Well, reputational factors are still powerful. 

Also, the long game. Part of the proposal is that BIS takes direct power to raise fees, by passing parliamentary vote. Legislation will be needed to do this.

The govt currently remain silent on the question of raising fees  above inflation....but it's clearly preparing ground.

Sue

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Nov 2015, at 13:10, Ian Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Unless we can charge fees above inflation, given the cost will many go for TEF1 plus; currently the prospect of being able to raise fees by -0.1% does not appeal very much.

Regards

Ian

On 13 November 2015 at 13:02, Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

Date: 13 November 2015 12:53:00 GMT

To: "Edwards, Corony" <[log in to unmask]>

Cc: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Corona

I think your reading of the GP is absolutely correct. One of my main concerns would be that once the focus on institutions has been established in the initial stage further stages may never happen. As I said before I think that while direct opposition to using the TEF to differentiate fees is likely to fall on deaf ears, pointing out the lack of validity of the whole institution approach to their espoused intentions of providing information to prospective students and employers might have more chance of being heard because it is evidentially demonstrable rather than a philosophical/political opinion

I do also agree that suggesting differential fees for disciplines/programmes within institutions is something potentially quite interesting, especially if the metrics were meaningful (which unfortunately they almost certainly won't be!) 

Best wishes

Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Nov 2015, at 11:46 AM, "Edwards, Corony" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Chris and all – my reading of the GP was that in the initial stages, TEF would focus solely on the institution (since level 1 is equated with a successful quality audit) but that discipline level assessment may come later. See page 23, paragraph 23 and page 29, paragraph 13. The implication is that the data on the discipline level assessments would be available to help guide student choice,  but that the ability to raise fees would be set at institutional level. Fee differentiation at programme level is not mooted. This is a specific point we may want to encourage in our responses to the consultation, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. The key could be in the way the discipline data is aggregated to produce the institutional ‘score’ – for example, the proportion of disciplines deemed to be excellent could be the differentiator between the proposed levels 2 – 4, with 4 awarded only to providers that attain excellence in 100% of programmes offered.

 

Best wishes

Corony

 

 

From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rust
Sent: 13 November 2015 09:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

 

I agreed with all your comments Debby, and as an ex external for the course at Kent I can endorse Joanna's claims about its quality, which makes some of her comments even more regrettable in my view.

 

But in the spirit of drawing a line, and refocussing on the Green paper, can I raise a fairly basic issue which I have seen very little comment on - namely, the decision to focus the TEF at the level of the institution.  I think this should be a major focus of our responses because it is so easy to make the case that this is nonsensical.  Neither the REF nor the NSS attempt to rate the institution (although league tables may ultimately do so) and it is well known that with the NSS there is more variation within institutions than between them.  Whatever the quality of the metrics to be used (and that is not looking good!), to average them out across an institution will give a result of dubious use to either prospective students or employers.  Given that government may already have made up its mind about using the TEF to differentiate funding, it seems to me that rather than just rejecting that, we may have more chance of success in arguing that this approach will have questionable validity.

 

Best wishes

Chris

 

Chris Rust

Professor Emeritus 

<image001.png>

 

On 13 Nov 2015, at 08:00, Debby Cotton wrote:

Hi all,

Ok, as the originator of this thread I feel duty bound to step briefly back into the fray to thank those who responded - and especially to Joanna who has helpfully put across her own views in more depth. Obviously in a brief article it is always hard to explain clearly the points being made, and I am particularly glad to see Joanna offering support for her own colleagues who do a tough job in increasingly difficult circumstances as she recognises.

I do not withdraw my original comment, however, and I do feel that it is a pity that we continue within the sector to aim our fire at each other rather than at the government instigators of the change that we all have to manage as best we can. In this I think I agree with Joanna, ironically! Of course none of us feel more strongly about PGCerts than about the Green Paper but I for one have just got rather fed up over the years of reading articles which use any thinly veiled excuse to take a dig at lecturer training courses.

However, like I say, fighting each other is ultimately unhelpful so I hope we can draw a line under this.

All best wishes,
Debby

Debby Cotton
Professor of Higher Education and Head of Educational Development,
Teaching and Learning Support, Plymouth University.
Tel: 01752 587614
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/dcotton
Follow me on Twitter: @ProfDcotton
________________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Joanna Williams [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

Dear all,


I am the author of the THE opinion piece. I am also a member of this SEDA mailing list.


Thank you all very much indeed for your criticisms of the article. I have read them with interest and I am always keen to engage in debate.


Three small points.


Firstly, this is a THE blog. It is an opinion piece. It is not academic research. I hope I have said nothing in the article to suggest I have undertaken a full and comprehensive review of lecturer training courses - I most certainly have not. I am simply expressing my opinion.


That said, it is an opinion that I completely stand by and one that has clearly touched a nerve with many in the sector as I have had a more overwhelmigly positive response to this piece than the many others I have written over the past few years. SEDA members may not like this fact - but I think it is important that it is recognised and engaged with.


I think one of the reasons why I have had such a positive response to this opinion piece is because it is not actually about lecturer training courses at all. It is a critique of the government's Green Paper.


So, my second point. I am terribly sorry if this did not come across clearly in the piece but my argument was with the Green Paper and how it will impact upon teaching in HE. The line about lecturer training was made in this context.


At Kent I teach on our wonderful PGCHE programme. I have done for the past eight years. I have the most fantastic, hard working and dedicated colleagues. Our PGCHE course has been praised by successive external examiners and we always get extremely positive feedback from our students. I am extremely proud of our PGCHE programme, the work that I have done on this programme, and the work that my colleagues put into it.


However, over the past year we have had to bring our programme into line with the UKPSF. We are having to incorporate more people onto our programme who are perhaps (initially at least) less enthusiastic volunteers and more people thinking it is a career necessity. All of these things impact upon the nature of what we offer - although obviously we have tried to minimise the impact of such changes. The Green Paper, in my view, points to further such regulation of teaching in higher education. I think this will be entirely detrimental to the sector and that was the point I made in my THE piece.


My third and fi​nal point. Do by all means go ahead and get a response and signatures for my THE article. (A petition by any other name.) However, it might appear as if SEDA members are more outraged by a THE blog piece than they are by the Green Paper itself. Is this really the case?


With thanks and good wishes,


Jo




Dr. Joanna Williams
Programme Director MA in Higher Education
Director Centre for the Study of Higher Education
University of Kent
CT2 7NQ

01227 827137

http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/staff/apt/profiles/jwilliams.html
________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 November 2015 07:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

Quite right Penny.
I should imagine quite a few of the SEDA members have themselves gone through and survived such training; I have for one.
James

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. James M. Wilson (PhD, FHEA, FIfL),
Director, Academic Enhancement Centre<http://www.xjtlu.edu.cn/en/academics/aec.html>,
Centre for Academic Affairs,
Office 1160B, Central Building,
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU),
No.111 Ren'ai Road,
Dushu Lake Higher Education Town,
Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu Province,
P R China 215123.

Phone: (0086) 0512-81880416
Mobile: (0086)13771927343
E-mail: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank"> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Skype: james.wilson47
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Penny Sweasey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:53 PM
To: James Wilson
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

That was my though James . .  A robust response . . . Although a response from colleagues who have 'survived' the horrors of training and come out of it not just unscathed but inspired would be even more powerful.

Penny

Penny Sweasey

PGCE, MA Education, PFHEA

Head of Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)

Manchester Metropolitan University



www.mmu.ac.uk/celt<http://www.mmu.ac.uk/celt>

0161 247 1610<tel:0161%20247%C2%A01610>

1st Floor, All Saints Building

Manchester Metropolitan University,

All Saints, Manchester, M15 6BH
Sent from my iPad

On 13 Nov 2015, at 02:12, James Wilson <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Ditto!!
This is a mindless uninformed observation.

I wonder whether a response to this should be considered by SEDA and signed by as many of us as possible.

Best
James

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. James M. Wilson (PhD, FHEA, FIfL),
Director, Academic Enhancement Centre,
Centre for Academic Affairs,
Office 1160B, Central Building,
Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU),
No.111 Ren'ai Road,
Dushu Lake Higher Education Town,
Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu Province,
P R China 215123.

Phone: (0086) 0512-81880416
Mobile: (0086)13771927343
E-mail: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank"> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Skype: james.wilson47
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debby Cotton
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank"> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

Regarding the THE article, I surely can't be the only one to get furious at the inability of some journalists to write anything on teaching in HE without slating 'formal teacher training'? I mean naturally the courses we run will lead to 'conformity throughout the sector' because we focus on 'tips and tricks ...' (Not pedagogic theory and research findings which might - gasp - actually improve teaching) ... And I'm sure that those of you on this list who teach on such courses spend all your time encouraging lecturers to read out their PowerPoint slides! Honestly, it's as though the writer has never attended a training course, knows no-one who ever has and certainly has not spoken to those who run them. I've nothing against informed criticism based on evidence but really - to paraphrase - this is reminiscent of journalism at its worst.
*Rant over*
Debby


Debby Cotton
Professor of Higher Education and Head of Educational Development, Teaching and Learning Support, Plymouth University.
Tel: 01752 587614
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/dcotton
Follow me on Twitter: @ProfDcotton
________________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Helen Beetham [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 7:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank"> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian

A couple of analyses I've found useful, in case list members have missed them.

http://followersoftheapocalyp.se/ - an ongoing blog from David Kernohan, previously policy wonk at HEFCE and very detailed in its analysis https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/higher-education-green-paper-what-it-means-teaching

Helen

Helen Beetham
Consultant in Higher Education
[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
twitter helenbeetham
Skype helenb33
www.helenbeetham.com<http://www.helenbeetham.com><http://www.helenbeetham.com>

On 11 Nov 2015, at 18:48, "Parker, Pam" <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:



________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass><http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif%5d%3chttp:/www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass%3e>

This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
"Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>

This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.

 

--

Dr Ian Scott, Associate Dean Student Experience, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Oxford Brookes University
Marston Road
Oxford
OX3 OFL
0044 1865 48 2638

Have you seen

Scott, I. and Mazhindu, D. (2014) Statistics for Health Care Professionals: An Introduction (2nd Edition). Sage 

Scott, I. and Spouse, J. (2013) Practice based Learning in Nursing, Health and Social Care; Mentorship, Facilitation and Supervision, Wiley

Ely, C and Scott, I. (2007) Essential study skills for Nursing, Elsevier

 

Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565 Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office.