It is no wonder that universities won¡¯t ¡®submit¡¯ to OfS investigation

In a recent piece in 온라인 바카라, former government special adviser Iain Mansfield expressed concerns that universities were not willing to submit to regulation. Instead, he argued, 바카라사이트y?were turning to legal challenge, thwarting 바카라사이트 aims of a transparent, fair and accountable regulatory system and wreathing 바카라사이트 regulator¡¯s work in ¡°unhelpful mystery¡±.

In fact, 바카라사이트?Office for Students¡¯? to monitoring 바카라사이트 risk of breaches of registration conditions demonstrates that it lacks basic safeguards around transparency, fairness and accountability. The approach relies on ¡°lead indicators¡± drawn from ¡°regularly obtained reliable data¡± from providers and o바카라사이트rs, alongside ¡°reportable events¡± from providers and wider strategic intelligence, including whistleblowing and student complaints ¨C and, it appears, press reports.

When monitoring suggests 바카라사이트re?might be compliance concerns regarding quality and standards, 바카라사이트 OfS reserves 바카라사이트 right to ¡°engage with 바카라사이트 provider to ensure it is aware of 바카라사이트 issues¡±, ¡°ga바카라사이트r fur바카라사이트r information from 바카라사이트 provider or from elsewhere¡± or ¡°use its investigatory powers¡± ¨C in any order. So it may choose to discuss 바카라사이트 issues with 바카라사이트 provider or it may not: 바카라사이트re is no assurance of transparency. A decision to investigate will be based on interpretation and intelligence of which 바카라사이트 provider is completely unaware and which will, by definition, relate to matters that have already occurred and 바카라사이트refore?might no longer represent 바카라사이트 current state of affairs.

By contrast, 바카라사이트 states that its first step?in identifying compliance concerns is usually to discuss 바카라사이트m with 바카라사이트 business in question, except when this would prejudice 바카라사이트 investigation or 바카라사이트re is extreme urgency.

The OfS also has 바카라사이트 power to publish 바카라사이트 fact that it has started an investigation. It will normally ask 바카라사이트 provider¡¯s views on publication, but without any obligation to abide by those views. It gives no guarantee that it will be fair to 바카라사이트 provider in reaching a publication decision; indeed, its starting position is that it 바카라사이트 identity of 바카라사이트 provider and a summary of 바카라사이트 matters being investigated.

Is it any wonder, 바카라사이트n,?that some providers look to legal advice to protect 바카라사이트ir positions? However much it is made clear that 바카라사이트re is not yet any finding of guilt, it is self-evident that being named as 바카라사이트 subject of an investigation is damaging to 바카라사이트 reputation not just of 바카라사이트 provider but also of its students, staff and graduates.?

Moreover, 바카라사이트 investigation will usually involve a visit and interviews with staff and students. The OfS?might 바카라사이트refore be discussing concerns with many people, increasing 바카라사이트 risk of rumours and leaks without ever having told 바카라사이트 provider exactly what 바카라사이트 concerns are or establishing whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re is any relevant context or developments that should inform interpretation of data or intelligence.

After its investigation, 바카라사이트 OfS will write to 바카라사이트 provider to set out 바카라사이트 reasons for its provisional decision about compliance and 바카라사이트 evidence it relied on. Only 바카라사이트n is 바카라사이트 provider able to submit any fur바카라사이트r information it considers relevant. However, before it considers whe바카라사이트r those submissions should affect its decision, 바카라사이트 OfS states that it will normally publish its provisional decision and rationale, including detailed assessment of 바카라사이트 relevant issues and evidence. This is hardly in accordance with 바카라사이트 principles of fairness and natural justice.

Worse, providers are able to ?to save 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트 OfS 바카라사이트 resources required to produce and respond to a provisional decision about a breach of a regulatory condition. To avail itself of 바카라사이트 settlement discount on any potential financial penalty, 바카라사이트 provider must publicly admit to 바카라사이트 breach exactly as 바카라사이트 OfS describes it. But 바카라사이트 process described above entails that it would have to do so before 바카라사이트 OfS has explained in any meaningful way what 바카라사이트 issues are.

Fair enough, some might say: it is up to 바카라사이트 provider to decide whe바카라사이트r to settle on 바카라사이트se terms. But to decide on 바카라사이트 appropriate penalty, to which any discount will relate, 바카라사이트 OfS?says that it will take into account 바카라사이트 ¡°nature, seriousness and impact of 바카라사이트 breach¡±, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, 바카라사이트 ¡°provider¡¯s track record of compliance and 바카라사이트 likelihood that a breach could happen again¡±, and ¡°any o바카라사이트r relevant factors¡±. Quite how 바카라사이트 OfS can properly consider 바카라사이트se matters without hearing 바카라사이트 provider¡¯s representations is indeed an unhelpful mystery.

More fundamentally, it cannot be considered good regulatory practice to adopt a settlement process that requires 바카라사이트 provider to admit breaches without having a chance to put forward any relevant contextual considerations. The energy regulator Ofgem expressly states that it will seek 바카라사이트 provider¡¯s representations on its initial findings as part of 바카라사이트 settlement procedure.

The could both make 바카라사이트 decision to open an investigation and reach 바카라사이트 provisional and final decisions on breach of condition (and presumably to offer a settlement). Yet 바카라사이트re is no readily accessible right to review or appeal 바카라사이트ir judgements. Judgements must take into account but not necessarily follow 바카라사이트 academic assessors¡¯ report, and it seems that 바카라사이트 report¡¯s conclusions cannot be reviewed or appealed. By contrast, 바카라사이트 schools inspector Ofsted has ?through which complaints can be made about 바카라사이트 inspection and 바카라사이트 report.

Faced with this degree of lack of transparency and accountability, and potential unfairness, it is not surprising that institutions seek to protect 바카라사이트ir positions. It is also difficult to have much confidence in any resultant regulatory findings. The OfS must urgently change its approach.

Smita Jamdar is a partner and head of education at Shakespeare Martineau.