Proposals for a revised approach to assessing and rating quality

Key points of this proposal

• We would examine most quality risks identified through ongoing risk monitoring through a scheduled quality assessment.
• Where concerns about compliance emerge that could not be reasonably addressed through a scheduled assessment, or which require urgent investigation, we may undertake a quality investigation.
• Investigations may result in regulatory intervention and revisions to a provider’s TEF or minimum requirements outcomes, where those outcomes no longer reflect the quality experienced by students.
• Providers receiving consecutive Requires improvement or Unsatisfactory outcomes would normally experience escalating regulatory action.
• TEF ratings and minimum requirements assessment outcomes may also be reviewed and amended where a provider is affected by significant corporate, organisational or structural changes.

Explanation

Quality monitoring between scheduled assessments

554. Following stage one, we decided that:
• we would continue to monitor quality risks between TEF assessments
• we would retain the ability to investigate concerns about quality, and that findings from those assessments may affect TEF ratings.

We have now considered further how these different elements should operate together within a single quality system.

555. All providers would be subject to cyclical assessment in the future quality system. The outcome of these assessments would normally remain in place until the provider’s next scheduled quality assessment. However, a provider’s circumstances may change between assessments, and new quality risks may emerge. We consider that it is important that TEF ratings and minimum requirements assessment outcomes remain a reliable indication of quality for students, while enabling us to respond quickly where concerns emerge.
556. We will therefore continue to monitor risks to quality throughout the period between a provider’s scheduled quality assessments. We will consider risks set out in the quality risk monitoring document, including notifications and other relevant regulatory intelligence.
557. Where increased risks to quality emerge between assessments, we may engage with the provider to understand the concerns and determine the most appropriate response. We may:
• continue monitoring the provider and maintain the existing assessment timetable
• bring forward a provider’s next quality assessment so that we can assess the identified risks through this, including an enhanced assessment if additional evidence gathering is necessary
• undertake a quality investigation if concerns appear sufficiently significant or require more immediate or detailed investigation.

Quality investigations

558. Although cyclical quality assessments would address most risks identified through quality monitoring, including enhanced assessments where appropriate, we will continue to undertake quality investigations in some circumstances. We propose that this would normally occur where bringing forward the provider’s next scheduled assessment would not provide sufficient assurance or protection for students, or where concerns identified through the provider’s latest assessment (for example, following a Requires improvement rating) merit more detailed investigation. A quality investigation may be appropriate where:
• new concerns emerge shortly after a provider’s cyclical quality assessment that we consider require further assessment
• concerns arise that require urgent or more detailed investigation
• intelligence suggests serious or systemic concerns about quality
• a cyclical quality assessment identifies concerns that merit further investigation because, if the concerns are substantiated, regulatory intervention may be necessary to protect students.
559. We will continue to take a risk-based approach, taking account of the seriousness of the concerns, the potential impact on students and whether a more detailed investigation would likely be more effective at understanding and addressing the concerns. We are more likely to undertake a quality investigation where specific concerns are identified through third-party notifications.
560. We consider that making cyclical quality assessments our primary mechanism for exploring and assessing risk to quality would provide a more integrated and efficient approach than undertaking investigations whenever we identify risks. We consider that retaining the ability to undertake quality investigations in some cases strikes an appropriate balance between an integrated and efficient approach, and gives us the flexibility to undertake additional assessment where appropriate.

Impact of investigations on TEF or minimum requirements outcomes

561. Where we undertake a quality investigation, we propose that the findings should have implications for any existing TEF ratings or minimum requirements outcomes.
562. Where we identify a breach of condition B1, B2 or B4 between scheduled assessments, we consider that the provider’s published assessment ratings or outcomes should be consistent with those findings. Where we conclude that the findings are incompatible with the existing ratings or outcomes we may revise them before the provider’s next scheduled assessment. This is so that the integrated quality system provides a single coherent view of a provider’s quality that students and other stakeholders can rely on.
563. For example, if an investigation finds a breach of a condition:
• a provider with a Bronze TEF rating may have the rating changed to a Requires improvement rating
• a provider with a Satisfactory outcome may have that changed to Unsatisfactory.
564. We would consider the nature, seriousness and scale of the breach, together with the impact on students, when determining the implications for the provider’s TEF rating or minimum requirements assessment outcome.
565. We would normally consider a:
• maximum rating of Bronze to be compatible with a breach or breaches that are limited in scope or impact
• rating of Requires improvement or outcome of Unsatisfactory to be compatible with more serious and widespread breaches.
566. Any revised rating or outcome would replace the previously published outcomes, and the consequences and assessment cycle associated with the new rating or outcomes would then apply. For example, if a provider’s TEF rating was revised to Requires improvement following an investigation, the provider would become subject to the same restrictions and reassessment timetable as any other provider rated Requires improvement through the TEF.
567. Revising a rating to Requires improvement or an outcome to Unsatisfactory would normally lead to reassessment after two years. Where concerns are particularly serious, systemic or ongoing, we may determine that a further quality investigation or regulatory action is required. We may also consider using our enforcement powers in accordance with the regulatory framework where the findings indicate significant breaches of conditions of registration. This may be in addition to any changes we make to a provider’s TEF rating or minimum requirements outcome.
568. Where we revise a rating or outcome we would not amend the original assessment report. Normally, we would expect to publish a separate report about the quality investigation and supplementary information to explain how the breach affected the rating or outcome. We would seek to ensure any supplementary explanation is sufficiently prominent to avoid any misinterpretation by students. A provider would have the opportunity to make representations on any publication matters.
569. Conversely, a quality investigation may not necessarily identify concerns requiring further action. In some cases, it may provide sufficient assurance that the provider continues to meet relevant quality requirements or identify less significant concerns that are not inconsistent with the provider’s current rating or outcome.
570. In these circumstances we would normally leave the provider’s TEF rating or outcome unchanged and maintain the existing assessment timetable. Where residual risks remain, we may instead bring forward the provider’s next scheduled assessment so that we can assess those issues through the quality assessment process.
571. If a quality investigation identifies concerns about the accuracy of a provider’s student outcomes data that results in material amendment of that data, we would normally expect to review a student outcomes rating or outcome to ensure that it reflects the amended data. If necessary, we would revise a rating or outcome using the same approach as we have set out above for student experience assessments.
572. Where we are already investigating a provider in relation to quality at the point we would otherwise select it for its cyclical quality assessment, we would normally complete the investigation first. This would ensure that we could take any findings into account when determining the assessment route and type of assessment required (as described in Proposals 1 and 3) and avoid duplication of assessment activity.
573. We would make consequential changes to the guidance on the B conditions in the regulatory framework, and to Regulatory advice 15: Monitoring and intervention, to reflect these proposals. These changes would explain that, where we identify a breach of a quality condition, we may review whether an existing TEF rating or assessment outcome remains appropriate. Where we conclude that a breach is incompatible with a provider's TEF rating or assessment outcome, we may revise that rating or outcome or limit the rating available through a future TEF assessment.
574. We consider that this approach would ensure that regulatory findings, TEF ratings and minimum requirements outcomes remain aligned over time and maintain a coherent view of quality for students.

Consecutive Requires improvement or Unsatisfactory outcomes

575. Where a provider receives consecutive outcomes of Requires improvement or Unsatisfactory, we propose that we would take appropriate regulatory action, including the use of the full range of our enforcement powers. Our view is that, where providers do not improve, the future quality system should provide a credible route from identification of concerns, through improvement and reassessment, to stronger regulatory action.
576. Our proposal to make providers with a Requires improvement rating or an Unsatisfactory outcome reduce their student recruitment is intended to protect students and incentivise rapid improvement where we have identified concerns. However, consecutive outcomes of Requires improvement or Unsatisfactory would indicate that this restriction has not been sufficient to secure the necessary improvements, or that significant concerns continue to exist. In some cases, this may reflect a failure to address previously identified issues. In others, the provider may have addressed the original but new concerns of a similar seriousness may have emerged. In either circumstance, students would continue to be exposed to provision that is not delivering the required minimum level of quality.
577. We therefore propose that, for providers that apply for TEF ratings, the revised condition B6 should include a new requirement that a provider awarded a Requires improvement rating must demonstrate improvement by achieving a higher rating at its next assessment. The purpose of this requirement is to establish a clear expectation that significant quality concerns identified through the quality assessment system are addressed within a reasonable period and to provide a transparent basis for escalating regulatory action where ia provider has not demonstrated improvement.
578. We would normally consider two consecutive Requires improvement ratings, whether in relation to the same TEF aspect or different aspects, to be a breach of the revised condition B6. This would provide a clearer regulatory mechanism through which we can respond where providers fail to demonstrate sufficient improvement following a Requires improvement rating. For providers that receive consecutive Unsatisfactory outcomes, we would use the approach set out in the regulatory framework to escalate regulatory action.
579. We would normally expect two consecutive outcomes of Requires improvement to lead to significant regulatory intervention, for example suspension of registration or deregistration. The nature of any intervention would depend on the circumstances of the case, including the severity and persistence of concerns and the impact on students.
580. We would also consider whether the circumstances indicate that the provider has breached one or more other conditions of registration, including but not limited to conditions B1, B2 and B4. Where relevant, findings from quality investigations would inform this consideration.
581. We would consider the circumstances of each case and determine the appropriate intervention, in accordance with our published guidance in Regulatory advice 15: Monitoring and intervention and the regulatory framework. This could include consideration of:
     1. Imposing a monetary penalty.
     2. Suspending aspects of a provider’s registration, which could include suspending access to student support funding or OfS public grant funding.
     3. Varying or revoking a provider’s authorisation for DAPs, or revoking a provider’s authorisation to use ‘university’ in its title
     4. Deregistering a provider.
582. We consider that this approach would create a clear expectation that providers demonstrate improvement following an outcome of Requires improvement, while ensuring that stronger regulatory intervention is available where significant concerns persist over time.

Other circumstances where assessment outcomes may change

583. As well as changes in quality, there may be situations where a TEF rating or minimum requirements outcome no longer appropriately reflects a provider’s current position. We therefore also propose other circumstances that could affect a provider’s published rating or outcome between scheduled assessments.
584. We propose to consider whether a provider’s rating or outcome remains appropriate in the following circumstances:
1. Where a provider is suspended from or removed from the OfS Register.
2. Where a provider makes significant changes to its educational offer such that its rating or outcome is no longer relevant. For example, a provider that was rated for undergraduate provision may subsequently cease delivering undergraduate courses and move to deliver only postgraduate provision. In such circumstances, we may remove the undergraduate rating if it would no longer be relevant to the provision.
3. Where a provider is re-registered following a change in corporate structure or ownership.
4. Following a merger or acquisition.
585. Where a provider is re-registered following a change in corporate structure or ownership, we would consider if it is operating the same or substantially the same higher education business as the previously registered provider. Where students’ experiences of the provider remain substantially the same we would normally apply the existing TEF rating or minimum requirements outcome to the new entity. If a rating or outcome is transferred, the provider would also be subject to any associated student recruitment restrictions under proposed revisions to B6.
586. However, we recognise that significant changes may occur after re-registration. If this happens, we may decide to bring forward a future scheduled assessment so that students have access to more up-to-date information.
587. Where a re-registering provider is genuinely new and is not operating the same or substantially the same higher education business as the previous provider, we would normally treat it as a new provider for quality outcome purposes. In these circumstances, ratings or outcomes would not normally transfer. The provider would instead enter the quality assessment system in the same way as any other newly registered provider.
588. Where providers merge, we would consider the circumstances of the merger when deciding whether existing ratings or outcomes should transfer to the merged organisation. We would normally expect to transfer the ratings or outcomes and associated restrictions to the merged entity. However, we may decide not to transfer ratings or outcomes in some cases. To make that decision we would consider:
• the respective TEF ratings or outcomes of the merging providers
• their compliance histories
• the proportion of the merged provider’s higher education business contributed by each organisation
• the overall effect of the merger on the student experience.
589. This approach would allow us to take account of the wide range of merger and acquisition models that exist across the sector while ensuring that TEF ratings or minimum requirements outcomes remain meaningful and informative for students.