Proposals for a revised approach to assessing and rating quality

Key points of this proposal

• TEF student experience ratings of Requires improvement and Bronze would align with minimum requirements outcomes of Unsatisfactory and Satisfactory respectively.
• TEF student experience ratings of Silver and Gold would represent quality above the minimum requirements and would require consistently strong performance across the provider.
• Student experience assessments would consider six criteria mapped to conditions B1, B2 and B4: course content, course delivery, assessment and feedback, student support, learning resources, and student engagement.
• The criteria would focus on students’ experiences rather than provider policies, processes or practices.
• Each criterion would be judged, drawing on the relevant range of evidence.
• In TEF assessments, higher ratings would require consistently strong performance across the provider.
• In all assessments, weaknesses in significant areas of provision could limit the outcome awarded.
• We would amend references in conditions B1, B2 and B4 from ‘high quality’ to ‘satisfactory quality’ to reflect the minimum requirements of the conditions.

Explanation

175. Following stage one we decided that Bronze ratings will align with meeting the minimum quality requirements set out in the B conditions; Silver and Gold ratings will represent progressively higher levels of quality above the minimum.
176. We are now consulting on the definitions of the TEF rating categories minimum requirements outcomes, the assessment criteria and changes to the B conditions related to the student experience.
177. The quality system is intended both to confirm that minimum requirements in conditions B1, B2 and B4 are met and to recognise and incentivise quality that exceeds those requirements. The criteria therefore describe a continuum of quality from unsatisfactory to outstanding. They are intended to support a single, integrated assessment of quality.
178. All providers would be expected to demonstrate that they meet minimum requirements. Providers applying for TEF ratings would need to provide evidence to demonstrate the level of quality they consider their students to experience. This evidence would be used to determine whether students experience unsatisfactory, satisfactory, high or outstanding quality. Evidence that clearly demonstrates high or outstanding quality would also demonstrate that the minimum requirements have been met.

Definitions of TEF ratings and minimum requirements outcomes

179. Table 6 below proposes definitions for the TEF rating categories. They reflect the decisions taken following stage one about the purpose and structure of the future TEF. In particular, the four rating categories align with the requirements in the B conditions, with Bronze representing provision that is meeting minimum requirements, Silver representing high-quality provision, Gold representing outstanding provision, and Requires improvement indicating concerns about meeting minimum requirements.
180. In TEF assessments, we consider that higher ratings should only be awarded where higher quality is experienced consistently across a provider’s provision and student population. While some variation may be expected, significant weaknesses in particular subjects, modes of study or groups of students should constrain the overall rating awarded. This reflects both the expectation that students’ experiences should consistently be of high quality and the role of TEF in driving improvement. By linking higher ratings to consistency, we aim to encourage providers to identify and improve weaker areas of provision and poorer experience for particular groups of students, rather than relying on stronger performance elsewhere within the provider. Further details of how we propose to reach judgements about consistency are set out in Proposal 17 and the draft guidance.

Table 6: Definitions of TEF ratings

181. Where a provider has an assessment against only the minimum requirements for the student experience aspect, we propose that it receives one of the following outcomes, that align with Bronze and Requires improvement TEF ratings:

Table 7: Definitions of minimum requirements outcomes

182. For simplicity, we propose to use the same assessment criteria and definitions for both TEF ratings and minimum requirements outcomes. Where a provider is assessed only against the minimum requirements this would only lead to findings of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory quality which would align broadly to the Bronze and Requires improvement rating definitions respectively.

Assessment criteria

183. We propose the assessment would use six criteria based on the relevant B conditions, summarised below. Each of the six criteria would be described at the following levels:

• • Unsatisfactory
  • Satisfactory
  • High quality

184. We propose a single set of criteria that would apply to assessments. The criteria for unsatisfactory and satisfactory would apply to both assessments against only the minimum requirements and TEF ratings. The criteria for high quality and outstanding would also be used where the provider applies for a TEF rating.
185. This approach would ensure that all providers have an equivalent assessment of whether they are meeting minimum quality requirements. It would also support assessment teams in conducting the assessments consistently and efficiently.
186. The criteria are intended to support consistent assessment across different types of providers and forms of provision, while allowing assessors to take account of provider context and evidence. They have been developed based on the feedback received about the initial criteria we set out in the stage one consultation and workshops with students and academics, including previous TEF panel members, to help us refine the criteria. As a result, we have revised the initial criteria to:

• • focus more clearly on what students experience (rather than how providers seek to deliver quality)
  • more clearly differentiate between the quality levels
  • more explicitly include within the criteria innovation and support for employability skills and career development. This is because we want to ensure that the quality system encourages and rewards innovation and reflects the importance to students of developing knowledge and skills that will equip them for their future lives and careers.

187. We have also consolidated some of the initial criteria to map them more clearly to both the relevant B conditions and the NSS themes (see Table 8).

Table 8: Summary of assessment criteria

188. The criterion relating to assessment and feedback is based on the requirements of condition B4. Some elements of condition B4 would only be assessed at the level of unsatisfactory and satisfactory. For example, we consider that all providers should demonstrate that assessments are designed and conducted to minimise opportunities for academic misconduct, including the use of AI in assessment and support academic integrity. Beyond this we do not consider it appropriate to differentiate between higher levels in relation to these elements of condition B4.
189. These criteria would be assessed using provider submissions alongside the other applicable evidence (as outlined in Annex B).

Unsatisfactory quality

190. The full set of criteria is set out in Annex A of the draft guidance and will explain what would normally be considered unsatisfactory for each of the criteria. Where assessors judge one or more of the criteria to be unsatisfactory, this could contribute to a TEF rating of Requires improvement or a minimum requirements outcome of Unsatisfactory.
191. Evidence contributing to judgements of Unsatisfactory could include NSS indicators that are substantially below benchmark and not adequately explained, evidence from the provider itself indicating that satisfactory quality is not being delivered, or evidence gathered through an enhanced assessment (where applicable). For TEF assessments, evidence could also include well-evidenced concerns raised through the student submission. A criterion may also be judged as Unsatisfactory where the available evidence is insufficient to provide assurance that satisfactory quality is being delivered and if the assessment team considers that the absence of evidence itself raises concerns.

Changes to conditions of registration

192. In the stage one outcomes, we decided to amend conditions B1, B2 and B4 to clarify that these conditions define the minimum level of quality required of all registered providers, rather than high quality. We propose to achieve this by replacing references to ‘high quality’ with references to ‘satisfactory quality’. If the proposals to changes to the conditions are adopted, we would also make consequential changes to relevant guidance documents.