A Cultural Revolution starting in the higher education sector?

While the huge reductions planned in teaching grant and the significant proposed increases in the average level of tuition fees for universities has political significance, the mainstream media has missed some of the other fundamental changes in higher education this year.

Only last week Pearson announced plans to create a vocational degree offered in partnership with further education colleges. It was covered on the BBC’s Education website but I did not see it anywhere else.

In the US for-profit universities have had a bad press this year but it can only be a matter of time before they arrive on this side of the Atlantic on a significant scale. The private sector BPP university college is almost here.

With the media talking about the Maoism of the Coalition’s policies, they have not really recognised this Cultural Revolution starting in the universities.

Nine years of being a board member - lessons learnt

Yesterday was my last board meeting. I have learned many things by being on a board for nine years.

Here is some of what I have learned:

1) Boards need to focus on mission. Strategies should support mission rather than distract from it.

2) Board members need time to gain the knowledge and confidence to fully contribute. I think the first one or two years are a matter of finding your way even if you are given a good induction and commit to learning about the organisation and its environment. It is bewildering that some housing associations seek to rotate resident board members after three years – board renewal should not be about getting rid of new blood.

3) Boards need practitioners. I can say with confidence as a non-housing practitioner that housing associations need housing practitioners. I had worked as a consultant and as an auditor in the housing sector but recognised that having hands-on practitioners could bring something extra. They can re-balance the inevitable information asymmetry between full-time executive managers and part-time non-executive board members. (In my day job I have seen colleges how education practitioners are vital for adequate board level scrutiny at colleges.)

4) Boards can recruit excellent board members from a range of fields. If an organisation can afford board remuneration (and if it is legally allowed to pay it), it can be almost overwhelmed by interest. (I had not fully appreciated this when I was wary about board remuneration.) More recently I learned that social networks like LinkedIn can play a valuable role in attracting and identifying new talent.

5) Board members – however individually talented – need to be wielded into an excellent board. That is not automatic – it requires a chair to leverage in all the talents as well as encourage useful challenge and teamwork.

Apologies if some of that just sounds like common sense.

Mortgages, misery and the happiness index

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has published a forecast that next year net mortgage lending will fall to the lowest level since 1980. It will be £6bn compared with £110bn in 2006. It could be worse - the CML are assuming there is no double-dip.

This will have implications for the housing market.

Yesterday I was reading the latest Research in Public Policy bulletin from the CMPO think tank at Bristol University. It included research on a link between house prices and well-being. The study found a correlation but explaining it is more tricky. The article suggested: "Perhaps the state of the housing market – and media coverage of the housing market – foster a ‘feel good factor’ when house prices perform well – and vice versa." That feel bad factor might be bad news for David Cameron's happiness index.

Public sector pensions as a business risk - no need to panic?

Tomorrow morning I am attending a briefing for colleges and other organisations who are part of one of the local government pension schemes (LGPS) in the north west. I suspect that the content on long-term developments may be a little vague as we await that final report from Lord Hutton.

How big a business risk is the LGPS now for colleges, transfer housing associations, etc? I do not often sound overly optimistic but I have started to wonder if the pension risk has started to recede.

While the viability of some weaker organisations will still be threatened by the costs of keeping promises, in general the shift to CPI indexing and the 3% pensions levy will have both lowered entitlements and shifted the costs towards employees. (It is worth noting that the indexation change will - according to Hutton's interim report - reduce entitlements by 15% - which disproportionately reduces the burden on employers as they are the ones who underwrite the scheme bar a degree of burden-sharing on life expectancy.)

When I recently suggested that the pensions risk may have slightly abated, the risk of industrial action was drawn to my attention. We have seen industrial action at the BBC - and we may see it elsewhere. But unions have accepted the CPI indexation surprisingly quietly even though it has taken away existing entitlements.

Elitism in the tuition fees debate: left, right and centre

Following the tuition fees debate in the media I have been a little disturbed by some of the implicit elitism at work.(I have no problem with elite universities – higher education finance needs to ensure we can compete globally. My issue is with elitism: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favoured treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

On the left (or at least centre-left) we have blogger Marko Attila Hoare commenting:

the simultaneous expansion and dumbing down of higher education over the past two decades, and to the proliferation of Mickey Mouse courses and institutions, where third-rate students could take courses on East Enders Studies or Football Studies or whatever

In the middle at the Independent Mary Dejevsky asks:

Everything else is being cut, so why not student numbers?

I think I caught a Liberal Democrat MP suggest on Radio Four's World at One that fewer students would be better than higher fees.

On the right flank the Daily Telegraph reports that Conservative MP David Davis opposing the Coalition's fees plans as believes that the answer to higher education funding problems is a reduction in the number of universities and people attending them.

Whatever we think of the Coalition’s proposals, it is a pity that there is not a stronger recognition of the vital role that higher education can and should play in promoting social mobility. It is disappointing that a higher proportion of young people are now getting a degree in Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic than the UK. It is even more depressing than so many opinion-formers favour an even lower proportion here.

Winners and losers from changes in higher education funding

Today’s media coverage of the University and College Union’s report on the future financial health has helpfully broadened the current debate. The report (pdf available) warns that More than a third of England's universities may be forced to close or merge as a result of changes in higher education finance. (I do feel sorry for the four institutions which have been flagged up as particularly vulnerable – they are even more so today.)

There can be some scope for debate over the report’s methodology. For example, the report gives a higher risk score where the university admits significant numbers of disadvantaged students. Research commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council (pdf available) shows that in the past the introduction of fees has not substantially affected access to universities for disadvantaged students. (Of course, as Coalition spokespeople point out as often as possible: the increased fees will be paid by graduates rather than students on entry.)

Maybe the most badly affected universities will be those who fail to offer their customers value for money. Newer universities and further education colleges may be well placed to offer students a focus on teaching and vocationally orientated qualifications – as well as the savings and convenience (for young people!) of studying while living at home.

There will certainly be significant turbulence in the universities sector from higher fees and reductions by about three-quarters in teaching grants. However, the winners and losers are likely to be different from those identified by the University and College Union report.

U-turns and Big Bangs – councils and academies

It is interesting to see that Richmond is proposing that all its primary and secondary schools become academies. I can see a big bang might be more convenient for the local authority to cope with than a slow withering on the vine of maintained schools as they leave council control. It is not clear whether the local head teachers and governing bodies have bought into the plan.

It should be noted that Surrey County Council was planning something similar – and then announced a change of mind. Even more strangely, at almost the same time as the county-wide plan was revealed, the Conservative leader of Surrey Council said that he saw "little benefit" in schools there becoming an academy.

The LGiU blog suggested yesterday that the current rate of progressing in local authority applying for academy status and applications being processed means that it could take 140 years for all schools to convert to academy status. I suspect things will quicken up. It is a major decision for head teachers and governors. Moreover, it’s scary being an early mover. While academies are a priority, the Department for Education has a lot on its plate.

What is clear is that the academy conversion process and the emergence of free schools will pose practical challenges to local authorities when they already face many other constraints and difficulties. A harbinger of this could be seen back in January the Conservative leader of Kent County Council indicated that the authority’s enthusiasm for academies had waned because the council lost money needed for “crucial support services for all its schools”.

Pluralism in education - enter the humanist free school?

In the current issue of New Humanist Francis Beckett - author of The Great City Academy Fraud - suggests "co-operating with an objectionable and reactionary educational policy" and setting up a humanist free school. He suggests that this is "a one-off chance to show that real secular state education works".

It would be broadly tolerant, liberal but firm. The boundaries would be drawn widely, but they would be fixed. Cross that boundary and the sky falls in on you. Our staff would have better things to worry about than the length of their pupils’ hair, and there would be no uniform. But any form of bullying or abuse would not be tolerated. And neither would boring lessons. We can’t divorce ourselves from the target culture, but we can make sure it doesn’t ruin the lives and the learning experience of our pupils.

(It all sounds a bit like the liberal Kunskapskolan schools opening as part of the academies programme.)

The magazine’s website has an online poll on the issue. When I last looked almost three-quarters of those voting said that they would support the establishment of an avowedly atheist and humanist state school.

As someone who works with faith schools and colleges, I hope the humanist free school project gets off the ground. The project will contribute to the diversity and innovation created by academies and free schools.

Armchair auditors and their weapons in the war on waste

Last week I heard a local authority Head of Internal Audit refer to Eric Pickle’s army of “armchair auditors” as “nutters”.

I looked the term up on The FreeDictionary. “Nutter” is a slang term for:

“A crazy or eccentric person.” or
“An enthusiast; a buff” or
A part of the male anatomy.

This made me think as I am interested in issues of public finance and mental health.

I suspect that those who want to scrutinise records of public spending may be slightly eccentric. Perhaps this is only a matter of degree – these armchair auditors choose to do their stuff for free unlike professional auditors.

I do think that there is potential in “armchair auditors”. Look at the creation of a huge encyclopedia online from the crowd-sourcing endeavours of those who right and edit articles using wiki technology.

Technological mashups might offer them an impressive arsenal. In the UK Mysociety introduced a range of tools for improving democratic accountability: They work for you; FixMyStreet; Whatdotheyknow. These got taken up by the last government with its No 10 petitions site.

In September Dan Herbert in Public Finance surveyed what the current government’s “data-sharing revolution” had prompted. It is worth looking at some of the tools he refers to. Some – like wheredoesmymoneygo.org - provide interesting information for tax payers on how public funds are spent but this is not really raw material for armchair auditing. Others set out more detail – such as Spotlight on Spend and Armchair Auditor – but not really enough to give any armchair auditors scope to drill down to provide either comfort or concern.

As the Reluctant Armchair Auditor on The Guardian’s Datablog noted last week:

For this to work in the way envisaged, councils must put out a lot more information and in a format that can be used by anyone. There has to be sufficient context to enable anyone reading the information to understand what is being bought and why. Then you can have a sensible discussion about whether the spending makes sense or is value for money. We can then deal with the material figures not the trivial ones which cause most of the negative publicity.

Of course, it is early days. The army of “armchair auditors” may have a long march ahead of them. But it is vital that government – local and national – provide assistance in terms of useful data in helpful formats.

The how and when of the YPLA's replacement

Tucked away in yesterday's Schools White Paper was the announcement that the Young People’s Learning Agency will be “replaced” by the Education Funding Agency. Perhaps re-badged would have been a more accurate description – the staff of the YPLA will be brought in-house into the Department for Education from being a standalone Non Departmental Public Body.I expect some other DFE staff will be included as the EFA will have a role in relation to schools which are not (yet) academies.

There was some uncertainty about the date of the change but according to the YPLA website the transition is assuming April 2012.

It is worth noting that Michael Gove has backed off from the idea of a direct EFA-schools relationship seen in an earlier draft of the White Paper. I suspect that this is a tactical retreat. You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time.

It is ironic that the survival of the Skill Funding Agency and the (de-quangoed) YPLA/EFA were not advocated in either manifesto of the Coalition parties for the post-16 funding landscape.

The government's changes to social rents and tenancies

The government’s announcements yesterday about rents and tenancies in social housing are complex and part of what can be seen as a somewhat contradictory policy agenda (cutting housing benefit and pushing up rents in social housing).I would therefore recommend the Chartered Institute of Housing’s fair minded Briefing on Social Housing Reform (pdf available).

The briefing clarifies what the new types of tenancies being proposed actually involve: (1) the fixed-term flexible tenancies lasting as little as two years and (2) the affordable rent tenancies set at a maximum of 80 per cent of local market rents.

The latter is intended to generate finance for more affordable housing at a time of much reduced capital spending on housing. The affordable rent tenancies will initially be offered by housing associations rather than local authorities. It will be offered on a proportion of re-lets from April 2011 and on new stock later. The CIH point out: “in high value markets 80% would not be an affordable product for consumers and it would create problems around housing benefit”.

As the flexible tenancies and the affordable rent tenancies may account for an increasing proportion of local authority and housing association tenancies, the shorter tenancies may well mean that Right to Buy never recovers from its current low levels. Maybe we are seeing a Conservative prime minister effectively abolishing Right to Buy while it is being retained in theory.

Government U-turn on a national funding system for schools and 16-18

Today the FT Westminster Blog reports that that the government is backing down on a national school funding system. It quotes Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr Show as saying:

The Financial Times ran a report of what they thought was going to be in the white paper, fair play to them, journalists often anticipate events, but the truth is that we will be funding schools through local authorities as we do at the moment.

The Westminster Blog says that it had a copy of a draft copy of the white paper and the details of their story were confirmed by civil servants at the Department for Education.

Where all this leaves the Young People’s Learning Agency is unclear. The draft seen by the Financial Times included this paragraph:

The Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) will extend their current responsibility for funding Academies and Free Schools to funding all schools becoming the Education Funding Agency from April 2013. It would administer the national funding formula to all schools directly as well as post 16 funding ensuring that the maximum amount of money goes directly to schools in a fair, transparent and equitable way. Local authorities will pass the national funding formula allocation directly to maintained schools until the Education Funding Agency comes into existence.

I suspect the YPLA will carry on even though the government has U-turned on the broader reform. Sadly this may mean that the inequalities in 16-18 funding between schools and colleges persist.

Bribery, corruption and trips

On the Third Sector website I was reading that the Oxfam Finance Director was concerned that charities might be tripped up by the new Bribery Act unless sector guidance was issued. The Act creates new offences including one which relates to businesses that fail to take sufficient steps to prevent bribery involving their employees or agents.

The Bribery Act might well affect the education sector too. Colleges and schools take learners to fascinating and exotic places. Some destinations have endemic corruption. For example, students sometimes visit Russia – 154th out of 178 in the Transparency International league table.

I have travelled widely in the former Soviet Union so have had bribes extracted from me directly or via taxi drivers. On one holiday I had to cross the border of the breakaway Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on four occasions – on three of them, I had to pay a “fine” or make a “present” to the border guards for fear of ending up in a prison of an unrecognised statelet with which Britain has no consular relations!

The YPLA and plans for nationalising schools funding

Tucked away in yesterday's Financial Times article about plans for a national schools funding formula was a clue to the fate of the Young People's Learning Agency:

Officials are preparing for the transition to a new funding system to begin in 2012, with a new independent Education Funding Agency taking over finance for “all schools and sixth form provision” from 2013.

Of course, this may not happen. Councils and councillors - not least Conservative ones - may be most unhappy about the policy which may appear to run contrary to "localism" rhetoric. The Conservative backbencher Douglas Carswell has already voiced doubts on his blog. The plans would create a super quango dispensingover £30billion each year. Moreover, there are many practical obstacles to a more rational and transparent allocation of resources to schools.

School heads may welcome the move now but not necessarily when they realise that many of their schools may be losers - 60% of secondary schools according to research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in the Spring (a pdf of the research paper is available).

Michael Gove may be in for another bruising battle.

Interesting times: school federations, new markets and blurred boundaries in education

Working over the years in colleges I have noticed that there has been a slightly casual use of the term “federation” – sometimes to mean merger of colleges. In schools there is a precise meaning to the term. On the Teaching Expertise website there is an excellent survey of the legal meaning and implications of the term from two education lawyers at Veale Wasbrough Vizards.

A clear and useful exposition of the legal and other issues around federations is particularly timely at a time when the education landscape is in a degree of flux. In this week's New Statesman, Dr John Dunford (former general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders) surveys what he sees as the “two different, but related, markets are being created by the Academies Act 2010”:

The first is the government's push for so-called "free" schools to be created by parent and teacher groups. The second, and potentially much larger, market being created is the provision of a range of services, from human resource management to school improvement capability, to both the new academies and to the free schools.

He concludes:

Schools are being offered by the coalition government a more autonomous way of working, with the additional funding that accompanies academy status looking very attractive at a time of economic retrenchment. Some of these academies will continue to buy services, where they are efficiently run, from the local authority, but many more will look outside the authority to the new market of entrepreneurial schools and commercial providers for their human resources and school improvement support, or even for federation under a single governing body. It is hardly surprising that so many organisations are looking at providing these services in what could become a lucrative new market

The revolution is not limited to the schools sector. The financial constraints on colleges and universities – as well as the pressures likely to flow from the market model proposed by the Browne review for higher education – may lead to an interesting reconfiguration of providers plus the growth of new entrants like the new private sector BPP University College. This may see some blurring of boundaries – a recent Financial Times article speculated on whether colleges might soon own their own university.

Pay and productivity: freezes and unforeseen consequences

On the Civil Society website there is a short article on XpertHr’s annual review of pay trends. It finds that for 2009-10 the highest median basic pay award was in the general manufacturing and food, drink and tobacco sectors with median pay rises of 2 per cent. However, in the charity sector the median pay rise was only 1 per cent. The median pay award for housing associations was nil.

On the Viewpoint blog of Centre for Market and Public Organisation a Bristol University there is a discussion of where public sector productivity is likely to go in the age of austerity.

Interestingly it suggests:

With the prospect of public sector pay freezes, quality decreases may arise through talented staff leaving for the private sector. Research suggests that remuneration over the lifetime is roughly similar in the public and private sector with a small public sector premium. Hence there is a risk, with public sector pay frozen, and if jobs become available, that quality will decrease if some of the most able employees go private.

This impact has been overlooked and/or ignored in the debate about public sector pay. Of course, the pay freeze is accompanied by the pension levy which will amount to a 3% pay cut for most public sector workers. Voluntary redundancy programmes may well allow some of the best staff to leave - the "muppet retention scheme" syndrome.

Whether deteriorating quality is reflecting in productivity yardsticks hinges on how accurately public sector productivity is and can be measured.

Women, diversity and board quotas

At the weekend The Guardian reported that the Lord Davies is considering gender quotas as part of his review for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills into the obstacles that prevent more women from reaching senior positions in business.

The suggestion of quotas will raise howls of protest. In the summer the Institute of Directors’ queried the way that the revised UK Corporate Governance Code highlighted gender as an important factor in making appointments to the board. It said: “By including gender in the Code, there is a risk that the Code will increasingly become seen as a tool of social policy rather than good governance.”

While I do not share the IoD’s concerns over the UK Corporate Governance Code, I do fear that quotas may lead to tokenism.

Business should, of course, work harder at finding suitable female board members. As women thin out in the higher reaches of business, maybe corporate boards should look further afield and outside the corporate sector for candidates for non-executives.

Generally changes in the corporate sector flow through to the public and third sectors. These organisations are generally more diverse at board level: for example, one-third of college governors are women compared with less than one-twelfth of FTSE250 board members.

Pensions, programmes, Paul Mason and public services

It is great that normal service has been resumed at the BBC. But the NUJ’s strike may be a foretaste of pensions disputes to come.

I was surprised to read Paul Mason – the Economics Editor on Newsnight – quoted in The Guardian suggesting a solution to the pension dispute would be for the BBC to sell assets, securitise them (as some local authorities are doing), or spend less on programmes. While asset disposal and securitization may be appropriate, I doubt the idea of spending less on programmes will be popular – will that be making staff redundant or opting for cardboard Crossroads-style sets?

I am sure that some people will be posing the issue of public sector pensions in terms of pensions versus pupils, pensions versus patients, etc but I was strange for a union activist to suggest that a trade-off should resolved at the expense of public services.

The significance of the benefits cuts controversy for the rest of the public sector

The kerfuffle over the changes to Child Benefit and Housing Benefit must raise doubts over how viable the path set out by the Spending Review will be. Both sets of “reforms” may not survive coming into contact with the real world. There are serious practical problems with their implementation. The numbers involved are significant – as always the losers from any change are very vocal but in this case there are no apparent winners; in the case of the Housing Benefit caps the media will be able to show emotionally charged footage of families and pensioners being evicted. (For a fascinating look at the numbers involved, the Data Blog of the Guardian has an interesting analysis.)

This is only the start. Hardly any media coverage has been devoted to the changes to Council Tax Benefit. From April 2013, CTB will be replaced with grants to councils who will be able to set their own local criteria for payments. The central government funding is being reduced by 10% - saving £0.5bn a year by 2014/15. Tom Clark on the Guardian has pointed to echoes of the Poll Tax.

In last week's Public Finance Ian Mulheirn of the Social Market Foundation set out how the difficulties of implementing reform will blunt the blade of George Osborne's axe.

In addition to the political challenges of cuts, there is the inevitable uncertainty surrounding the macro-economy.

So might the Spending Review be jettisoned? Probably not given the political priority given to deficit reduction. (Interestingly there is speculation about another Spending Review in 2012 and then a pre-election one in 2014. Nevertheless these are more likely to see only a tilt on the tiller.)

If deficit reduction is here to stay but some of the welfare savings are not tenable – what takes the strain? The Spending Review gave several spending departments more generous departmental expenditure limits than expected as a result of headroom created by “welfare reform”.

Good and bad news about the college sector and its financial health

The fog may be clearing after last week's Spending Review - or at least being displaced by new fog.

This week’s Times Education Supplement suggested that the £500 savings on Education Maintenance Allowances would be recycled into 16-18 funding. However, it raised doubts over whether this would be sufficient to fully fund the increase in the participation age aka “the school-leaving age”. The former Department for Children, Schools and Families estimated the cost would be £774 million, while the education economist Professor Alison Wolf has estimated that the figure might be £1.5 billion.

The TES article reported that George Osborne had promised that the 16-18 budget would increase in real terms although it would be spread over greater numbers of students.

Yesterday’s Financial Times had more depressing news for general FE colleges. It highlighted government estimates that deep cuts would lead to three-quarters of FE colleges becoming “financially inadequate”. The government now hopes that plans for increased fees – with more student support via loans – will ease the pain. The proposed framework parallels the Browne proposals for higher education and builds on the report by Christopher Banks which proposed greater co-payment in further education.