Brace brace. Another review of quality is coming in England

The B Conditions don’t speak to the National Student Survey, and neither of them cover the same categories as the TEF.

The rules on degree awarding powers don’t seem to speak to any of the above, and last year’s shoehorning of its free speech duties in the “quality” part of the business plan couldn’t have felt more uncomfortable.

Oh and then there’s complaints. And sector (subject) standards. And PGRs. And so on.

When I attempt to tell new student leaders how England’s regulator defines, assures and inspects “quality”, I am faced with having to plough through a huge vat of treacle – a hotchpotch of ideas, initiatives, nudges from the previous government and overhangs from previous eras.

There’s multiple dashboards, different approaches, often what feel like incentives that pull in opposite directions, huge blind spots and multiple messaging.

So much so that the chances of me explaining it succinctly to a group of student officers are probably roughly as high as the chances of a PVC explaining it all positively to a group of academic staff.

And we’d have to assume that interim Chair (and author of the independent review of the regulator) David Behan came to similar conclusions. Reading both between and the actual lines, he very much did.

So it’s interesting that pretty much the only notable line in CEO Susan Lapworth’s speech to UUK Conference yesterday said that we can…

…expect to see us bringing together the work of recent years into an integrated approach to quality.

Lapworth said that OfS intends to “draw together qualitative and quantitative approaches” and “refocus on enabling improvement” across the sector.

My colleague David Kernohan was especially excited about the latter bit. Maybe funded enhancement projects will be fashionable again, although the fashion will need to find some funding.

“We’ll need to work with you all to develop our thinking on how that might work” was the other welcome message – and when combined with a remix of John Blake’s speech a fortnight ago on the student interest, suggests a chunky wedge of work is on its way.

It all sounds sensible – you can see how, at least in theory, the TEF (at least in its present form) might not make it, or how you might end up with a PG NSS, or how poor provision with otherwise excellent outcomes might actually get looked at.

My own nagging doubt is that “the sector” can continue to be funded (and then regulated) in a single “level playing field” way – the only countries I’ve seen that work in are either tiny, or have very uniform provision.

Just as I often say to SUs that there’s no such thing as students – but there’s no point in just assuming they’re all individuals either – I’m increasingly drawn to the idea that we do need some categories beyond those imposed by perceptions of prestige. Although if it’s “integrated” with a wider review of HE funding, then as the old adage almost went, “quality will take time”.

Still, exciting times. More consultations to fill in! A more “enabling” character to the work of the regulator is pretty much what everyone wants to see – especially on whatever free speech duties it retains – and is probably why the APP bit seems to be so comparatively popular.