Consultation on the future approach to quality regulation

Annex E: Consideration of alternative proposals

1. In developing these proposals for the principles, scope and structure of the system we have considered and discussed a range of options with sector and student groups. The options we have considered include:
1. Retaining the existing system with minimal changes. This might involve rerunning the TEF in its current form and conducting compliance assessments where we have concerns about quality. The compliance assessments could integrate an assessment against condition B3 with other B conditions, including through visits to the providers. We have not proposed this approach, as we consider there are benefits to aligning the scope and TEF rating categories to the requirements of the B conditions, integrating the assessment of B3 within the TEF, and making some revisions to extend the TEF to all providers.
2. A fully integrated model. This would involve routinely assessing all providers to fully test whether they meet all the minimum quality requirements set out in the relevant ongoing B conditions of registration, as well as to rate the level of quality and drive improvement. Such an approach would probably involve visits to all providers to assess whether they meet the ‘qualitative’ B conditions of registration. Concerns were raised about the cost and scale of such an approach. We heard views that it would be more efficient and proportionate to continue with a risk-based approach to looking into concerns about compliance with the qualitative B conditions. We have not proposed this approach because of the substantial increase in cost and burden that would be involved.
3. Adding an additional aspect to the TEF to assess how effective a provider is at continuous improvement (discussed under Proposal 4). This would involve each provider submitting information about its areas for improvement, its approaches and the impact of its improvement activity. While this could help to increase the effect of the TEF in driving improvement, it would also increase the burden and complexity of the assessment, both for providers and TEF assessors. We have not proposed this because overall, we do not consider that the benefits would outweigh the additional burden and complexity. Instead, we propose to increase the impact of the TEF by strengthening and varying the incentives and interventions, as set out in Section 3.
4. Changing the TEF by using data (as far as it is available) to generate a granular dashboard of ratings for each provider. In this approach, some context would need to be taken into account, but to create an efficient process this would be limited to the minimum necessary. We have not proposed this approach because beyond student outcomes, we do not consider the data would support meaningful ratings without further evidence, and the granular dashboard of ratings could be complex for students and others to understand. Sector groups also queried what incentives this approach would create and whether it would in practice minimise burden.
2. We have also considered not making the revisions to condition B3 set out under Proposal 6. If we did not make these revisions but still sought to integrate B3 assessments into the future TEF, this would involve providers in their TEF submissions setting out the actions they have taken and future plans to improve any outcomes below the thresholds for continuation, completion or progression. The TEF assessors would then need to assess the credibility of those plans in improving the relevant outcomes. Our experience of B3 assessments to date is that this would involve considerable effort and complexity for assessors, often requiring further information or analysis. As we expect providers to be assessed through the TEF on a cyclical basis, we consider a more robust and efficient approach would be to take account of actual improvements delivered, once they are reflected in the outcome measures. We have also reflected on the use of the progression measure for regulation against a minimum threshold, as explained at paragraph 96. For these reasons we have proposed to simplify condition B3 as set out in Proposal 6.
3. We are open to considering alternative ideas put forward by respondents to this consultation.