The Demonstration of Good Governance

The Office for Students (OfS) has a regulatory and ‘policing’ role within UK Higher Education. Expectations are clearly set out and communicated via a regulatory approach which includes Access and Participation Conditions A1 and A2 and Academic Experience Condition B1¹. Having established the framework for conduct and performance the OfS ensures compliance with clearly articulated sets of expectations. As an indication of ‘flavour’ from the Access and Participation plan guidance Section 38, points a – d: 

1. “A provider is expected to…..”
2. “A provider is expected to…..”
3. “A provider is expected to…..”
4. “Outline of the evidence-informed intervention strategies a provider will deliver….”²

These represent a robust, focused, directional disposition of a body engaged in advocacy for the student. By definition, advocacy takes place within an adversarial relationship. The OfS has a role in the protection and representation of student interests. It dispatches this responsibility with a professional focus. It does not exist to represent the interests of HEIs. That may be obvious to some readers but it is a reality which warrants stating.  

OfS Expectations of Evidence

Should the Office for Students choose to scrutinise a university’s governance performance, documentary evidence will be sought in three defined areas of activity: Public Interest Governance (Condition E1) Management and Governance (Condition E2) and Accountability (Condition E3).

Public Interest Governance (Condition E1)

Documentation to evidence appropriate conduct in this area would include: a statement of objectives and values, an audit trail showing how decisions are taken. A verifiable and transparent approach to demonstrate how monitoring is undertaken would be required. This is likely to be supplemented by an organogram which enables the flow of decision making and delegation to be clearly seen. 

Alignment with an identified Code of Governance, for example the CUC Higher Education Code of Governance³, specifically both ‘Values’ and ‘Primary Elements’ may reasonably be expected. Under this section it is likely that an independently conducted review of Governance procedures which identifies how the institution conducts its Governance with a public interest and is compliant with its identified Code of Governance will, in conjunction with the other documentation indicated, be sufficient demonstration of ‘good governance’ under Condition E1. 

Management and Governance (Condition E2) 

There is likely to be an overlap in presented documentation which addresses Condition E2 with those required for Condition E1. Evidence of Management and Governance arrangements is required – this could be an organogram with a clear indication of the delegation of decisions within the organisation, both management and academic, with supporting evidence of how decisions are taken and monitored. Evidence can be via by the provision of minutes and agendas both at a Governance level and among those committees which have delegated authority. It would be expected that evidence is provided of how decisions are monitored. Again, the provision of agendas and minutes will provide this audit trail.

A ‘live’ risk register, which is a genuine working document that presents clear documentary evidence of risks which confront the institution at different levels is key. Similarly a crucial element of the audit trails available will include annual monitoring reports at both course and departmental level with evidence of how these are passed up through the institution to inform Governance. Already drawn upon under Condition E1 would be a Governance Effectiveness Review, which had been undertaken within the last three or four years. The process of Governor management in terms of recruitment, induction and succession requires transparent guidelines and plans. A Student Member with a seat on the governing body is important. The issue of freedom of speech is prominent in the national discussion and is particularly salient within Higher Education. A freedom of speech policy with procedures and a list of events and invited speakers has merit. It is likely to be helpful if this is supported by a record illustrating how potentially controversial events or invited speakers were managed in compliance with stated policy. It would be expected that the complementary issue of academic freedom be enshrined within staff handbooks and governance documents. There is an expectation of clarity in this area pertaining to both teaching and research. 

Accountability (Condition E3)

Documentation pertaining to senior staff pay and the relationship between the institutional head’s remuneration and other employees indicated by percentage / multiple differences, annual financial statements (audited accounts and accompanying reports), financial forecasts, financial regulations and procedures (practical internal controls), procurement policy, evidence of transparent competitive processes, risk register (in addition to risks identified under Condition E2) focusing on financial risks and countermeasures, policy regarding reserves and strategy for financial stability, staffing strategy and concomitant resources / affordability, asset management policy indicating major assets within the Estate and their management. The accountable officer would also need to be identified within this information. 

The above should be held within an assumed cradle that the Governing Body accepts responsibility for interaction with the OfS, supported by clear auditable evidence this ought to be both transparent and obvious. 

Conclusion

The OfS represents the interests of students. To HEIs it is not a warm, fluffy, little white bunny rabbit. It is there to probe, enquire and interrogate to discover if individual institutions of Higher Education are serving the interests of their students and the wider public good. Twenty five years ago Ron Barnett wrote about the “steering core” of a university which encompassed both governance and management. The steering core, he argued, involved the central structures and processes that guide the strategic direction and operational control of an institution⁴. This includes establishing policies, making key decisions and ensuring HEIs conduct aligns with its stated strategic goals. In many ways the role of the OfS is to simply monitor and ensure this is happening.

“If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up somewhere else.”  

Yogi Berra

---

1. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-framework-for-higher-education-in-england/part-v-guidance-on-the-general-ongoing-conditions-of-registration
   ↩︎
2. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-framework-for-higher-education-in-england/part-v-guidance-on-the-general-ongoing-conditions-of-registration ↩︎
3. https://www.universitychairs.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CUC-HE-Code-of-Governance-publication-final.pdf ↩︎
4. Barnett R. (2000), Realizing the University in an age of super complexity (Open University Press) ↩︎

Skip past comments, to footer Skip past comments, to main