When the franchising scandal first broke, many thought it was going to be a flash in the pan, an airing of the darkest depths of the sector but something that didn’t really impact the mainstream.
That hasn’t been the case.
The more it digs, the more concerned the government seems to get, and the proposed reforms to register the largest delivery partners seem unlikely to mark the end of its attention.
Last orders
The sector would be foolish to wait for the Government’s response to its consultation, or for the Office for Students to come knocking. Subcontracted provision in England has increased 358 per cent over the past five years: and, for some providers this provision significantly outnumbers the students they teach directly themselves. Business and management courses account for 65% of undergraduate franchised provision. The number of students from IMD quintile 1 (the most deprived) entering HE have increased 31 per cent, compared to an overall rise in student numbers of 15 per cent, indicating a potential link between franchising growth and this group of students.
The sector talks a big game about institutional autonomy – and they’re right to do so; it is a vital attribute of the UK sector. But it shouldn’t be taken for granted, and that means demonstrating clear action when practices are scrutinised.
Front foot
So today, QAA has released new comprehensive guidance (part of a suite sitting underneath the UK Quality Code) to help the sector get on the front foot. For the first time since the franchising scandal broke, experts from across the UK sector have developed a toolkit for anyone working in partnerships to know what good practice can look like, what questions they should be asking themselves, and how their own provision stacks up against what others are doing.
The guidance is framed around three discrete principles: all partnerships should add direct value to the staff and student experience and widen learning opportunities; academic standards and the quality of the student experience should not be compromised; and oversight should be as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as the provision delivered by a single provider. All partners share responsibility for the student learning experience and the academic standards students are held to, but it is the awarding partner who is ultimately accountable for awards offered in its name.
If you’re working in partnership management and are concerned about how your institution should be responding to the increased scrutiny coming from government, the guidance talks you through each stage of the partnership lifecycle, with reflective questions and scenarios to prompt consideration of your own practice. And as providers put the guidance and its recommendations into practice, they will be able to tell a more convincing and reassuring story about how they work with their partners to deliver a high quality experience.
Starter for five
But the sector getting its house in order will only quell concerns if those scrutinising feel assured of provider action. So for anyone concerned, we’ve distilled five starter questions from the guidance that we’d expect any provider to be able to answer about their partnerships.
Are there clear and shared academic standards? Providers should be able to provide agreed terms on academic standards and quality assurance and plans for continuous improvement.
Is oversight tailored to risk? Providers who have a large portfolio should be able to demonstrate how they take an agile, proportionate approach to each partnership.
What are the formal governance and accountability mechanisms? A provider’s governors or board should be able to tell you what decisions have been made and why.
How is data used to drive performance and mitigate risk? Providers should be able to tell you what data they have and what it tells them about their partnerships and the students’ experience, and any actions they plan to take.
And finally, how does your relationship enable challenge and improvement? Providers should be able to tell you when they last spoke to each of their partners, what topics were discussed and lead providers should be able to detail what mechanisms they use to hold their partners to account when issues arise.
Integrity and responsibility
The government has a duty to prevent misuse of public money and to ensure the integrity of a system that receives significant amounts of it. The regulator has a responsibility to investigate where it suspects there is poor practice and to act accordingly. But the sector has a responsibility – both to its students and, also, to itself – to respond to the legitimate concerns raised around partnership provision and to demonstrate it’s taking action. This lever is just as, if not more, important, because government and regulatory action becomes more necessary and more stringent if we don’t get this right.
The sector cannot afford not to grasp the nettle on this. Public trust, the sector’s reputation and, most importantly, the learning experience students deserve, are all on the line.
QAA’s guidance is practical, expert-informed and rooted in shared principles to help providers not only meet expectations but lead the way in restoring confidence. Because if the sector doesn’t demonstrate its commitment to action on this, the government and the regulator surely will.
