If you loved the Teaching Excellence Framework, were thrilled by the outcomes (B3) thresholds, lost your mind for the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, and delighted to the sporadic risk-based OfS investigations based on years-old data you’ll find a lot to love in the latest set of Office for Students proposals on quality assurance.
In today’s Consultation on the future approach to quality regulation you’ll find a cyclical, cohort based TEF that also includes a measurement (against benchmarks) of compliance with the thresholds for student outcomes inscribed in the B3 condition. Based on the outcomes of this super-TEF and prioritised based on assessment of risk, OfS will make interventions (including controls on recruitment and the conditions of degree awarding powers) and targeted investigation. This is a first stage consultation only, stage two will come in August 2026.
It’s not quite a grand unified theory: we don’t mix in the rest of the B conditions (covering less pressing matters like academic standards, the academic experience, student support, assessment) because, in the words of OfS:
Such an approach would be likely to involve visits to all providers, to assess whether they meet all the relevant B conditions of registration
The students who are struggling right now with the impacts of higher student/staff ratios and a lack of capacity due to over-recruitment will greatly appreciate this reduction in administrative burden.
Where we left things
When we last considered TEF we were expecting an exercise every four years, drawing on provider narrative submissions (which included a chunk on a provider’s own definition and measurement of educational gain), students’ union narrative submissions, and data on outcomes and student satisfactions. Providers were awarded a “medal” for each of student outcomes and student experience – a matrix determined whether this resulted in an overall Bronze, Silver, Gold or Requires Improvement.
The first three of these awards were deemed to be above minimum standards (with slight differences between each), while the latter was a portal to the much more punitive world of regulation under group B (student experience) conditions of registration. Most of the good bits of this approach came from the genuinely superb Pearce Review of TEF conducted under section 26 of the Higher Education and Research Act, which fixed a lot of the statistical and process nonsense that had crept in under previous iterations and then-current plans (though not every recommendation was implemented).
TEF awards were last made in 2023, with the next iteration – involving all registered providers plus anyone else who wanted to play along – was due in 2027.
Perma-TEF
A return to a rolling TEF rather than a quadrennial quality enhancement jamboree means a pool of TEF assessors rather than a one-off panel. There will be steps taken to ensure that an appropriate group of academic and student assessors is selected to assess each cohort – there will be special efforts made to use those with experience of smaller, specialist, and college-based providers – and a tenure of two-to-three years is planned. OfS is also considering whether its staff can be included among the storied ranks of those empowered to facilitate ratings decisions.
Likewise, we’ll need a more established appeals system. Open only to those with Bronze or Needs Improvement ratings (Gold and Silver are passing grades) it would be a way to potentially forestall engagement and investigations based on an active risk to student experience or outcomes, or a risk of a future breach of a condition of registration for Bronze or Requires Improvement.
Each provider would be assessed once every three years – all providers taking part in the first cycle would be assessed in either 2027-28, 2028-29, or 2029-30 (which covers only undergraduate students because there’s no postgraduate NSS yet – OfS plan to develop one before 2030). In many cases they’ll only know which one at the start of the academic year in question, which will give them six months to get their submissions sorted.
Because Bronze is now bad (rather than “good but not great” as it used to be) the first year’s could well include all providers with a 2023 Bronze (or Requires Improvement) rating, plus some with increased risks of non-compliance, some with Bronze in one of the TEF aspects, and some without a rating.
After this, how often you are assessed depends on your rating – if you are Gold overall it is five years till the next try, Silver means four years, and Bronze three (if you are “Requires Improvement” you probably have other concerns beyond the date of your next assessment) but this can be tweaked if OfS decides there is an increased risk to quality or for any other reason.
Snakes and ladders
Ignore the gradations and matrices in the Pearce Review – the plan now is that your lowest TEF aspect rating (remember you got sub-awards last time for student experience and student outcomes) will be your overall rating. So Silver for experience and Bronze for outcomes makes for an overall Bronze. As OfS has decided that you now have to pay (likely around £25,000) to enter what is a compulsory exercise this is a cost that could lead to a larger cost in future.
In previous TEFs, the only negative consequence for those outside of the top ratings have been reputational – a loss of bragging rights of, arguably, negligible value. The new proposals align Bronze with the (B3) minimum required standards and put Requires Improvement below these: in the new calculus of value the minimum is not good enough and there will be consequences.
We’ve already had some hints that a link to fee cap levels is back on the cards, but in the meantime OfS is pondering a cap on student numbers expansion to punish those who turn out Bronze or Requires Improvement. The workings of the expansion cap will be familiar to those who recall the old additional student numbers process – increases of more than five per cent (the old tolerance band, which is still a lot) would not be permitted for poorly rated providers.
For providers without degree awarding powers it is unlikely they will be successful in applying for them with Bronze and below – but OfS is also thinking about restricting aspects of existing providers DAPs, for example limiting their ability to subcontract or franchise provision in future. This is another de facto numbers cap in many cases, and is all ahead of a future consultation on DAPs that could make for an even closer link with TEF.
Proposals for progression
Proposal 6 will simplify the existing B3 thresholds, and integrate the way they are assessed into the TEF process. In a nutshell, the progression requirement for B3 would disappear – with the assessment made purely on continuation and completion, with providers able to submit contextual and historic information to explain why performance is not above the benchmark or threshold as a part of the TEF process.
Progression will still be considered at the higher levels of TEF, and here contextual information can play more of a part – with what I propose we start calling the Norland Clause allowing providers to submit details of courses that lead to jobs that ONS does not consider as professional or managerial. That existing indicator will be joined by another based on (Graduate Outcomes) graduate reflections on how they are using what they have learned, and benchmarked salaries three years after graduation from DfE’s Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data – in deference to that random Kemi Badenoch IFS commission at the tail end of the last parliament.
Again, there will be contextual benchmarks for these measures (and hopefully some hefty caveating on the use of LEO median salaries) – and, as is the pattern in this consultation, there are detailed proposals to follow.
Marginal gains, marginal losses
The “educational gains” experiment, pioneered in the last TEF, is over: making this three times that a regulator in England has tried and failed to include a measure of learning gain in some form of regulation. OfS is still happy for you to mention your education gain work in your next narrative submission, but it isn’t compulsory. The reason: reducing burden, and a focus on comparability rather than a diversity of bespoke measures.
Asking providers what something means in their context, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all measure of student success was an immensely powerful component of the last exercise. Providers who started on that journey at considerable expense in data gathering and analysis may be less than pleased at this latest development – and we’d certainly understood that DfE were fans of the approach too.
Similarly, the requirement for students to feed back on students in their submissions to TEF has been removed. The ostensible reason is that students found it difficult last time round – the result is that insight from the valuable networks between existing students and their recently graduated peers is lost. The outcomes end of TEF is now very much data driven with only the chance to explain unusual results offered. It’s a retreat from some of the contextual sense that crept in with the Pearce Review.
Business as usual
Even though TEF now feels like it is everywhere and for always, there’s still a place for OfS’ regular risk-based monitoring – and annex I (yes, there’s that many annexes) contains a useful draft monitoring tool.
Here it is very good to see staff:student ratios, falling entry requirements, a large growth in foundation year provision, and a rapid growth in numbers among what are noted as indicators of risk to the student experience. It is possible to examine an excellent system designed outside of the seemingly inviolate framework of the TEF where events like this would trigger an investigation of provider governance and quality assurance processes.
Alas, the main use of this monitoring is to decide whether or not to bring a TEF assessment forward, something that punts an immediate risk to students into something that will be dealt with retrospectively. If I’m a student on a first year that has ballooned from 300 to 900 from one cycle to the next there is a lot of good a regulator can do by acting quickly – I am unlikely to care whether a Bronze or Silver award is made in a couple of years’ time.
International principles
One of the key recommendations of the Behan review on quality was a drawing together of the various disparate (and, yes, burdensome) streams of quality and standards assurance and enhancement into a unified whole. We obviously don’t quite get there – but there has been progress made towards another key sector bugbear that came up both in Behan and the Lords’ Industry and Regulators Committee review: adherence to international quality assurance standards (to facilitate international partnerships and, increasingly, recruitment).
OfS will “work towards applying to join the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education” at the appropriate time – clearly feeling that the long overdue centring of the student voice in quality assurance (there will be an expanded role for and range of student assessors) and the incorporation of a cyclical element (to desk assessments at least) is enough to get them over the bar.
It isn’t. Principle 2.1 of the EQAR ESG requires that “external quality assurance should address the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance processes” – philosophically establishing the key role of providers themselves in monitoring and upholding the quality of their own provision, with the external assurance process primarily assessing whether (and how well) this has been done. For whatever reason OfS believes the state (in the form of the regulator) needs to be (and is capable of being!) responsible for all, quality assurance everywhere, all the time. It’s a glaring weakness of the OfS system that urgently needs to be addressed. And it hasn’t been, this time.
The upshot is that while the new system looks ESG-ish, it is unlikely to be judged to be in full compliance.
Single word judgements
The recent use of single headline judgements of educational quality being used in ways that have far reaching regulatory implications is hugely problematic. The government announced the abandonment of the old “requires improvement, inadequate, good, and outstanding” judgements for schools in favour of a more nuanced “report card approach” – driven in part by the death by suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry in 2023. The “inadequate” rating given to her Cavendish Primary School would have meant forced academisation and deeper regulatory oversight.
Regulation and quality assurance in education needs to be rigorous and reliable – it also needs to be context-aware and focused on improvement rather than retribution. Giving single headline grades cute, Olympics-inspired names doesn’t really cut it – and as we approach the fifth redesign of an exercise that has only run six times since 2016 you would perhaps think that rather harder questions need to be asked about the value (and cost!) of this undertaking.
If we want to assess and control the risks of modular provision, transnational education, rapid expansion, and a growing number of innovations in delivery we need providers as active partners in the process. If we want to let universities try new things we need to start from a position that we can trust universities to have a focus on the quality of the student experience that is robust and transparent. We are reaching the limits of the current approach. Bad actors will continue to get away with poor quality provision – students won’t see timely regulatory action to prevent this – and eventually someone is going to get hurt.
