Live: GuildHE Annual Conference 2016

Delegates have practiced the conversation techniques recommended to develop new relationships for knowledge exchange, with positive responses from the group. As a final note, Matthew Guest mentions that industrial strategy will create new partnerships and relationships, and these would be beneficial to develop early.

That brings us to the end of the conference! Thank you for joining us on the Live Blog – be sure to follow Team Wonkhe’s other Live Blog on the Autumn Statement throughout the afternoon.

One-on-one conversation, sharing experiences on both sides and understanding the drivers for why individuals want to be involved in a particular activity are all good ways to form relationships for knowledge exchange purposes, Matthew Guest says. He and Rhys Wait, GuildHE’s Project Officer, are demonstrating these elements with a conversation role-play!

The discussion turns to knowledge exchange. One delegate argues that capacity is important- who actually has the ability to respond to knowledge exchange varies from institution to institution.

Matthew Guest discusses relationship marketing, which he says is a powerful technique when thinking about how to develop knowledge exchange relationships. He says “if working with partners, there will be some people you have relationships with and share ideas, and you work with those people as it’s cheaper and easier”. He says that in smaller institutions, employees could be all relationship managers.

“if only we knew what it meant!” says one delegate. He continues to say he feels that it’s more to do with the economy and how universities can help them do their business. “It’s a bit like the word ‘skills’ – everyone knows it but we don’t know what it means”.

Another delegate says that, with regards to knowledge exchange, “it’s not 100% clear what the government wants to be sent the other way” and asks whether it’s just money. Other delegates mention time resource, space and talent.

This session brings together the attendees to discuss the themes of the conference, and the importance for HEIs in thinking about innovation.

Matthew Guest starts off the discussion and asks delegates why they feel innovation and knowledge exchange is important, we’ll hear some thoughts soon.

Delegate asks about staff mobility requiring collaboration and how this could contradict the ‘level playing field.

Douglas says that there seems to be collaboration between parts of sector and mission groups, but that the shift to risk-based approach could produce the danger that we lose quality enhancement by only looking at the best. Polly argues that collaboration should be encouraged, but that outlining it in the Bill would make it too long. Paul Kirkham makes the argument that collaboration and competition can work together, sector bodies are focused on this, established sector “not used to those forces.

Paul Kirkham asks the panellists about what they feel the future of HE will look like. Douglas and Polly both say that the UK will continue to  have the world’s best, whilst Alison argues that the sector will face challenges is how we improve “mass education” and address the skills shortage.

That brings us to the end of the session.

We hear from each of the panellists first on what they think about the regulatory framework.

Polly Payne says in her opening remarks that the new regulatory framework is the “beating heart of the bill”. She says that it is “essential that we have a new regulatory framework” as the HE system moves from being funded by grants to loans, and to draw together the current “disparate” system. She says that a provisional timetable to set the OfS April 18/19 but should set up the regulatory framework before that. Moving to a risk-based regulatory system – “having high-quality standards for entry” once reliable data, not subject to unnecessary bureaucracy.

Douglas Blackstock praises the HE Bill, as the sector has wanted a better regulatory framework after the “temporary sticking plaster” of the regulatory partnership. He says that the single register is positive as it will embed regulation throughout the system with consistency and include student interests, and has praised the government and opposition for engaging with the issues. He acknowledges that “there are things that need to be fixed around validation but I think the problem is overstated” and does share concerns for OfS responsibility for standards. Black recommends that the government could do more to produce more detailed guidance on DAPs.

Alison Wheaton presents her remarks by arguing that the “level playing field is shifting”, especially with issues relating to immigration. She focuses on the blind spots surrounding DAPs, such as the “counterproductive” 3 year gap between DAP and university status. She says there are some things to mindful of, particularly staff mobility across the sector and tackling obstacles which prohibit the ability of alternative providers to engage in the framework. Alison also argues that treatment of international students is “outrageous”, given they do not have working rights and cannot easily change providers. She ends by saying that HEIs have responsibilities to “signal value for money” and how we “continue to improve”, and argues that HEIs risk taking the easy way out by “choosing students who make it easier to hit targets and metrics rather than improving provision”.

We’re about to kick off today with a discussion on the regulation frameworks in the Higher Education and Research Bill. Paul Kirkham, Chief Executive of ICMP, is chairing the debate. On the panel we have Douglas Blackstock (QAA), Polly Payne (DfE) and Alison Wheaton (GSM London).

Good morning. Wonkhe are here for the second day of the GuildHE Annual Conference, with updates starting from 11am. You can also follow Wonkhe’s Live Blog on the Autumn Statement from midday onwards.

That concludes our Live Blog for today, but fear not, we will be back tomorrow morning for the second day of GuildHE Conference. For those who haven’t had enough of the Live Blog action, we will also be covering the Autumn Statement on a Live Blog from midday tomorrow.

“Active citizenship ranges from small acts in your university society to big political acts in your wider community”. Rob and Charlie point out that student societies, often thought of as inward facing, are actually the first steps towards active citizenship in the wider world.

We have a question about engaging more mature students in active citizenship and social action. Catherine points out that it can be a challenge from time to time, but that we do have successes by engaging directly with those groups of students. Sometimes there are barriers to participating, particularly in terms of available free time.

The panel is asked, if there was one thing that universities could do to develop this agenda, what would it be? Rob argues that curricula could be more political, from GCSEs and A-Levels into universities themselves. Catherine suggests that volunteering should be accredited within degree courses, and that guidance similar to careers guidance should be provided to help students work out exactly how and where they can make an impact. Charlie suggests universities should work on co-creation: rather than simply asking for feedback on policies and how the university is run, bring students on board with creating the educational environment.

Iain: “the planet groans at our graduation ceremonies”, as students move back into the ‘normal’ world. Joy uses this to make a final call to action for universities to change their approach.

“There is a contrast between what Jo Johnson said this morning and this”, remarks a delegate. We so often think in the sector about “what is done to us”, but not enough about what we can choose to do. “The best universities and best schools innovate and do things off their own back”.

Next up is Charlie Bertoia, President of the ARCC Students’ Association. He waxes lyrical about the benefits of students’ being involved in their unions, particularly in making and changing policy, realising what can and cannot be changed, but also believing that the sky’s the limit. Active citizenship in higher education should not be merely transactional, but instead should model education that as a partnership and participative process where students’ can understand what they can achieve when they are active and engaged.

Students need to be shown that what they do and say really matters – this is the only way to create active citizens. If students don’t believe this when in higher education, why should they believe it when they leave and go out into the wider world?

Charlie reflects on Brexit and the American election: “we’re seeing too many uninformed people getting engaged, and too many informed people disengaging”. Universities can change that, in fact the past year shows how this is no longer optional.

Next up is Catherine Mitchell of Student Hubs, the national student volunteering and social action organisation. She points out how students who get engaged report on how it benefits their experience, but also improves the environment around them – the “double improvement principle”. Indeed, there’s actually a triple benefit: universities benefit from more capable, engaged and employable students and graduates. Student Hubs’ projects are student-led, evidence-based, long-term, and progressive, and ensure that students can grow and develop during their time involved in social action.

“You must get a Hub”, says Joy Carter.

Mitchell: “when universities invest in high quality social action, they benefit, students benefit, and the local community benefit”.

We finish with Rob Young, Vice President (Society and Citizenship) at NUS.

“I never was political, and now I’m a vice president at NUS – it’s a testament to what volunteering and students’ unions can do”. Volunteering unlocks opportunities that students never imagine can exist, and Rob talks about his own route into social action through his university’s LGBT society. “Think about students not just as consumers, but as people who might change the world”.

NUS’s history shows just how students really do change the world. Students have been forerunners of advancing rights for women, LGBT people, black and ethnic minorities, and disabled people. Students have led campaigns on climate change and social and international justice. It really matter, and it really works.

We move to our final panel of the afternoon on GuildHE’s new joint report with NUS, ‘Active Citizenship: the role of higher education’.

Iain Patton, chair of the Environment Association of Universities and Colleges, is here to open us up. “It’s hard to imagine a quality higher education that doesn’t create active citizens”, but we live in a challenging world where commodification and marketisation can sometimes drive us in the opposite direction. The world, however, is changing too quickly not to create active citizens. And universities are being given new freedoms to refine what higher education is, and they can choose to make it about active citizenship.

GuildHE members can be at the heart of redefining universities’ role in solving the world’s problems, and it’s about a great deal more than having a few students as volunteers.

“I love it”, says Joy Carter.

We’re onto a few discussion points regarding TEF and social mobility – it’s rare we go so long in an HE conference these days without really touching on either. Joy Carter and Ruth Kelly debate the suitability of graduate employment metrics being included in the TEF, with Joy suggesting that they have nothing to do with teaching quality, whilst Ruth argues that they still have a useful role to play in student choice if controlling for other factors appropriately.

Another question concerns TEF’s link to fees: if ‘lower quality’ institutions have lower fees, will it send them into a tailspin?

We’re now into a discussion on institutional failure. One view is that it is nearly impossible to protect students when institutions fail, as having been taught at a failed institution will harm their interests, let alone simply ‘teaching out’ at another institution. Another view is that the sector has survived many institution’s failing, being merged into other institutions, and other aspects of risk.

Another delegate suggests that the traditional sector will have a lot to learn from alternative providers who are very used to managing risk and have done for many years. But, as Smita points out, almost all of the traditional sector has based its strategic approach upon growth, and this suggests that it hasn’t woken up to the new realities. Change will come, and traditional universities will have to learn from alternative providers – they have more in common than they typically like to think.

Ruth argues that “the impact of private providers is very important in showing the sector what opportunities are out there”.

“I’m quite worried about all the quality and standards stuff in the Bill”, says Smita. Ministers, and perhaps few others, really understand quality and standards in higher education. How exactly will quality equate with compliance? There is a lot of room for interpretation, and the sector can’t guarantee that it’s interpretation of these matters will be understood.

Ruth points out that “the government is always looking for a way out” when it comes to difficult matters such as the bind over international students.

Joy Carter points out in her own question that “choice does not always lead to diversity” – a point for reflection perhaps.

We’ve talked a lot about the negatives or market reform; what about the positives? Ruth argues that there are a few: universities need more money; students need to be enabled to make choices etc. Smita looks at her experience of advising universities on CMA compliance, and says she has been “horrified at what some higher education institutions think they can get away with” when it comes to making promises to students.

And we’re back after a short break, with views on the HE Bill from Smita Jamdar, Head of Education at Shakespeare Martineau, and Ruth Kelly, PVC at St Mary’s but of course also former Secretary of State for Education and Skills back in the heady days of New Labour.

Smita begins with her own views on the Bill, starting with her concerns. Firstly, she asks whether having two completely separate regulatory bodies and frameworks for teaching and research will work. Secondly, on institutional autonomy, particularly given HE “is effectively moving towards a licensing scheme”, where degree awarding powers can be given and taken away. Thirdly, “the Bill will herald a far more volatile environment” – market and institutional failure is a specific design of the Bill and not an accidental offshoot. All the financial sustainability amendment appears to do “is ensure that someone keeps an eye on how bust you’re going…”.

Smita asks how geared up the sector really is for introducing a much more centralised regulatory system, particularly in dealing with staff who may feel used to greater freedoms.

From a legal point of view, Smita suggests that the worst case scenarios that the Bill could allow for really could be bad. What, if for instance, “we get a Prime Minister Trump?”. The language of ‘compliance’ once again makes an appearance – Smita suggests it implies “listening when you are told”. Are the sector ready for this? Are the minister’s assurances about the Bill’s intentions really enough?

We move onto Ruth Kelly, who suggests that many of the proposals in the Bill are a logical follow on from the 2004 Higher Education Act introduced when she was in government. She welcomes the introduction of new providers and new vehicles for facilitating student choice, but is wary about the volatile context in which universities are operating and in which the Bill will be passed. Many university business models are premised on two things: low interest rates, and continued international student growth. Neither are guaranteed any longer.

Ruth welcomes the TEF as “an alternative to how many of our current league tables are set up”, suggesting it is more relevant than many of the most high profile ones currently are.

On institutional autonomy, it is “a much more profound good” than perhaps the government understands, and Ruth argues that perhaps Jo Johnson has taken a “rather utilitarian” view of universities’ autonomy; she argues it must be strengthened in the Bill going forward, along with academic standards.

Before our break, we have an interesting discussion following Jo Johnson’s departure, with Gordon McKenzie citing Mark Leach’s blog for Wonkhe this morning: Quality, compliance and international students doublespeak

Two pieces of speculation from the room on this matter. One suggests that there is still a battle being fought between the Home Office and No.10 one side and DfE and the Treasury on the other. Another picks up on Johnson’s comment that the sector should support a regime based on “quality of compliance” when the consultation comes out – might this be the way the government backs down and still saves face? Has the minister given a wink and a nod to universities?

The first question is from the students’ union president here at St Mary’s, asking about the quasi-student representative on the OfS Board. Johnson says that it is not his intention to be prescriptive in any way about how “experience of representing students” will be defined, and will leave that interpretation to the Board itself.

The next question is about social and civic responsibility of universities. Johnson argues that the HE Bill will ensure that widening participation and social mobility are central to the Bill, particularly by putting new duties on the sector for transparency in admissions, and also by introducing non-interest bearing loans. Johnson frames universities’ civic uses in terms of regional economic and social growth, and argues that the Bill will enable regional ‘cold spots’ to be addressed.

The ‘Dyson Institute’ that made the news a few weeks ago has been raised, and Johnson says he is excited about the new model of single-subject and specialist higher education institutions that can address particular skills shortages.

We have a question about the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill to attach conditions for funding tied to certain courses. Johnson states that post-amendment, the intention behind the current wording of the Bill is to ensure that the government can direct funding towards those subjects which are high cost and require funding from the shrinking teaching grant. He is clear that the amendment is intended to ensure that no minister can force providers to open up or close down particular courses as a condition of grant funding.

We move to international students and the recent India trip. There is a suggestion that there were “mixed messages” about openness to international students, but Johnson his adamant that he was completely clear in his own messaging. One particular challenge for India, suggests Johnson, is that the Indian government does not recognise the UK one-year masters as a qualification, and this is a substantial part of our international offering.

Joy Carter asks about the ever thorny issue of the Home Secretary’s recent speech… Johnson: “No decision has yet been taken” on whether to “differentiate on the basis of compliance or differentiate on the basis of quality”, but he hopes that the sector might “get behind” an approach based on compliance. There is a knowing nod between Jo and others in the room – make what you wish of that.

Gordon McKenzie asks about “a recognition” in the Bill of specialist or denominational institutions such as St Mary’s (and many other GuildHE members). Johnson says he is open to the idea but would have to be convinced of what this might achieve, and that the Bill seeks to create “a level playing field”.

Joy has another question, this time on universities and schools. She wonders aloud whether universities are “loosing a bit of their research and reflection input into schools, and are becoming more hands on”, and asks for the minister’s response to that. Again says “the government hasn’t been prescriptive” beyond sponsorship about how universities might develop that relationship.

Gordon gives his thanks to Jo Johnson and is grateful for his entire approach to his role as universities minister.

Johnson moves onto his latest amendments of the Bill, which he says reflect two principles: institutional autonomy, and ensuring that students are at the centre of his reforms. He argues that institutional autonomy is “enshrined” in the Bill, and that his amendment to the Secretary of State’s powers regarding grant funding confirm just that. He states that requiring someone on the OfS Board with experience of representing students was brought about in response to the points raised by student groups and the opposition.

Johnson “looks forward to the further scrutiny that we will definitely get” in the House of Lords, and doesn’t rule out the possibility of future tweaks and changes.

The minister wishes to finish by turning to international students. “There are few subjects about which I care so passionately… as that of international students”. He reiterates his statement in Parliament last night that there will be no hard cap on Tier 4 visas that can be issued. “We are certainly not… closing down our international student offer” he states, and he endeavoured to make this message at the heart of his recent trip to India. Nonetheless, the message that the UK is open to international students can be more effectively communicated worldwide, he states. He cites the ‘Education is Great’ campaign currently being run by DfE.

Brexit negotiations will be significant for higher education, and Johnson offers his assurances that he will be doing his best to secure the best for GuildHE members and the wider sector.

Higher education is “the linchpin of so much of what we want to achieve as a government”, says Johnson.

The minister has arrived and begins by mentioning the ‘downpayment’ announcement by the Prime Minister on Monday of £2bn extra for research and innovation – a real 20% increase in overall spending in this area, though as he states “we have to wait for the details on Wednesday”.

This announcement “puts science and research right at the heart of our industrial strategy”, says Johnson, and he reiterates the Prime Minister’s wish to make the UK a “go to place” for scientists.

“GuildHE’s members represent some of the very best in UK higher education”, and he thanks the organisation’s input into the Bill. 

Johnson also mentions last week’s paper setting out how UKRI and OfS will work together to make teaching and research “a virtuous circle” that work in sync and together.

Gordon McKenzie, Chief Executive of GuildHE, is now up in the ‘awkward’ slot as he calls it – that whilst we wait for a minister to show-up. It is notoriously difficult to predict exactly when they might show up, and thus how long one should speak for.

Gordon chooses to focus his remarks on the Autumn Statement, leaving the minister to speak to the TEF and the HE Bill.

We know that the forecast for tomorrow’s announcement is not great: growth will be slow and spending will be limited. We are told that there have been many fraught discussions between No. 10 and No. 11, with the latter wanting a more cautious approach, but the Prime Minister demanding a package of policies to help the ‘Just About Managing’ – ‘JAMs’. Plenty of the Autumn Statement has so far been trailed, perhaps in order to downplay expectations as much as possible, but we should expect another couple of big news stories tomorrow, and they could relate to investment, infrastructure, research and development.

And so we begin today’s #GuildHE16 Conference. Joy Carter, chair of GuildHE, gives the initial welcome, and passes over to Francis Campbell, Vice Chancellor of St Mary’s University, to give us the formal welcome to this lovely setting.

Over the course of the conference we will be hearing from Jo Johnson, Vince Cable, Madeleine Atkins, and Ruth Kelly.

St Mary’s resides within Strawberry Hill House, which was once owned by relations of former Prime Minister Robert Walpole, the Waldergrave Family. The room we are inside was home to regular soirees and balls visited by the creme-de-la-creme of Victorian society.

St Mary’s itself was founded as a Catholic teacher training college based upon the ideas of Cardinal Newman, author of the influential ‘The Idea of the University’.

Good morning. Updates from GuildHE’s annual conference will begin at approximately 2pm.