left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

Image by pikisuperstar on Freepik

[This is a version of a brief presentation I recently gave to a meeting of QAA’s Conversations with Quality Leads network, which was discussing the implications for higher education of the new CMA guidance. The presentation and this post represent my views on not those of my university.]

I’m going to start with two caveats.

I’m not going to attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the new CMA guidance or consumer protection law as it relates to higher education.  There are good summaries out there of the main changes in the new CMA guidance (for example Jim Dickinson’s in WonkHE), though I also think there’s a lot to David Palfreyman’s comment (on that WonkHE piece) that in essence the updated guidance is ‘nothing really new’ that wasn’t clear when the original guidance was published in 2015.

And it’s probably helpful to be open about my personal views on this issue.  I think many of the market-driven changes to higher education since 2010 have had profoundly negative consequences.  The view of students as consumers is a limited, inadequate and in many respects harmful perspective on the higher education experience.

At the same time, the legal reality is that students have consumer rights.  This perspective has some value in how we think about aspects of the experience of our students.  And ultimately I don’t think this perspective is unreconcilable with believing that universities are academic communities; that universities owe certain duties to their students, as members of their community; and giving students clear information about their programmes, and then meeting those commitments, is one of those duties.

Having got that out of the way, I’m going to focus on three broader points, which I think are important for us as we think about the implications of CMA and consumer protection law for the way we manage academic quality and standards.  In doing so I’m going to focus in on the implications for how we manage our educational programmes, rather than the many wider aspects of CMA (e.g. terms and conditions) important as they are. So this is in no way a comprehensive approach, more a series of questions about aspects that may be of particular relevance to quality professionals.

process

I realise that this is simplifying, but in order to be in line with consumer law requirements we need to do three things.  And I think it’s fair to say that universities have been doing these for many years, but perhaps through an additional lens and a little more urgency since the first CMA guidance was issued in 2015:

• Make sure that applicants have appropriate, clear and accurate information about the key elements of their programme while they are applying to us, up to the point they enrol.
• Once applicants have enrolled and become our students, when we make changes to their programmes consult or seek approval depending on the extent of the changes; and in all cases give students timely, accurate and appropriate information about the changes.
• Make sure that we deliver our programmes in line with the information we have given to students.

I think the question is, do we give enough attention and do enough across all three of these when we talk and act in our institutions on consumer protection law?

Sometimes I think it’s tempting for universities to focus more on the first, information for applicants, than the second and third.  Of course I’m not saying that universities don’t pay attention to the second and third areas listed.  But they are more difficult.

Providing the right information to applicants can be challenging, but is perhaps more amenable to management by recruitment and communication teams working with academic colleagues.

When we get into programme changes, and whether we deliver what we have committed to deliver, yes we have QA processes that include these aspects but it’s perhaps a little more contested.  How do we do manage change processes without restricting agility, limiting innovation and thereby in fact making the educational experience less good than it could be?  How can we be sure that we are delivering what we say we would deliver without disproportionate and heavy-handed monitoring and review processes?

governance

That question of ‘how do we know’ links to the second issue I wanted to flag: governance.

OfS’s regulatory framework requires us to have due regard to consumer protection law guidance (Condition C1).  It also requires governing bodies to ensure that all conditions of registration are met (Condition E3).  This is part of the new(-ish) territory that has been carved out for QA managers by OfS, with its increased, significant emphasis on the role of governing bodies.

So are we, how do we provide this assurance to governors?  What are the implications for this in terms of the types of processes referred to in the previous section?

Not least given that meeting consumer protection law requirements is something that may many lay members of our governing bodies are likely to be familiar with from the non-higher education sectors in which they have worked.  Consequently governors are likely to have views and perspectives that might differ to those of us in the higher education sector.

regulation and the law

And the final challenge I wanted to flag is how do we approach this area as QA professionals given that despite the CMA guidance, and the underpinning legislation, the ground beneath our feet feels so uncertain.

Yes we have the CMA guidance, but the amount of case law in this area is very limited.  We think we know what the implications of the guidance and consumer protection law are, but I suspect that many of us feel as though we’re still uncertain.  (Though of course this might start to change soon with the pending cases from students seeking compensation for lost learning in respect of the Covid pandemic and industrial action). In that context, is there a danger of us going to one of two extremes: inappropriately minimalist approaches that don’t properly address the requirements; or defensive, over-cautious and heavy-handed approaches that impact negatively on students and academic colleagues?

so what?

To wrap up, and perhaps answer at least in part some of the questions I’ve asked, I’m going to return to something I said at the start.

Yes we have obligations to our students under consumer protection law, which we are under regulatory and legal obligations to meet.  Yes there are challenges, not least the lack of case law that will help us understand the scope and limits of those obligations. Important as it is to consider and respond to those, though, we need not to lose sight of our over-arching obligations to students as members of our academic communities: being open and transparent about the educational experience we will offer them, and then ensuring that we meet those commitments.