The phase two consultation proposals would not require any changes to be made to current routine data collections (such as the HESA student return) from providers. In proposal three of our phase one consultation, we said that our intention was to implement the general monitoring approach set out in the regulatory framework for the B conditions by bringing together a range of information for each provider – lead and lagged indicators of performance and context, reportable events and patterns of notifications – in a systematic way. This approach will ensure that we can see and understand the performance of a provider, and the reasons for this performance, in the round.
For example, if a provider were to substantially increase the number of students it admits and then experience a substantial increase in first-year non-continuation, this might prompt us to be concerned about whether that provider continued to satisfy our requirements for quality. Proposed condition B2 in our phase two consultation might prompt us to question whether the new cohort of students was receiving resources and support consistent with the requirements set out in that condition. If our concerns were sufficient, we would be likely to engage with the provider to find out more about its circumstances. If we remained concerned we could investigate further, using our enforcement powers if necessary.
We can undertake general monitoring activity using information already available to us. The use of data in this way also means that our engagement with providers, and the additional burden that places on providers, can be focused on those issues and providers that represent greatest risk to students and taxpayers.
We intend to publish our analysis of responses to proposal three of our phase one consultation alongside our analysis of responses to the current phase two consultation.
