Quick guide: A revised approach to assessing and rating quality

This consultation proposes a new system for assessing quality at registered higher education providers in England.

We would assess all providers through a common process against the OfS’s minimum quality requirements. As part of this, providers with sufficient data could also apply for TEF ratings in student experience, student outcomes, or both.

It also proposes risk-based scrutiny, revised evidence and outcomes measures, a stronger student role, and clearer benefits and consequences.

Recap: How the proposed system would work

• Regular assessments: We would assess nearly all providers with undergraduate provision in annual cohorts during the first three years from 2027-28. Some could be deferred to a fourth year to improve data availability. Timing would reflect scheduling factors, including assessment outcomes, quality risks and availability of data.
• Assessment and outcomes: We would assess all providers against minimum requirements. Those with sufficient data could apply for TEF ratings. The TEF would award Gold, Silver, Bronze or Requires improvement ratings for student experience, student outcomes, or both; other assessments would give Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory outcomes.
• Evidence and scrutiny: Assessors would use published indicators and provider evidence. Providers would normally have four and a half months to prepare submissions. TEF student experience assessments would also use an independent student submission. Most assessments would be desk-based, but risks could lead to extra evidence, a visit or an investigation.
• Scope: Student experience would cover course content and delivery, assessment and feedback, support, learning resources and engagement. Student outcomes would cover continuation, completion and post-study outcomes, using benchmarked indicators and contextual evidence.
• Different provision: Subcontracted provision would count towards the lead provider’s assessment; validated-only provision would be judged separately. Modular provision would be phased in.
• Students and publication: Students would contribute through the National Student Survey, independent submissions and assessor roles. We would also publish ratings, outcomes, reports and submissions to give prospective students a clear view of quality at each provider.
• Benefits and consequences: Higher TEF ratings would unlock benefits. Lower TEF ratings or Unsatisfactory outcomes to the minimum quality assessment could lead to earlier reassessment, recruitment limits, additional scrutiny or regulatory action. Eligibility for some benefits, including degree awarding powers, would depend on the relevant rating or equivalent assessment.

What has changed since the first consultation?

The first consultation proposed compulsory TEF participation. Under the revised proposals, all selected providers would undergo a common compulsory, cyclical assessment against minimum requirements. As part of this, those with sufficient data could apply for TEF ratings; others would receive minimum requirements outcomes.

The OfS expects most eligible providers to apply for a TEF rating. However, providers without sufficient data or providers under a quality investigation, would not be able to apply.

A more risk-based system

Before each assessment, the OfS would assess risk using survey and outcomes data, notifications, previous findings, regulatory intelligence and information about the provider’s provision.

Most providers would receive a desk-based assessment. Risks could prompt extra evidence and a visit. Serious, systemic, widespread or urgent concerns could lead to a quality investigation.

Risk would influence the level of scrutiny and could affect scheduling, but the risk assessment would not itself be a judgement about quality and would not be published.

A stronger role for students

For a TEF student experience assessment, we would normally expect students to make an independent submission. This would normally:

• set out student views on key aspects of their academic experience, while allowing students to focus on the issues that matter most and where evidence is strongest
• draw on a wide range of student views and explain whose views are represented and any limitations.

Providers would have to offer reasonable practical, administrative, financial and accessibility support while protecting the submission’s independence.

Changes to the evidence and data

National Student Survey indicators would continue to inform student experience assessments. The OfS proposes extending the survey to undergraduate students on one-year courses once suitable in-year data is available, with an earlier opt-in for eligible further education colleges.

Student outcomes assessments would cover continuation, completion and three post-study measures: progression to professional employment or further study, use of learning and graduates’ earnings. TEF ratings for student outcomes would require sufficient data on continuation, progression and at least one other post-study measure.

A revised condition B3 would require positive post-study outcomes, assessed through the three benchmarked measures and contextual evidence rather than one numerical threshold.

The consultation also proposes changes to minimum thresholds for continuation and completion for part-time and apprenticeship provision. It would require positive modular-study outcomes, with measures and thresholds developed through later consultation.

Partnership and flexible provision

Subcontracted provision would contribute to the lead provider’s ratings and outcomes. Validated-only provision would be assessed separately as Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory and would not directly affect TEF ratings, although an Unsatisfactory judgement could restrict degree awarding powers.

Modular provision would not be assessed separately in the first cycle, but providers would still be expected to secure positive outcomes and the OfS would monitor risks. We intend to develop a module completion measure for future use.

Taught postgraduate provision would join from the second cycle after consultation.

Consequences of assessment outcomes

The proposals strengthen the consequences attached to lower ratings:

• A provider rated Requires improvement, or receiving an Unsatisfactory outcome, could have to reduce undergraduate recruitment by 10 per cent each year until reassessment.
• Some Bronze or Satisfactory providers could later be prevented from increasing recruitment. The consultation presents automatic and case-by-case options.
• Eligibility to apply for or extend degree awarding powers could be linked to higher TEF ratings..
• Repeated Requires improvement or Unsatisfactory outcomes could lead to increasingly significant regulatory action, potentially including suspension or deregistration.

Ratings or outcomes could also be revised between assessments if an investigation showed that they no longer reflected the quality experienced by students.

What students would see

We would publish TEF ratings and minimum requirements outcomes with reports explaining the decisions.

Ratings would also appear on OfS services, Discover Uni, UCAS and provider websites, using a standard format on relevant course pages.

The OfS is considering a scorecard showing performance against each criterion and areas for improvement.