Proposals for a revised approach to assessing and rating quality

Key points of this proposal

• Providers would need to demonstrate high-quality provision and outcomes before becoming eligible to apply for or to extend DAPs.
• Providers would normally need Silver or Gold TEF ratings in both assessed aspects to become eligible to apply for DAPs or extend existing powers.
• Providers that receive a Bronze aspect rating would not normally be eligible to apply for or extend DAPs.
• Providers that do not apply for TEF ratings would not normally be eligible to apply for DAPs.
• Providers seeking registration and New DAPs at the same time would continue to be able to apply in limited circumstances. However, we would require them to demonstrate high quality through an enhanced quality assessment as part of the registration process.
• Providers that already hold DAPs would need to continue demonstrating high quality through either a Silver or Gold TEF rating.
• Providers that no longer demonstrate high quality through TEF ratings may become ineligible to extend their DAPs and may be subject to regulatory intervention, including variation or revocation of DAPs in the most serious cases.

Explanation

528. Our view is that providers seeking new or additional awarding powers should be able to demonstrate that they are delivering at least high-quality provision through a Silver or Gold TEF rating, with no significant risks to the quality of the student experience or outcomes. DAPs carry significant responsibilities, including safeguarding academic standards, assuring the quality of awarded qualifications and the academic experience, and making academic awarding decisions. We consider that these responsibilities require a provider to demonstrate more than compliance with minimum regulatory requirements. If we implement the proposals in this consultation related to changes to the B conditions, those minimum requirements would represent satisfactory rather than high quality.
529. The current approach set out in the regulatory framework and associated DAPs guidance¹² says that a provider is eligible to apply for DAPs if it satisfies all of its ongoing conditions of registration. It then explains that in our initial assessment we will consider the existing risk assessment for the provider. An application for DAPs may be less likely to succeed if a provider is subject to enhanced monitoring, or has one or more specific ongoing conditions of registration relevant to the application (including to mitigate risks relating to quality and standards). However, we do not think that an absence of regulatory concerns on its own is sufficient evidence that a provider is delivering high-quality provision.
530. Providers applying for TEF ratings would be assessed to establish the level of quality and outcomes they are delivering above the minimum requirements. This would provide a more detailed and consistent assessment of whether a provider has demonstrated high-quality provision, rather than relying solely on the absence of identified regulatory concerns.
531. The current DAPs criteria expect a provider to deliver high-quality higher education, we therefore do not consider that eligibility for DAPs should be based on evidence that a provider meets minimum expectations. Instead, providers seeking DAPs should be able to demonstrate a level of quality consistent with the significant responsibilities associated with awarding their own degrees.
532. This proposal would support students’ interests and public confidence in the higher education sector by ensuring that providers have demonstrated high-quality provision before becoming eligible to apply for DAPs. It would also provide greater clarity about the threshold for eligibility and help focus resource-intensive DAPs assessments on providers that have already demonstrated that they can deliver high-quality higher education.

DAPs eligibility criteria for registered providers

533. We would amend the regulatory framework (including paragraphs 221 and 249) and associated DAPs guidance, Regulatory advice 12 and 17.¹³ These amendments would set out that, in addition to existing eligibility requirements, registered providers would normally need to demonstrate high-quality provision and ratings through a TEF assessment before becoming eligible to apply for New DAPs, Full DAPs or a variation of existing DAPs. A variation could be, for example, to extend subjects or levels that could be awarded to apply for indefinite DAPs.
534. Providers applying for TEF ratings would satisfy the eligibility requirement where both assessed aspects are rated Silver or Gold. We would expect a provider to be rated Silver or Gold in both aspects to be eligible for DAPs. We will consult separately on revised eligibility requirements where a provider cannot be rated for the student experience aspect because it does not have sufficient data.
535. We would expect to take this approach in the vast majority of cases. However, we recognise that exceptional circumstances may arise where it might be appropriate to depart from this approach, for example where a merger or acquisition requires DAPs to be reconsidered. We discuss these circumstances further below.
536. Providers that satisfy the eligibility requirements would then be allowed to progress to a full DAPs assessment against the DAPs criteria. We will consider separately, as part of future DAPs reform, changes to the DAPs criteria themselves including whether we can reduce or remove any duplication between TEF and DAPs assessments.

DAPs eligibility criteria for providers seeking New DAPs and OfS registration

537. Providers applying for registration can currently apply for New DAPs at the same time. Currently, eligibility under this route is based on whether a provider can satisfy the requirements for registration. If we implement the proposals in this consultation to amend the B conditions, this would mean the quality assessment at registration would confirm a provider’s ability to deliver satisfactory rather than high-quality provision, which would be a lower threshold than expected of current registered providers.
538. Consistent with our proposed approach for registered providers, we consider that providers seeking New DAPs should be able to demonstrate high quality. This reflects our view that DAPs should be available only to providers that can demonstrate high quality, rather than merely meeting minimum regulatory requirements.
539. We would amend the regulatory framework and relevant DAPs guidance so that, in addition to the existing criteria, a provider seeking New DAPs under this route would need to demonstrate, through an amended and enhanced B7 and B8 assessment, that it is delivering, or has credible plans to deliver high-quality provision. Assessment teams would test a provider’s delivery or plans to confirm that minimum requirements are met. It would also test whether the provider can also demonstrate quality consistent with the standard required for DAPs eligibility using the TEF criteria for Silver. This route for an enhanced assessment would incur a cost for the provider under our fee charging powers for quality assessments, as is the case now.¹⁴
540. Providers that are not yet delivering higher education when they apply for registration and New DAPs are assessed largely on the basis of plans rather than outcomes. We recognise that these providers may find it challenging to demonstrate high quality. In practice, this is likely to require either highly developed delivery plans and substantial supporting evidence, or an existing track record of delivering comparable higher education provision. For example, a provider may already have its own DAPs in another country with robust regulatory oversight.
541. We recognise that this proposal will narrow the circumstances in which New DAPs can be obtained. However, we think this is appropriate given the significant responsibilities associated with DAPs. In addition, the vast majority of providers that have applied for New DAPs since 2018 have had a track record of delivering higher education. We think it is appropriate to continue to allow applications only in more limited circumstances and where we have a high degree of assurance that providers will deliver high quality. This will offer better protection for students and be consistent with the eligibility requirements we propose to set for registered providers.
542. We would normally expect providers that apply for TEF ratings to wait until they have achieved a Silver or Gold TEF rating before they can submit a DAPs application.
543. Where a provider believes there are compelling reasons to apply for DAPs before it has obtained a TEF rating, it may request an earlier TEF assessment and provide evidence to support that request. We would consider whether it is appropriate to bring forward the TEF assessment, taking account of wider TEF scheduling factors.

Providers with existing DAPs powers

544. Providers that already hold DAPs would normally need to continue to demonstrate high-quality provision and outcomes through either a Silver or Gold TEF rating. Providers that apply for TEF ratings and receive a Bronze or a Requires improvement aspect rating, would not normally be eligible to:
• vary an order from New DAPs to Full DAPs or time-limited DAPs to indefinite DAPs
• extend a level-specific or subject-specific DAPs
• extend any order to include supplementary powers (this may include validation and subcontracting powers).
545. Where a provider’s DAPs order is due to expire and it would not be eligible to apply for a variation because it has received a Bronze or Requires improvement TEF rating, we may seek advice from the Quality Assessment Committee (QAC) on whether to grant a further period of time-limited DAPs. This would prevent the order expiring before the provider has had a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it can improve to meet the required standard. In doing so, we would take account of the provider’s individual circumstances and any relevant regulatory concerns. Where concerns relate to particular areas of provision, including partnership or subcontractual arrangements, we may also consider whether it is appropriate to impose restrictions on the scope or exercise of the provider’s DAPs before its next TEF assessment.
546. We may make an exception to these eligibility requirements where a provider holds mixed TEF aspect ratings, that is a rating of Bronze alongside an aspect rating of either Silver or Gold, or where a merger or acquisition means that we need to reconsider DAPs. In these circumstances, we would decide eligibility on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the relevant assessment findings alongside other regulatory information we hold.

Variation or revocation of DAPs where a provider no longer demonstrates high quality

547. If a provider with an existing DAPs order receives a Requires improvement aspect rating through the TEF, we may consider regulatory intervention. This could include restricting validation and other partnership activity, limiting the scope of the provider’s powers to particular subjects, or applying a time limit to the authorisation.
548. Where assessment activity identifies breaches of quality conditions, consistent with the current approach set out in the regulatory framework, we would consider whether the provider’s DAPs should be varied or revoked. Providers that receive consecutive judgements indicating that they are not delivering high-quality student experience or outcomes would be subject to increased regulatory intervention, which could include revocation of DAPs (see Proposal 21).
549. As Proposal 6 explains, TEF assessments would consider a provider’s validated-only provision separately. A judgement of Unsatisfactory for validated-only provision would not affect the provider’s student experience or student outcomes ratings and would not automatically make the provider ineligible to vary or extend DAPs generally. However, this judgement would have relevance for the provider’s ability to validate provision delivered by other providers.
550. We propose that, where validated-only provision is judged to be unsatisfactory, we may consider varying the provider’s DAPs to restrict it from entering into new validation arrangements. We would expect the provider to address the concerns and demonstrate improvement by its next TEF assessment. If the provider receives a consecutive judgement of Unsatisfactory for its validated-only provision at its next TEF assessment, we would normally look to remove its ability to validate provision delivered by other providers altogether.
551. These implications are distinct from those that would apply where a provider no longer demonstrates high quality through either TEF or a DAPs suitability assessment and would normally be targeted at validation activity, unless the evidence from any relevant assessment indicates wider concerns relevant to the provider’s exercise of its DAPs more generally.

Future DAPs reform

552. This consultation proposes to reform the eligibility criteria for applying for or extending DAPs. We will issue a separate consultation shortly on wider changes to the application requirements and eligibility for DAPs. We also plan a larger consultation on the DAPs criteria and process next year. We recognise that there is a separate question about whether and how assessment outcomes should also affect a provider’s ongoing entitlement to hold DAPs after they have been granted.
553. In our future reform we expect to consider issues including:
• how assessment outcomes should affect existing DAPs orders
• how any future approach should operate alongside existing regulatory powers and interventions
• opportunities to reduce regulatory burden through greater alignment between quality assessment processes described in this consultation and the substantive DAPs criteria and assessment process.

Notes

[12] See Regulatory advice 12: How to apply for degree awarding powers - Office for Students, paragraphs 42, 46 and 47.

[13] See Regulatory advice 12: How to apply for degree awarding powers - Office for Students and Regulatory advice 17: Variation and revocation of degree awarding powers - Office for Students.

[14] See The Higher Education (Assessment Fees) (England) Regulations 2023 - GOV.UK.