Brace brace. Another review of quality is coming in England
No matter your opinion on the different aspects of the Office for Students' work on quality, it's difficult to see them as cohesive.
The B Conditions do not align with the National Student Survey, and both of them do not address the same aspects as the TEF.
The regulations about awarding degrees don't address any of these issues, and last year it felt awkward to include its free speech responsibilities in the "quality" section of the business plan.
And don't forget about grievances, industry regulations, and plant growth regulators, among other things.
When I try to explain to new student leaders how England's regulator determines, guarantees, and evaluates "quality," I find myself wading through a complex mix of ideas, programs, influences from past governments, and remnants from earlier times.
There are many different dashboards, various strategies, conflicting incentives, significant gaps in information, and various messages being sent.
I find it very difficult to explain this clearly to a group of student officers. The chances of me succeeding are about the same as a PVC successfully explaining it to a group of academic staff.
And we can safely assume that the temporary leader (and writer of the independent assessment of the regulator), David Behan, reached similar findings. By analyzing the subtext as well as the explicit content, it seems evident that he did.
It is intriguing that CEO Susan Lapworth's speech at the UUK Conference yesterday contained only one noteworthy statement, which highlighted the idea that we can...
We plan to combine the progress we've made in recent years to create a comprehensive approach to ensure high quality.
Lapworth mentioned that OfS plans to combine qualitative and quantitative methods and shift its focus to promoting progress within the sector.
My coworker David Kernohan was particularly enthusiastic about the second part. It's possible that funded improvement projects will become popular again, but they will need to secure some funding to happen.
"We will collaborate with all of you to expand our ideas on how that could be implemented," was the next encouraging statement. When paired with a revamped version of John Blake's recent speech on student engagement, it indicates there is a substantial amount of work ahead.
It all makes sense - you can understand how, in theory, the TEF (in its current state) may not succeed, or how a PG NSS could be implemented, or how inadequate services with great results might be examined.
I personally have reservations about whether the industry can still receive funding and regulation in a fair and equal manner. The only places where I've seen this work effectively are either small countries or those with consistent services.
I always tell SUs that students shouldn't be grouped together or seen as just individuals. I'm starting to believe that we should have categories that go beyond prestige. If this is part of a larger review of higher education funding, then it will take time for quality to improve.
Currently, there are interesting developments happening. We have more consultations to complete! People are eager to see a regulator that is more supportive in its approach, especially when it comes to its responsibilities regarding free speech. This is likely why the APP section seems to be receiving more attention and positive feedback.
