The English regulator’s quality assessment process needs a rethink, according to the vice-chancellor of a university that was recently subjected to an investigation that yielded “no concerns”.
The University of East London (UEL) has been revealed as the third provider to have received a “boots-on-the-ground” inspection from the Office for Students (OfS), and it is the second case in which no areas of concern were found, after the regulator scrutinised the quality of its business and management courses.
OfS investigators, who looked into UEL between November 2022 and February 2023, did not identify any concerns relating to three conditions of interest – B1: academic experience; B2: resources, support and student engagement; and B4: assessment and awards.
Responding to the findings through a blog for the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), Amanda Broderick, vice-chancellor and president of UEL, said she was pleased that her institution had yielded positive results.
But, she added: “I want to add my voice to these calls for a rethink of our regulator’s approach towards quality assessment, and to reflect on where there is room for improvement in this important process and the role it plays in the national and international reputation of higher education.”
The OfS investigation into UEL – conducted by three academic experts and a staff member – was launched as part of the regulator’s “approach to general monitoring”.
One of the “peculiarities” of the process was that UEL was not informed of what the OfS’ concerns were, according to Professor Broderick.
And she said there had never been any clarification about the exact criteria, data or threshold for the assessment, nor how the OfS decided on the shortlist of universities that were to be assessed.
In the regulator’s previous two investigations, it found “areas of concern” at the University of Bolton, and none at London South Bank University.
Professor Broderick noted that each of the institutions targeted had a high percentage of students from widening participation backgrounds, and social mobility or inclusion as an explicit institutional mission.
“Far from suggesting that this is the result of explicit discrimination, I believe it is worth considering if the current definitions, interpretations, and measurements of quality, can have an unintended implicit bias towards certain students, regions and institutions,” she added.
“Either way, it is critical that we challenge any suggestion that socially inclusive HEIs are low-quality, and actively correct any false assumptions about the students who attend our institutions, the challenges they may face and the full value of successful outcomes.”
During its investigation into UEL, the OfS considered in detail its curriculum design and pedagogic approach, the educational experiences of students on the tourism management courses, UEL’s academic support, and its staffing strategy.
Professor Broderick said the “danger” of the OfS’ approach to quality assessment lay in forgetting that the invaluable diversity of students, regions and institutions had a critical role to play in driving social mobility and unlocking growth, productivity and competitiveness.
