English higher education 2021: The Office for Students annual review

• Quality of teaching and learning
• Listening to student concerns
• Assessments, awards and degree standards
• Review of proficiency in written English in assessment practices
• Case study: Assessment of written English
• The Prevent duty
• Funding

Last year we set out three objectives that would underpin our regulatory response to the pandemic: seeking to protect so far as possible the quality of teaching and learning, minimising long-term damage by enabling future recovery, and sharing information to support the government’s public health objectives. These three principles have continued to underpin our work over the course of the last year.

Quality of teaching and learning

The covid-related questions in this year’s National Student Survey (NSS) showed that 77.5 per cent of respondents in England agreed that they were able to access the learning resources they needed for their course (lecture notes, course materials, journals, virtual learning environments, etc.) during the pandemic. However, only 46.9 per cent agreed that they were content with the delivery of learning and teaching of their course during this time.¹

Meanwhile, a survey by the Office for National Statistics has shown that 61 per cent of students who were in higher education prior to the pandemic reported that the lack of face-to-face learning had had a major or moderate impact on the quality of their course. Around half (52 per cent) said that the pandemic had a major or significant impact on their academic performance.²

OfS polling highlighted the need for increased support for teaching staff. While almost half of students (49 per cent) were very confident that they had the skills to benefit from digital teaching and learning, only 21 per cent of teachers said they were very confident that they had the skills to design and deliver them.³

In the course of 2020-21, we received 19 notifications relating to the quality of courses (with a further three to the end of October 2021), 33 relating to assessment or standards (with two more to the end of October), and 18 stating that a university or college was not delivering the course ‘as promised or expected’ (with three more to the end of October). Meanwhile, an annual survey carried out by the Higher Education Policy Institute in February and March 2021, asking about topics including teaching quality, students’ priorities and their wellbeing, showed an increase in the number of students saying that their experience was worse than expected.⁴ While this is not surprising in the circumstances, it reflects the importance of giving students clear and timely information about what they can expect before they start their courses, so that what they get is what they expect.

We intervened in a number of these cases, engaging with providers requiring them to explain what had happened, what they had done, and what action they were proposing to take. In some of the cases we required further action. Our experience of these interventions informed our communications with universities and colleges about areas where there appeared to be particular problems – for instance the need for clear communications with students about teaching arrangements. Nonetheless, consistently with our approach last year, we were acutely mindful of the challenges facing universities during the pandemic and adjusted our regulatory responses accordingly.

Even in normal times, many potential applicants for university experience an ‘information gap’ in accessing the material they need to make an informed decision about their higher education course and destination. This is particularly true of those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those who intend to study part-time, and those beyond school leaving age. During the pandemic, universities and colleges were barred by social distancing and other public health measures from holding open days and other activities, making this situation even more challenging.

In January 2021 we asked universities and colleges to carry out a review of their compliance with consumer protection law, and inform us of any issues they discovered. This included assessing whether they had been sufficiently clear with their students about how teaching and assessment would be delivered in 2020-21, and how this might change; whether their students had received the promised teaching and assessment during the autumn term; and whether their plans for the remaining terms would ensure that this continued throughout the year.

During lockdown and the subsequent return of students to campus, we expected universities and colleges to provide students with clear information, advice and guidance about changes to teaching and assessment arrangements and their implications, and the students’ options in response to this, including their entitlement to seek refunds or other redress if promises were not fulfilled. It was important to consider how these approaches affected all students, including those suffering from coronavirus and needing to self-isolate, international students, those unable or less able to access remote learning, care leavers, students estranged from their families, and disabled students.

We made clear our expectations that standards should remain secure; that safety nets continued to be provided for individual students; that students were consulted about plans for assessment and awards; and that they should be kept adequately informed of these plans.⁵ Any university at risk of not being able to comply with our condition of registration for consumer protection was required to notify us.

We also received 10 notifications in 2020-21 relating to refunds or waiving of tuition fees. There has been much debate on this subject. As an independent regulator, it is not for the OfS to get involved in debates about fees. Fee limits are set by ministers and parliament, and not the OfS. Instead, we provided information to students on the routes they could take if they thought their experience warranted a refund: to complain to their university and – if this was unsuccessful – to contact the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. We were clear with universities and colleges that we would expect them to consider requests for refunds on an individual basis, rather than having blanket polices to refuse such requests.

From the beginning of the lockdown, we took the view that whether studying remotely or in person, what mattered was the quality of provision, and notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances we expected universities and colleges to continue to satisfy our baseline quality requirements. As lockdown lifted and students have returned to campus this autumn, the overwhelming majority of providers have returned to offering in-person teaching, but drawing on their experience of lockdown to retain elements of digital provision that have added value for students – for instance the flexibilities that online teaching can offer.

Over the course of the next few months, we will be reviewing the teaching and learning that students are receiving across the sector to ensure that in-person teaching is being resumed where appropriate, and students’ views on in-person or digital teaching are taken into account.

Listening to student concerns

During the year, we worked with the National Union of Students to improve awareness and understanding among students of how to raise concerns and issues with us. The OfS does not have a role in dealing with individual complaints or disputes between students and their university or college, nor should getting in touch with us replace discussion between students’ unions and their providers, but we encourage students and others to let us know through our notifications process about potential breaches of our conditions of registration.⁶

The National Student Survey, run by the OfS on behalf of the funding bodies in the devolved administrations, is another essential source of information for prospective students, and has been particularly useful in showing the impact of the pandemic on their experiences.⁷ Alongside the main data this year we also published a more experimental release, showing an NSS agreement rate based on data from the past three years.⁸ We also included six questions specifically relating to the pandemic and its impact on students’ experience.

In England, respondents to this part of the survey reacted positively to the questions relating to communication with their universities, with 72.9 per cent agreeing that ‘I have received useful information about changes to my course from my university or college during the covid-19 pandemic,’ and 63.8 per cent agreeing that ‘I have received timely information about changes to my course from my university or college during the covid-19 pandemic.’ This compares with only 46.9 per cent agreement that ‘I am content with the delivery of learning and teaching of my course during the covid-19 pandemic.’ Students who had intended to take their courses via distance learning responded more positively to almost all the covid-related questions than those who would usually be engaged in face-to-face learning.⁹

We are reviewing the NSS to ensure it supports our regulatory activities effectively; this will include considering which questions should be asked to support student information across all four countries of the UK, in collaboration with the funding bodies in the devolved administrations. We are also considering how best to survey the views of postgraduate students on taught courses.

The OfS’s Discover Uni website, which has expanded in functionality this year (as shown in Figure 1), provides data for prospective students and guidance on what to look for when applying. This year it has provided practical, up-to-date information on developments in key areas like school exams, the admissions process and student finance, as well as pointing to other official and trustworthy sources of information. We produced downloadable resources for applicants, teachers and advisers, including tips on researching options for higher education while awaiting exam results, and advice on deciding whether to withdraw from or defer a course.

Figure 1: New features on Discover Uni

Assessments, awards and degree standards

One of the OfS’s regulatory objectives is that students’ qualifications hold their value over time. We have therefore been concerned to tackle grade inflation, to avoid a situation where a degree classification awarded today reflects a lower level of student achievement than the same classification awarded in the past.

One of the far-reaching impacts of the pandemic was on methods of assessment, as in-person exams and face-to-face assessments could not take place as usual. Universities and colleges needed to be able to adjust exams and other assessments so as to observe national restrictions and keep students and staff safe. However, it was equally important to ensure that any adjustments did not result in assessments being seen as any less rigorous or qualifications holding a lower value, than in previous years. Enabling adequate exams and assessments therefore became one of our central priorities in protecting students’ interests during the peak of the pandemic.

Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in January 2021 showed that there was an increase in the numbers of students who were awarded first class degrees during the early part of the pandemic.¹⁰ This is likely to have been due, at least in part, to the ‘no detriment’ policies adopted by many providers, to prevent students from being unfairly penalised as a result of the period of intense disruption.

The guidance we issued on quality and standards during the pandemic recognised that these policies might be right for some universities and colleges, to reduce pressure on students in the difficult circumstances.¹¹ Our focus as a regulator was to ensure that they continued to assess their students’ achievement reliably, basing qualifications and credit on sound evidence.

Before the pandemic OfS analysis indicated that unexplained grade inflation at universities and colleges in England had begun to slow.¹² However, it is important that this trend should continue in the long term, ensuring the maintenance of the rigorous standards associated with a world-renowned higher education system. Assessments and awards are integral to our renewed approach to ensuring high-quality courses and reliable standards.

Review of proficiency in written English in assessment practices

In summer 2021 we carried out a review of assessment practices in a small number of universities and colleges, to identify examples of approaches that maintain rigour in student assessment, and examples of those that do not. The review focused on the assessment of spelling, punctuation and grammar, and found that some providers’ interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 and other relevant legislation had led to their not assessing technical proficiency in written English for all students. We do not consider this approach necessary or justified.

The policies and approaches identified in the review could lead to students getting higher marks than they otherwise would. This would not only undermine the rigour of assessment processes, but might also contribute to unexplained grade inflation. The report makes it clear that providers should assess spelling, punctuation and grammar where relevant to the course, subject to compliance with their obligations under equality legislation. We would expect this to mean that most students on most courses should be assessed on their technical proficiency in written English.

The Prevent duty

Universities and colleges must have systems in place to comply with their duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, including to approve external speakers and events. These systems ensure that they consider the risk of radicalisation for students, staff and visitors, while having particular regard to ensuring freedom of speech as part of their decision-making processes, as well as other issues such as health and safety and whether there is sufficient space.

Since 2018-19, universities and colleges have been asked to report instances where an external speaker or event was rejected for reasons relating to the Prevent duty. This helps us to understand whether they have given particular regard to the duty to secure freedom of speech within the law. Fewer than five such events were reported for 2018-19 and 2019-20 combined. Where a university or college has reported that an event has been rejected for a reason not related to the Prevent duty, we have not (to date) asked for further information about that event.¹⁴

Funding

Funding is one of the OfS’s regulatory tools. We fund to incentivise activities beyond our regulatory baseline, and for high-cost subjects where the costs of provision exceed the tuition fee. During the course of the year, we have run consultations in relation to recurrent grant allocations and capital funding. The recurrent grant consultation attracted over 8,000 responses.

In October, we launched a consultation for world-leading specialist institution funding, recognising that specialist providers contribute to the diversity of the sector and to student choice, and that the small size and specialisms of these providers mean that they are unable to cross-subsidise from other areas of activity.

Changes to our funding method will enable funds to be targeted in subject areas where skills are in high demand, while avoiding giving privileged status to London, with its relatively high levels of provision.