What has the OfS ever done for us?

By Laura Jackson, Principal Consultant / 05 June 2026

It’s fair to say it’s been a tricky last few weeks for England’s favourite Higher Education Regulator. Criticism has been coming thick and fast on everything from Free Speech to data returns, policy and process. And much of that criticism stems from the unanswerable question of what is the OfS actually for?

Regulation? Absolutely. But the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 created an organisation with a breathtaking range of responsibilities. The OfS inherited HEFCE's funding functions (minus research), OFFA's access remit, and then accumulated further duties: quality assurance, consumer protection, free speech enforcement, degree-awarding power approvals, financial stability monitoring, and the Teaching Excellence Framework. Each of these is, in itself, a substantial regulatory task. Together, they amount to something close to incoherence.

A regulator that is asked to do everything will do none of it well. Not because its people lack skill or commitment, but because the institutional logic of any organisation is shaped by what it is primarily held accountable for. When priorities conflict, something gives.

So what has the OfS ever done for the sector?

1. It changed the conversation

Before the OfS, much of higher education regulation was framed around institutions. The OfS shifted the centre of gravity toward students. Student outcomes. Student value. Student protection. Student voice. Universities are very good at preserving themselves. Less good, sometimes, at redesigning themselves around those they serve. The OfS made that impossible to ignore.

2. It forced institutions to become more evidence-led

Nobody loves regulatory returns (present company excluded). But the OfS has undeniably accelerated the necessity of data quality, governance, and accountability.

Suddenly:

• definitions mattered, 

• ownership mattered, 

• data lineage mattered, 

• and 'we think' became less acceptable than 'we know.' 

That is uncomfortable — but healthy. Many institutions are stronger today because they had to get serious about their data. 

3. It exposed uncomfortable truths

Continuation gaps. Attainment gaps. Graduate outcomes. Harassment. Financial fragility. None of these were created by the OfS. They were already there. What the OfS did was remove the option of politely looking away.

4. It made 'quality' harder to bluff

For years, parts of higher education relied on reputation as a proxy for quality.

'We’ve always done it this way.' 'Our students are happy.' 'Our external examiner liked it.'

The OfS introduced a more explicit challenge: Show me outcomes. Show me support. Show me evidence that this works.

That can feel reductive if done badly, but it also forces clarity.

5. It reminded us that autonomy is earned, not assumed

Universities rightly value autonomy, but autonomy without accountability is simply privilege.

The social contract has always been implicit: public money, public trust, public accountability. The OfS made that contract more explicit. That may feel uncomfortable (especially in a sector used to considerable self-determination) but it isn’t irrational.

So the question that remains is really - can the OfS, given its name and remit, deal meaningfully with the most consequential problems in the sector?

The answer, at the moment, is largely no. Financial sustainability, market failure, the viability of the HE model - the OfS can monitor and report; it cannot solve.

That is not a counsel of despair. A regulator that knows what it cannot do is more valuable than one that pretends it can do everything. The real risk is not that the OfS acknowledges its limits - it is that it obscures them, expanding its vocabulary of concern while contracting its actual influence, and leaving students to conclude that bearing the regulator's name is the most it has ever really done for them.

The new leadership has a genuine opportunity. The sector needs a regulator that is clear about its purpose, honest about its constraints, independent in its judgements, and unambiguously organised around the interests of the people who pay the fees and live with the consequences.

That is a high bar. It is also, after eight years, the minimum the sector deserves.