OfS chief executive Nicola Dandridge promises a change of tone from the English regulator.
This article is more than 6 years old

It is almost two years since the Office for Students became the regulator for higher education in England.
Since then, we have registered 394 universities, colleges, specialist and independent providers. In the process, we have tested them against robust measures of quality, access and participation, governance and financial stability, all intended to ensure a minimum quality threshold and to reassure students and taxpayers about the strength of individual providers. During the course of that process, we have seen numerous examples of outstanding teaching, ambitious and credible access and participation plans, and effective leadership.
However, we have also been unafraid to speak out where the evidence has pointed to poor practice: poor quality provision, inadequate approaches to improving access or outcomes, grade inflation, conditional unconditional offers, and excessive vice-chancellor pay. We believe that our direct approach is already contributing to positive changes in these areas.
This process has not been without its share of friction. Robust regulation from a regulator is different to conditions of funding from a funding council, and the relationship between regulator and regulated can never be one of co-regulatory consensus. We believe that effective regulation in the student interest requires a degree of distance from the sector, and an ability and willingness to be a dispassionate judge of what is and – most importantly for a regulator – what is not in the interests of students. Nonetheless, the relationship should entail mutual respect, ultimately working towards shared objectives.
So, as the OfS moves from large scale registration to risk-based monitoring and intervention, it is a good time to reflect on that regulatory relationship.
In particular, I am keen that the OfS looks at practical steps to make the regulatory experience as proportionate and smooth as possible for those we regulate. In our regulatory framework we committed to reducing bureaucracy and unnecessary regulatory burden for individual providers. I am also committed to getting the tone right in our communications in a way that reflects both distance and respect. And now that the initial registration process has been largely completed, there are five steps we are taking to meet those commitments:
In considering our regulatory relationship with providers, we do now need to factor in the impact of coronavirus Covid-19. This is a complex, fast-moving and challenging situation, and we will work closely with providers as they respond. Our objective here is to ensure that our regulatory expectations respond effectively to the impact of Covid-19, to ensure that students’ interests are protected and that we play our role in providing support and guidance where appropriate. That is why we have asked all registered providers to tell us about reported cases and their impact. We are also actively considering how we can reduce burden on providers at this time, recognising that the actual and potential impacts of responding to coronavirus will take significant time and resources. We will write to all providers shortly setting this out in detail.
As England’s higher education regulator, we are determined to act resolutely on behalf of all students. Getting it right is not just in their interest, it is in all our interests as a society and economy. Just as we have high expectations of the universities and colleges we regulate, so we have high expectations of ourselves as an effective and proportionate regulator. In this way, we will help ensure that all students can flourish and succeed.
New comments will come back with sign-in later this year.
Emilia alexe · 12 Mar 2020
What OFS does in order to tackle a fraud degree and a fraud in student loan when the evidences are clear ? The answer is : NOTHING .
Statement like ” we are resolutely determined to protect the students interests’ are just empty words; as far I am.concern ,apart from a policy of inaction , OFS did nothing and DFE is fully aware.
Students are used only as bodies entries. We have enrolled for HND’s courses acredited as courses leading to degree and we have ended up with worthless products with zero value.Itbis a fraud scheme delivered on public money and nobody seems to be interested DFE and OFS seem to agree with the fact that a subdegree HND Law course can be outside the national framework ,even if the course was sold to international students.

Alistair Jarvis | Comment | 12/10/26

Jim Dickinson | Comment | 12/10/26

Jim Dickinson | Comment | 10/10/26

Jonathan Disley | Comment | 9/10/26

James Coe | Comment | 9/10/26

Hugh Jones | Comment | 9/10/26