A few modest proposals to address the regulatory burden and help save the higher education sector some money.

No-one is predicting more money for higher education in the near future. Given the significant financial challenges facing the sector and limited prospects for additional financial support from government universities and colleges have to look for ways to make more cash and save more money to invest in core activities and sustain operations.

One way in which savings can be made is in reducing the excessive burden of regulation. In England the bulk of unnecessary regulation is principally, but not exclusively, managed by the Office for Students (OfS). There are other burdensome regulatory activities at play too though, including some self-imposed ones, which do need to be considered.

Some initial steps

I wrote a piece for HEPI in 2023 on how the burden could be reduced which included some quite reasonable ideas for addressing the problem such as the following:

• Setting aside the new OfS requirement, often called the B4 condition, for the retention of all assessed work (or an “appropriate” sample) for all students for five years post-graduation. This has yet to be fully implemented in England but represents a huge new burden for institutions. My crude estimate is that this will cost the English sector significantly more than £500m in terms of start up and ongoing implementation over the next five years. This recent Wonkhe article proposes a way forward on this particular issue. 

• End the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). The TEF is in reality of no interest to prospective students, very few of whom ever cite it as a factor in their decision-making. Additionally, unlike the original TEF proposals, it carries no funding implications but rather it is a costly and unnecessary exercise both for institutions and the regulator. Whilst some argue that the TEF serves as an incentive to institutions to improve quality it is a crude, blunt and costly instrument to achieve limited enhancements which should happen anyway.

• There is a need to reduce government interference in the routine operation of the framework and return to the previous norm of just a single letter a year from the Secretary of State setting out priorities for the regulator. Between 2018 and 2023 the OfS received 25 letters from the Secretaries of State, conveying a range of instructions, which have undoubtably contributed to the changing priorities of the regulator and added to the regulatory burden.

• The OfS should follow the Regulators’ Code more closely rather than merely having ‘regard to’ it for policy matters. The agency should aim to follow the best practice set out in the Regulators’ Code for both policy and procedures, and seek to operate in line with best practice for effective regulation.

• In approaching regulation, the presumption should be a positive one of assumed compliance rather than what appears to be a guilty until proved innocent stance. We need a complete revamp to enable a genuinely risk-based model which recognises quality and accepts the means by which academic standards are best assured. Additionally, there has to be real transparency and straightforward routes for handling concerns and complaints from students and those regulated.

• In terms of sector-developed self-regulation it is time to call a halt to the External Examiner system. Whilst external examining has served the sector well over more than a century, it is no longer fit for purpose for a mass system. Institutions cling to it but external examining is an anomaly internationally and has limited efficacy and value in terms of assuring standards in a very different HE system.

That’s a decent set of changes to be starting with I think. These would be helpful steps and would enable universities to save money to invest in core activities at a time of significant financial challenge for the sector.

Surveying the cost

Recently Moorhouse Consulting produced an extremely insightful report for Universities UK which included a substantial sector survey of the cost and burden of different aspects of the OfS regulatory regime. Among other things the report noted that the resources required to understand and meet regulatory requirements were significant as were the opportunity costs of the regulatory burden for universities. The report noted a desire amongst respondents for a risk-based approach to regulation, which they felt was currently lacking. Those responding were also concerned about the lack of nuance or recognition of institutional diversity in a one-size-fits all approach to regulation. 

In terms of assessing the direct cost of the OfS regulatory regime Moorhouse collected data on the number of staff involved. Their estimates of the total numbers dedicated to regulatory matters show that the institutional investment in addressing such matters really is not trivial:

We estimate that this would be 128 FTE at Executive level, 638 FTE at Manager/Director Level and 1,289 at Officer/Coordinator level dedicated solely to regulatory compliance across all 116 UUK members in England. Universities typically do not have dedicated regulatory teams; this resource is incorporated as part of existing roles. 

This represents major cost then and a significant impact on university operations, not to mention the opportunity cost. Aside from the dedicated resource the activities dictated by the framework, including in particular the B4 retained working requirement, are pervasive and impact all parts of universities.

Trusting the professionals

In looking to save money through the reduction of the regulatory burden we need to rebuild trust in those most closely involved in the delivery of high quality education. A revised approach needs to feature renewedrecognition of the professionalism of academic staff involved in teaching, learning and assessment. This professionalism is the foundation on which the quality and standards of higher education is built. Allied to this is the reinforcement of the importance of academic freedom. Over-regulation undermines academic freedom which is cornerstone of quality. Greater institutional autonomy is another key anchor of the approach here, again emphasising the need for more trust in those involved in actual delivery.

In establishing a higher trust environment an appropriate aggregation of measures and assessment in combination will be explicitly identified as being sufficient to assure that standards are being properly set by institutions and achieved by students and that the educational offer is providing the right quality of learning and student experience. 

Starting to offload

Whatever are the next steps as part of the forthcoming review of the OfS and any steps the government (current or future) wishes to take, reducing the burden to enable universities to save money will surely be a necessary undertaking.

Beyond the steps outlined above I would also suggest the following:

1. We should target savings in reducing the burden. The UUK Moorhouse report has given a conservative estimate but it is a reasonable effort. At very least the aim should be to reduce by a third the regulatory cost for institutions (or cut it by a half perhaps if we were really wanting to be more ambitious).
2. The data burden issue has to be addressed too – we need an expansive and empowered task force, again with a bold target to reduce the cost to institutions by at least a third.
3. The sector too needs actively to reconsider where it has gold-plated its own processes – we should undertake to look at closely and where we need to agree sector change too, starting with the external examiner system as noted above, before moving onto other areas of excessive self-generated internal regulation.

The work on reducing the burden, which would free up at least some resource across the sector, can start at once. It does not require new legislation, no new regulations have to be drafted. Rather it is about an attitude which recognises the importance of trust, institutional autonomy, the professionalism of staff and a determination to be open and transparent where faults are found. All of this will save money, desperately needed resource for institutions, and help to re-establish the confidence of all stakeholders in the quality of the UK’s higher education.

Higher trust, lower cost means that everyone gains. And in the absence of new government funds it is likely to be just about the only resource opportunity available.

 This article represents the personal views of the author