Whatever one thinks about the introduction of tuition fees and maintenance loans, it is unarguable that it focused the minds of higher education leaders on the needs of students in a way that had not been seen before.
The creation of the Office for Students (OfS) is a product of this refocusing, but, six years on, it’s fair to say we still have challenges delivering that centrality of student interest.
Part of this is that “the student interest” is a knotty concept. It’s not a term students generally use about the bundle of needs, wants and experiences they expect their higher education institutions and the wider sector to serve, but it is noticeable to them when their interests are not being adequately considered.
And we recognise that our understanding and communication of the student interest has not always been strong or consistent enough for our regulation to be visible to students.
In response, we have thought a great deal about the idea of the student interest, both internally and in a number of engagements with students and representatives from the sector. It has also been reflected in our recent Public Bodies Review, led by our now interim chair, Sir David Behan, that we must ensure that students are involved much more in our work.
A paradox is evident: the way students talk about their experiences of higher education sounds a lot like consumers describing relationships with service providers, but students are, almost unanimously, against describing themselves as “consumers of higher education”.
We at the OfS are acutely aware of the market-focused baggage that comes with a term such as “consumer” – but, frankly, it does seem to describe well significant aspects of what we need to think about to define and defend the student interest.
What we’ve heard is that students talk about abstract concepts such as fairness, honesty and belonging, but in ways consumers do about concrete experiences they are having right now. And too often they feel short-changed.
To be clear, it is obvious that both students and the best-intentioned providers want respectful mutual engagement. But, as the regulator, we also know this does not always happen.
When students are unhappy, it is not just because reality has not matched their expectations – they are a pretty realistic bunch, generally – but because it doesn’t match what they were promised.
They tell us they are not getting the teaching hours they were promised; their work is not marked; support is not offered in a timely fashion; they don’t have the time, resources and opportunities to get involved with the extracurricular activities foregrounded in the prospectus; and, crucially, institutions do not respond speedily and effectively to their complaints.
These are parts of the student experience that involve the delivery of services that students can very easily judge for themselves. But there is also a potentially related but distinct set of experiences where judgements about the value of higher education provision cannot be made in the moment, or by the student alone, or without significant professional input.
Whereas anyone can assess whether a sofa is good quality by testing it before they buy it, that is not really true of education. Students might enjoy an entertaining lecture but subsequently discover that they can remember none of it, or that it was outdated or misleading. A student might be delighted to receive a first-class degree only to realise later that their institution has a reputation among employers for giving out too many.
Hence, we are seeking to transform our approach in three distinct aspects of our student engagement: what the OfS needs to know about what students experience before, during and after higher education to properly deliver our regulatory work; the opportunities we offer for students and their representatives to tell us what we need to know; and what we think students need to know before, during and after their higher education.
We have learned to be cautious about over-promising, so we are taking our time to do this work. We are paying close attention to students’ voices, including expanding our use of polling and focus groups to develop a more sophisticated understanding of students’ experiences, and we hope to establish student insight internships. And we have extended the appointments of our current student panel members and have had productive conversations about the panel’s future role.
Equally, it is not our intention to interfere where there is no cause for concern – the benefit of our stronger and more consistent approach to involving students is that we will be clearer about where we can and should be using regulation to drive improvement.
If we are to ensure the fairness, honesty and belonging that both students and staff tell us they crave, our core focus must always be the quality of learning and teaching, and we will work with students much more closely as we assess quality because we know that is a key aspect of the student experience.
We will also seek to make a credible difference to students’ lives in other areas, even if we do not hold all the cards.
For example, if we were to conclude that students have been led to expect adequate accommodation within a reasonable distance of campus – a key component of belonging for many undergraduates – it would only be fair for us to expect providers to take action to achieve that. We have no regulatory powers over private student housing providers, but we must still have a role, even if it is only to give an honest account to the sector and to government about the state of student experiences and the likely impact on student outcomes.
By putting the protection of the student interest at the heart of our next strategy – conceptually and in very practical terms – we can ensure that we are regulating the things that matter to students.
John Blake is director for fair access and participation at the Office for Students. This is an edited version of a speech he gave on 14 August at the students’ union membership conference in Manchester, the full version of which can be read here.
