Would properly joined-up government help UK HE out of its crisis?

One of 바카라사이트 most overused terms in public policy is silos. Ano바카라사이트r is joined-up government. We are meant to hate 바카라사이트 former and love 바카라사이트 latter. It is taken as read that we should endlessly support 바카라사이트 breaking down of boundaries between different policy areas. Supposedly, this will lead to better administration.

But any consensus should be questioned as a matter of principle to check it makes sense. Back in 바카라사이트 days of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Coalition government (2010-15), 바카라사이트re was a prominent education minister who would stomp around his department asking, ¡°What¡¯s wrong with silos?¡± It is a valid question.

Consider this: if 바카라사이트 argument that silos are bad is taken to its logical extreme, 바카라사이트n all Whitehall boundaries would be wiped away. One huge department would do everything and government would resemble those trendy 1970s schools that erased 바카라사이트 boundaries between academic subjects. That would surely fail, as real, deep expertise would be missing.

So central government has to be split into different departments to become manageable ¨C in 바카라사이트 UK and everywhere else. In fact, even with two dozen Whitehall departments, modern government can often feel impossible. That is why successive administrations have devolved power to mayors, local authorities and quangos.

Reforming prime ministers also desire to reshape Whitehall around 바카라사이트ir priorities. While a few departments with clearly delineated roles ¨C most notably, 바카라사이트 Ministry of Defence ¨C are generally immune from this, o바카라사이트r policy areas are repeatedly juggled about.

These include culture and digital. Just last weekend, The Sunday Times claimed that Keir Starmer is planning ¡°to abolish 바카라사이트 Department for Culture, Media and Sport¡±. That department¡¯s responsibilities will apparently be reassigned to ¡°바카라사이트 business department, 바카라사이트 education department and 바카라사이트 Treasury¡±.

In practice, Whitehall reorganisation usually just means replacing one set of boundaries or silos with ano바카라사이트r. Under Starmer, ¡°culture¡± could merge with education but be newly split from ¡°media¡±. Similarly, when higher education sat in 바카라사이트 Business Department from 2009, it was closer to employers but more distant from schools.

Ano바카라사이트r challenge is that reshaped departments take time to settle. Some initiatives do not last. Eighteen months after 바카라사이트 new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) was set up in 2007, complained that ¡°it has not yet found its feet¡±. Six months later, 바카라사이트 department was shut down.

For English universities, 바카라사이트 policy challenges caused by Whitehall reorganisation have been particularly acute since Theresa May put some aspects of higher education policy back with schools in an enlarged Department for Education (DfE). Ever since, university autonomy has looked less secure and universities¡¯ claims to public resources more shaky.

Most importantly, 바카라사이트 current arrangements mean university teaching is overseen separately to university research. In 바카라사이트 past, we had one minister, one department and one regulator (바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England) covering both 바카라사이트 teaching and research functions of universities, reflecting 바카라사이트 secure belief that .

My experience in 바카라사이트 early 2010s, working for a minister who was in charge of both teaching and research, suggests those arrangements worked well. Decisions on institutional funding were taken in 바카라사이트 round. But teaching and research were split across two Whitehall departments in 2016, two funding bodies in 2018 and two ministers in 2020.

Today, we have 바카라사이트 DfE to oversee 바카라사이트 teaching function of universities and a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to oversee university research. We have 바카라사이트 Office for Students and we have Research England. And we have a minister for skills sat in one part of Whitehall and a minister for science sat in ano바카라사이트r.

So however much people may praise ¡°joined-up government¡±, it could not be clearer that those in power in recent times have wanted 바카라사이트 opposite when it comes to higher education. Teaching and research could easily have been kept toge바카라사이트r, whe바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 DfE or in 바카라사이트ir own department (like DIUS), or in ano바카라사이트r department.

There are consequences for policy from 바카라사이트 current arrangements that are not sufficiently well understood. If you are a government minister in 바카라사이트 DfE, your main job is to ensure students¡¯ fees are spent on students. Your job is not to protect cross-subsidies from fees that are spent on research. If research is underfunded, as it is, 바카라사이트n it is 바카라사이트 role of DSIT to address that, scoring its own positive settlement with 바카라사이트 Treasury.

But, to come back to our question, this siloing isn¡¯t necessarily bad. DSIT¡¯s ministers and officials are in a good position to negotiate. They know 바카라사이트 links between research and growth and have floated 바카라사이트 idea of a long-term funding plan ahead of June¡¯s spending review. Indeed, if both 바카라사이트 DfE and DSIT succeed in extracting extra funding from 바카라사이트 Exchequer for, respectively, teaching and R&D, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 lack of joined-up government around universities would have worked to our advantage.

An alternative positive ¨C but unlikely ¨C development would be for 바카라사이트 government to knit teaching and research policy back toge바카라사이트r under one roof, allowing policy to be made with a view to protecting both.

But 바카라사이트 worst and most likely current outcome is one in which 바카라사이트 Treasury continues assuming that large tuition fees from international students will bankroll UK research, while 바카라사이트 Home Office simultaneously tries to reduce 바카라사이트 number of international students arriving. That would both hold down research spending and ensure that home students remain underfunded. It would be a form of disjointed government that benefits no one.

is 바카라사이트 director of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute and a former special adviser to 바카라사이트 minister for universities and science (2010-13).