Consultation on the future approach to quality regulation

Question 1a

What are your views on the proposed approach to making the system more integrated?

Question 1b

Do you have views on opportunities to reduce duplication of effort between the future TEF and Access and Participation Plans?

Question 2a

What are your views on the proposal to assess all registered providers?

Question 2b

Do you have any suggestions on how we could help enable smaller providers, including those that haven’t taken part in the TEF before, to participate effectively?

Question 3a

Do you have any comments on what provision should be in scope for the first cycle? You could include comments on areas such as:

• the inclusion of apprenticeships
• the proposal to look separately at partnership provision.

Question 3b

Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to expanding assessments to include taught postgraduate provision in future cycles?

Question 4a

What are your views on the proposal to assess and rate student experience and student outcomes?

Question 4b

Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to generating ‘overall’ provider ratings based on the two aspect ratings?

Question 5a

What are your views on the proposed scope of the student experience aspect, and how it aligns with the relevant B conditions of registration?

Question 5b

What are your views on our initial thoughts on the criteria for the student experience rating (at Annex H)? You could include comments on:

• whether the ‘course content and delivery’ criteria suggested in Annex H should be framed differently for a provider-level assessment
• whether there is clear enough differentiation between each level, and how this could be improved.

Question 5c

What are your views on the evidence that would inform judgements about this aspect? You could include comments on issues such as:

• what evidence could demonstrate the requirements of condition B1 are met at a provider level
• whether the submission page limit should be reduced
• the proposed inclusion of indicators based on the ‘Learning opportunities’ theme of the NSS.

Question 6

Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to revising condition B3 and integrating the assessment of minimum required student outcomes into the future TEF? You could include comments on areas such as:

• removing the progression indicator from condition B3
• how contextual factors would be considered at different stages in the process.

Question 7a

What are your views on the proposed approach and initial ratings criteria for the student outcomes aspect?

Question 7b

Do you have any comments on the proposed set of employment and further study indicators, and are there other measures that we should consider using?

Question 7c

What are your views on the proposal to consider a limited set of contextual factors when reaching judgements about this aspect?

Question 8a

What are your views on who should carry out the assessments? You could include suggestions for how we can enable more assessors (both academic and student) from small, specialist or college-based providers to take part.

Question 8b

What are your views on only permitting representations on provisional rating decisions of Bronze or Requires improvement?

Question 9a

What are your views on our proposal for an alternative means of gathering students’ views to inform the student experience aspect where we do not have sufficient NSS-based indicators? You could include comments on:

• the proposed approach to determining whether the NSS data is sufficient (this is expanded on in Annex G)
• the actions we are considering to improve the availability of NSS data for more providers
• how student views could be gathered through an alternative means.

Question 9b

What are your views on our proposal not to rate the student outcomes aspect where we do not have sufficient indicator data? You could include comments on the proposed approach to determining whether the data is sufficient (this is expanded on in Annex G).

Question 10a

What are your views on our proposed approach to including direct student input in the assessment of the student experience aspect for all providers? You could include comments on alternative ways of gathering student input where student submissions are impractical.

Question 10b

How could we help enable more student assessors from small, specialist and college-based providers to take part?

Question 11a

What are your views on our proposed approach to scheduling providers for their first assessments? You could include comments on:

• the factors we should consider in scheduling assessments
• any types of significant events that should lead us not to schedule an assessment in that year
• the sequencing of TEF assessments and APP approvals.

Question 11b

What are your views on our proposed approach to scheduling providers for subsequent assessments?

Question 12

Do you have any comments or evidence about the factors associated with risks to quality that might be included in the draft risk monitoring tool at Annex I?

Question 13

Do you have any comments about the proposed set of incentives and interventions associated with TEF ratings? You could include comments on:

• the principle that growth in student recruitment should take place at high quality providers
• the potential to link eligibility for new DAPs awards, or extensions to existing DAPs, to higher TEF ratings
• the approach to determining a breach or increased risk of breach, following TEF rating decisions
• whether there are any other incentives and interventions we should consider.

Question 14a

What are your views on the range of quality assessment outputs and outcomes we propose to publish?

Question 14b

Do you have any comments on how we could improve the usefulness of published information for providers and students? You could include comments on areas such as:

• whether the OfS should have a role in sharing good practice, and how we should do so
• the presentation of TEF outcomes for providers that are not rated for student outcomes.

Question 15

Do you have any comments on the proposed implementation timeline?

Question 16

Do you have any comments on the two options we have set out for how we could approach publication of TEF ratings during the transitional period, or suggestions of other approaches we could take?

Question 17

Do you have any comments on our approach to ongoing development, or our plans to prepare for the future inclusion of taught postgraduate provision?

Question 18

Are there aspects of the proposals you found unclear? If so, please specify which, and tell us why.

Question 19

In your view, are there ways in which the objectives of this consultation could be delivered more efficiently or effectively than proposed here?