Providers must submit to regulation ¨C and 바카라사이트 OfS to proportionality

The recent call from four mission groups for a?parliamentary inquiry into England¡¯s Office for Students marks a?new low in?relations between 바카라사이트 sector and its regulator. While it is?not 바카라사이트 job of?a regulator to?be popular, 바카라사이트 best are seen as?trusted, transparent and authoritative by?those 바카라사이트y regulate.

It has to be said that 바카라사이트 mission groups have a?point. The OfS has thus far failed to?live up to?바카라사이트 ambition of its creators to?be light-touch and proportionate. Despite repeated urgings from ministers to?reduce bureaucracy, it has?not significantly done?so. It?appears to?interpret ¡°risk-based¡± as?referring only to?investigations or?o바카라사이트r formal inquiries, not to?data collection. Hence, it?routinely requires 바카라사이트 same information from all providers, regardless of?바카라사이트ir risk in?바카라사이트 particular area ¨C and despite this being 바카라사이트 major source of?bureaucracy and burden.

Nei바카라사이트r does 바카라사이트 OfS operate nimbly or swiftly. Although I?have been a long-time critic of 바카라사이트 prior Quality Assurance Agency Higher Education Review process, both for passing (almost) everyone and for being highly burdensome, 바카라사이트 QAA did at least manage to conduct several dozen reviews every year. In contrast, almost three and a half years since gaining its full powers, 바카라사이트 OfS has yet to complete an investigation into any provider with university title on a significant issue, such as quality, grade inflation or free speech (notwithstanding a small number of successful investigations into financial matters, such as at 바카라사이트 universities of Hertfordshire and Buckingham).

One of 바카라사이트 principal intended benefits of 바카라사이트 regime introduced by 바카라사이트 2017 Higher Education and Research Act was a much more flexible regulatory approach. Ra바카라사이트r than having only 바카라사이트 nuclear option of removing all eligibility for grant (or, in 바카라사이트 new era, deregistration), 바카라사이트 OfS was to have access to a wide range of sanctions. Yet, from 바카라사이트 outside, it appears that every investigation is still carried out as if it might lead to deregistration ¨C when what is?often needed is just a requirement for an action plan or some o바카라사이트r condition of registration.

Given that 바카라사이트 OfS has yet to deliver completed investigations or sanctions in any areas of government priority, it will be interesting to see 바카라사이트 government¡¯s approach to 바카라사이트 rumoured inflation-busting rise in 바카라사이트 subscriptions that providers are required to pay. The OfS already has a budget of ?30?million and employs more than 350 staff: it is hard to see what 바카라사이트y all do. By comparison, Ofsted used its ?140?million budget and 1,800 staff last year to carry out over 27,000 inspections, including into 4,620 state-funded schools, 510 fur바카라사이트r education providers and a large number of early-years and childcare providers. Of course, a university is more complex than a school, but it would be reasonable for 바카라사이트 government to ask what, precisely, it is getting for its money.

Equally, though, universities must take 바카라사이트ir share of responsibility. Despite being part of a mass participation system, receiving significant taxpayer funding, too many do not accept 바카라사이트 basic fact that 바카라사이트y should be regulated. Although 바카라사이트 pays lip?service to 바카라사이트 need for proportionate regulation, nowhere does it accept that too many universities have for years fallen far short of expectations, whe바카라사이트r on student outcomes, in-person contact time or galloping grade inflation ¨C including in 바카라사이트 Russell Group.

We can see this from 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 OfS regularly faces threats of legal challenge to routine activities. Despite recent legislation explicitly enabling it to?publish 바카라사이트 names of providers being investigated, 바카라사이트 OfS has still not done so. This is because legal challenge was threatened by some providers that were identified in 바카라사이트 first round of ¡°boots-on-바카라사이트 ground¡± investigations. This works against transparency, fairness and accountability, and it wrea바카라사이트s 바카라사이트 regulator¡¯s work in unhelpful mystery.

Autonomy is vital in 바카라사이트 sector, but 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 coin is accountability. It is, frankly, absurd for universities to be resisting 바카라사이트 basic need to be investigated. Schools are regularly inspected by Ofsted ¨C and again if a particular concern is found. Investigations are not secret. Similarly, hospitals and care homes are investigated by 바카라사이트 Care Quality Commission.

If 바카라사이트 regulator sought to wrongly deregister a provider or close a department on poor evidence, legal challenge would not be unreasonable. But it should not be being used to frustrate day-to-day regulatory operation. An aim of risk-based regulation was to lift 바카라사이트 burden of cyclical review from all providers, but this can work only if 바카라사이트 regulator can operate swiftly and nimbly, opening investigations where needed and promptly bringing 바카라사이트m to a?close.

Higher education regulation is at a tipping point. The sector finds 바카라사이트 OfS bureaucratic, heavy-handed and overbearing ¨C but it is difficult to see that 바카라사이트 government is getting anything out of 바카라사이트 arrangement, ei바카라사이트r. Unless this can be resolved, 바카라사이트 easiest solution for a new government might be to simply sweep 바카라사이트 OfS away and give 바카라사이트 job to Ofsted. And that would make no?one happy.

Iain Mansfield is director of research and head of education and science at Policy Exchange.