Minister: strip degree powers if graduate employment falls short

Education secretary Gavin Williamson has told England’s higher education regulator to consider issuing immediate fines or stripping providers of degree-awarding powers without warning if they fall short of planned minimum standards on graduate employment.

Universities had warned that the Office for Students’ plan to judge institutions using an absolute baseline on student outcomes, including proportions going into “managerial and professional” jobs, could deter institutions from recruiting disadvantaged students.

However, in wide-ranging guidance issued to the regulator as Lord Wharton, a Conservative peer, was confirmed as its new chair, Mr Williamson says that he “fully support[s] the OfS’ desire to ensure that decisions on regulatory intervention and registration can be made in relation to minimum absolute standards of quality which apply across the whole of higher education provision”.

“I firmly believe that every student, regardless of their background, has a right to expect a minimum standard of education that is likely to improve their prospects in life,” Mr Williamson says.

He continues to say that the regulator “should not hesitate to use the full range of its powers and sanctions where quality of provision is not high enough”.

“The OfS should not limit itself to putting in place conditions of registration requiring improvement plans for providers who do not demonstrate high quality and robust outcomes, but should move immediately to more robust measures, including monetary penalties, the revocation of degree-awarding powers in subjects of concern, suspending aspects of a provider’s registration or, ultimately, deregistration,” Mr Williamson says.

Some fear that the new outcomes measure could be used as a “backdoor student number control” in higher education, pressuring universities to stop recruiting on courses close to the baseline, coming as the government seeks to rebalance post-school education towards colleges. The baseline would not be benchmarked to take account of students’ social backgrounds.

However, Mr Williamson adds that providers “delivering high-quality provision and strong outcomes for students should not be adversely affected by additional unnecessary bureaucracy or reporting in relation to quality”, and complains that, “in my view, to date, the OfS has not been sufficiently risk-based”.

He says that he “would like the OfS to implement a markedly more risk-based model of regulation, with significant, meaningful and observable reductions in the regulatory burden upon high-quality providers within the next 12 months”.

Elsewhere, Mr Williamson chides the OfS for perceived inaction on tackling alleged restrictions on freedom of speech on university campuses, promising that he will publish a “policy paper” on the issue “in the near future”.

He praises the outgoing chair, Sir Michael Barber, for a “powerful” speech last month that warned vice-chancellors against allowing intellectual groupthink and intolerance but notes that “to date there has been little regulatory action taken by the OfS in relation to potential breaches of the registration conditions relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom, despite a significant number of concerning incidents reported since the full suite of its regulatory powers came into force”.

“I would…like [the OfS] to take more active and visible action to challenge concerning incidents that are reported to it or which it becomes aware of, as well as to share information with providers about best practice for protecting free speech beyond the minimum legal requirements,” Mr Williamson writes.

Mr Williamson has previously said that he was “exploring a range of legislative and non-legislative options” to protect free speech on campuses, following the Conservative manifesto pledge to “strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities”. 

Academics have warned that the government’s focus on issues such as “no platforming” of speakers and “safe spaces” that do not allow for a diversity of views to be aired is a distraction from the real issues facing the sector and is largely whipped up by right-wing commentators.

But Mr Williamson indicates that he considers the issue to extend to the content of university courses, saying that managers “should not, whether for ideological reasons or to conform to the perceived desires of students, pressure or force teaching staff to drop authors or texts that add rigour and stretch to a course”.

“The OfS should robustly challenge providers that have implemented such policies and clearly support individual academics whose academic freedom is being diminished,” he says.

Mr Williamson also says that the OfS should identify which universities have not adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism as he requested and “consider introducing mandatory reporting of antisemitic incident numbers by providers”.

“This would ensure a robust evidence base, which the OfS could then use to effectively regulate in this area. If antisemitic incidents do occur at a provider, the OfS should consider if it is relevant in a particular case whether the provider has adopted the definition when considering what sanctions, including monetary penalties, would be appropriate to apply,” Mr Williamson says.

Lord Wharton, a former Tory MP who led Boris Johnson’s party leadership campaign, was confirmed as Sir Michael’s successor by Mr Williamson after being endorsed by members of the Education Select Committee.

Commenting on the appointment, Mr Williamson said he “look[ed] forward to working with Lord Wharton on the strategic priorities I have set out in today’s guidance to the Office for Students”.

“I have been especially clear we must do much more to stamp out low-quality courses in order to level up opportunity for all, while simultaneously moving to a more risk-based system of regulation that will free our world-class universities to focus on what they do best,” Mr Williamson said.

chris.havergal@timeshighereducation.com