studies?  

    At present, we have an inconsistent mess, often involving email and incessant chasing.  

    There has to be a better way  

    Over the last 10 years we have been involved in a number of process improvement/student journey projects at a number of UK universities.  In our experience it takes at least five times longer to admit a Nurse compared to a Business, Law or English student, and at least twice as long compared to a creative arts student who submits their portfolio for interview and review. Data from The Student Loans Company indicates that at least 25% of all new students only apply for their loans on or after results day in August – presenting real risk of delays in getting their money in time for enrolment.  

    Typically, only 85-90% of Nurses and other key NHS-backed students who have a confirmed UCAS place in August actually enrol in September. Another 3-5% have left before January.  

    This is not all about motivation or resilience – part of the issue is linked to getting these students over the line with all the additional hoops they have to jump through.  

    Another issue is around wasted resource across the sector and a poor student experience.  A student typically applies to their five UCAS choices, and many universities undertake the additional PSRB checks during the admission process.  A student is therefore having to supply their information to multiple institutions, which then need to be processed for students who may never actually enrol.  Surely it is better for students to supply this information once during the initial application stage? 

    Postgraduate Teachers including PGCE and Teach First students have to navigate a gov.uk application process (rather than UCAS) which feels like completing your tax return. A daunting and clunky first step to train in one of the most important careers any of us will ever do. They also only get three choices for courses that start in early September – only 2-3 weeks after many final year degree results are confirmed, putting undue pressure both on students, schools and institutions alike. 

    It’s clear that in the context of improving efficiency, eventual enrolment and reducing stress for all, a more collaborative approach across UK HE and professional training would be a real win. The same issues apply for onboarding, applications and selection for degree and higher apprenticeships.  

    The NHS workforce plan signals a clear need to train more Nurses and other key NHS staff and we know that teacher recruitment targets have been missed again this year.  

    Solutions and Future Projects 

    In the context of collaboration between universities, NHS, UKVI, UCAS and DfE we propose some key, essential ways to improve the process and increase the pipeline of future health and education professionals.  

    1. Create a safe, secure one-stop shop for PSRB checks, uploads and compliance so that students do it once and can be shared with all their university choices and options. There are a number of Ed Tech companies as well as UCAS, providing portals for applicants and the Gov.uk system is already improving each year.  
    1. As well as the process, revisit the timeline for applications and compliance for NHS and other PSRB courses – if this is all checked and ready by April-May and directly linked up to Student Finance Applications and/or NHS bursary support – far more students would be able to enrol, train and be ready to learn.  This would require proper process mapping and joined up thinking across different government departments, UCAS and universities themselves.  
    1. The HE sector and NHS should collectively review the factors, groups and critical incidents affecting non-enrolment and first year drop out – nationally and across all PSRB courses – and work at pace to ‘fix the leaks’ accordingly. At present these data sets are not shared or acted upon across the UK but only via individual universities, trusts and occasionally at conferences and sector meetings.  
    1. UCAS and exam boards need to urgently bring forward automatic sharing of GCSE results via the ABL system so that universities and applicants can be assured of level 2 qualifications.  
    1. Look at alternatives to the ‘doom loop’ of GCSE Maths and English retakes and essential requirement for entry to NHS and other professional courses. There are already alternative qualifications including Functional Skills and these need to be amplified, so more students are able to get over the line and start training.  
    1. Universities should work together not against each other. Each university or training provider spends many tens of thousands each year on recruitment campaigns.  For Nursing degrees alone, we estimate this to be at least £1M per year; pooling just 10% of this figure to ensure a consistent brand and overarching campaign would widen the pool of applicants rather than pit universities against each other.  
    1. Review the application process for Postgraduate Teacher Training – consider whether it should be given back to UCAS or another tech platform to improve visibility, choice, applicant journey and eventual enrolment figures.  Clearly only three choices is not enough with some providers being more efficient than others in responding to applicants and dealing with application volumes. The resulting bottlenecks impact on applicant confidence in the system. The early September start date for PG teaching courses also needs a review.  Apart from the application time pressure, these students are also starting before the campus (and school?) is truly ready for the start of term.  Why not start with the rest of their peers at the end of September and also introduce a January start point as an option? 
    1. Make funding more consistent and long term – at present universities are only paid to train students based on first year intake each year, leading to short term decisions, volatility and competition. The LLE due in 2027 is unlikely to lead to flexibility in PSRB course transfer. Giving universities and health trusts a 3-4 year funding model would iron out that volatility, encourage new entrants and provide certainty to invest in facilities, staff and support to train those students.  

    Conclusion and next steps  

    As the HE sector looks back on admission and enrolment for the 2025/26 academic year and prepares for 2026/27 entry we feel that something must change to enhance the admission process for PSRB courses, all of which are critical to the future of the UK.  

    The practical steps and ideas included within the article are all deliverable but need joined-up thinking across different parts of the process. We propose establishing a working group or task force to address quick wins and consider a roadmap for addressing longer-term solutions. 

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Money’s Too Tight (to Mention) – Universities and students are on a knife edge as the party conference season and the new academic year kick off in earnest, by Nick Hillman (HEPI Director)

    WEEKEND READING: Money’s Too Tight (to Mention) – Universities and students are on a knife edge as the party conference season and the new academic year kick off in earnest, by Nick Hillman (HEPI Director)

    • As policymakers look ahead to the bigger party conferences and students and staff ready themselves for the new academic year*, HEPI Director Nick Hillman takes a look ahead. [* Except in Scotland, where it has already begun.]
    • Information on HEPI’s own party conference events is available here.

    Money’s Too Tight (to Mention)

    When the Coalition Government for which I worked tripled tuition fees for undergraduate study to £9,000 back in 2012, it was a big and unpopular change. But it represented a real increase in support for higher education that led to real increases in the quality of the student experience, with improvements to staffing, facilities and student support services.

    Because the fee rise shifted costs from taxpayers to graduates via progressive student loans, it enabled another fundamental change: the removal of student number caps in England. No longer would universities be forced to turn away ambitious applicants that they wanted to recruit. It was the final realisation of the principle that underlined the Robbins report of 1963: ‘courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.’ A higher proportion of students enrolled on their first-choice place. (It never ceases to amaze me how many people wish to return to a world in which your children and mine have unwarranted obstacles reimposed between them and attaining the degree they want.)

    But back in 2012, no one in their wildest dreams thought the new fee level would be frozen for most of the next decade and more. After all, the fee rise was implemented using the Higher Education Act (2004), which had enabled Tony Blair to introduce the current model of tuition fees, and the Blair / Brown Governments to raise fees each year without any fuss.

    Yet the political ructions caused by introducing £9,000 fees in 2012 made policymakers timid. Towards the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, Ministers bizarrely sought to make a virtue of their pusillanimity. Even as inflation was biting, the Minister for Higher Education (Rob Halfon) said raising fees was ‘not going to happen, not in a million years’.

    The result has been a crisis in funding for higher education institutions that has changed their priorities. Top-end universities have looked to increase their income via more and higher (uncapped) fees from international students – hardly surprising, when an international student taking a three-year degree is worth £69,000 a year more than a home student! They have also sought to tempt UK students away from slightly less prestigious institutions.

    Meanwhile, newer universities have been even more entrepreneurial. Limited in their ability to recruit lots of international students, they have instead shifted towards franchising, whereby other organisations pay them for the privilege of teaching their degrees.

    Universities in the middle have had a particularly tough time. Most notably, many universities originally founded in the expansionary post-Robbins environment are struggling today. (It has been suggested that the tie-up between Kent and Greenwich is partly borne of necessity.) Plus with no fees for home students, Scottish universities have been hurting even more than those elsewhere.

    Even though recruiting more people from overseas and large-scale franchising have helped some institutions to keep the wolf from the door, Ministers have condemned both. The UK Home Office want fewer international students and England’s Department for Education have promised new legislation to tackle the growth in franchising. (Six months ago, Bridget Phillipson wrote in the Sunday Times, ‘I will also bring forward new legislation at the first available opportunity to ensure the Office for Students has tough new powers to intervene quickly and robustly to protect public money’.)

    No British university has ever gone bust but, as financial advisers know, the past can be a sorry guide to the future. When asked, Ministers say they would accept the closure of a university or two. But a university is usually a big local employer, a big supporter of local civic life and a source of local pride – and money. Most have been built up from public funds.

    Closing a university would not just risk local upset. It would reduce confidence, including among those who lend to universities, and could even risk a domino effect, as people lose faith in the system as a whole, thereby putting the reputation of UK education at risk. So there are good reasons why, for example, Dundee University is currently being bailed out, even if it comes with a distinct whiff of moral hazard.

    Bills, Bills, Bills

    Students are hurting just as much as institutions. Contrary to the expectations of years gone by, the proportion of school leavers proceeding to higher education is barely rising. There is likely more than one cause, including negative rhetoric about universities from across the political spectrum and a false sense that degree apprenticeships for school leavers are plentiful.

    Perhaps most significantly, maintenance support for students is nothing like enough. There are three big problems.

    1. The standard maximum maintenance support in England is now worth a little over £10,000, which is just half the amount students need.
    2. Parents are expected to support their student offspring but they are not officially told how much they should contribute.
    3. England’s household income threshold at which state-based maintenance support begins to be reduced has not increased for over 15 years. At £25,000, it is lower than the income of a single-earner household on the minimum wage.

    As a result, according to the HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, over two-thirds of students now undertake paid employment during term time, often at a number of hours that negatively affects their studies. These students are limited in their ability to take part in extra-curricular activities, for they are time poor as well as strapped for cash.

    An increase in maintenance support is long overdue, just as an increase in tuition fees for home students is long overdue. But we could also perhaps help students help themselves by providing better information in advance about student life. In particular, given the epidemic of loneliness among young people, we should remind them that you are more likely to be lonely if your room is plush but you do not have enough money left over for a social life than if your living arrangements are basic but your social life is lively.

    The Masterplan

    The Government came to office claiming to have a plan for tackling the country’s challenges. But more than a year on, the fog has not cleared on their plans for higher education. Patience is now wearing gossamer thin. As Chris Parr of Research Professional put it on Friday, ‘Still we wait.’ As far as we can discern from what we know, it seems universities will be expected to do more for less – on civic engagement, access and economic growth.

    Higher education institutions have made it clear, including through Universities UK’s Blueprint, that they are keen to play their part in national renewal. But it is not only the financial squeeze that limits their room for manoeuvre. Political chaos as well as the geography of Whitehall threaten the institutional autonomy that has been the key ingredient of UK universities’ success.

    Unlike in the past, there are different regulators, Ministers and Departments for the teaching and learning functions of universities on the one hand and their research functions on the other, meaning coordinated oversight is missing. The latest machinery of government changes risk another dog’s dinner, as ‘skills’ continue to bounce around Whitehall, newly residing for now (but who knows for how long) in the Department for Work and Pensions. Meanwhile, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is thought to have less regard for university-based research than for research conducted elsewhere, at least in contrast to the past.

    Moreover, each of the two Ministers with oversight of higher education institutions (Baroness Smith and Lord Vallance) are newly split across two Whitehall departments, with one foot in each. This sort of approach tends to be a recipe for chaos. (As I saw close up during my own time in Whitehall, split Ministers usually reside primarily in just one of their two departments, the one where their main Private Office is situated.) 

    The choice now is clear. If Ministers want to direct universities more than their predecessors, then they need to fund them accordingly. But if Ministers want universities to play to their own self-defined strategies in these fast-changing times, then they should reduce the barriers limiting their capacity to behave more entrepreneurially.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Is it time to stop using the term ‘non-traditional student’? 

    Weekend Reading: Is it time to stop using the term ‘non-traditional student’? 

    Author:
    HEPI Guest Post

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Steve Briggs, Director of Learning, Teaching and Libraries, University of Bedfordshire 

    In the context of UK higher education, the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ are widely used when describing students – as apparent in recent blog posts published by HEPI. In this blog, I consider why the continued use of such terminology may become increasingly problematic and what might be a viable alternative.   

    Who are ‘traditional’ students?  

    The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘traditional’ as: 

    Following or belonging to the customs of ways of behaving that have continued in a group of people of society for a long time without changing. 

    As such, one can infer that the criterion for traditional students is that they will share established characteristics that have been fixed for a significant period.  
     

    The stereotypical traditional student 

    In the 1970s and 1980s, university students were generally young adults who left home and moved to a new city or town to study. They would routinely live with other students on or near to campus. Many would be able to undertake studies without needing to work and would have significant time available to spend on campus and engage in clubs, societies, sports teams and other social activities. In 2025, many commentators will cite this profile as being synonymous with a traditional student.  

    The rise of the non-traditional student   

    In the context of the UK, the term ‘non-traditional student’ has been widely used to differentiate learners who do not adhere to the aforementioned traditional student convention. Examples of characteristics seen to make a student non-traditional include: 

    • Commuting to university, rather than living on campus 
    • Being over the age of 21  
    • Having parental and/or caring responsibilities 
    • Hailing from a lower socio-economic background 
    • Being the first-in-family to study at university 
    • Having had experience of the care system 

    Such individuals are often time-poor but commitment-rich and in turn have very limited availability to spend on campus outside of scheduled sessions. The use of the non-traditional label has been used increasingly since the advent of widening participation in the 1990s. 

    Perceptions of traditional are not fixed  

    The concept of a traditional student is time-bound. For example, pre-1900, there was a small number of ancient universities in the UK and relatively very low numbers of students. Increased numbers of universities opening during the 1900s meant that more individuals were able to study at university, many of whom would be labelled as non-traditional relative to those pre-1900. However, the same group has since then been re-defined as traditional relative to those who studied in the 1990s.  

    Over the last twenty-five years non-traditional characteristics have become increasingly common amongst the student population. For example, in 2025, HESA reported that over half of students were from IMD quintiles 1 and 2, and the vast majority of students are now over the age of 20. Following previous trends, there will come a point, potentially in the not-too-distant future, whereby the current generation of non-traditional students will become viewed as traditional. The cyclical process will then likely start again with a new conceptualisation of what is non-traditional.  

    More nuanced classification options 

    Given the time-bound nature of both traditional and non-traditional characteristics I suggest that higher education commentators should consider the use of more exact terminology when discussing student cohorts. I suggest two options: 

    • By decade: Student groups could be framed in terms of decades, for example the demographic and characteristics of students of the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s, etc. Such an approach could work well if there was stability over a decade however, the impact of social or global events (such as a recession, government policy or pandemic) may mean within a decade those studying within higher education could change markedly. For example, the significant impact of governmental immigration policy changes on the recruitment of international students studying in the UK during the mid-2020s.  
    • Create generational names: Since 1950, there have been five main birth generations: Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z and Generation Alpha. Each generation has shared characteristics synonymous with being born during that period. Analogously, specific generations could be defined in terms of university students. Each generation would have a distinctive name and characteristics common amongst most members studying at university during that specific window of time. The use of student generational names would offer flexibility to account for periods of stability that lasted longer than ten years and could also accommodate sudden changes to the profile of student cohorts.  

    I personally favour the use of generational names given the greater flexibility. I see this as necessary given the turbulence and change experienced within the higher education sector over the last decade. For instance, I propose that the pandemic was a catalyst for the emergence of a new generation of students, a defining characteristic of which being greater experience in remote communicating and learning online.  

    Putting into practice 

    As a starter for ten, I suggest seven generations of English students over the last 150 years. A caricature for each is provided – these are intended to be illustrative of generational difference rather than exhaustive: 

    • Ancient Generation (pre-1900): A student would study at one of the ancient universities in the UK. Students were mainly from the upper social class, and a fraction of the population attended university. Those attending university would be financially supported by personal networks.  
    • Redbrick Generation (circa 1900-1945): Most students studied at an ancient or redbrick university. Students continued to be mainly from the upper social class, and in turn a small percentage of the population attended university. 
    • Post-World War Two Generation (circa 1946-1989): As the number of universities progressively expanded, students had greater geographic access to higher education. Students could access maintenance grants to cover the cost of living whilst studying. This allowed students to readily engage in activities alongside their studies.  
    • Widening Participation Generation (circa 1990 – 1997): The number of universities significantly increased following the integration of polytechnics. Concentrated efforts were made to expand access to higher education and the percentage of students from previously underrepresented groups increased. In addition to maintenance grants, students were able to access low-cost student loans.  
    • Tuition Fee Generation (circa 1998 – 2014): The widening participation imperative remained but students now paid a tuition fee to study. Choice of where to study remained limited by student number caps. Maintenance grants were abolished and replaced with student loans. As fees progressively increased more students found they needed to undertake work whilst studying.  
    • Free Market Generation (circa 2015 – 2019): Widening participation remained a priority. The student number cap is removed, and many universities actively expand the availability of places. Students have unprecedented choice in terms of where to study at university. Tuition fees and living costs remain a challenge for many students and numbers working whilst studying remains very high.  
    • Pandemic Generation (circa 2020 – current): The pandemic results in a sudden and seismic shift to online education across schools, colleges and universities. This results in students have new experiences and expectations related to online and blended learning. Cost of living increases following the pandemic resulted in more student facing financial hardships in turn resulting in many spending less time on campus. Demand for mental health and well-being support increases.  

    Analogous to birth generations, I would see that other interpretations of higher education student generation names could emerge through research outputs, thought pieces or social events as opposed to being determined by a single group or professional body. Influential think tanks like HEPI could play a key role in providing platforms for such discussion. 

    I foresee there potentially being variations in proposed student generational definitions (as is the case with birth generations) but if all are clearly defined, these would all be invaluable for higher education commentators when discussing longitudinal changes in cohorts over time.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Provoking changes in higher education, some reflections on governance 

    Weekend Reading: Provoking changes in higher education, some reflections on governance 

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Professor Nigel Savage. Nigel was awarded his PhD in 1980 for research into corporate governance and held several chief executive and non-executive posts in the public and private sectors, including Board membership of HEFCE and non-executive director of Fletchers solicitors.
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here. 

    Universities are facing the ‘perfect storm’ of challenges from several areas, not least financial and strategic sustainability, at a time when the government has many more competing priorities for scarce public resources. The situation is going to get much worse in the medium term as financial pressures rightly stimulate calls for greater accountability and a consequent erosion of the sector’s perceived and much-prized autonomy. The only way forward in the short term must therefore be for the sector itself to provoke change by Boards and non-executive directors (NEDs), assuming a more active role in challenging orthodoxy in much the same way as NEDs in the private sector. 

    The new Chair of the OfS, Edward Peck, has an unenviable in-tray. What the sector needs, alongside his appointment, is a greater degree of external insight to shake up the balance of power within the traditional governance model. I’ve worked for most of my life in higher education and the legal sector and have often been struck by the similarities in terms of management and governance issues. The legal services market has moved on somewhat from when it displayed an inherent resistance to change, a tendency to look to each other for solutions rather than externally and a blind faith that only lawyers operating within the partnership model could manage the business. Universities are still in a time warp typified by the fact that most of the organisations that purport to contribute to change by offering ‘partnerships’, guidance, consultancy or codes of practice are funded from within the sector and unlikely to recommend radical change or depart from sector orthodoxy.  

    Another lesson that could be learned from the legal services market is the greater use of external know-how and resources. Some thirty years ago, the Practical Law Company achieved considerable success by working with the best lawyers from a range of successful firms to create high-quality authored legal resources and software tools which were licensed to firms. Hitherto, that would have been regarded by the profession as relinquishing control over their crown jewels, eroding professional integrity, not to mention autonomy. The result was that lawyers were able to work more efficiently with enhanced productivity and greater confidence, focusing on providing solutions to clients’ complex problems. There is no reason why that model shouldn’t deliver similar outcomes within the higher education sector. Collaborative know-how would produce research outputs that inform teaching and learning with the added advantage that they are based on practice rather than recycled material from another academic in the form of a textbook. There are now over one hundred law schools in the UK each developing their own teaching and learning materials at a considerable cost and with varying degrees of quality. I see no reason why such a model could not deliver significant cost savings across disciplines and free staff time to focus on the delivery of teaching and learning innovation. 

    At one level there is no incentive to change, especially given the prevailing veil of protection provided by current interpretations of academic autonomy. I cannot speak for other disciplines, but given the stagnation in leadership of legal education, the legal services market is currently better served by employers than higher education. In part the issue is one of culture typified by the sector’s attitude to AI, as one commentator recently remarked, ‘universities are more concerned about AI, rather than with it …’. There is more debate about students using it as a vehicle for cheating or copyright issues than as a vehicle to enhance teaching and learning and create a seamless transition into the workplace. In general, technology in higher education is not embraced transformatively but defensively. 

    I was one of the few independent Board members of HEFCE (2002-08) and chaired the Audit and Risk Committee. As part of our engagement, we instigated a series of case study seminars for chairs and members of institutional audit committees with no members of their executive team present. The programme was much appreciated but we were surprised by the relatively low level of awareness of key risks, issues around internal audit and accountability and lack of engagement in terms of quality assurance. It’s interesting that many of the issues on the risk register then are a variation of the same issues that confront universities today. The impact of technology, an increasingly competitive environment, funding especially over-reliance on overseas income, changes in public policy, globalisation and students as consumers of higher education services.  

    Most of the above are issues that every global business model, regardless of ownership structure, sector, or location, has had to confront over the same timescale, without the level of resources available to higher education. Indeed, some universities have confronted them very well. So why is it that a growing number of universities are manifestly failing to address these issues when they should have been painfully aware of them for years? We are already seeing the likely next generation of entirely predictable risks in the growing number of institutions rushing to set up campuses in London and, worse still, in India and the Middle East at a time when they are barely sustainable. Will such initiatives deliver medium-term revenue growth, or are they merely off-balance-sheet Vice Chancellor vanity projects? And why are they not more aggressively challenged by NEDs? 

    Governance – culture change  

    There needs to be something of a culture change in the balance of power as between executive and non-executive roles. It is governance that dictates the rules of the game, especially in the relationship between the CEO (in most cases the Vice-Chancellor or Principal) and Chair. Government and the regulator need to be more prescriptive rather than rely on consultative services provided by those bodies that are part of a self-regulatory model. Anyone who doubts the need for change should read the Scottish Funding Council’s investigative report on Dundee University, which represents a massive failure of management and governance. Cultural issues were not the primary cause of the financial collapse at Dundee, but as observed in the report, ‘aspects of the culture of the institution … , may however have facilitated or been associated with a lack of transparency and of the limited challenge to the prevailing discourse on financial matters’ 

    Action in the following areas would assist in generating such a culture change: 

    1. There is significant evidence that smaller boards outperform larger ones. A study by Bain (some years ago) suggests the ideal size of a board should be seven and each additional member beyond that results in a decline in effectiveness. I am not sure where that leaves the higher education sector since most large university boards are approaching the early twenties and can have less to do with governance and become more a matter of crowd control. This issue must also be viewed in the context of the structure below the Board in terms of Senate and Academic Board which has substantial staff and student representation. Large boards are more expensive to service and absorb a greater degree of resource and complexity to manage. Size also creates the impression that the body is consultative rather than at the pinnacle of decision-making. In recent years, changes in management structures may have exacerbated the position with the trend towards the appointment of Presidents, Provosts and COOs with a wide range of reporting lines, all of whom aspire to a seat on the board. This trend has the capacity to blur the lines between the executive and non-executive functions and, worse still, further increase the size of the board. The Vice Chancellor should be the only formal member of the executive on the Board as opposed to attending as an observer. The Dundee review recognised that a University Secretary may have dual reporting lines to the Chair and Vice Chancellor, which can create conflicts of interest, ‘care should be taken to ensure the primary responsibility is always to the Chair’. 
    1. Reducing the size of Boards would also mean that resources could be released to remunerate NEDs. Some institutions already embrace this policy in respect of Board chairs and committees. The whole process, including appointments, should be professionalised to ensure that appointees have proven experience as a senior executive or non-executive. It’s not surprising that universities are failing to hold Vice Chancellors to account if membership of the Board is based, at least in part, on the criterion that ‘no previous experience is required’. In recent months it seems to be votes of no confidence from the staff rather than governing bodies which decide the fate of an incompetent Vice Chancellor. The larger institutions now have turnovers of over £1.5 billion plus. Membership of such a Board is not a role for the inexperienced using an appointment as ‘net practice’ to build a NED portfolio or an elder statesperson looking to top off their career with a gong. Should all else fail there is always the standard ultimate requirement to deter cross sector appointments ‘ideally we are looking for a candidate with a background in or closely related to higher education…’.  
    1. The increasing use of head-hunters may also be a factor. The appointment of NEDs, particularly a new chair, should be a matter entirely for the Nominations Committee. The Vice Chancellor should be consulted within the process but not be directly involved and the head-hunters should be accountable to the Nominations Committee. One of the fundamental roles of a NED is to contribute to holding the executives ‘feet to the fire’ when necessary. A distinguished Yale commentator observed some years ago ‘I’m always amazed at how common groupthink is in corporate boardrooms. Directors are, almost without exception … comfortable with power. But if you put them into a group that discourages dissent, they nearly always start to conform.’ This is particularly so if they have been recruited under the criteria that they are ‘team players’ which is normally code for they will not ‘rock the boat’ 
    1. Overseeing internal audit (IA) is a vital part of maintaining the integrity of a seamless governance model. The head of IA must be free from interference in determining the scope, process and communication of outputs. It is still the case that in some universities the head of internal audit reports directly to either the CFO or COO with a notional reporting line to the chair of the audit committee. This represents a classic case of marking your own homework and should no longer be tolerated. There is a real danger of undue influence when IA reports into the finance function, not the chair of audit committee. Unlike the external audit where there is a specified remit, internal audit can look at any area which is felt appropriate as directed by the board, including the prevailing culture and effectiveness of risk management. If the external auditor is satisfied that the IA is appropriately funded, competent and sufficiently objective and quality assured, they can rely on it.  I suspect however that this is another area clouded by the mists of institutional autonomy and external auditors will seldom feel sufficiently confident to place reliance on IA data. There would however be an additional cost placed on such reliance attached to the audit fee. 

    Conclusion  

    Although the Office for Students (OfS) is beginning to engage more directly with providers given the emerging financial environment, they are theoretically hide-bound by the statutory institutional autonomy that universities enjoy. They ‘will not provide advice to providers on how they should run their organisation. Providers should look to other sources, for example to sector bodies, for such advice and support.’ Surely in such circumstances a regulator should be suggesting that they seek advice from their own Board or externally rather than organisations that are not independent and consist largely of retired senior executives from the sector. I can imagine the outcry if such a model was replicated in the private sector if a board were asleep at the wheel. 

    Institutions are required to have ‘adequate and effective management and governance arrangements.’ Therein lies the problem. In a culture based on the presumption of autonomy, it’s very difficult to provoke change based on a standard so low as ‘adequacy’ and advice from the sector. There are many interpretations of autonomy, but the concept is too often used as a defensive comfort blanket to resist change or, worse still, justify the executives’ vanity projects.  

    The current regulatory regime, based in part on a self-regulatory model, is somewhat naïve and reminiscent of that which prevailed many years ago in respect of company regulation in the private sector and contributed to the debate on the ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’. For example, the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) code declares that the code ‘is not compulsory, governing bodies can determine based on the advice of the executive which parts of the code apply to them …’ There is no longer a need for an annual Head of Internal Audit Report and the OfS no longer require submission of the Annual Report of an institution’s Audit Committee. Indeed, there is nothing in the guidance any more compelling registered providers to have an Audit Committee. 

    Within this benign regulatory environment, the sector has received substantial funding on a headcount basis at a time when they should have been preparing for wholly predictable changes. Boards should be looking much more clearly on value for money issues. They continue to create massive Super Faculties which are unmanageable, stifle innovation and leave staff isolated. Decision-making processes are attenuated, and there is hostility to learning from external sources that are well ahead in confronting and managing change. There has been a proliferation of roles and reporting lines at the top with very little focus on efficient delivery at the coal face but fragmentation in terms of leadership. 

    Sadly, the position is even worse in Scotland where legislative changes in 2016 made the appointment process and composition of Boards even larger and more cumbersome and much less effective decision makers, hence the Dundee fiasco. 

    The current governance culture encouraged by the legislation and embraced by the sector and the regulators creates the impression that the sector should be treated differently from any other sector. In my experience, the fundamental role of NEDs is the same irrespective of the corporate status: to appoint and monitor the performance of the executive and to sign off on the strategy and rigorously monitor performance, delivery structures, risk and compliance. Legal status will shape strategy in terms of charitable status or shareholder value in the private sector but that’s no justification to deter NEDs from carrying out the primary role of holding the CEO’s feet to the fire and continuously monitoring and measuring executive performance. The way forward may be to engage them more directly within the structures of the institution, taking care that they don’t cross the line into the executive function.  

    I operated as a CEO in the sector for twenty years and a NED on both side of the fence. In my NED roles I have always operated by asking questions and seeking clarity on issues that I wouldn’t want raised if I were the CEO!  

    Nigel Savage    

    I am grateful to James Aston (BDO) the leading independent authority on HE governance, for a couple of stimulating conversations on some of the issues. 

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Role of Place in UK Higher Education Policy

    Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Role of Place in UK Higher Education Policy

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by John Goddard OBE, Emeritus Professor of Regional Development Studies at Newcastle University.

    In a HEPI note prompted by a Centre for Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance (SKOPE) conference, Nick Hillman asked: Should the seminal Robbins report inform the forthcoming post-16 strategy? He referenced the point made by Professor Robson of SKOPE about the need ‘to encourage place-based approaches … and replace competition with coordination.’ As Nick points out, the challenge of place and coordination are not new, but as I will argue, these are not being confronted by policymakers right now.

    The Robbins’ report led to new universities being established. But these were in county towns and as we observe in our volume on The University and the City, overlook the growing urban crisis of that period. The Education Reform Act of 1988 severed the link between polytechnics and local government. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which allowed polytechnics to apply for university status, had the Government’s desired impact of reducing the unit cost of higher education and moving the UK instantly up the OECD rankings in terms of participation in higher education. But it also signalled a further disconnection with cities. The creation of new universities in the 1970s to meet a 50% participation rate was also unplanned in geographical terms. So, unlike many countries, the UK has not had a plan for the geography of higher let alone further education.

    Indeed, UK higher education policy and practice has ignored the lessons of history as well as being geographically blind. It has not been sensitive to the different local contexts where universities operate and the evolution of these institutions and places through time.

    It is important to remember that locally endowed proto-universities like Newcastle, Sheffield and Birmingham supported late 19th-century urban industrialisation and the health of the workforce. They also played a role in building local soft infrastructure, including facilitating discourse around the role of science and the arts in business and society. This was also a time in which new municipal government structures were being formed. In short, universities helped build the local state and create what the British Academy now calls social and cultural infrastructure, in which universities play a key role

    These founding principles became embedded in the DNA of some institutions. For example, in 1943, the Earl Grey Memorial lecturer in King’s College Newcastle noted,

    Ideal Universities… should be an organic part of regional existence in its public aspects, and a pervading influence in its private life. …Universities to be thus integrated in the community, must be sensitive to what is going on in the realm of business and industry, of practical local affairs, of social adaptation and development, as well as in the realm of speculative thought and abstract research.

    In the later 20th century, most so-called redbrick universities turned their back on place as the central state took on direct funding of higher education and research and did not prioritise the local role of universities. But this was challenged by the Royal Commission on the Future of Higher Education in 1997, chaired by Lord Dearing. He noted that: ‘As part of the compact we envisage between HE and society, each institution should be clear about its mission in relation to local communities and regions.’ For him, this ‘compact’ was wide-ranging, had a strong local dimension and was one where the university’s contribution to ‘the economy’ could not be separated from the wider society in which it was embedded.

    Many of Dearing’s ideas were subsequently incorporated into the work of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) that were established in 1989 to promote economic development and regeneration, improve business competitiveness, and reduce regional disparities. This included investment, (matched by European regional funds ) into university-related research and cultural facilities. These capital and recurrent investments contributed to ‘place making’ and university links with business and the arts. For example, the former Newcastle brewery site was purchased by Newcastle University, Newcastle City Council and RDA, which they named ‘Science Central’. The partnership was incorporated as Newcastle Science City Ltd., a company limited by guarantee with its own CEO and independent board. The organisation’s portfolio included:

    Support for business, facilitating the creation of new enterprises drawing on the scientific capabilities of the region’s universities and work with local schools and communities, particularly focussed on promoting science education in deprived areas.

    The initiatives recognised the role that universities could play in their places by building ‘quadruple helix partnerships’ between universities, business, local and central government and the community and voluntary sectors.

    But from 2008, with the onset of public austerity, a focus on national competitiveness and a rolling back of the boundaries of the state, we saw the abolition of the RDAs in 2012, the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships with more limited powers and resources and a cutting back on non-statutory local government activities, notably for economic development. My 2009 NESTA provocation Reinventing the Civic University was a reminder that universities had to go back to their roots and challenge broader geo-political trends, including globalisation and the creation of university research excellence hierarchies that mirrored city hierarchies.

    Marketisation was subsequently embedded into law in the 2017 Higher Education Act. This abolished the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its network of regional consultants working with formal university associations. The act unleashed competition regulated via the Office for Students (OfS) and supported by an enhanced discipline-based research excellence funding scheme. Both were place blind. Some of us raised the possibility of the financial collapse of universities in less prosperous places where they were so-called ‘anchor institutions’

    It was a recognition of this place blindness that contributed to the case for the establishment of the Civic University Commission, chaired by the late Lord Kerslake. The Commission argued that the public – nationally and locally – needed to understand better the specific benefits that universities can bring in response to the question: ‘We have a university here, but what is it doing for us? Institutions that were ultimately publicly funded needed to be locally accountable given our place-based system of governance – parliamentary constituencies and local authorities.

    For the Commission, accountability meant something different from a top-down compliance regime. Rather, sensitive and voluntary commitments made between a diverse set of actors to one another, whose collective powers and resources could impact local economic and social deficiencies

    The Commission therefore proposed that universities wishing to play a civic role should prepare Civic University Agreements, co-created and signed by other key partners and embracing local accountability. Strategic analysis to shape agreements should lead to a financial plan that brings together locally the many top-down and geographically blind funding streams that universities receive from across Whitehall – for quality research, for health and wellbeing, for business support, for higher-level skills and for culture.

    Some of these national funds now need to be ring-fenced to help universities work with partners to meet local needs and opportunities, including building capacity for collaborative working within an area. As the Secretary of State for Education has suggested in her letter to VCs, this might include a slice of core formulaic Quality Research (QR) funding. Such processes would be preferable to the ad-hoc interventions that have hitherto failed to establish long-term trust between universities and the community. At the same time, a place dimension could be included in the regulation of the domestic student marketplace. This could all form part of a compact or contract between universities and the state which enshrined a responsibility to serve the local public good.

    Going forward, I would argue that the coincidence of multiple crises across the world has far-reaching implications that universities cannot ignore. Indeed, if they do not step up to the plate and assert their civic role as anchor institutions in their places, their very existence may be at stake. The issues are well set out in this Learning Planet Institute Manifesto for the Planetary Mission of the University.

    Reading this Manifesto should help policy makers and institutional leaders in the UK recognise that the current financial crisis facing universities is an outward and visible sign of deeper threats, not least those arising from popularism and being fanned by Donald Trump. And popularism has its roots in the experience of people in left behind places.

    Therefore, Government support for the role of universities in their communities is not only beneficial to them but also to society at large. To respect institutional autonomy, this requires the right incentives (sticks and carrots). For example, universities throughout England could be required to support the Government’s plans for devolution as part of the compact I suggest. Questions to be answered by the Departments for Education; for Housing, Communities and Local Government and for Science, Innovation and Technology working TOGETHER could include:

    • What structures need to be put in place inside and outside of universities to facilitate joint working between universities and Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs)?
    • How should universities be included in upcoming Devolution Deals?
    • How might these differ between MCAs at different stages of development and different levels of prosperity?
    • How should universities link their work with business, with the community and the priorities of MCAs for inclusive growth and with the Industrial Strategy White paper?
    • How should Combined Authorities work with different universities and colleges in their area to meet skills gaps?
    • How can areas without MCAs work with universities to deliver equivalent outcomes?

    In summary, universities must recognise that they are part of the problem identified by populism, but can contribute to solutions through purposive local actions supported by the government.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: From AI prohibition to integration – or why universities must pick up the pace

    Weekend Reading: From AI prohibition to integration – or why universities must pick up the pace

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Mary Curnock Cook CBE, who chairs the Dyson Institute and is a Trustee at HEPI, and Bess Brennan, Chief of University Partnerships with Cadmus, which is running a series of collaborative events with UK university leaders about the challenges and opportunities of generative AI in higher education.

    Are universities super tankers, drifting slowly through the ocean while students are speedboats, zipping around them? That was one of the most arresting images from the recent Kings x Cadmus Teaching and Learning Forum and captured a central theme running through the Forum: the mismatch between the pace of technological and social change facing universities and the slow speed of institutional adaptation when it comes to AI.

    Yet the forum also highlighted a fundamental change in how higher education institutions are approaching AI in assessment – moving from a reactive, punitive stance to one of proactive partnership, a shift from AI prohibition to integration. As speaker after speaker acknowledged, the sector’s initial approach of trying to detect and prevent AI use has been shown to be both futile and counterproductive. As one speaker noted, ‘we cannot stop students using AI. We cannot detect it. So we have to redefine assessment.’

    From left to right: Mary Curnock Cook, Professor Andrew Turner, Professor Parama Chaudhury, Professor Timothy Thompson. Source: Cadmus

    This reality has forced some institutions to completely reconceptualise their relationship with AI technology in order to work with the tide rather than against it. Where AI was viewed as a threat to academic integrity, educators are beginning to see it as an inevitable part of the learning landscape that calls for thoughtful integration, not least so that students are equipped for change and the AI-driven workplace. For example, Coventry University has responded by moving its assessment entirely to a coursework-based approach, except where there are Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements, and explicitly allows the use of AI, in most cases, to assist. 

    Imperial College’s approach exemplifies this new thinking with its principle of using AI “to think with you and not for you.” This approach recognises AI as a thinking partner rather than a replacement for human cognition, fundamentally changing how universities structure learning experiences. The shift requires moving from output-focused assessment to process-based evaluation, where students must demonstrate their thinking journey alongside their final products.

    Like many universities, Imperial is also concerned about equity of access to AI. As a baseline it offers enterprise access to a foundational LLM with firewalled data, Copilot, which ringfences the data within the institution. But it also has a multi-LLM portal pilot, which includes ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini and DeepSeek, acting as an AI sandpit to help instil a culture of thinking of the LLMs as different tools to be experimented with – users can switch between them and ask them the same question to see the variation in results. Meanwhile, LSE has partnered with Anthropic to offer all students free access to Anthropic’s Claude for Education, which helps students by guiding their reasoning process, rather than simply providing answers.

    Practical implementation challenges

    This transition to integration requires practical frameworks that many institutions are still developing. A speaker voiced the sector’s uncertainty as: ‘We do not know the next development – we didn’t see this one coming.’ This unpredictability leads to what was termed ‘seeking safety in policy’ – a tendency to over-regulate when the real need is for adaptive frameworks.

    The challenge of moving beyond traffic light systems (red/amber/green classifications for AI use) emerged repeatedly. These systems, while intuitive, often leave educators and students in the ambiguous amber zone without clear guidance: ‘everyone falls in the middle. You cannot do the red stuff but how do you enforce that? What do we really mean by the green stuff?’ Instead, some institutions are moving towards assessment-specific guidance that explicitly states when and how AI can be used for each task.

    Cultural and systemic transformation

    This technological shift demands profound cultural change within institutions. As one participant observed, ‘Culture change is being driven by students. Academics may not want to change but they no longer have a choice if they’re getting assessments written by AI – or they don’t know if the assessments are written by AI’. The pace of student adoption is outstripping institutional adaptation, creating tension between established academic practices and emerging student behaviours – those speedboats and super tankers again.

    However, while the magnitude of the challenge calls for institutional-scale change and moving beyond individual innovations to systemic transformation, super tankers don’t turn quickly.

    Strategic approaches to change at scale

    Several institutions shared their successful strategies for managing large-scale change. The key appears to be starting with early adopters and building momentum through demonstrated success. As Cadmus founder Herk Kailis noted, change champions are: ‘the best people who are keeping the sector evolving and growing – and we need to get behind them as there aren’t that many of them.’ Imperial’s approach of appointing ‘AI futurists’ in each faculty demonstrates how institutions can systematically seed innovation while maintaining a connection to disciplinary expertise.

    Another speaker observed that successful change requires ‘recognising the challenges and concerns of academic colleagues, bringing them together, supporting colleagues in making the changes they want.’ At Maynooth University, incentives for staff, such as fellowships and promotion pathway changes, rather than mandates, draws on the notion that ‘you can’t herd cats but you can move their food’.

    Cross-institutional collaboration

    The forum emphasised that institutional change cannot happen in isolation. The complexity of stakeholder groups – from faculty leads to central teams to students and student-facing services – requires sophisticated engagement strategies. As one participant noted about successful technology implementation: ‘Pilots don’t work if they are isolated with one stakeholder group. You need buy-in from all the groups.’

    The call for sector-wide collaboration extends beyond individual institutions to include professional bodies, regulatory frameworks and quality assurance processes – QA must also keep up with the pace of change. PSRBs, in particular, were singled out as a blocker to change.

    International networking is also important. For example, UCL is working with Digital Intelligence International Development Education Alliance (DI-IDEA) from Peking University, which is experimenting with AI in education in innovative and accelerated ways.

    Building sustainable change

    Perhaps most importantly, the forum recognised that sustainable institutional change requires long-term commitment and resource allocation, and this imperative could arguably not have come at a more difficult time for many HE institutions. The observation that ‘There’s never been a greater need and appetite from staff to engage with this at a time when resourcing in the sector is a real problem’ highlights the tension between ambition and capacity that many institutions face.

    However, the success stories shared – such as Birmingham City University’s Cadmus implementation saving 735.2 hours of academic staff time while improving student outcomes – demonstrate that institutional change, while challenging, can deliver measurable benefits for both educators and learners when implemented thoughtfully and systematically.

    Three recommended actions from the forum

    1. Address systemic inequalities, not just assessment design

    Research from the University of Manchester shared at the conference showed that 95% of differential attainment stems from factors beyond assessment itself – cultural awareness, digital poverty, caring responsibilities and lack of representation.

    Action: Take a holistic approach to student success that addresses the whole student experience, implements universal design principles, and recognises that some students are ‘rolling loaded dice’ in the academic game of privilege. Don’t assume assessment reform alone will solve equity issues.

    2. Reduce high-stakes assessment

    Traditional exam-heavy models risk perpetuating inequalities and don’t reflect workplace realities. Multiple lower-stakes assessments can support deeper learning and may be more equitable.

    Action: Systematically reduce reliance on high-stakes exams in favour of diverse and more authentic assessment methods. This helps to address both AI challenges and equity concerns while better preparing students for their futures.

    3. Co-create with students as partners

    Students are driving the pace of change – they are already using AI. They need to be partners in designing solutions, not just recipients of policies.

    Action: Involve students in co-designing assessments, rubrics and AI policies. Create bi-directional dialogue about learning experiences and empower students to share learning strategies. Build trust through transparency and genuine partnership.

    Source link