Proposals for a revised approach to assessing and rating quality

We are consulting on how we will assess and rate the quality of higher education at each university or college in the future, to help ensure all students benefit from high-quality education.

What are we proposing?

1. Following our stage one consultation in 2025 on an integrated quality system,¹ we are proposing a revised approach to assessing and rating quality. We intend this approach to provide assurance that all registered providers continue to meet our minimum requirements, while also recognising and rewarding excellence in teaching and student outcomes.
2. Under these proposals, all registered providers would be subject to cyclical quality assessment. Each year, we would select a cohort of providers for assessment. All selected providers would undergo a common quality assessment process that would assess whether they continue to meet our minimum quality requirements.
3. As part of that assessment, providers would be able to choose whether to apply for Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) ratings. Providers applying for TEF ratings would provide the additional evidence required to support rating judgements, including evidence about quality above the minimum requirements. Providers choosing not to apply for TEF ratings would instead receive assessment outcomes indicating whether they continue to meet minimum requirements.
4. The assessment would consider both student experience and student outcomes aspects. Providers applying for TEF ratings would receive a Gold, Silver, Bronze or Requires improvement rating for each aspect they are assessed for. Providers that do not apply for TEF ratings would receive minimum requirement outcomes of either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory for each aspect.
5. The first cycle of assessments under the new system would assess nearly all providers over three years from 2027-28.
6. Most of the proposals in this consultation relate to the evidence, criteria, indicators and assessment processes that we would use in assessments, including data indicators, provider submissions, student submissions and visits to some providers.
7. We also propose how assessment teams would reach judgements about minimum requirement outcomes and TEF ratings through a common assessment framework based on published criteria, indicators, provider submissions and other evidence. We set out proposals for publishing assessment outcomes, including requiring providers to publish their outcomes. We also propose how different outcomes would be linked to incentives and consequences. These include student recruitment limits and eligibility for degree awarding powers.
8. We are also consulting on the relationship between quality assessments (through a minimum requirements assessment or the TEF), ongoing quality monitoring and investigations of concerns about compliance.

Why are we proposing this?

9. Students should receive high-quality teaching, academic support, rigorous assessment and appropriate resources. They should also gain knowledge and skills that support employment, further study and other positive outcomes. The proposed system aims to provide assurance that all providers continue to meet minimum quality requirements while incentivising continuous improvement and recognising higher levels of quality.
10. Following responses to our stage one consultation, and as we have developed the detailed operation of the scheme (including how we best integrate compliance assessments within TEF), we have reconsidered our approach. Under this alternative approach, all providers would undergo the same broad assessment process, which would be mandatory. The assessment would establish whether the provider is meeting minimum quality requirements and, where it does not apply for a TEF rating or does not have sufficient data to do so, it would receive a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory outcome. Where a provider applies for a TEF rating, this would also determine whether the quality and outcomes experienced by students meet or go beyond the minimum requirements and whether it should be awarded a Requires improvement, Bronze, Silver or Gold TEF rating.
11. We consider that this approach would provide a more integrated and coherent quality system. It would ensure that we assess all providers using the same broad framework, assessment process and decision-making arrangements. It would also avoid the need for separate assessment arrangements for providers that do not have sufficient National Student Survey (NSS) data to support a TEF rating, while continuing to ensure those providers are subject to cyclical assessment of quality.
12. The approach would also provide a clearer distinction between demonstrating compliance with minimum quality requirements and choosing to seek a TEF rating (that could demonstrate high-quality provision beyond the minimum requirements). Under this model, all providers would continue to be assessed, but providers would decide whether to seek a TEF rating (if they have sufficient data to do so) and access the benefits associated with that rating.
13. At the same time, this approach would require different evidence requirements depending on whether a provider applies for a TEF rating. In particular, providers applying for TEF ratings would need sufficient data to support ratings and we would require them to provide a student submission. We are therefore interested in views about whether the benefits of a single assessment system would outweigh the additional complexity associated with operating a common assessment process with different evidence requirements.

What it would mean in practice

14. We would assess each provider on a cyclical basis. The providers we select for assessment each year would be assessed against the minimum quality requirements and could apply for TEF ratings.
15. Each year, we would select a cohort of providers for assessment, taking account of factors such as their previous ratings or outcomes, risks to quality, and the availability of data. Before assessment begins, we would carry out an initial risk assessment using information such as student outcomes data, NSS results, notifications and other regulatory intelligence.
16. The risk assessment would determine how we assess the provider. Most providers would undergo a standard desk-based assessment using published data and evidence it has submitted. Where we identify particular risks, we may gather additional evidence and conduct a visit to the provider. Where we identify serious concerns about compliance with quality requirements, we may undertake a quality investigation instead of a minimum quality requirements or TEF assessment.
17. Assessment teams made up of academic assessors, student assessors and OfS staff would consider published indicators, submissions and other evidence against published assessment criteria for student experience and student outcomes. The assessment teams would then make recommendations. A Quality Assessment and TEF panel would make final decisions to ensure consistency across providers.
18. We would publish the outcomes of minimum quality requirements assessments and TEF ratings, together with assessment reports explaining how we reached decisions.
19. Assessment outcomes would have practical consequences. Higher TEF ratings would provide access to benefits linked to TEF, including:

• • eligibility for tuition fee uplifts determined by the Department for Education (DfE)
  • eligibility to apply for or extend degree awarding powers (DAPs) (subject to consultation), and
  • access to public funding such as the Strategic Priorities Grant (SPG) (subject to consultation).

Lower ratings or outcomes could lead to:

• • student recruitment restrictions
  • earlier reassessment
  • further regulatory scrutiny, or
  • investigation and regulatory intervention (where we identify serious concerns).

20. Between assessments, we would continue to monitor risks to quality. Where significant concerns emerge, we could bring forward a provider’s next assessment, undertake a quality investigation, or revise published ratings or outcomes if they no longer reflect the quality experienced by students.

Who would be affected

21. The proposals would affect all higher education providers registered with us as we will require them to undergo cyclical quality assessment.
22. Students would be affected because the proposals aim to protect them from poor provision and improve their academic experiences and outcomes. They would also have a vital role in informing quality assessments through the NSS and student submissions for the TEF, and taking part as assessors. Prospective students would benefit from assessment outcomes for all providers, clearer ratings and reports.
23. We are also seeking views from staff, academics, leaders, awarding bodies, employers, third sector organisations, policy bodies and others interested in higher education quality.

What we are seeking views on

24. The consultation asks for views on the approach to implementing the future quality system. This includes the criteria for assessments, the data that we will use, the nature of provider and student submissions, the nature of visits to some providers, and how we will conduct assessments. We also seek views on how we would communicate outcomes to students and how we would implement the incentives and interventions linked to assessment outcomes.
25. Respondents do not need to answer every question. They can comment on any areas they consider relevant.

Decisions following stage one

26. The proposals set out here build on, or in some cases modify, the decisions taken following the stage one consultation. Relevant decisions following stage one are summarised at the start of each proposal, and we are not reconsulting on these.
27. In some areas, as we have developed the proposals in more detail, we are proposing to modify the approach we decided on following stage one. In summary, we are now proposing to:
    1. Assess all providers for compliance with the minimum quality requirements on a cyclical basis, with providers that have sufficient data able to apply for a TEF rating.
    2. Include visits to providers for some assessments.
    3. Include a new requirement in condition B3 for providers to deliver positive post-study outcomes
    4. Reduce a provider’s student recruitment (rather than limit growth) where it receives an outcome of Unsatisfactory or a TEF rating of Requires improvement. This would mean that we require it to recruit fewer students (rather than preventing it from recruiting more students than it currently does).
28. Further details and the reasons for these modifications are set out within the proposals.

Draft guidance and further information

29. We will also publish further information to supplement this consultation on 5 November 2026. We will publish:
    1. Draft guidance, to:
       • provide further detail of some of the proposals
       • show how the proposals – if taken forward – would be reflected in practical guidance
       • seek feedback on its clarity and helpfulness, so we can ensure the final guidance is clear, accessible and useful.
    2. Further data analysis that informs the proposals relating to the data
    3. Data dashboard and data files
    4. Proposed revisions to condition B6.

30. We recognise that this is a long consultation document setting out the detail of the quality system. We have therefore tried to explain the proposals in a way that is accessible to a wide range of audiences, including those not directly involved in the TEF. For those who wish to understand and respond to the proposals in greater detail, we highlight where the draft guidance or other supplementary document provides further detail about a proposal. 
31. However, if respondents wish to fully understand all of the proposals, they should read the draft guidance and supplementary documents in full when it is published, rather than rely on these prompts.
32. If there are any inconsistencies between a proposal and the associated draft guidance, we would appreciate respondents drawing this to our attention. If a discrepancy is found, the content of the consultation document should be treated as the definitive proposal, rather than content in the draft guidance.

Next steps

33. The consultation runs from 22 October 2026 to 28 January 2027. We will then consider responses and expect to publish decisions in spring 2027. We plan to publish final guidance in summer 2027.

Notes

[1] See Consultation on the future approach to quality regulation - Office for Students.