One of the overlooked aspects of the coming reforms to higher education is the clear challenge to its leaders. The green paper – and specifically the Teaching Excellence Framework (Tef) – represents a subtle call to action for vice-chancellors, the response to which could reshape the sector.
Many who work in universities feel there is a growing disconnect between managers and practitioners – the leaders and the teachers. The Research Excellence Framework (Ref) is usually held up as Exhibit A in this argument, and the National Student Survey as Exhibit B. Managers are too reliant on metrics to boost funding and reputation, the argument goes, and perverse incentives mean that not enough time is given either to teaching or to research.
The problem is that the sector, by and large, doesn’t respond well to these challenges. Pressure from above leads many vice-chancellors to commit to improving their university’s market position each year, by hook or by crook.
The best leaders make an effort to bring their staff along with the changes they make. But every year, more and more feel that they are being left behind. If handled poorly, the Tef could greatly exacerbate this problem.
The government may hope that, when faced with a choice between success in the Tef or the Ref, universities will throw their eggs into one basket – except, perhaps, the super elite that can afford to do both well. This government (and it is not the first) believes that excellent teaching could be awarded a similar level of prestige as excellent research, but it is how the sector responds to the Tef that will prove or disprove this theory.
Virtually all governing bodies ask their executive teams to ensure that their university moves up in the league tables and so decisions are often made that could undermine the core principles of what the university wants to achieve, and who it should serve.
The classic formula to boost a university’s position involved increasing tariff points (so that better-qualified students entered and graduated) and making big investments in research. However, the lifting of student number controls and increased competition this year makes the first much harder to do successfully, and the split in research and teaching policy heralded by the introduction of the Tef could make the latter a similarly undesirable strategy next year.
But for now there are too many universities that have already committed to both excellent research and excellent teaching, often as a rational response to previous policy and funding drivers. Thinking will now need to be updated.
The proposal to increase the £9,000 tuition fees in line with inflation for those institutions that perform best in the Tef is no great reward for excellent teaching today, but it will amount to real money over time. And the reputational risk of being left behind competitors is probably unthinkable in a positional market.
At the same time, universities that perform well in the Ref are not likely to sacrifice their position in research any time soon. Many that still perform relatively badly are unlikely to either. The arms race for research talent and funding is something that today’s generation of leaders have been fighting too hard and too long for to countenance a volte-face. The notion that research equals prestige is hardwired into their psyche and therefore the whole marketplace.
Following through the logic of the green paper, it seems likely that the government will ultimately seek to raise the £9,000 cap (and not just with inflation), at least for the big Tef winners at Level 4. We know little about what is required to reach this level, but “research-informed teaching” could be one judgement that would encourage the strongest players to shine in both assessment exercises.
The government has consistently declined to rule out lifting the fee cap and the vice-chancellors I’ve spoken to are planning for the likelihood that the £9,000 will rise for some, because if it materialises – with, say, £11,000 fees for Tef Level 4 – missing out extra cash would be a high price to pay for not playing the game. But by the same token, chasing a higher fee cap and simultaneously investing in research could take many financially weaker universities to a dangerous financial precipice.
The government is challenging universities to focus on research, teaching, or both. This could play out in one of two ways: it could be an opportunity for a fresh dialogue between academics, students and managers about the sort of university they want to create and the things they need to do to get there. It could force an honest appraisal of institutional positions in the market and improve the ability of governing bodies to make big decisions that are sustainable and deliverable.
These conversations could lead to genuinely exciting new practices in teaching and restore some of the trust lost over the years, as the gulf has grown between the lecture theatre and the vice-chancellor’s office.
Or the Tef could be approached by university leaders as a necessarily evil – a game that must be played because the market demands it and because the fee rise is a prize that matters above all else. It won’t change much that goes on in teaching and ultimately it will only serve to further disenfranchise those actually in the business of teaching and research – which could lead universities to become very unhappy places indeed.
The government’s challenge to university leadership is clear. Difficult, even painful decisions will need to be made over the years ahead. They must not be avoided but they need to come from a place of confidence that the right choices are being made for each university’s community. The ball is being thrown firmly into the sector’s court. Soon it will be time for our leaders to respond.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. Email article pitches to us at highereducationnetwork@guardian.co.uk