On a Monday morning in late March, ninety strangers sit down together at the base of one of the towering pillars of glass and steel that pierce the spring blue skies of the City of London to talk about collaboration.
This was no ivory tower. At mixed tables across the room sat the emissaries of universities old and new, adult community colleges, specialist institutes and industry training centres – awarding providers, teaching providers, and sector bodies too.
Partners for the day, they heard from sector experts about the latest developments in the policy and practice of academic partnerships and then translated what they learned into their own institutional context through lively and productive small group discussions.
You might think that the previous day’s headlines would not have made for the most auspicious backdrop to proceedings, but if anything they instilled in the participants of IHE’s first annual Academic Partnerships Conference a clarity of purpose and an impassioned defence of the genuine importance and transformational value of high-quality collaborative provision.
Not all partnerships! The silent cry went up. And not all franchises either.
The value of partnership
Let’s be absolutely clear: academic partnerships are nothing new in higher education. England’s oldest universities – Oxford, Cambridge, London – are themselves nothing less than partnerships in motion, organisational structures evolved to facilitate collaboration across a number of independent self-governing institutions. Academic partnerships have remained the irresistible engine for the expansion of the UK’s higher education sector, driving wider access, greater diversity and more innovation in provision even while the specific models have continued to adapt to changing contexts and circumstances.
Today, fantastic examples of successful partnerships can be found everywhere you look and they can just as easily take the form of a validation agreement as a subcontractual relationship (aka franchise). While Degree Awarding Powers rightly remain a gold standard, many independent higher education providers would rather dedicate their precious time and focus towards the teaching, learning and industry knowledge exchange that forms the heart of their missions.
Partnerships should be prized and protected for their essential role in delivering higher education provision which responds to local, national and sector-specific needs. Let’s not forget that different groups of students with different backgrounds and different learning goals benefit enormously from higher education delivered through partnerships. We ignore their needs at our peril.
So everything is really fine? Move along, please, nothing to see here? Not quite. At IHE we are under no illusions that everyone in our sector has the same good intentions. It can be all too easy for those of us who work in higher education to believe that we are immune to some of the problems that rear their heads in other sectors. Sadly not. Education is a public good, a universal good, an elemental ingredient of civilisation, but this truth can make us naïve, obscuring the loopholes that still exist and the risks that operating in such an open system built on trust can create.
Regulating partners
IHE shares the Government’s ambition to strengthen oversight of subcontracted delivery that underpins DfE’s proposals but the proposals themselves miss the mark, as set out in our response to the consultation. If we are serious about doing this, then there are five areas of focus to which we must turn our collective attention – and fast:
- due diligence on every provider’s suitability as a partner, and the fitness and propriety of their management and governance;
- transparency on ownership and the terms of any contract for provision;
- accountability which is clearly assigned between each partner for the critical aspects of provision;
- quality and standards which are managed effectively by the relevant partner at the appropriate level; and
- flexibility in any oversight process so that we continue to facilitate the full range of diverse providers with something different to offer the higher education sector.
The absolute and non-negotiable starting point for an effective regulatory system must be that the regulator knows who is really in charge of every provider it regulates, and to be able to hold them to account. Ambitions aside, the OfS needs to be far more effective at identifying and keeping out individuals who are simply not fit and proper persons to share in the honour and responsibility of stewarding an English higher education institution.
Thankfully, the OfS proposals under consultation to strengthen its conditions of registration in relation to governance and student protection signal a new seriousness in its approach to this challenge – and are long overdue. The regulator is on the right track with its plans to take a much closer look at ownership, and in trying to identify unfair and inappropriate practices in relation to student recruitment and admissions.
Any institution in the business of academic partnerships should be taking a close look at these reforms. These are issues that are important to everyone with a stake in the success of the higher education sector. It is in the entire sector’s interest, in the public interest – and nobody’s more than students’ – that the regulator carves out a constructive and collaborative role for itself in this space, helping to facilitate the positive impact of partnerships while minimising the risk of criminal elements exploiting vulnerabilities in the system.
Rethinking registration
But could the OfS go further? What if there was a new approach to registration? A category explicitly intended for providers operating in partnership, designed to fill the gaps in oversight that universities cannot on their own, while letting them lead on the academic quality assurance that is their forte. A process built from the ground up to secure the most essential assurances, that can be proportionately applied to different sizes of institution, and efficiently delivered against clear timetables and stretching service standards.
A paradigm shift towards expecting every would-be delivery partner to complete such a due diligence process could, at a stroke, drive up standards of transparency and ethical behaviours, and better protect genuine students and the public purse from the threat of academic predators. Only a statutory regulator can really achieve this, with its access to intelligence from other public authorities. There is no reason why an awarding institution would not require a potential delivery partner to undertake this process prior to approving their first course. Indeed a centralised due diligence process delivered efficiently at scale could be used to streamline and speed up a partner’s own institutional approval processes.
At the same time we in the sector’s leadership should be working at pace with all stakeholders on the development of a better shared understanding and greater mutual agreement over what constitutes the most effective policies and practices in partnership provision. The absence of sector-wide standards or accepted best practice in this area, combined with higher education’s generally held principles of transparency being too often trumped by commercial sensitivities, are what has allowed pockets of poor practice and a risk of exploitation by bad actors to grow unchecked by effective regulation.
Simply requiring providers of an arbitrary size to register with the OfS without any critical analysis of the proportionality or effectiveness of current regulation will not achieve our aims and could easily make matters worse. Even the failure of one significant delivery partner to pass the ill-fitting regulatory hurdles set under the current proposals – let alone, say, a dozen – would create extreme jeopardy for thousands of students and place the system as a whole under unbearable pressure. We will sleepwalk into this situation if we do not change course.
It would be far better to make awarding institutions properly accountable for the policies, practices and performance of their delivery partners now, while giving them the regulatory tools to help them achieve more effective oversight, than to create a new Whitehall bureaucracy with a single point of predictable failure as DfE’s proposed designation gateway does. Far better to create a dedicated process focused on a deeper due diligence which properly accounts for the actual strengths, vulnerabilities and diversity of partnership models.
Academic partnerships are here to stay. A flexible, proportionate and efficient process which applies regulatory scrutiny where it is most needed can offer a foundation for sector-led efforts to enhance the quality, transparency and consistency that students should expect.
We all have a part to play. And we need to get this right. It is essential for the reputation of the higher education sector that we do. As partners in this collective endeavour, it is time for us to shine a light on this invaluable work that has spent too long in the shadows.
