Navigating the Degree Awarding Powers Process: Lessons Learnt
- Principal Associate
- Jul 21
- 4 min read
Now that the Office for Students’ (OfS) New and Full Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs) assessment process has been in place for some time and the first reports published, it is worth considering what lessons can be learned from experiences so far, especially regarding aspects that may not be apparent from the documentation setting out the formal requirements and process.
NEW VERSUS FULL DEGREE AWARDING POWERS
New and Full DAPs are quite different challenges, and providers having undergone new DAPs and the subsequent monitoring probably have realised much of what follows here, so it is more relevant for those coming new to the process. While the requirements are set out clearly in the documents, it is also clear that there is a fluctuating nuance and weight that emerging governmental or regulatory concerns may cause to requirements to be given. For example, it has been clear for some time that there has been a growing concern about the risks associated with partnerships, and this has now led to the OfS's recent announcement about more direct oversight of some partnerships and the additional E10 requirements.
Be up to date with emerging OfS consultations.
READY FOR SCRUTINY
Something easily overlooked but vital to remember is to bear in mind what we might call the ‘human factors’ in the exercise. The OfS has, of course, an establishment staff who manage the exercise. For providers, crucially, they will determine whether a provider has a plan that is ready for assessment. Once ready, OfS assessors will scrutinise the evidence and write the report. These OfS assessors will conduct their scrutiny as a small team and write the report collaboratively with critical support from an OfS coordinator, but independent from steering by the OfS. For an applicant provider to ensure that those assessors have confidence that the institution is meeting, or has credible plans to meet, requirements, is therefore vital.
Be clear and concise for your assessors.
WHO ARE THE OFS DAPS ASSESSORS?
They may not necessarily be or have been in senior posts but they're almost certain to be UKHE professionals with long experience in teaching and or research and academic management. Therefore, they are highly likely to have responsibility for institutional inspections, validations, approval of awarding powers, quality assurance, management of partnerships, etc. Unfortunately, for providers seeking DAPs, they may be thought of as a kind of academic ‘poacher turned gamekeeper’. They will probably know from experience which aspects of an HE institution's responsibilities are relatively straightforward to design, implement, monitor and measure for effectiveness, and which are not.
Be ready to examine and evidence those responsibilities which are complex to oversee.
ASSUME…
The only safe assumption to make about the OfS assessors is that they are experienced, capable, committed, detail-minded academics and professionals who are committed to high standards in UK higher education, therefore, we may hope and expect also, given shared values and experience, that they are fair and reasonable. However, the criteria against which they must assess a DAPs application are rigid and inflexible, even with the allowance for context to be made.
The DAPs criteria are inflexible.
LINES OF ENQUIRY
The OfS's responsibility as a regulator is to safeguard student and public interest against the consequences of possible failures of one sort or another in the HE sector. If there is any chance that those interests are at risk, the OfS will not make allowances. In other words, a provider must not assume that it can hide anything from assessors or explain away something that does not meet the required standard or for which there is insufficient evidence. The assessors can, and will, pursue lines of inquiry down to the most local level of detail to ensure that policy, regulation, governance, managerial and administrative structures, quality assurance, monitoring of outcomes, et cetera, are implemented, just as the provider says that they will be, and that they are effective.
Lines of enquiry will look to the most local level of detail.
SCRUTINY
Assessor teams will include subject experts who will read course documents, observe teaching, scrutinise assessment regimes, review student work submitted for assessment together with the marks and feedback to ensure that provision as delivered (not just as written) is high quality, current, of high value to students and correctly assessed in line with national standards. They will meet staff and students privately, observe committee meetings, visit estates, assess the suitability of the quality, quantity and currency of resources and support. If not satisfied, they can, and will, make requests for supplementary evidence, and will not sign their names to any positive outcome unless quite certain that requirements have been met. Just as a lecturer may advise students not to annoy assessors with illegible handwriting or the modern equivalent, pointless use of AI, providers are well advised to consider how the assessors must approach their tasks. Nothing is likely to annoy an OfS assessor more than wasting precious time hunting for evidence buried in some obscure bundle or misleadingly titled document.
Make it as easy as possible for assessors with clearly labelled and well-organised and well selected evidence.
PACE
Providers seeking DAPs may be under pressure to try to obtain approval as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons. However, it is never advisable to rush the process as the very last thing the provider should do is make the OfS and the assessor teams suspicious of motive or capability: this would be counterproductive – only provoking more forensic examination of evidence.
The best possible thing that an aspiring DAPs-awarded new provider could do is to seek the advice and help of people who have experienced the current process from both sides (assessor and institution).
