Governance News Alert: Office for Students (OfS): Future approach to quality regulation: Consultation outcomes

The document sets out the decisions taken on the future approach to regulating the quality of higher education in England and details the principles, scope and structure of the updated Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). The TEF consultation ran in autumn/winter 2025. Some 220 written responses were received from providers, including large, small, specialist, and further education providers; mission groups and sector bodies; students and students’ unions; charities, societies and other organisations; and individuals from academic and reporting backgrounds. The OfS also gathered feedback on the proposals through a series of online and in-person events.

The consultation outcomes document can be found here

At-a-glance:

• Each institution registered with the OfS will be assessed on “student experience” and “student outcomes”, where sufficient data allows (p5)
• The scope and ratings criteria for the student experience aspect will be aligned with the requirements of conditions B1, B2 and the ‘effective assessment’ element of B4 (see Advance HE news alert). It will be assessed on the basis of provider submissions, an expanded set of NSS-based indicators, and additional evidence from students (p5)
• The student outcomes aspect will be rated on benchmarked indicators of continuation, completion (but not progression) and an expanded set of post-study indicators, and taking additional context into account. There will be no overall rating. Providers will receive ratings for student experience and student outcomes (p5)
• Institutions that meet minimum requirements will be awarded Bronze. Institutions working to deliver high levels of quality above this baseline will be awarded Gold and Silver ratings. Institutions where quality falls short of the minimum requirements will be rated as “Requires Improvement” (p22)
• Student recruitment limits will be imposed on those rated Bronze or Requires improvement and the OfS will intervene as appropriate to ensure improvements are made (p68)
• The OfS will introduce incentives linked to ratings. It will consult further on incentives and interventions in the autumn, including on linking Silver and Gold TEF ratings with eligibility for certain funding streams, for example world-leading specialist provider funding (p68)
• The OfS will assess nearly all providers for the first time within three years. The TEF will then operate on a cyclical basis, with institutions with lower ratings being assessed more frequently.  In the first year (2027-28), it will assess all providers with an existing aspect rating of Requires Improvement or Bronze (p6)
• Undergraduate provision will be assessed in the first cycle of assessments. The scope will be extended to include postgraduate taught provision in the second cycle. Apprenticeship provision will also be included in the first cycle of TEF assessments (p4)
• The TEF assessments will be conducted by an evolving pool of expert academic and student assessors, supported and advised by OfS staff (p5)
• The TEF will not rate the student outcomes aspect or the student experience aspect where the OfS does not have sufficient statistical confidence in the indicators for a provider. Each provider will only be rated for whichever aspects the OfS has sufficient data indicators for (p6)
• The OfS will revise and simplify the minimum requirements for student outcomes (condition B3), and integrate into the future TEF an assessment of whether a provider meets them (p5)

Implications for governance:

The refreshed TEF presents significant risks and opportunities for universities and colleges. In its new iteration, the governance implications of the TEF extend well beyond considerations of strategy, reputation and marketing to, potentially, student recruitment limits and access to funding streams.

One of the main concerns about the refreshed TEF was the proposal in the Government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, published in October 2025, to link the quality ratings to tuition fee limits.

The OfS report does not confirm this link and points out that the White Paper was published while the TEF consultation was still live. However, there will be “incentives” for higher quality going forward. A consultation to run in the autumn will include a plan to link Silver and Gold ratings with eligibility for certain funding streams, for instance world-leading specialist provider funding.

Of equal interest to boards will be the decision to impose student recruitment limits on providers given Bronze and Requires Improvement ratings. The report does not give details of what these limits would be and how they would be applied. Further consultation will be undertaken on the mechanism, and on the extent to which these limits would be applied “automatically” or more flexibly to Bronze ratings. 

Responses to the consultation warned of potentially serious consequences from such interventions. Restricting funding or growth for lower-rated providers was seen as likely to reduce their ability to invest in quality enhancement and increase financial pressures on institutions that are already stretched. Respondents warned that capping student recruitment in combination with capping student fees could lead to a downward spiral that would undermine both educational quality and financial sustainability, and could potentially lead to market exit. 

There was also concern that the interventions could disadvantage providers that serve underrepresented groups, where outcomes are shaped by structural or socioeconomic factors beyond the provider’s control. Some feared that smaller providers with limited resources could be disproportionately affected by financial restrictions. Concerns were also raised that limiting student recruitment could worsen cold spots in provision, or affect equality of opportunity in regions that are already underserved. 

Some changes to the original proposals that the regulator has made following the consultation are likely to be welcomed, however. The student outcomes aspect of the rating will be based on benchmarked indicators of continuation and completion, but not on progression. In its reasoning, the OfS said it had recognised that progression to employment in particular can be influenced by factors outside a provider’s control. 

TEF assessments will also make use of benchmarked indicators which take account of a range of factors outside of a provider’s control, including socioeconomic background and regional contexts. Further context submitted by the provider will also be considered by TEF assessment teams. 

For these reasons, the OfS rejected concerns that institutions with a high proportion of disadvantaged students would be inherently disadvantaged in the scheme, pointing out that the OfS student outcomes and TEF data dashboards include a number of providers that recruit high volumes of disadvantaged students and exceed the minimum thresholds and their benchmarks, and therefore can achieve the highest TEF ratings. Boards will need to weigh up the concerns raised against this OfS reasoning and some of its more favourable decisions, to decide how they consider their own institution may be affected. 

Some consultation responses also raised concerns about the limitations of the NSS data as a basis for the student experience rating. While acknowledging that the NSS is a survey of perceptions, the OfS reiterated its importance as a source of information and pointed out that it is only part of the evidence considered, alongside evidence in the provider and student submissions. 

“If a provider or its students feel particular NSS themes do not capture elements of their academic experience, they will have the opportunity to reflect on this and provide other relevant evidence or insights in their submissions,” it said.

The OfS also plans to undertake work to improve the availability and coverage of the NSS indicators for more providers over time, including considering how it might extend the NSS to students on one-year courses.

At a time when finances are stretched, and redundancy and/or transformation programmes are in place at many institutions, ensuring good oversight of the elements that feed into teaching excellence can be much more challenging. As in previous TEFs, governing boards must have confidence that their academic quality assurance is robust and that they have effective policies, processes and procedures in place to maintain and improve the student experience and outcomes.