Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England
Last updated: 24 November 2022
Quality and standards conditions
General ongoing conditions of registration
Condition B1: Academic experience
Scope
B1.1 This condition applies to the quality of higher education provided in any manner or form by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider is responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider).
Requirement
B1.2 Without prejudice to the principles and requirements provided for by any other condition of registration and the scope of B1.1, the provider must ensure that the students registered on each higher education course receive a high quality academic experience.
B1.3 For the purposes of this condition, a high quality academic experience includes but is not limited to ensuring all of the following:
- each higher education course is up-to-date;
- each higher education course provides educational challenge;
- each higher education course is coherent;
- each higher education course is effectively delivered; and
- each higher education course, as appropriate to the subject matter of the course, requires students to develop relevant skills.
B1.4 Insofar as relevant skills includes technical proficiency in the English language, the provider is not required to comply with B1.3.e to the extent that it is able to demonstrate to the OfS, on the balance of probabilities, that its English language proficiency requirements, or failure to have English language proficiency requirements, for one or more students, are strictly necessary as a matter of law because compliance with B1.3.e in respect of that student, or those students:
- would amount to a form of discrimination for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010; and
- cannot be objectively justified for the purposes of relevant provisions of that Act; and
- does not fall within an exception or exclusion provided for under or by virtue of that Act, including but not limited to provisions of the Act that relate to competence standards.
Definitions
B1.5 For the purposes of this condition B1:
- “appropriately informed” will be assessed by reference to:
- the time period within which any of the developments described in the definition of up-to-date have been in existence;
- the importance of any of the developments described in the definition of up-to-date to the subject matter of the higher education course; and
- the time period by which it is planned that such developments described in the definition of up-to-date will be brought into the higher education course
- “coherent” means a higher education course which ensures:
- there is an appropriate balance between breadth and depth of content;
- subjects and skills are taught in an appropriate order and, where necessary, build on each other throughout the course; and
- key concepts are introduced at the appropriate point in the course content.
- “educational challenge” means a challenge that is no less than the minimum level of rigour and difficulty reasonably expected of the higher education course, in the context of the subject matter and level of the course.
- “effectively delivered”, in relation to a higher education course, means the manner in which it is taught, supervised and assessed (both in person and remotely) including, but not limited to, ensuring:
- an appropriate balance between delivery methods, for example lectures, seminars, group work or practical study, as relevant to the content of the course; and
- an appropriate balance between directed and independent study or research, as relevant to the level of the course.
- “higher education course” is to be interpreted:
- in accordance with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017; and
- so as to include, for the avoidance of doubt:
- a course of study;
- a programme of research;
- any further education course that forms an integrated part of a higher education course; and
- any module that forms part of a higher education course, whether or not that module is delivered as an integrated part of the course.
- “relevant skills” means:
- knowledge and understanding relevant to the subject matter and level of the higher education course; and
- other skills relevant to the subject matter and level of the higher education course including, but not limited to, cognitive skills, practical skills, transferable skills and professional competences.
- “up-to-date” means representative of current thinking and practices in the subject matter to which the higher education course relates, including being appropriately informed by recent:
- subject matter developments;
- research, industrial and professional developments; and
- developments in teaching and learning, including learning resources.
Summary
Applies to: all registered providers
Initial or general ongoing condition: general ongoing condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA
Guidance
Condition B1.1
The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, for example, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules or courses leading to microcredentials, and apprenticeships are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses provided face-to-face, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.
This condition applies to any higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider”. This includes higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registered provider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registered provider (or where these services are provided on a registered provider’s behalf). This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider is responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider” means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where it is the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider has any other role in the design or delivery of that course.
Where a provider is not the awarding body for a course, this condition applies to a course the provider itself delivers, or which is delivered on its behalf, regardless of the identity of the awarding body, whether or not that awarding body is registered with the OfS, or the nature of any partnership agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this means for example, that a provider delivering, or allowing another provider to deliver, courses leading to a qualification awarded by Pearson is responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses. Similarly, a provider delivering, or allowing another provider to deliver, courses leading to a qualification awarded by another higher education provider, whether that awarding provider is located in England or elsewhere, is responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses.
In practice, these provisions may result in more than one registered provider being responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to the same course.
Condition B1.3
The subject matter of this condition includes matters that relate to the curriculum and pedagogy for higher education courses. The OfS would expect to draw on expert academic judgement, including from subject experts, before reaching a view that the condition was not satisfied in relation to such matters.
The requirement of condition B1 is expressed as a principle that can be satisfied in different ways. To assist providers in understanding how the OfS may interpret this principles-based requirement in practice, the following paragraphs provide a small number of illustrative examples. These examples are not exhaustive.
In relation to “up-to-date” and “appropriately informed”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:
The subject matter of a course is not representative of current thinking and practices. For example, course content, including topics and reading lists, that is not informed by research and scholarship, or does not reflect professional developments, such as the adoption of the latest professional or industry standards, would likely be of concern.
The pedagogy of a course is not representative of current thinking and practices. For example, a course delivered wholly or in part online that does not use pedagogy appropriate to digital delivery, would likely be of concern.
The length of the period during which aspects of the course have not been updated. For example, a course that has not been updated for a number of years such that its content or pedagogy do not reflect current rigorous academic thinking in that subject area, or more generally, would likely be of concern. This may depend on the subject matter of a course, for example, for an accounting course, tax modules are likely to require frequent updating, whereas management accounting modules may need less frequent updating.
The scale and nature of the changes needed to ensure the course is up-to-date. For example, a course that requires significant changes to ensure its content or pedagogy reflect current rigorous academic thinking in that subject area, or more generally, would likely be of concern. Similarly, a course with an out-of-date core component would likely be of concern.
The impact on students and others of an out-of-date course. For example, a course that does not contain content that is required by a professional, statutory or regulatory body (PSRB), whether or not that course has recently been updated, would likely be of concern. The OfS would be particularly concerned about a course that was not up-to-date where this could reasonably be viewed as creating a risk to the public, for example a course that provided graduates with the recognition to practice medicine or to teach in schools.
Whether a provider has plans to make changes to a course to ensure it is up-to-date. For example, plans to make changes to a course that post-date the OfS’s interest in that course are less likely to reduce concerns.
In relation to “educational challenge”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:
An integrated masters’ course with a final year of study that does not provide sufficient rigour and difficulty, for example because students at different stages of the course are taught together in a way that does not recognise the different challenge needed, would likely be of concern.
An undergraduate degree course with an integrated foundation year, where the foundation year does not provide sufficient rigour and difficulty such that students are not prepared for successful study in the undergraduate course, would likely be of concern.
A research degree course that is focused on a research question that provides limited scope for original ideas would likely be of concern.
In relation to “coherent”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:
The content of a course is too narrow. For example, a three-year undergraduate degree that does not provide appropriate opportunity, in light of the course content, for students to study optional subjects beyond a mandatory core, either because the course was designed without such options, or because options are not in practice available, would likely be of concern.
The content of a course is too broad. For example, a 20 credit module that contains too much material for students to demonstrate the depth of understanding expected for the course, would likely be of concern.
Students are not secure in foundational topics. Students do not learn key, foundation concepts before moving onto more difficult topics, for example, a course that requires competence in mathematics does not teach these concepts before or alongside the topics they underpin would likely be of concern.
Practical or practice-based components are not taught in an appropriate order. For example, laboratory practical sessions are delivered in a disconnected way from related theory.
Skills are not taught at the right time. For example, research skills courses not being available for research students at the appropriate time before or during their research programme, would likely be of concern.
Module choices do not ensure students are able to construct a coherent pathway. For example, a course that offers students a wide choice of modules but where choices do not result in a coherent learning experience, would likely be of concern.
In relation to “effectively delivered”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:
The range of learning activities is too narrow. For example, a course that is predominantly taught through large-scale lectures and does not provide opportunities for small group teaching would likely be of concern.
Learning activities are not delivered effectively. For example, insufficient opportunities for students to engage directly with teaching staff, including where parts of a course are delivered remotely, would likely be of concern.
The research environment does not support students’ learning. For example, a postgraduate research course without regular and effective supervision sessions, or without opportunities for structured engagement with other researchers, would likely be of concern.
Professional or practice-based elements are not integrated with academic elements. For example, an apprenticeship that does not require academic reflection on work-based learning would likely be of concern.
Assessment is not designed into the course. For example, assessment activities not being scheduled to consolidate students’ learning, or feedback not sufficient or timely to support learning, would likely be of concern.
In relation to “relevant skills”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:
A course that does not require students to develop and demonstrate intellectual skills, such as evaluating evidence, mobilising an argument, and solving problems, consistent with the subject and level of the course, would likely be of concern.
A course designed to lead to a particular profession that does not require students to develop and demonstrate the skills necessary for success in that profession, for example, where specific skills are required for a relevant PSRB accreditation, would likely be of concern.
Condition B1.4
In order to successfully rely on the exception in B1.4, the nature of the evidence a provider would need to put forward would go beyond articulating potential legal concerns or matters to which it has had regard in its decision-making and would require compelling evidence and reasoning on matters of law. As the exception in B1.4 only applies ‘to the extent’ that a provider can demonstrate a conflict with the Equality Act 2010, it would not be sufficient for a provider to put forward evidence and reasoning about its requirements (or absence of requirements) in general terms; rather, a provider would need to address the particular requirements (or absence of requirements) which it is seeking to justify under the exception, and the particular courses to which these relate.
To give an example, citing this exception, a provider could seek to demonstrate that it is obliged, in order to avoid discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, to design its course requirements in a manner which makes certain allowances for students with dyslexia or other learning disabilities on some courses. If this was the case, the OfS would expect the provider to demonstrate, in the context of the particular courses at issue, that any allowances made were strictly necessary to avoid discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, with reference to compelling evidence and reasoning which supports this. The OfS expects that potential conflicts between requirements relating to English language proficiency and the Equality Act 2010 will only arise in rare cases, and therefore that this exception is likely to be invoked only in limited circumstances, for example in relation to students with particular learning disabilities.
Information gathering, assessment of evidence and enforcement
The OfS will use its general risk-based approach to monitoring as set out in the regulatory framework.
Where monitoring activity produces intelligence or evidence that suggests there may be compliance concerns for an individual provider, the OfS may adopt one or more of the following approaches in any order:
Engage with a provider to ensure it is aware of the issues.
Gather further information it considers relevant to the scope of the potential concerns, from a provider or from elsewhere on a voluntary basis, to facilitate an assessment of whether there is, or has been, a breach of one or more conditions.
Use its investigatory powers where that is considered appropriate for any reason.
Where the OfS considers it appropriate to use its investigatory powers it may conduct an investigation itself, or may ask the designated quality body, or another appropriate body or individual, to gather further information it considers relevant. An investigation will normally involve a visit to the provider and interviews with relevant staff and students.
Having gathered further relevant information as necessary, the OfS will reach a view about a provider’s previous and ongoing compliance with the condition. Where the OfS takes the view that there is or has been a breach of the condition, it will write to the provider to set out the reasons for its provisional decision and set out the evidence it has used to reach this view. The provider is able to submit any further information it considers relevant in a representations process and the OfS will consider this before reaching a final decision.
Where the OfS has decided that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will consider the use of the full range of its enforcement powers. This includes the imposition of a monetary penalty, suspension of elements of a provider’s registration, for example its access to student support funding or OfS public grant funding, or deregistration. The OfS is likely to require improvement, to mitigate the impact of poor performance on students, or to incentivise future compliance by this and other providers. The OfS will follow any statutory consultation process as it takes enforcement action.
Where the OfS considers there to be an increased risk of a breach or a relevant wider regulatory concern, it may impose one or more specific ongoing conditions of registration and will also consider whether additional monitoring requirements are appropriate, for example, a requirement to report additional matters as reportable events.
Where there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or the OfS has imposed a specific condition of registration, the ways in which the OfS may take this into account include, but are not limited to, the following:
A provider’s eligibility to participate in the TEF. The OfS will set out in its TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous compliance with this condition may be taken into account in determining its eligibility to participate in the TEF.
A provider’s existing TEF rating. The OfS will set out in its TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous compliance with this condition may affect any existing TEF rating.
Regulation of degree awarding powers. Where the OfS makes a final decision that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or where the OfS imposes a specific condition of registration due to regulatory concerns under this condition, it will take that into account in the following ways:
Where there is a finding that a breach of this condition has taken place or is ongoing, the OfS will consider using its power under section 16 of HERA to suspend the aspects of the provider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of DAPs and would be likely to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for new or extended degree awarding powers.
Alternatively, without using the power under section 16 of HERA, in circumstances where a finding has been made that a breach of this condition has taken place or is ongoing, the OfS may decide that the provider is not suitable to be authorised for new or extended DAPs. In a similar way, the OfS may also decide that the provider is not suitable to be authorised for new or extended DAPs where the OfS has imposed a specific condition of registration due to regulatory concerns relating to this condition.
The OfS would take this approach whether or not the authorisation sought is to gain new powers, or extend existing powers, for example by time, level or subject.
Regulation of university, and university college, title. Where the OfS makes a final decision that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or where the OfS imposes a specific condition of registration due to regulatory concerns under this condition, it will take that into account in the following ways:
Where there is a finding that a breach of this condition has taken place or is ongoing, the OfS will consider using its power under section 16 of HERA to suspend the aspects of the provider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of university or university college title and would be likely to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for university or university college title.
Alternatively, without using the power under section 16 of HERA, in circumstances where a finding has been made that a breach of this condition has taken place or is ongoing, the OfS may decide that the provider is not suitable to be authorised for university or university college title. In a similar way, the OfS may also decide that the provider is not suitable to be authorised for university or university college title where the OfS has imposed a specific condition of registration due to regulatory concerns relating to this condition.
The criteria for allocation of OfS public grant funding. In accordance with any separate OfS policies on matters relating to public grant funding, the OfS may decide to take account of a provider’s current and previous compliance with this condition in determining allocations of some types of OfS public grant funding.
Describe your experience of using this website