Student recruitment cuts at poor performers as TEF ‘given teeth’

An overhauled Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) will have “real regulatory bite” to bring an end to “poor courses” giving the sector a bad name, according to the co-chief executives of the Office for Students (OfS).

Revised proposals for the new English quality system unveiled on 22 October will see those dubbed below par subjected to harsher sanctions than first planned, with enforced reductions on student recruitment being mooted.

High achievers could enjoy a batch of incentives for scoring well – including eligibility for tuition fee uplifts determined by the Department for Education (DfE) – and exclusive access to public funding streams.

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Ruth Hannant and Polly Payne, who took up their roles at the regulator over the summer, said the new proposals showed that the OfS would not shy away from addressing the issues facing the sector.

The regulator is in the midst of revising the way it assesses quality across the sector, bringing together its “boots on the ground” investigations with the TEF, aiming to give students a clear view of the quality of teaching and learning being delivered.

All registered providers will now be judged on whether they meet “minimum requirements” and will be given a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory. They will also be encouraged to participate in the TEF, which will assess both student outcomes and experience.

These providers will be given a bronze, silver or gold award across both broad areas, with those failing to show quality told they “require improvement”.

Those receiving this lowest rating will face enforced cuts to student numbers, with their ability to recruit reduced “by 10 per cent every year”, according to an OfS consultation document.

This is a harsher penalty than the cap on recruitment first proposed by the regulator in June. Providers with a bronze award in student outcomes or experience will still face a freeze.

Highly rated providers could be given exclusive access to the Strategic Priorities Grant, a fund for supporting the costs of teaching in higher education, and other incentives such as an easier route to degree-awarding powers.

Payne said the revised framework had “more of a focus on poor courses”.

“Our worry is that because of the small number of bad courses within the great majority of good courses, it’s tarnishing the reputation of higher education,” she told THE.

Referencing a recent British Social Attitudes survey, Payne said a third of people think going to university is not worth the time and money.

“That’s worrying because for the vast majority of students it is worth the time and money. I can see why, if you have these poor courses, it tarnishes the whole thing. That really worries me, especially that students from a more socio-economically deprived background don’t understand the benefits they could get and they miss out.

“That’s one of the drivers of this… really stamping out poor provision.”

Asked whether this means accepting that some institutions facing recruitment restrictions could close as a result, Payne said: “If they don’t perform well, [then yes]. At the end of the day, it’s all about students. If they’re not being served well, if damage is being done to them, that’s what we’ve got to think about all the time.”

Hannant said: “We’re bringing real regulatory bite to this because we’re determined to use it to tackle these issues.”

She added that a poor course is one that “isn’t serving the student undertaking it”. This “could be a course which doesn’t have strong academic oversight, which doesn’t have sufficient assessment...where the teaching itself is not very good quality”.

“But also, I think really importantly, the outcomes that students can get from that course, that will enable them to achieve their goals.”

When the previous version of the TEF was run, few established universities received lower ratings. Asked if more should expect to be more harshly marked this time, Hannant said: “Our expectation is absolutely that we will look to apply this really rigorously. Where providers are not delivering the sort of quality that we want to see, we will be very clear that they either require improvement or, if they don’t have a TEF assessment, that their provision is unsatisfactory.”

The pair said that despite some scepticism over the extent to which the ratings cut through to the people they are meant to inform – with a 2019 DfE survey finding only 43 per cent of students were aware of the TEF at the time they applied – they believed in its value.

“I think that information needs to be there for students but also for those guiding students, whether that’s their parents or teachers or other people helping them,” said Payne.

“The vast majority of students” that she met, Payne added, “were so clued up…[and] did know all about the TEF.”

georgia.luckhurst@timeshighereducation.com