Before joining HE in 2018, I had successful spells in local and central government. For my first blog on Finance here in HE, I thought it might be helpful to share the common threads and differences about the funding debate I see between the 3 sectors I’ve worked in. My aim is to add to the debate about our sector’s funding, to stimulate ideas and help create a better solution to the situation we find ourselves in. And, obviously, as I no longer work in those other sectors, their reality and debate have no doubt moved on. But, with those caveats, I hope you find this blog helpful.
The first point of common ground is that all 3 sectors are short of money – there is never enough to go around. Even in the 1980s US defence department, when spending was increasing year on year ahead of inflation, there were still things that couldn’t be done. Move forward 35 years to a time when our economy isn’t doing so well, and we see funding challenges across the board – defence, prisons, colleges, schools, health, the courts system are all showing significant gaps. Local services too have been heavily affected, with big impacts to areas including social care, children’s services, planning, leisure, arts and culture. And of course, roads – mind the potholes. We’re starting to see serious problems for many HEIs, with the impact of year-on-year reductions in the real terms value of tuition fees, international student numbers faltering, high inflation, and fluctuating pensions breaking through to the surface with significant underlying systemic deficits emerging. So, in HE some are in difficult positions, along with many other parts of the public sector, and, whilst some of that is undoubtedly political choice, it’s also the reality of the world we now find ourselves in.
The second common point across all three sectors is that, as the funding squeeze starts to hit, there are many genuine concerns about sector failure. But, although for example major funding cuts in local government started to hit in 2010, the impact wasn’t seriously felt for a number of years after that. Now of course, those impacts are severe. The same is no doubt true of HE – whilst our funding challenges took some time to set in, the impact is only now? starting to be seen. And, if things don’t change, that impact is likely to worsen, and more quickly, with the effects being felt by students, staff and the communities universities serve. In a global business like HE, that’s a significant risk. But in terms of the narrative, will external players see that as any more significant than, say, lack of universal decent social care for elderly people? Or what is probably the nation’s favourite service, the NHS?
And that brings me to my final points, where I see some differences across public services. The differences are simple – at present, we don’t seem to have a compelling narrative about the value that HE brings to the country. We’re working on it, and we see glimpses of brilliance, but that compelling comprehensive narrative isn’t yet there. Put that alongside, say, the narratives for the NHS or defence, and we lag behind even though we’re vital contributors to and in many ways thought leaders of both of those vital services. But we know that HE can be transformative, for people, places and economies, It can put in place sustainable solutions to deprivation and inequality that few other opportunities or interventions can. And of course the teachers in our classrooms, the police on our streets, and the nurses and doctors in our hospitals are all trained in our universities.
The other main difference I see is the appetite for radical reform. There is academic literature, case studies, consultants, best practice, websites, associations and all manner of other bodies of knowledge and people that tell powerful stories of reform across the public service. At a very simple level, for example, look how easy it is to buy road tax now compared with, say, 25 years ago (remember the trips to the Post Office?). But can we tell those same compelling stories here in HE – about customer service, digital impact, agility, partnership, collaboration and reducing the cost to serve? Are we saying “bring it on” or diligently explaining why we’re different? I’d say that we’re starting on the former, but we need to do and say more to demonstrate our credentials to be radical, innovative and creative.
So, as well as facing our toughest challenge in decades, with some very difficult decisions to be made and choppy waters to be navigated, is there an opportunity as well?
