Search

This paper assesses the growing UK private sector in education and questions whether it is, as its supporters suggest, a valuable addition to an already diverse national system. An earlier "Perspectives" paper (Woodfield et al 2011) explored the emerging partnerships between public and private sectors. This follow-up explores the roles that the private sector providers are now playing. To understand this fully it is essential to analyse the range and type of private providers, since their different characteristics and functions mean that only some are relevant to this debate. (Contains 1 table.)

In a previous paper, this author argued that the present governance arrangements for UK universities and colleges, and in particular the preferred official model for governing bodies, were no longer fit for purpose (if indeed they ever were), and that some fundamental reforms were needed. This paper sets out some reform proposals. The author goes on to put forward ideas for reform of university governance. [For Part I, see EJ925045.] (Contains 1 note.)

Since 1998-99, when the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly were established, higher education policies appear to have diverged across the four "home countries" of the UK. This divergence is most visible in the contrasting tuition-fee and student-support arrangements for students entering HE in 2012, and in the values and philosophies that underlie them. Devolution, it would appear, has started a process which is inexorably leading the four HE systems of the UK to go their own separate ways. Or has it? In this paper, the author suggests that the forces which keep the four systems together are at least as strong as those which pull them apart. There has been some divergence, and there will probably be more, but even this divergence has been constrained and shaped by the four systems' continuing interdependence. The UK dimension continues to be important. (Contains 2 tables.)

The author has been asked by the Editor-in-Chief to write about the impact of fees on the sector. He does so with concern for the impact on and implications for applicants, students, graduates and their families. Home and European Union undergraduate tuition fees are of course only part of the fee picture for higher education institutions (HEIs), but are by far the most topical and controversial, especially in England. From the Browne Review (Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (2010), the Government's White Paper on higher education (BIS 2011) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) consultation document on teaching funding (HEFCE 2011) they know the key ingredients but they do not yet know how the cake will come out of the oven. In this commentary he attempts to identify some of the trends that may develop as a result of these policies and how they may affect students and their families, employers and existing or new providers of higher education, all in the context of international developments in higher education.

There is no shortage of literature addressing the range of reasons why more disadvantaged groups are underrepresented in higher education--and particularly elite universities--in the UK, and it is clear that this has little to do with any real deficiency in terms of ability. This paper begins with an overview of this issue but then extends the argument beyond widening participation (WP) at the point of access. It raises concerns emerging from two relatively underresearched areas in the literature which indicate that "WP" students are faced with greater inequalities than their more affluent peers both during their undergraduate degrees as well as beyond them. Although the focus here is on the UK, this topic and many of its themes will be familiar to educationalists and HE practitioners in other countries.

The prime feature of the student's legal relationship with his or her university is that it is governed by contract law, and in all other aspects of life such a contract can be reviewed/investigated by the courts in the event of a dispute between the two parties to the contract. In the world of academe, however, the key aspect of the contract (the delivery of teaching and examining by the university) is beyond such investigation, even by a court (let alone, say, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator [OIA]). This is because the English courts (in line with courts around the world) apply judicial deference to the exercise of expert academic judgement--and hence this concept, as explored in this paper, is a "Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card" for universities. Will this privilege of academe continue? Is it threatened by the HRA/ECHR, by the expansion of public law judicial review, by the increased application of consumer law, by the growth of discrimination law? Or perhaps it will be challenged via the QAA and the Bologna Process "enforcing" (over?) precision in "learning outcomes"? This article attempts to give answers to these questions.

Perhaps more than any other country in Europe, the UK has well-established equality law and practice, originating with the Race Relations Act of 1965, but based on a longer history of struggle for equality. In 2011 public bodies, including higher education institutions (HEIs), were required to respond to the implementation of the Equality Act 2010--new legislation which extended legal protections from discrimination and which required the sector to be transparent about the progress being made towards equality for all people working or studying in their campuses. So, does this mean UK has now achieved substantive equality? As chief executive of Equality Challenge Unit, the body tasked with advancing equality and diversity in higher education, the author believes that great strides have been made in the higher education sector, and in society as a whole. But it is also clear that inequality remains, albeit often in more complex and subtle forms than have been understood before. In this article, the author discusses the evolving concept of equality and explains why re-invigorating the equality agenda is an institutional priority. He also discusses the transformative power of higher education, which occupies a unique position in society, providing ideas-led drivers that result in economic as well as social change. He argues that embedding equality and diversity, particularly within systems, structures and practices, has the potential to produce huge benefits for society as a whole, contributing new and developing models of economic and social activity and embedding attitudes that staff and students will carry with them into the wider society.

Inside the academy there is a cultural perspective that it should run itself, in the sense that "business as usual" should be done with no one's hands obviously on the levers. This theory reaches its high point in the "self-government" of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. In this article, the author explores the question, "who runs our universities?", and explains that it is the duty of university governance, leadership and management to analyse, adjudicate and steer through the overheated battle between those inside and those outside UK universities about who is really in charge.

This article represents a lecture given by Professor Steve Smith at the Association of University Administrators Annual Lecture on 20 October 2009. There has been considerable change in the sector since the lecture was delivered, however, the Editor and author felt that the issues still pose significant challenges to higher education (HE), and publication also provides a useful yardstick against which to gauge the speed at which those challenges have either crystallised or become more complex. In this article, Smith focuses on the key challenges for the future. He discusses the major themes of the new HE Framework which are likely to include: (1) funding; (2) the "New Industry, New Jobs" agenda; (3) greater flexibility of provision; and (4) social mobility. He also urges the HE sector to work together as a united sector, celebrating difference, not seeing it as hierarchy, and always celebrating excellence in all its forms.

This article sets the Leitch Review of Skills in the context of the wider skills debate and draws attention to potential flaws, of which higher education (HE) managers need to be aware when responding to this policy pressure. It argues that there are fundamental flaws in the Leitch report arising from underlying assumptions which are unproven in some cases and even untested in others. Its broad assumptions about the drivers for change being primarily economic are understandable, but the report fails to convince on the basis of strong evidence that government fears are grounded. Furthermore the report has a tendency to oversimplify, while experiences across the sector present a much more complex picture of social and economic trends in western society. Academia is a naturally conservative sector; without a more logical and convincing rationale for change, policy resistance could be high. The report shows little respect for academic institutions and their ability to manage their own curriculum development, while affording employers greater input than perhaps they have the time, willingness, or expertise to provide. A partnership approach can have many benefits but it is important to appreciate its limitations and the inherent tensions between policy and the institutions' adaptability to respond. Crucially, the report fails to convince on its claims to serve social justice. Despite claims for up-skilling as a vehicle of social mobility, experience to date suggests that traditional inequities remain. As ever, the sector has done its best to respond to policy pressures. There have been many successful attempts, particularly in post-1992 universities, to develop employable graduates. The author contends that the recommendations made in the report are unlikely to deliver unless and until sufficient account is taken of current working practices, relationships between the academy and industry, and general organisational culture in UK HE.

An emerging literature is beginning to create a theoretical framework for analysing the role of professional managers in the context of UK higher education. In this article, the author argues, drawing from his own experience in a range of higher education institutions, that this literature misses a crucial distinction amongst professional managers and specialists from professions which exist outside the world of higher education. Building on this distinction to analyse the professional services staff, the author recommends ways in which institutions can reduce the professional-academic divide in university management. (Contains 3 figures.)

League tables have been defined as "weighted combinations of performance indicator scores where the total is used to rank institutions such as schools, universities and hospitals." While publishers of league tables say that their main purpose is to inform students and prospective students, particularly those abroad with limited access to information, this is not entirely the case as the main purpose of league tables is to sell newspapers. The other main purpose of league tables is to promote a particular kind of higher education as being intrinsically superior: the kind of higher education provided by those institutions that regularly appear in the higher positions. In this article, the author provides his views on the limitations of league tables in disseminating information about the quality of education offered by various higher education institutions. (Contains 1 table.)

The accountants Grant Thornton (GT) do a welcome and nice piece of pro bono work by analysing the annual accounts of the UK's 160 (sic) HEIs and compiling a report on "The Financial Health of the Higher Education Sector"--this year entitled "The calm before the storm"! GT duly note that, if the US Department of Education's "ratio-based methodology" were applied to the UK HEIs, 104 of them would "fare well" under this way of assessing "the financial condition" of universities and colleges, while a not insignificant thirty-four would require "careful monitoring" and a worrying twenty-two "would be barred from Federal funding programmes". However, GT warn of the gathering storm clouds: notably the uncertainty over the recruitment of Home/EU undergraduates as the higher fees kick in, the impact on overseas student numbers of the UK Border Agency's increasingly stringent policy on (not) awarding immigration visas, and the massive cost of eventually having to catch up with a long-term backlog of infrastructure maintenance and ageing buildings. Thus, GT sees UK HE as "entering a period of uncertainty" in which Government HE policy will have "potentially devastating consequences" and in which some HEIs "may find it difficult to survive as autonomous bodies".