The national interest(s)

The UK has four separate national higher education policies. It’s a devolved matter, so the governments in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh set the policies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland independently of policies determined by BIS in London for England. But it is also the case that there’s a single higher education system in the UK – at least when viewed from the perspectives of staff, students and research funders. Staff move freely between the different nations; there’s plenty of student mobility between nations, and research funders look for the best research, which often spans the UK’s internal borders. So there’s two contrary facts on the go at the same time.

Universities Wales, the local franchise of UUK in Wales, has today published a manifesto which speaks to the tension which arises because of this. The manifesto, which aims to help shape party policies in May 2016’s assembly elections, sets out six ‘fundamental commitments’ for universities in Wales. Let’s take a look.

The first of these fundamental commitments addresses access to maintenance funding for students: “Provide means-tested maintenance grants for Welsh students from foundation through to postgraduate level to ensure that everyone in Wales has access to the life changing opportunities provided through higher education.”

There’s two things going on here. Firstly, a recognition that access to money to live on whilst studying is a major factor in widening access and enabling students to succeed. Future fee repayments are much less of an inhibiting factor than cash for food, rent and clothes. Secondly, the range of the funding – undergraduates are not the only students, and with postgraduate loans available in England, Welsh universities and Welsh students are disadvantaged if similar funding is not available.

The second commitment addresses affordability: “Prioritise university funding towards the policies that both provide opportunities to access an internationally competitive, high quality university education and deliver economic and social benefits for individuals, government and businesses in Wales.”

At the moment the Welsh Government provides a direct fee subsidy for all Welsh-domiciled (ie, living in Wales before they went to university) students, no matter where they attend university. So, Welsh government HE money is being spent to pay fees at universities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (although in practical terms the vast majority of Welsh students who study outside Wales do so in England.) And the plain truth is that this commitment places great pressure on other Welsh HE priorities. The Diamond Commission is currently looking at HE funding issues (and is due to report after the election – where have we heard that before?), and Universities Wales is aiming to help change policy. Welsh Labour has previously made a clear anti-fee commitment, so all policy help will be important. And it’s clearly tied in with the maintenance grants point in the first ‘fundamental commitment’: give something good to students before taking something else away.

The third commitment speaks to a very real concern for the larger universities in Wales: “Maintain in real terms the quality-related (QR) research budget that underpins Wales’ world leading research.” The size of the sector in Wales means that government can be far more selective in research funding, and REF 2014 showed that the quality of research in Wales as measured by GPA was high. What is also important that scale factors aren’t used as a reason for the Welsh government to reduce QR funding as a response to financial pressures.

The fourth commitment speaks to the variety of access to higher education: “Continue investment in part-time provision both to widen access to higher education and develop crucial skills within the Welsh workforce, mindful that part-time provision requires distinct support and investment in order to deliver for Wales.” This is an area where the English funding model has hit universities hard, with significant declines in part-time study.

The fifth ‘fundamental commitment’ relates to HEFCW: “Retain a funding and oversight body for higher education in Wales to manage risk and provide stability to the sector, provide assurance to Government and enable universities to continue delivering for Wales.”

The proposed changes in English HE would see the abolition of HEFCE. English universities value the buffer HEFCE provides between government and any individual university, and a removal of that buffer, with the more explicit possibility of government choosing which subjects and universities to fund, causes concerns. In Wales the issues are magnified: in a small country it’s easier for government to interfere.

And finally, Europe: “Actively support Wales remaining a member of the European Union.” Wales gets a great deal out of Europe – in terms of funding for economic regeneration, for instance – and it’s a matter of concern for Welsh universities that access to research funding, as well as staff and student mobility, should continue. In practical terms, Welsh government commitment to membership of the EU will mean little in the event of a referendum ‘out’ vote, but the ‘fundamental commitment’ helps emphasise the significance of the EU to universities.

So of the six commitments, the first five – maintenance grants, access to funding for all levels of study, research funding, part-time funding, and regulation – seek directly to counter, address, or improve upon, the changes which have or will happen in England. Welsh Universities know that if their part of the HE system isn’t finely tuned with respect to that in England, they’ll suffer the consequences.

Parliamentary scrutiny

Post general election there’s been an ‘emergency’ budget, a new government, elections of new party leaders (has anyone noticed this?) and parliamentary business back in full swing. (Albeit now temporarily suspended for party conference season.)

One of the manifestations of parliament being back in action is the announcement by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee of an Inquiry into Assessing Quality in Higher Education.  This follows the policy proposals for a Teaching Excellence Framework and a forthcoming Green Paper on Higher Education.

In establishing the Inquiry, the Committee’s chair, Ian Wright, is quoted on the committee website as saying:

“Ministers say they want to develop new incentives to improve teaching quality, tackling what the Government sees as patchiness in provision. The Government faces a number of challenges in seeking to introduce a new Teaching Excellence Framework – not least the challenging timescale it has set – and the Committee will be involved in looking at how this policy area develops from an early stage. As a Committee, we want to scrutinise the Government’s plans for assessing quality in Higher Education, making sure that any new mechanism is effective and works to strengthen the UK’s world-leading university brand.”

All of this is positive – recognising the risks involved in the establishment of the TEF and stating an intention to work on accountability through the development process, not retrospectively.

This is also an area where the realities of the higher education sector work against the devolved nature of government. The sector shares values and habits which work across all of the UK nations, and, because of the dominance in scale of the English sector compared to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, decisions about managing the sector in England have a knock-on effect on the devolved nations.  But HE is a devolved matter, so although the proposals about linking TEF to funding look like they apply only to English universities, they’ll have consequences for the other nations, whatever their governments may want to think. Where England goes, then other nations will probably follow, albeit using a slightly different road (think about driving from London to Bath using the A4 instead of the M4 –it may take slightly longer, but it’s probably also a more pleasant drive, if you enjoy that sort of thing).

Parliamentary committees have no direct power – they can’t direct a change in government policy, or themselves amend a bill – but they are part of the mechanism that helps draft and improve proposed legislation. So the inquiry is timely and important for the sector, to make sure that detailed concerns are heard.

The scope of the inquiry is on the Committee’s website, and for convenience (I’m all about saving you a click or two) here they are too:

The BIS Committee is keen to hear views and welcomes written submissions which address the following questions:

1 What issues with quality assessment in Higher Education was HEFCE’s Quality Assurance review seeking to address? 

2 Will the proposed changes to the quality assurance process in universities, as outlined by HEFCE in its consultation, improve quality in Higher Education?   

3 What should be the objectives of a Teaching Excellence Framework (‘TEF’)?  

a. How should a TEF benefit students? Academics? Universities?
b. What are the institutional behaviours a TEF should drive? How can a system be designed to avoid unintended consequences?
c. How should the effectiveness of the TEF be judged? 

4 How should the proposed Teaching Excellence Framework and new quality assurance regime fit together?  

5 What do you think will be the main challenges in implementing a Teaching Excellence Framework?  

6 How should the proposed connection between fee level and teaching quality be managed?  

a. What should be the relationship between the Teaching Excellence Framework and fee level?
b. What are the benefits or risks of this approach to setting fees?

The Committee itself is made up of eleven MPs – six Conservative, four Labour (one of whom is chair), and one SNP:

Member	Constituency	Local universities
Iain Wright (Lab) – Chair	Hartlepool	Durham, Teeside
Paul Blomfield (Lab)	Sheffield Central	Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam
Richard Fuller (Con)	Bedford	Bedfordshire
Peter Kyle (Lab)	Hove	Brighton, Sussex
Amanda Milling (Con)	Cannock Chase	Staffordshire, Wolverhampton
Amanda Solloway (Con)	Derby North	Derby
Jo Stevens (Lab)	Cardiff Central	Cardiff, Cardiff Metropolitan, South Wales
Michelle Thomson (SNP)	Edinburgh West	Edinburgh, Edinburgh Napier, Heriot-Watt, Queen Margaret
Kelly Tolhurst (Con)	Rochester and Strood	Greenwich, Medway Campus
Craig Tracey (Con)	North Warwickshire	Coventry, Warwick
Chris White (Con)	Warwick and Leamington	Coventry, Warwick

You’ll see that there is Scottish and Welsh representation as well as English, so an opportunity for some perspectives from the devolved nations to be heard. And also a fair spread of types of university in or near their constituencies, so there’s plenty of opportunities for lobbying by these universities.

The Inquiry is seeking responses by 30 October. These can come from individuals as well as groups, so this is a good chance to get involved in shaping something which will matter to higher education. Reformism in action.

Sexual harassment on campus

The BIS announcement on Monday of a UUK task force to tackle violence against women on campus is targeted at a real and longstanding issue. In this post I’ll look at the proposed task force, what’s behind this, and what universities can do.

The task force isn’t the government’s – it’s to be run by Universities UK, but has been asked by BIS to do five things:

• Develop a code of practice to support cultural change in universities
• Work up a kitemark scheme to recognise successful universities 
• Develop practice in working with local police
• Ensure proper use of OIA and – interestingly – the Equalities and Human Rights Commission for complaints
• Encourage universities to work with local groups

Codes of Practice and kitemarks can be a bit woolly but there’s some specifics in there, which suggests that this is a little more than window dressing.

There’s no doubt that there is a problem to be addressed. An NUS report in 2010 – highlighted by BIS – identified that one in seven respondents to a large-scale (n=2058) survey of female students had experienced a serious physical or sexual assault during their time as a student, with more than two-thirds experiencing some form of verbal or non-verbal harassment.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator – in its 2014 annual report – identified sexual harassment as an Emerging and High Profile issue:

Sexual harassment and the ‘lads’ culture’

The NUS and many providers have taken a close interest, both in the UK and overseas, in sexual harassment on campus. Student and national media carry frequent stories about what is euphemistically termed ‘laddish’ behaviour, often from sports clubs and other student societies. There are disturbing reports of what one student newspaper called the ‘rape culture’. One student committed suicide in 2014, following allegations of persistent sexual harassment.

The OIA receives a small number of complaints each year from students who may be victims, or who are alleged or convicted perpetrators, of harassment and sexual assault. Some of these cases relate to crimes for which perpetrators have been convicted by the courts. Others cover incidents that have been dealt with internally under a provider’s disciplinary regulations, but do not lead to criminal charges. Some of the students involved struggle to understand that behaviour that they wrongly believe is acceptable breaks disciplinary codes, and sometimes laws, that have been put in place to protect others.

It should be of concern to everyone working and studying in higher education that cases occur of unwanted physical contact, unwanted advances, initiation ceremonies, sexual innuendo and threats. We have made, and providers have implemented, recommendations about improving support and strengthening processes to help students, and also staff, involved in such cases. The OIA’s role is not to judge the behaviour but to look at how the providers dealt with complaints or disciplinary cases. One case concluded in 2014 confirmed that a provider’s decision to expel a student following complaints about indecent exposure was reasonable, but only after it was required to re-run the disciplinary process having mishandled the case first time around.

These are not easy issues to deal with. The OIA is in early stages of discussions with the NUS and other stakeholders on joint working to provide additional guidance.

The Task Force terms of reference and membership have not yet been announced by UUK – no doubt it will be discussed at the UUK Annual get-together this week. But the steer that BIS have given UUK is interesting.

Firstly, the Equality Act dimension. The Equality Act – and especially the Public Sector Equality Duty - place an obligation on universities not only to reactively deal with issues of equality, but proactively to work towards a greater degree of equality. This is a powerful tool.  By citing it, BIS are making the issue of sexual harassment, and its likely effect of making women less likely to thrive within an HE environment, one for which universities are responsible. Universities cannot dismiss the issue as one of individual transgressions: there’s a systemic element.

Secondly, there’s an element of rebuke here. The Public Sector Equality Duty makes universities responsible for proactively identifying and dealing with issues which militate against equal treatment. That it’s taken BIS – in 2015 – to publicly identify something which NUS flagged in 2010 does mean that universities have not had their eyes on the ball – collectively – with this one. Obviously universities haven’t ignored the issue when it was raised with them by BIS. It wouldn’t be a task force if they had. But it’s interesting to see that BIS are willing to engage with wider sector issues like this.

So what can universities do? Engage with the task force’s work and implement its recommendations, for sure. Implement the Code of Practice and get the kitemark. But there’s a deeper issue here. Universities have a long habit of trying to deal with matters internally. This goes right back to the original medieval foundation of universities as being responsible for their own staff and students in all matters. (That’s the derivation of 'university', by the way – universitas being a single corporate body; it’s got nothing to do with universality of knowledge.) But crime on campus should be treated as such, and universities will need to become more adept at bringing in the police when necessary, and counselling individual students of the need to report crime as crime.

This is an agonising issue. When a student is crying in your office, with a sad account of wrongdoing and harm done, it is a natural response to try use the tools you have– internal disciplinary codes, and the like – to sort it out. Especially when the alleged perpetrator is a fellow student. But a crime is a crime and treating it as if it were an internal misdemeanour can go wrong – leaving a mess that doesn’t wash out easily. So there’s a need for more resource for advising students, but also a need not to intervene when your regulatory powers to do so are not up to the task.

Students’ Unions are a boon in such circumstances. Obviously not in breaching confidentiality in individual cases, but as a partner in helping individual students recognise that harm done to them should be reported and dealt with by the law; and also that their individual behaviour can have consequences. This is how culture will change over time.

Duff degrees

My recent reading on trips to and from a client has included the very informative and entertaining Degree Mills by “FBI Agent Allen Ezell (Retired) and John Bear PhD”.  It makes interesting reading, particularly alongside the news item last week about the government’s “crackdown on fake degrees”.

A good book. ISBN 978-1-61614-507-1

It seems that BIS has asked HEDD - Higher Education Degree Datacheck - “to proactively address issues concerning bogus institutions and the misuse of the word ‘university’ as well as to tackle the related area of degree fraud. It aims to reduce the burgeoning number of unaccredited institutions by increasing prosecutions through investigation and awareness-raising.”

The word University is a protected term within UK trade law, meaning, broadly, that if you use it without actually being a university you are liable for some sort of trouble. Exactly what trouble varies, as enforcement is usually down to trading standards teams within local authorities.

Compare this with the USA, where University is not a protected term, but those who run degree mills, when prosecuted, are prosecuted for fraud, with lengthy prison sentences.

Ezell and Bear’s book shows that there’s a real problem in the USA – with different approaches in individual states, and no monopoly accrediting body. Indeed, one of the interesting things that seems to be happening is that as well as degree mills (that is, organisations which sell degrees without requiring academic work) there are now also accreditation mills – fake accrediting agencies which give a veneer of respectability to degree mills.  And of course these can be one and the same operation.

The UK’s infrastructure in this respect is strong – the QAA does provide a good check on standards, and the Privy Council via HEFCE, is jealous of the term university. But there’s no room for complacency: the growth in private providers means that knowing all the UK degree awarders becomes more difficult, and if you’re not in the sector, how easy is it to tell if a place is a university?

The UK can be a plausible base for such operations: Ezell and Bear list institutions of which they are suspicious (25 pages of them in their book), and there’s a fair few in the UK. Here’s a selection to give a flavour: Abingdon University, Ashford University, Athenaeum University, Chelsea University, Lamberhurst University, Somerset University, University of Doncaster, Westhampton University. Now some of these look odd – but without looking on the web are you absolutely sure that some of these aren't legitimate?

Anther practice which encourages degree mills is the habit – which I, haven’t come across in the UK – of employment contracts which give a higher salary for a higher qualification. The financial benefit of having a master’s degree or a doctorate becomes very real, and the ROI for a fake degree – if you’re not found out – is pretty good.

Ezell and Bear have a chapter, though, which really works for me: Animals with degrees. As part of the prosecution, it seems that investigators have made a habit of buying degrees for animals. And so there’s a catalogue of qualified pets of various sorts – my favourite is Dr Zoe D Katze.  And if you kept a snake, wouldn’t it be great to have a Mamba, MA MBA?

Zoe D Katze, PhD

HEDD are doing an important service, and it’s good that BIS are making this a priority.  But unless the will to prosecute is there, is it going to make a huge difference? I know from experience that local authorities do not put tackling the production of fake degree certificates at the top of their priority list, and they’re getting ever more stretched. Time to treat degree fraud as a more serious crime?