The 23 May 2024. A week ahead of Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a general election, and the date of an Office for Student board meeting.
The pre-election delayed some activity discussed here, decisions made after the election (particularly on the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act) have had an impact on other work.
But what did the board discuss? We know very little. A record-breaking thirteen papers have not been published, a decision that doesn’t exactly scream openness or transparency. Anyway, it’s the hottest day of the year so far, and here I am reading OfS board papers.
2 Minutes of the meeting of 8 February 2024
If you think back to our write up of the papers in April, you’ll recall that there was quite a lot of publication exemption there too. The minutes add a few moments of interest – we learn two board members (Verity Hancock and Michael Spence) had conflicts of interest for a discussion regarding the OfS intervention strategy, for instance.
Where had James Wharton been? This time round, a meeting with David Behan, a meeting at DfE, and a chat to the Committee of University Chairs. No providers, alas.
On trends from the annual financial returns, the board was interested in whether providers would choose not to make capital investments given “weaker” aggregate performance and a forecast further decline. It was suggested that forecasts were more optimistic than those of many commercial businesses – OfS confirmed that returns would be sense-checked against UCAS and other sector-level data.
But the problems faced by the sector are very real. The board heard that:
there has been an increasing number of acute potential market exit cases, which require resource-intensive engagement. Resources are being prioritised on larger providers because a disorderly exit in those circumstances would have a significant impact on students.
Suggestions included reinforcing the need for robust financial management (including, somehow, the use of incentives) and the realistic assessment of financial resilience. The board asked for a presentation about the way OfS gathers information on provider sustainability and whether it was working – you’ll see we got the presentation at the very next meeting (and of course you don’t get to see it).
3 Chief executive’s report
As the number of papers we get from these releases continues to dwindle, Susan Lapworth’s reports are our primary source of information about what England’s regulator is getting up to.
Three quality investigations are still underway (draft reports were with providers), four have been closed following the publication of reports demonstrating no concerns. Seven providers involved in these investigations have enjoyed meetings with OfS to discuss findings and feed back on the process. Some of these will still have regulatory decisions pending. Since the meeting we have seen the publication of a report on computing at the University of Northampton.
All twelve B3 investigation had seen provisional decisions by the point of the board paper (we have seen eleven of these so far) – six made representations in response, two had been finalised (but there were further representations regarding publication plans). The original intention was to publish all twelve reports alongside a research report as a part of the evaluation process – in the end we just got eleven and a report on telephone interviews conducted with regard to the revised B3 condition.
Also on quality, OfS is planning to review TEF2023 ahead of the development of the next TEF in 2026 or 2027. The “credibility of awards” (grade inflation) investigations are ongoing.
There’s an in retrospect ironic section about the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – it was very much full speed ahead at this point. And (charge your glasses, ladies and gentlemen) the investigation into free speech at Sussex is ongoing – apparently the board meeting got a fuller update.
Since the last board meeting in February, there were six registration applications and two registrations. In all the queue then stood at 33 (down from 50 at that point latest year) – since the last meeting one provider withdrew, and six applications have been closed. OfS is also busy doing quality assessments for providers seeking registration: a further two between February and May brought the total open to 15, with one awaiting a decision. On Degree Awarding Powers nine applications have come in since February, taking the total to an alarming 25. OfS notes:
This reflects significant demand for DAPs and we are currently dealing with more than three times the number of cases that the QAA would have dealt with in a typical year when it was operating as the designated quality body.
The outcomes of the consultation and prevalence survey on sexual harassment were expected before the end of May. I guess chalk that one up to the election.
There was a discussion about what the paper calls “events in the Middle East”, noting an OfS letter to providers on 10 May, and planned guidance from ministers on antisemitism on the way.
And Lapworth flagged referrals of providers to trading standards (the number of providers involved is “exempt from publication”.. OfS is keeping an eye on the Student Group claim, and we get a Public Accounts Committee update.
On finances we get what largely appears to be a recap of the published analysis – though the line that:
Latest application data suggests these[provider recruitment] forecasts are not realistic and we are concerned that many providers will miss their recruitment expectations by a large margin. The challenge of managing the consequences of material under-recruitment is likely to be significant.
does rather resonate.
On student data the independent review of Data Futures had been established by the time of this meeting in May – the one we have only just been told about.
Finally, OfS will be bidding a fond farewell to the Sanctuary buildings. A new office space has been identified at 10 South Colonnade.
Annex B – an OfS communications review, cannot be published for copyright reasons.
4 OfS Public Bodies Review
This is what we now know as the Behan review. This paper was an update on progress, which we don’t get to see.
5. Strategic goal progress report
How is OfS getting on with meeting strategic goals. It’s in the annual report.
6 Development of next OfS strategy
You can read the strategy when it comes out, but not the readout from the awayday.
7 Business plan and intervention strategy 2024-25
Not for you to read, at least not until the business plan drops.
8 Restricted item
You are not allowed to read this paper either.
9 OfS communications plan 2024-25
Of course this is exempt. What could be more secret than (checks notes) communication with the sector and press.
10 Board effectiveness review
The results of a survey carried out in December 2023 to seek the views of members on the effectiveness of the OfS board. Given the change in chair that followed shortly afterwards, this would have been very interesting indeed. But “board effectiveness” isn’t something that OfS feels the need to share with us.
11 Risk report
The latest on current strategic and principal (high) corporate risks. Includes a detailed risk register (Annex A), and a policy statement (Annex B). But not for mere mortals like ourselves.
12 Student panel update
What have the student panel been talking about? Well – members have been trying to define the “student interest” and participated in a workshop to that end. It’ll be music to Jim’s ears as they also discussed the importance of equality of access to “good information” on students’ rights as consumers, though it would be useful to know some more detail on the context this was discussed in. They heard from the OfS communication team about the strategic communication plan. Six members had a chat with David Behan, four got to go to the OfS Regulation directorate away day. Six panel members were so enthused by this stuff that they want to continue in post for a further six months.
There has been a summary of the impact of the panel last year – this is exempt from publication, which is rather strange as the Industry and Regulators Committee review recommended it should publish stuff like this. The list of bullet points in the annual report feels a little superficial.
13 Report from the Quality Assessment Committee
We learn that there are discussions about changing the B3 numerical thresholds in future, and on linking the outcomes data to other quality assessments. A new split indicator is coming for Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs) – best of luck with getting to the publication threshold. The committee saw a timetable on degree awarding power and university title cases (we, obviously, don’t get to see this) and it had a conversation on that topic.
14 Report from the Provider Risk Committee
Move along, nothing to see here.
15 Report from the Risk and Audit Committee
The provider risk committee deals with, as the name suggests, provider risks. But OfS has risks too – and this is the committee that deals with them. At its meeting a presentation from Susan Lapworth covered what you might expect, there was what looks like a very high level conversation about Data Futures, a report on cybersecurity, and a discussion on the corporate governance and annual report.
The committee wanted to know more about the student interest, so the student panel popped in to help. Nope, only kidding, they had a chat with John Blake.
If that all sounds a bit dry, never fear. We get a list of current corporate risks in the annual report in what I’m going to go ahead and guess is not the order of priority:
- Maintaining strategic clarity (a “volatile” external environment could lead to a lack of clarity around the OfS’ purpose and role)
- Effectiveness of regulation (is OfS getting the outcomes it wants)
- Data quality (basically Data Futures)
- Legal risk (delightfully, one of the mitigating factors is employing more lawyers)
- Financial sustainability of providers and disorderly market exit (maybe, you know, the main one?)
- OfS delivery and resources (efficiency savings and such)
- Cybersecurity (OfS might get hacked)
16 Restricted: Assessing financial sustainability
We are told: a restricted paper summarising the actions we take to assess the financial sustainability of individual providers and the changes we have made in response to the increased financial risk in the sector.
It is exempt from publication due to commercial sensitivities, though I kind of feel like knowing how OfS figures out how to deal with financial risk in the sector is something we might want to read about – even if we can’t name the providers at risk.
17 Restricted item
18 Restricted item
19 Restricted item
What a lovely way to end the Wharton era.
