Will the green paper lead to EVEL legislation?

There’s lots written already on the HE green paper and no doubt more to come. My first two-penn’orth is on the question of scope.

David Kernohan on Wonkhe points out, rightly, that the impact of the green paper will not be restricted to England. Quite apart from Sir Paul Nurse’s research review, the impact of the green paper proposals, if enacted, would be felt in universities across the UK. For example, differentials of funding, student information, and perceived status could all increase. If the rest of the world routinely understood the nuances of the UK’s nations (and that fact that England does not equate to Britain, and vice versa) this might also impact upon international issues.

A number of the proposals in the green paper would require primary legislation. HEFCE has a statutory basis in the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, for instance, so abolishing it needs an amendment to that Act. Would any legislation be considered under the English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) procedure?

EVEL was introduced earlier this parliamentary session, and essentially gives English (and Welsh, sometimes) MPs a veto on legislation which affects only England (and Wales too, on some occasions). It was meant to answer the West Lothian question, but of course it doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer – it was hurriedly thought through to deal with politics, not governance.

It means that legislation which affects only England (or England and Wales in variant b) cannot be passed without the assent of English (and Welsh) MPs, but it doesn’t mean that legislation affecting England (and Wales) will necessarily be passed just because it has a majority of English (and Welsh, sometimes) votes. Any bill still needs to be passed by Parliament as a whole, and as the UK government is finding out at the moment in relation to Sunday trading, that isn’t a given.

The green paper has mixed messages here. Firstly, and one would think unambiguously,

46. Higher education is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so most of the proposals in this document apply to England only. However, the funding delivered through the Research Councils and some broader elements of research policy are reserved matters, so the proposals in Part D have UK-wide applicability. (pp16-17)

But then consider later on, in relation to TEF:

16. Our intention is that the TEF develops over time to be comprehensive and open to all HE providers in England, including alternative providers and further education colleges delivering HE provision. As part of this consultation, we are also discussing with Devolved Administrations, whether and how they would like to be involved in the TEF. (p21)

Let’s be blunt – they won’t really have a choice. Universities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are operating in the same environment as those in England – students are making choices between them, research funders are comparing them. It is in their interest to be in an environment which broadly mirrors that in England.

Devolved administrations will know this, and whilst in Scotland there is an attempt to follow a different path, Wales and Northern Ireland have adopted policies which recognise the connection with the English environment. Sometimes the devolved administration has done it better than England. Despite some worries about close scrutiny, for example, Wales has a simpler approach to access than England, with HEFCW signing off fee plans (the equivalent of access agreements) as a condition of funding.  The link between higher fees and the public interest, which is what OfFA was set up to ensure, is (pleasingly) clearer and easier across Offa’s dyke.

More significantly, perhaps, is that even though HE is a devolved matter, it isn’t a fragmented system in the eyes of staff and students. Cross border flows of both are real, ideas and practices are shared. I’d hope that when it comes to primary legislation, the bill isn’t regarded as EVEL.

Which isn’t to say that it won’t be evil – there’s lots to argue about in the green paper - but please, Mr Speaker, let’s make it an inclusive debate.

It's not all about the TEF, you know

There’s been much speculation about the details of the Teaching Excellence Framework, but the forthcoming green paper on Higher Education will contain much more than that. A discussion yesterday at the AUA Partnerships network conference prompts me to take a closer look at one aspect of this.

Jo Johnson’s speech to UUK on 9 September contained the following:

"The green paper will cast a critical eye over the processes for awarding access to student support funding, Degree Awarding Powers and University Title.

We have already made a start by providing a new route for trusted new and smaller providers to grow their student numbers. We are also beginning to link student number controls to the quality of the provider, through a “performance pool” which will operate for 2016 to 2017.

But the green paper will consult on options to go further. Success in higher education should be based on merit, not on incumbency. I want to fulfil our aim of a level playing field for all providers of higher education.

Many of you validate degree courses at alternative providers. Many choose not to do so. I know some validation relationships work well, but the requirement for new providers to seek out a suitable validating body from amongst the pool of incumbents is quite frankly anti-competitive. It’s akin to Byron Burger having to ask permission of McDonald’s to open up a new restaurant.

It stifles competition, innovation and student choice, which is why we will consult on alternative options for new providers if they do not want to go down the current validation route."

The basic point here is that without the power to award degrees, it’s tricky to be a provider of higher education. The practice of validation – a university agreeing that a curriculum and education designed and delivered by another organisation can lead to the award of a degree from the university – is a solution to this. (Note that validation is different from franchising – under franchising, the university owns the curriculum but outsources the teaching.)

There are 75 UK universities which are members of the Council of Validating Universities (CVU), which gives an idea of the scale of the practice. There isn’t (yet) a single definitive register of validated providers, but research conducted for BIS in 2013 counted 674 privately funded HE providers, most of which will have a validation relationship with one of more universities. So the ministers claim that “Many of you [remember, he was talking to Vice-Chancellors] validate degree courses at alternative providers” looks true. And it can be a decent business for universities, helping a faculty to balance its books.

The underlying cause of the minister’s ire – the need to find a way to empower new colleges in times of expanding higher education - isn’t new. The University of London fulfilled this function, via its external degree, in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century: many UK and overseas universities can trace their origins back to colleges offering tuition for the London external degree. The Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) fulfilled this function for the polytechnic sector until it was wound up in 1993, after the polytechnics had been made into universities.

Can we tell what approach might be in the green paper? If we take the CNAA model, then the establishment of a new body to do this could be possible. But the creation of a new quango at a time when they are set to be culled seems counter to the spirit of the times (O tempora! O mores!). So the University of London model is the other alternative from history: perhaps designating an existing university as having a 'duty to validate', or creating another university which is only a validator?

There’s a moral hazard here, just as the minister perceives an anti-competitive hazard in current arrangements. The key to validation is the maintenance of academic standards, and if you’ve a duty to validate, then an important element of the validation relationship – that of judging the capacity of another institution to meet the right standards – is put at risk. Some of the outcomes of the QAA’s review of alternative providers show the problems here: some alternative providers are good, but there are also some very shoddy ones.

Is the minister’s argument rooted in specific concerns? It would interesting to know which alternative providers have complained, and which university has refused to validate. What were the specifics? Was the refusal justified? Or perhaps the validation fee was simply seen as too high? Unless we can see that it’s a market that is broken and can’t be fixed by regulation, then the creation of a new entity seems premature.

I’ll be interested to see what the green paper has to propose.

Agenda setting

Not a minister

Not a Scottish footballer

Jo Johnson, Universities minister, gave a speech to UUK today.

When his appointment was announced back in May, I misread and thought they’d appointed Mo Johnston, former Scotland striker. Instead they went for a slightly blonder minister, whose speech shows that the government has an agenda for higher education.

The speech name-checked the government’s manifesto pledges, so it’s worth reminding ourselves about what they were:

We will ensure that if you want to go to university, you can

This year, for the first time, over half a million people have been admitted to our universities, including a record proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From September, we will go even further, abolishing the cap on higher education student numbers and removing an arbitrary ceiling on ambition. Our reforms to university funding mean you do not have to pay anything towards tuition while studying, and only start paying back if you earn over £21,000 per year. We will ensure the continuing success and stability of these reforms, so that the interests of both students and taxpayers are fairly represented. We will also introduce a national postgraduate loan system for taught masters and PhD courses. We will ensure that universities deliver the best possible value for money to students: we will introduce a framework to recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality; encourage universities to offer more two-year courses; and require more data to be openly available to potential students so that they can make decisions informed by the career paths of past graduates.

Conservative manifesto 2015, p35

Like every good to-do list, it includes two things which have already been done – removing the cap on places at English universities and introducing postgraduate loans (again in England only – HE is a devolved matter). That leaves four pledges:

1. Ensuring the continuing success and stability of the student loan system
2. Introducing a framework for teaching quality
3. Encourage university to offer more two-year courses
4. Require more data to be available to students

‘Value for money’ is the catch all for the last three of these.

And then the speech itself:

… my focus will be on implementing 3 key manifesto pledges, so that we consolidate and build on these achievements:
• Firstly, lifting the cap on student numbers and widening participation, so that we remove barriers to ambition and meet the PM’s commitment to double the proportion of disadvantaged young people entering higher education by 2020 from 2009 levels.
• Secondly, delivering a teaching excellence framework that creates incentives for universities to devote as much attention to the quality of teaching as fee-paying students and prospective employers have a right to expect.
• Thirdly, driving value for money both for students investing in their education, and taxpayers underwriting the system, so that we ensure the continuing success and stability of these reforms.

Teaching at the heart of the system, speech by Jo Johnson to UUK, 1 July 2015

And he had a lot to say about this, highlighting:

• Data that shows students are less happy about choices they have made (but see my post on the ComRes data)
• The possibility of assembling data showing student engagement and specific salaries from different universities, and the need for greater transparency about how fees are spent
• The government’s commitment to support an increase in the number of high quality universities
• His worry that the graduate premium has reduced, and the need to find out why and do something about it
• The need for partnership with business to influence curriculum design
• Plans for a Teaching Excellence Framework: 

"I expect the TEF to include a clear set of outcome-focused criteria and metrics. This should be underpinned by an external assessment process undertaken by an independent quality body from within the existing landscape."

• A green paper to be published in the autumn
• The need to tackle degree class inflation
• The need to use continual assessment (ie the GPA system) to push students harder throughout their programmes (with a dig at contact hours in the meantime)
• His intention to focus on WP in the more selective institutions (by means of two year programmes, apparently)

Four thoughts on this.

Firstly, who’ll run TEF? QAA looks like the obvious candidate, but let’s not forget the other “independent quality bod[ies] from within the existing landscape” –

• HEA – they know about teaching
• HESA – they have data on student progress
• OFFA – they know about student success
• OIA – they know what makes students cross
• Ipsos Mori – they know about student opinion through the NSS

Secondly, how do you do a light-touch TEF? You can use data on student achievement and value-added, which is about outcomes not about teaching; you can survey the taught, which is about perceptions not about outcomes; or you can inspect the teaching, which won’t be light touch. Answers on a postcard to Jo Johnson, please, before he has to sign off the green paper.

Thirdly, this stuff about the GPA. I’ll need to think about this but it seems to me that the argument goes that moving from degree classification to a 13 point scale will help student motivation because students currently don’t work hard because degree classes are an inexact measure of achievement. I’m not sure that this is an entirely flawless argument.

Fourthly, the graduate premium. The minister acknowledges that a university education is about more than salary, but argues that the decline in the graduate premium is a cause for concern, and promotes data that enable students to see what previous graduates have earned. Is this an argument that paves the way for raising the cap on fees, when the evidence, or sector action, supports the conclusion that it’s worth it? Or an argument for not raising the fee cap, as there’s work yet to be done?

There’s more to think about, and enough material for seminars and conferences, let alone some more blog posts. Interesting times.