Resistance to TEF is based on good reasons

February 23, 2017

In the article “TEF could redefine idea of ‘great’ universities, says vice-chancellor” (News, 16 February), Edward Peck, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, expresses bemusement about “hostility” to the teaching excellence framework.

To help overcome this bemusement, let me spell out a few of the reasons why many academics and students are hostile to the TEF:

1. The justification given for the TEF was that teaching in UK universities was “patchy” and in some cases “lamentable”, and that students and employers were dissatisfied. This was based on manipulated data and cherry-picked information from reports that do not stand scrutiny.

2. There were 618 responses to the TEF consultation. Some 75 to 80 per cent of respondents disagreed with or were unsure about some key aspects of the proposals: in particular the use of metrics, and the linking of TEF ratings to the ability to raise tuition fees. Good arguments were put forward to justify these views, but they have been ignored.

3. For the stated aim of the TEF, removing poor teaching, it is not necessary to have league tables rating all institutions. It is simply necessary to identify those where teaching is problematic, as is already done by the Quality Assurance Agency.

4. The validity of the National Student Survey as a measure of teaching quality has been roundly criticised, and these criticisms appear to have been accepted by the chair of the TEF.

5. The statistical properties of NSS data have been described as unsuitable as a measure of teaching quality by the Office for National Statistics, the Royal Statistical Society and, most recently, by Lord Lipsey, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Statistics.

I agree that we need a diverse sector that caters for students with different backgrounds and needs. I fear that Peck is deceived, however, if he imagines that the TEF will lead to the funnelling of funds to institutions that traditionally have not done well in research-based league tables. The only consequence of linking the TEF to fees is that some institutions will become unviable. It seems that the main purpose of the TEF is to create a gap in the market that “new providers” can fill. The current crop of new providers, however, does not give one confidence that this will be an effective way of achieving teaching excellence.

Anyone who argues against this is accused of being part of a self-interested cabal, because it seems that the government simply cannot comprehend the idea of academics whose main motivation is to keep our universities strong and successful, and to ensure that we do not introduce potentially damaging changes with inadequate evidence.

deevybee
Via timeshighereducation.com


Send to

Letters should be sent to: THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in Times Higher Education should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

Monster behind man at desk

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. Here three students relate PhD nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision

opinion illustration

Eliminating cheating services, even if it were possible, would do nothing to address students’ and universities’ lack of interest in learning, says Stuart Macdonald

Female professor

New data show proportion of professors who are women has declined at some institutions

Reflection of man in cracked mirror

To defend the values of reason from political attack we need to be more discriminating about the claims made in its name, says John Hendry

But the highest value UK spin-off companies mainly come from research-intensive universities, latest figures show