If student panel members feed back their views but they’re never minuted, did they make a sound?
Jim is an Associate Editor at Wonkhe
Tags
But in a less prominent part of the OfS website, there’s even worse practice lurking.
The OfS student panel has come in for some criticism over the years – mainly for its design as the key way that the student interests regulator gets input from students – rather than for the efforts of its participants.
It doesn’t appear to have recruited any students recently – it looks like that activity was paused pending a wider review and criticism from the Lords Industry and Regulators Committee – but it has been ploughing on and still meeting in the background.
So given my interest in the student interest, I try to look in on the minutes from the panel when they’re published. And oh my days.
January 2024’s meeting – attended by eight panel members – had an update from the CEO, training on parliament and select committees, a discussion on freedom of speech, a discussion on student engagement in the development of access and participation plans, and an item on “student panel impact”.
For the CEO update, we learn that Susan Lapworth discussed the publication of quality assessment reports, continued TEF outcomes, two consultations on OfS functions relating to free speech, the collection of information about students’ unions under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, and publication of additional funding awards for degree apprenticeships.
She then invited a discussion with the panel on these points – but the minutes give us absolutely no clues as to what they said.
For the training, we learn that the training was needed following the panel’s involvement in OfS’ response to that House of Lords Inquiry. It covered an introduction to parliament, the roles of the House of Commons and House of Lords, the difference between parliament and government, and the work of select committees – including what they are, how they work, and their impact. Lovely.
For the free speech item, Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom and a senior officer rocked up. Ahmed emphasised that OfS’ approach is non-political, aiming to ensure free expression within the law for all involved in higher education, and sought the panel’s views on encouraging student engagement with the consultations.
He also outlined the freedom of speech complaints scheme, and invited the panel to discuss their opinions on the principles of the scheme and ways to encourage student engagement with the consultation. And the panel also got an overview of OfS’ approach to monitoring students’ unions (SUs) on free speech matters, reminded them that OfS will adopt a risk-based approach, and invited panel members to discuss their opinions on the monitoring principles and ways to encourage student engagement with the consultation.
But the minutes don’t record anything that the panel actually said, or even the general themes in their contributions.
Next we learn that OfS staff explained the role of the Access and Participation Team, focusing on access and participation plans (APPs) as their main regulatory tool. The panel heard that OfS emphasises the importance of student engagement in developing APPs, including consulting with students, involving them as partners and co-creators, and submitting a representative student submission separate from the provider.
It also heard that of the 35 providers in the first wave of APPs, 20 student submissions were received. The panel was invited to give views on supporting and encouraging student engagement in the submission process – and was also asked when the last time was that they felt listened to by their provider, what made them feel listened to, what OfS can do to encourage providers to support students with their student submission, what OfS can do to support and engage students in the process, and if the panel thought there were other ways that OfS could persuade students to provide intelligence relating to an APP.
Not a bad set of questions. But the minutes give us not a single word on what the answers were. No quotes, no themes, no important points, nada, nowt, nothing.
And then, before the panel went into closed session, we get this exciting news on panel impact:
The chair handed over to [the] Senior Officer for the Student Engagement team to speak at the meeting. [They] relayed the key takeaways and impact of discussions with the panel from the previous meeting.
As it stands, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the refreshed approach to the student panel is that they sit there and listen to talks and then have lunch.
I’m assuming that the panel actually had plenty to say – it’s just that the minutes of a meeting designed to gather input from students are those in which literally no student views, voices or opinions are recounted.
This would/should not be acceptable practice in any of the providers regulated by the OfS, so why is it permissible here? I think the OfS ought to talk to their providers & SUs about how they engage with their students and perhaps take some hard lessons. and re APP: if you set an exercise like this at pace AND to be completed over the main period of assessment for most students, you are not creating a conducive environment in which students feel they can be adequately consulted/involved in a process like this. Again, perhaps if they had sought the views of their Student Panel, the OfS would have learnt this simple lesson of good practice?