Proposals for a revised approach to assessing and rating quality

Key points of this proposal

• We would notify selected providers each year about their assessment, including whether they have sufficient data to apply for TEF ratings, the assessment requirements that apply to them and the relevant deadlines.
• Providers with sufficient data would have two weeks to confirm if they do not wish to apply for TEF ratings.
• We would assess all providers against conditions B1, B2, B3 and B4.
• All providers would be required to submit evidence, facilitate a visit if applicable and publish their outcomes.
• Providers applying for TEF ratings would submit additional evidence of quality that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements, and facilitate student submissions (if being rated for the student experience).
• We would normally give providers 4.5 months to prepare provider submissions.
• Providers would not normally be able to defer an assessment, although we may agree a deferral in limited circumstances where proceeding would not be in students’ interests.
• Smaller providers could request a short extension to their submission deadline where it coincides with specified external assessment or inspection activity.
• Providers that have a visit as part their assessment could also request a short extension to their submission deadline.

Assessment notification

123. We propose to complete the activities we describe in Proposals 2 to 4 by the end of July each year, so that we can use the latest student outcomes and NSS data to inform the selection and determination of sufficient data.
124. For the first year (2027-28) we would also publish the final TEF guidance and the data dashboards by the end of July.
125. We would then notify the selected providers in writing and tell them:

• • whether the provider has sufficient data to apply for a TEF rating in one or both aspects
  • whether the provider would be subject to an ‘enhanced’ assessment of the student experience (see Proposal 11)
  • any student outcome indicators of concern (see Proposal 15)
  • what the provider would need to do if it applies for TEF ratings (including, for example, the requirements relating to the student submission if applying for a student experience rating, and the relevant page limits for the provider submission)
  • what the provider would need to do if it does not apply for TEF ratings, or applies for a rating in the only aspect it has sufficient data for
  • the deadline for the submission and any other information required.

126. Providers would have two weeks to confirm whether they are not applying for TEF ratings so that we can plan for the assessments in a timely manner.

Applying for TEF ratings

127. Under Proposal 1, we propose that all providers selected for assessment each year would undergo assessment through the same overall quality system. We would assess all providers for whether they meet conditions B1, B2, B3 and B4. Providers applying for a TEF rating would not undergo a separate assessment of this. Instead, they would provide additional evidence necessary to support judgements about quality above the minimum requirements.
128. We expect that most registered providers would choose to apply for TEF ratings because TEF ratings provide public recognition of quality and enable providers to access a range of benefits associated with those ratings.
129. However, we recognise that some providers may only want to show that they meet minimum quality requirements and may not want to seek TEF ratings. Also, providers could not apply for TEF ratings in any aspects that do not have sufficient data. Instead, we would assess them for meeting minimum quality requirements.
130. We propose practical requirements for providers that apply for TEF ratings. These requirements would help us run assessments effectively, give assessors the evidence they need and ensure that providers communicate their ratings consistently.
131. Under proposed revisions to condition B6, providers applying for TEF ratings would need to:

• • provide relevant staff and student contact details
  • submit relevant evidence for the aspect or aspects we are assessing them for, by the deadlines specified by us
  • respond to any information requests made as part of the assessment process
  • facilitate an independent student submission (if being rated for student experience)
  • facilitate an on-site visit by the assessment team, if applicable
  • publish and display their TEF ratings
  • comply with a student recruitment limit where applicable.

Evidence needed

132. The quality assessment system would assess compliance with conditions B1, B2, B3 and B4 for all providers.
133. For providers that do not apply for TEF ratings, we would normally require the following evidence:
     1. For student experience:
        1. A submission that demonstrates how the provider meets the requirements of conditions B1, B2 and B4
        2. If selected for an enhanced assessment of the student experience, additional information and a site visit, as set out in Proposal 11
        3. If NSS data is available, we will also consider it in the assessment.
     2. For student outcomes:
        1. Any student outcome indicators that are available
        2. Only if we identify indicators of concern, a submission that provides relevant contextual information about these indicators.

134. Providers applying for a TEF rating would need further evidence that could support judgements about quality above the minimum requirements:
     1. For student experience, this would normally include:
        1. Sufficient NSS indicators
        2. A provider submission demonstrating how the provider meets or exceeds the requirements of conditions B1, B2 and B4
        3. A student submission
        4. If selected for an enhanced assessment of the student experience, additional information and a site visit, as set out in Proposal 11.
     2. For student outcomes, this would normally include:
        1. Sufficient student outcome indicators (including at least continuation, progression and another post-study indicator)
        2. A submission that provides relevant contextual information, including in relation to any indicators of concern.

135. The TEF criteria do not cover every requirement in condition B4. Providers applying for a TEF rating would therefore need to give assessors enough information to judge the parts of condition B4 that the TEF criteria do not cover directly.

Timeline

136. We propose to notify providers by the end of July and the deadline for providers’ submissions would be in mid-December, giving providers 4.5 months’ notice to prepare their submissions. We heard after the 2023 TEF that providers would appreciate more time to prepare submissions. We have sought to lengthen the submission window as far as possible, while still allowing sufficient time for the assessments to conclude on time to inform student choice.
137. We consider that extending the submission window from 3.5 months (as it was in the 2023 TEF) to 4.5 months would allow providers enough time to prepare submissions. We also propose introducing an opportunity for providers to request an extension to the submission deadline in some circumstances. We also note that we have reduced the range of evidence that most providers would need to submit for student outcomes.
138. We propose a later deadline for the TEF student submissions to allow TEF student contacts sufficient time as we would not confirm them until after we have notified providers.
139. A timeline for the first year of assessments is below. We would expect to follow a similar annual timeline in subsequent years.

Table 5: Assessment timeline

Deferral of an assessment

140. Once notified, providers would not normally be able to request deferral of an assessment into a later year.
141. However, we may defer an assessment in limited circumstances where proceeding with an assessment would not be in students’ interests. These could include major organisational changes, such as mergers or structural changes, or serious events that materially affect the provider’s ability to operate normally. In these circumstances, we may consider a deferral.

Extensions to submission deadlines

142. We propose that providers would be able to request a short extension of no more than four weeks to their submission deadline, in the following circumstances:
     1. Where the deadline for a small provider coincides with another significant external assessment or inspection that relies predominantly on the same members of staff.
     2. Where a provider has a visit as part of its assessment of the student experience (see Proposal 11).
143. Where appropriate, we may agree a revised submission date, taking account of the provider’s circumstances and the practical requirements of the assessment timetable. We would consider deadline extensions of up to four weeks. Extending submission deadlines beyond four weeks would have a significant impact on the timelines for the assessment and reduce our ability to publish assessment outcomes in a timely way to inform student choice.

Assessment costs

144. We have sought to design the future quality system in a way that provides robust assurance and drives up quality while minimising unnecessary costs and burden on providers and targets assessment activity where there are greater risks to students.
145. Implementing the proposed system would involve additional costs to the OfS, including:

• • the costs of conducting initial risk assessments, TEF assessments (including visits to providers where applicable), overhead costs for minimum requirement assessments (including visits to providers where applicable)
  • development and annual publication of data
  • guidance and engagement activity
  • recruiting and training assessors
  • enhancement activity
  • extending the NSS to one-year courses (optionally for further education colleges)
  • developing a student survey for postgraduate taught students.

146. We said following stage one that we would consult further about assessment costs for providers. We do not plan to charge providers a fee for applying for TEF ratings, and expect to recover these additional costs through other mechanisms. We are not consulting on these mechanisms as they are matters for the DfE to decide.
147. We would charge providers a fee for an assessment against only the minimum requirements or a quality investigation. We have the power to charge fees for a quality assessment that tests a provider’s ongoing compliance with our quality conditions.⁴ These powers allow us to recover actual costs of assessment.
148. When we carry out an assessment to determine TEF ratings, we would assess compliance as part of the TEF assessment which is also the mechanism for continuous improvement. We therefore think it is more appropriate to cover the costs of TEF assessments through our overall budget. But where there is only an assessment of compliance with minimum requirements, we would recover the costs of that assessment through a fee and think it is appropriate to charge providers for this.

Notes

[3] See Condition B6: Teaching Excellence Framework participation.

[4] The Higher Education (Assessment Fees (England) Regulations 2023 (‘the Assessment Fee Regulations’) provide that a fee is payable for the assessment of the quality where the assessment is undertaken by the OfS under section 23(2)(b) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (part 3, regulation 6).