Office for Students (OfS) Consultation on quality and standards conditions; Consultation on regulating quality and standards in higher education

The new consultation follows a preliminary exercise on a range of quality and standards issues during the winter of 2020-21. It takes forward some aspects of that consultation and makes more detailed proposals about new regulatory requirements. It proposes revision of the current “B conditions” of registration which state that the provider must deliver well-designed courses that are reliably assessed, give students the support they need to succeed in and benefit from HE, and ensure that the qualifications awarded hold their value, as well as deliver courses that meet the academic standards laid out in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. The B condition that relates to student outcomes is not covered in the consultation and will be taken forward in the autumn. The points below are from the new consultation document, unless otherwise stated.

At-a-glance:

• Conditions of registration relating to quality, conditions B1, B2, B4 and B5, will be revised to include more detail about what falls within the scope of each condition and how these should be interpreted (p11)
• The OfS will regulate the quality and standards of HE courses whether it provides funding for that course or not. HE providers that award degrees for courses delivered at other institutions must be responsible for the quality and standards of courses delivered by its partners, including Transnational Education (TNE) (p16)
• Condition B1 will require a provider to ensure that students receive a high-quality academic experience, including courses that are “up-to-date” (including digital teaching and learning) develop “relevant skills” and provide “sufficient challenge”. It also requires that the course structure is coherent and that courses are effectively delivered, for example, ensuring an appropriate balance between lectures, seminars, small groups etc (p18)
• Condition B2 will ensure that students on a course receive the resources and support (including digitally) needed to provide a high-quality academic experience and their success on, and beyond, the course. It requires a provider to understand the capabilities, potential and needs of the particular cohort of students. It means that an institution providing courses to students less well-prepared/with lower prior attainment would need to ensure sufficient resources and support, even if this requires investment that would not be necessary for a provider with well-prepared students. The condition does not restrict recruitment of any type of student provided resources and support are consistent with the capability and needs of those students (p19)
• ‘Support’ does not extend to non-academic support such as the provision of counselling services, or financial support eg bursaries (p20)
• Universities must ensure the staff team that designs and delivers a course is sufficient in number, appropriately qualified and deployed effectively. In reaching judgements on this, the OfS is likely to focus on the staff team as a whole, rather than individuals within that team. Teams could include visiting lecturers, or research students (p21)
• Under condition B4, providers must ensure that students are assessed effectively, there is rigour and consistency in assessment practices and that the awards and qualifications granted to students are credible and hold their value (p21)
• The use of assessment practices that have the effect of reducing academic rigour for some or all students in some or all parts of a course would not be permitted. The proposed condition does not affect a provider’s duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for students with a disability in respect of matters that do not relate to academic and other competence standards (p21)
• The condition covers any type of award or qualification in HE, including degrees (including foundation degrees), diplomas, certificates, and awards of credit (p21)
• The design of assessments should minimise academic misconduct and facilitate its detection, including essay mills. The awards should be credible at the point of being granted and when compared to those granted previously. The definition of ‘credible’ means that the OfS will judge whether awards and qualifications reflect students’ knowledge and skills (p22)
• New condition B5 requires a provider to ensure that standards set for its courses comply with certain ‘sector-recognised standards’, namely ‘threshold standards’ currently referred to in the OfS’s regulatory framework and new degree classification descriptors for bachelors’ degrees with honours, which describe, for instance, the achievement of a student who is awarded a first-class degree. The condition would require providers to ensure that awards are only granted to students who meet these standards (p23)
• The OfS would be able to take regulatory action where classifications awarded to undergraduate students are not consistent with these standards. It would provide it with an “additional regulatory tool” to respond to concerns about grade inflation, by allowing an assessment of whether the degree classes awarded by a provider meet, in theory and in practice, sector-recognised standards (p25)
• Where the OfS decides that there is, or has been, a breach of one or more of the B conditions, or a breach of another relevant condition, it can suspend degree awarding powers, use of the university or university college title, and/or the allocation of public funding (p34)
• The proposed TEF consultation in the autumn is likely to contain proposals covering the academic experience and learning environment, and the educational gains and outcomes. Each of these aspects could bring together evidence submitted by the provider, its students and nationally-comparable indicators, which could include providers’ absolute performance as well as benchmarks. While the TEF will operate at a provider level, the OfS is considering options for how TEF at provider level could incentivise excellence at subject level. The TEF should promote equality of opportunity, through assessing the extent to which providers are delivering an excellent experience and outcomes for all of their students, including those from underrepresented groups. The rating system is likely to include proposals for a fourth, lowest, category where there is insufficient evidence of excellence, and proposals for how this category would interact with baseline quality requirements. The new TEF assessments would be expected to be published in 2023 (TEF: Update on the development of proposals for the future exercise).

Implication for Governance

The OfS’s new consultation is part of the government’s drive against what it calls “low quality” provision. The proposals contain a new set of rules that universities would have to meet on minimum standards as a condition of registration, as outlined above.

If the proposals are adopted, institutions will need to ensure that their understanding of the definitions of key terms, such as “up-to-date”, “relevant skills”, “credible” and “success”, corresponds to the OfS interpretation of these terms. This is no easy task, judging by the November consultation where responses demonstrated a significant amount of debate about meanings and different interpretations of key terms.

The provision in the consultation of examples of scenarios are aimed at providing clarity. For instance under condition B2, the guidance says that a staff team that is “over-reliant” on visiting teachers to deliver large or significant elements of a course is not likely to be classed as “appropriately qualified” (although it does not provide a definition of what “over-reliant” means).

Its definition of what a “credible” qualification looks like will include, for instance, “technical proficiency in written English” in courses where this can be reasonably expected. So concerns will be raised where “provider’s assessment policy and practices do not penalise poor spelling, punctuation or grammar, such that students are awarded marks that do not reflect a reasonable view of their performance of these skills”. This may be of concern to governors of some institutions that have reportedly instructed academics not to excessively penalise students for submitting work with poor written English.

Condition B2 relates to ensuring students receive the resources and support, including digitally, needed to provide a high-quality academic experience and success on, and beyond, the course. There may be implications here for the level of support provided for students during the pandemic.

Governors will note that the condition states that students with lower prior attainment could need more support and investment. A point of confusion in the earlier consultation as to when this support needs to start has been clarified: the OfS says the condition does not mean that universities will have to identify the support needs of individual students at the admissions stage.

The consultation proposal points out that the condition “does not restrict recruitment of any type of student, provided resources and support are consistent with the capability and needs of those students” – this is an interesting clarification, given government discussions about minimum entry requirements and Gavin Williamson’s recent comments about the importance of university applicants holding maths and English GCSE qualifications.

Condition B5 relates to new degree classification descriptors for bachelors’ degrees with honours. A significant number of responses to the earlier consultation were negative about these. Respondents said they were too new, did not meet the definition of ‘sector-recognised standards’ and would infringe providers’ autonomy.

While OfS acknowledged that regulating classification standards in the way proposed could represent an “intrusion on providers’ autonomy”, it said that the need to protect standards is likely to outweigh these.

While the 110-page new consultation generally attempts to move away from subjectivity and better explain what the OfS definitions mean, it still leaves ample room for interpretation and the possibility of confusion.

Despite this, the implications for governance are significant: OfS says the B conditions will give it “sharper regulatory tools” to tackle artificial grade inflation and to take “robust action” where the quality of higher education slips at a particular university – including where courses in certain subjects or for particular groups of students do not meet minimum requirements.

In putting forward these more detailed proposals, the regulator appears to be envisaging an environment where it can “intervene more frequently in universities and colleges where courses fall below expectations and require improvement”.

Among the potential threats of action, however, the document contains more reassuring statements. It emphasises that it is aiming at a “risk-based regulatory environment” and that the proposals mean that the “highest quality providers” should normally expect to meet minimum baseline requirements comfortably, and should not need to expend significant effort to demonstrate that requirements are satisfied. Nevertheless, boards will need to keep their eye on this particular ball and identify any potential risks, to ensure they can have confidence that their institution is continuing to meet conditions of registration over time.

Arguably the most controversial and contested condition - B3 relating to student outcomes - is not covered in the consultation. A detailed consultation on this is due in the autumn.