left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

There are many ways to tell that a general election is approaching, including that point in time when sector lobbying of the political parties shifts into an even higher than normal gear.  For example we’ve just had UniversitiesUK’s own manifesto, seeking to influencing the manifestos of the parties.

For the 2024 general election, I think we might also be starting to see an interesting new variety of this species of activity: attempts to suggest or set an agenda for the future development of OfS, or at least aspects of its activity.

the art of the possible

QAA got a head start with its series on The future of quality in England, and it feels like a factor in GuildHE’s excellent series of policy briefings on regulation.  The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee’s report on OfS really needs to be read in the same context.

There’s a similar feel to some recent blog posts as well: for example two from Paul Greatrix on higher education bureaucracy generally and one on research bureaucracy; and a two-hander/parter (Blog 1; Blog 2) from Ant Bagshaw and Derfel Owen on possible future directions for OfS.

One feature of this genre is acceptance that essentially higher education is unlikely to be a post-election priority for any new government.  To the extent that it is, sector funding and student finance will be the priority not regulatory reform.  Consequently we’ve got to find ways to make the current regulatory arrangements work better, as there won’t be new legislation to change current structures.

time and tide …

That’s all true, and I’ve got a lot of sympathy for many of the suggestions about how OfS’s approach can and should change within the existing legislative framework.  But as well as those changes, there’s a much more prosaic issue that needs further emphasis.  A better relationship between OfS and the concepts of time and timeliness, which to date has been a troubled affair.

do as I say, not as I do

Take, for example, the current OfS consultation on a national free speech complaints process that will come into effect on 1 Aug. 2024.  In universities we’ll need to review, and where necessary revise, our internal complaints process to take account of this. But while we know the consultation on the new national complaints process will close on 17 Mar. and the new process will start on 1 Aug., we have no idea when the final version of the new national process will be published.  So as universities we’re not navigating blind, but the visibility out there feels poor.

That’s before we get to OfS allowing universities only 30 days to complete internal processes for complaints in this area before complainants can go to the new OfS process. Everyone in the sector who I’ve spoken to regards this as completely unrealistic.  And given that OfS opened its investigation of the Kathleen Stock free speech case in October 2021 but has still not reported on this, one might have expected at least some understanding of the complexity of such cases and the implications for timescales.  Oh, hang on there is. Though universities only get 30 days for internal processes, OfS has no deadline/timescale for dealing with free speech complaints made to it under the new national scheme.

That’s not the only example of variable expectations on timeliness.

Back in March 2022 universities were given two months to bring themselves into line with a new requirement to retain all assessed work for five years after a course ends, as part of the OfS Registration Condition B4.

The howls of protest from the sector about the cost implications of this new regulatory requirement led OfS to pause, and commit to bring out guidance on this requirement.  It’s now nearly two years later, and this guidance still hasn’t been published (though thanks to Paul Greatrix we know it has been in draft for some time).  Two months for the sector.  Two years for OfS.

i’m late, i’m late, for a very important date

Where it does set itself clearer deadlines, OfS has an interesting relationship with these.

Last week Rose Stephenson blogged about OfS’s developing approach to regulation on staff-student personal relationships.  The blog pointed out that the consultation on this ran from March to May 2023, with a commitment from OfS to publish the outcome in late 2023.  The blog also pointed out that we still don’t have this, and no clarity on when we will.

Perhaps just a lapse?

Well, not if you look forward to reading OfS reports of their boots on the ground quality assessments.  For those of us of a certain age, the repeated cycles of suggested release date followed by delay have been reminiscent of The Stone Roses’ second album.  (And the time between commissioning of reviews and publication of reports, isn’t exactly an advert for timeliness either).

And to return to freedom of speech, OfS has only just backed down from its refusal to provide guidance to universities on its approach to the new requirements for universities that come into effect from 1 Aug. 2024.  As Jim Dickinson has pointed out, the provision of such guidance was a regular promise from governments during the passage of the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Act, but dismissed by OfS until now.

While OfS’s decision to develop guidance is welcome, it comes long after universities have needed to start work to address the requirements of the new Act.  So the OfS guidance is highly unlikely to be available before universities need to finalise their work.

absence makes the heart grow fonder?

There’s a final, perhaps more contested, area where timeliness is an issue.  We’re going through huge challenges and changes as a sector, but frequently it feels that OfS just doesn’t seem to be able to respond to the speed of change.

Their response to the Covid pandemic was flat-footed.  They have said little if anything of value on generative AI, including its implications for assessment and potentially academic standards.  Their letter to universities during the 2023 assessment crisis occasioned by the Marking and Assessment Boycott was sent after most undergraduate boards of examiners would have been held.  It took until last autumn for OfS to wake up to the massive expansion of franchised provision and the potential dangers to quality and standards, despite the increase having been evident for some time earlier.

a little dietary advice

I’m sure that others would add their own examples.  So rather than add to the list, perhaps the question is why this is happening.

I don’t think there’s any deeply, laid Machiavellian strategy here on the part of OfS.  In part it reminds me of the insight of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘I wouldn’t call Civil Service delays, tactics.  That would be to mistake lethargy as strategy’.

But ‘lethargy’ doesn’t quite nail it either.

The thing it brings to mind is a comment a former colleague made in a meeting a few years ago.  We were at a committee discussing some project or initiative, and some were excitedly exploring the potential further development of this.  At which point the colleague warned us against this: ‘we don’t want the snake to swallow a sheep, and not be able to move’.  In other words, be realistic about what’s achievable and don’t over-reach.

At the moment all of us in universities are needing to be incredibly focused, if not ruthless, in our prioritisation.  To recognise the need to fit our ambition to our capacity in terms of the resource available.  Perhaps OfS also needs to eat fewer and smaller meals.