As we reported on Wednesday, the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent have announced their intention to create a new “super-university” – tentatively called the London and South East University Group (LSEUG).
It’s worth getting the terminology together. Also styled as a “multi-university group” (a clear nod, if not a direct parallel, to the “multi academy trust”) there will be one unified governing body, one academic board, one executive team, and one vice chancellor (which will be Jane Harrington, currently vice chancellor at Greenwich).
Despite the “super-university” framing in press statements there is intended to be no changes for students and applicants – people will still apply to, and graduate from, either Kent or Greenwich. For all other purposes – regulation, funding, employment – the idea is of a single entity, but there is still a lot to be worked out.
Further work on the details of the merger (and it does look like a merger, even though neither university uses that language) will lead to a decision on an implementation around the end of the calendar year. If everything goes to plan, the new structure and entity will be in place in time for the 2026–27 academic year.
So staff at both universities are in for what will be a busy 12 months in quite a condensed timeframe.
Everybody else
And not just them. A university with dual identities but a single structure is not exactly an anomaly – the University of Coventry and its “CU” sub-brand, the University of South Wales and the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, the various FE groups (like Cornwall College) – but the degree to which we are looking at two trading names rather than two institutions will determine a lot of regulatory and funding decisions.
For instance – how would Research England determine eligibility for the REF? Both constituent parts of the new entity entered the previous exercise, and both have developed an impact and publication profile in the years since. But it is very likely that Greenwich and Kent have two very different “research cultures”, even though scores for “environment” were similar in REF2021.
The REF rules point, in England, to OfS Approved (fee cap) status plus research degree awarding powers (unless specific permission is granted) as the price of participation and access to QR funding.
So would the new entity be able to maintain two OfS registrations and two sets of degree awarding powers? A “merger” is, as you might expect, a reportable event – and would lead to a reassessment of the financial sustainability and governance arrangements of both providers involved (as per section 144 of the Regulatory Framework).
There would also need to be a reassessment of quality and standards – here OfS is clear that it would use the compliance history of previously registered provider(s) in assessing what would potentially be a new application for registration (para 372 here). All of this, of course, is subject to the usual vagaries of OfS judgement in an individual case.
Beware of the leopard
You’d have to be au fait with the footnotes to the analysis of responses to the 2022 consultation on quality and standards conditions(!) to know that:
A merger or acquisition is a reportable event, and we would make a judgement about whether such an event resulted in any increased risk for any condition of registration for any of the providers involved. A merger or acquisition of two registered providers also requires a decision to deregister the dissolving entity – a decision to deregister a provider in these circumstances also means we consider whether any regulatory benefits or regulatory protection for students in relation to the deregistering provider transfer to the lead provider. Therefore, the relevance of any compliance history will be considered and, if appropriate, a new risk assessment will be completed as part of this process.
There is not a playbook or a process for two universities merging – despite what feels like three years of Wonkhe articles suggesting that something like this could be on the cards – and despite the actual example of City St George’s University of London (which makes things a little easier by using only one, albeit unwieldy, trading name) there is no evidence of work being done in advance of what could well be a rush of other examples.
I mention this not to take a pop at the Office for Students, but to suggest that this absence of a clearly defined regulatory path may be discouraging other registered providers from making similar decisions. If mergers are the financial stable future of the sector, there needs to be a simple process to allow them to happen.
Compare, for example, the clear and straightforward guidance (and checklist) available from HESA.
Outside privy
Paragraph 306 of the current regulatory framework suggests that there are circumstances in mergers where university title is up for debate too. Both the University of Kent and the University of Greenwich have university title (you can tell that because they can both use the word “university” in their names) – Kent via a Royal Charter in 1965, Greenwich via a 1992 Order of the Privy Council.
From what we know so far the London and South East University Group (name not yet confirmed) will bring the two current institutions (the University of Kent, the University of Greenwich) under one structure. If the name of the overall structure contains the word “university” it will need to have approval for its new use of the word university in a company name.
I’d love to draw a parallel with City St George’s but that one is just weird – City didn’t use its 1966 university title after 2006 (it used City, University of London), St George’s Hospital Medical School never used its 2022 university title, it was St George’s, University of London), but the combined provider uses the 1966 City title despite still being a member of the University of London, because as of the 2022 University of London Act you can now have university title within the University of London.
It isn’t made clear in any of the guidance, but generally only a legal entity can hold university title. A lot depends on the chosen company structure of the new body – if we are reversing two existing companies into a new entity then I’d honestly be surprised if it wasn’t the new entity that needs university title: and the existing ones (referring as they do, to existing names) wouldn’t be enough.
Could we have one entity with two university titles? Generally not, but to offer consistency to students and applicants you’d hope some arrangement could be made, at least over the short to medium term.
Though OfS nominally gets to determine university status these days, in legal reality it issues a recommendation to the Department for Education that it can offer a response of “non-objection” to the Registrar of Companies (at Companies House) who makes the final determination. That’s a lot of people to get to agree.
Sandbox
The mere act of doing something that hasn’t quite been done this way before causes administrative problems. For all the OfS’ processes aim to provide the legendary “level playing field”, in practice it has been helpful if your provider looks quite a lot like existing providers. LSEUG, with its Greenwich and Kent sub-brands, does not look like any current provider and as such it could face a bumpy ride – via a series of exceptions and special cases – into good standing with OfS.
A special case should not be a worry, and if – as many predict – this merger is the first of many there will be a number of precedents set that should make it easier for future providers in a similar situation. That’s great for them, but not much comfort for the team across Kent and Greenwich that will be arguing the case with OfS, DfE, and others on a number of rules and requirements.
At its best, regulation should apply reliably and equally to everyone. But there is a case, where regulation needs to evolve, to establish a sandbox where new ways to assure against the various OfS and DfE concerns can be developed and deployed. And perhaps that could help make regulation less onerous for everyone.
