Harnessing the feel-good factor of Team GB’s medal haul at the 2012 London Olympics, the use of gold, silver and bronze ratings in England’s first Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) in 2016 was broadly welcomed by UK universities – especially the marketing teams of gold medallists.
But a survey of university applicants published by the Office for Students last week suggests that the ratings have not been as eye-catching among students as had been hoped.
It found that just 42 per cent of applicants knew the TEF ratings of any of the universities they were interested in, and only 55 per cent of current students (and 51 per cent of undergraduates) knew their university’s rating.
But among those who knew the ratings, 73 per cent said they were at least “slightly important” in their decision-making. Of those, 88 per cent said a gold rating would make them more likely to apply to an institution and 34 per cent said a bronze would make them less likely to.
And when it comes to deciding between offers, those numbers rise to 90 and 50 per cent respectively among the 79 per cent who think TEF ratings are at least slightly important in making their decision.
One major issue with single-word gradings is that they rely on data dashboards, combined with provider and student submissions. These, in turn, inform an expert panel decision accompanied by a detailed report. However, do any prospective students look beyond the university headline TEF gradings? The survey suggests that not many do. Of those who saw the TEF rating, only 32 per cent accessed the OfS website to get more information about the university's TEF rating, 27 per cent read the university’s TEF submission and 22 per cent read its students’ submission.
Hence, rich contextual data is often overlooked, which may lead to poorly informed decision-making.
In addition, the process for assigning the single-word grades can seem opaque and confusing. For instance, some institutions achieved different overall gradings in TEF 2023 despite being awarded the same profiles for student experience and outcomes. For instance, of those institutions that achieved a silver in student experience and a bronze in student outcomes, nine were awarded a bronze overall and another nine got a silver. Such differences cause significant confusion and grievance, particularly for those less familiar with the TEF assessment process.
Another cause for concern is that the current four-year TEF life cycle assumes a degree of institutional stability that might have been true in 2016, but cost pressures have forced UK universities to scale back spending on all aspects of the student experience – from library provision to resources for student support services. Hence, if the TEF 2023 were to be repeated today, it seems likely that different student experience gradings would be awarded, which in turn could change an institution’s overall grading. This is perhaps particularly likely for any institutions that were borderline in terms of their overall grading.
Consequently, interim updates to the TEF should be considered when significant changes occur. Without them, prospective students who focus on TEF gradings might be making decisions based on inaccurate information.
It is also worth considering how catch-all gradings – particularly the dreaded “requires improvement” – have the potential to worsen the mental health and well-being of staff already embattled by widespread cuts. This discussion has new urgency given that the schools inspector, Ofsted, has dropped single-word gradings following the tragic case of head teacher Ruth Perry, who took her life after her school was unexpectedly graded “inadequate”.
The dynamics of the TEF are similar to Ofsted inspections given that institutional appeals can take many months to resolve (as was the case with TEF 2023). In such circumstances, TEF authorship team members are obliged to keep the outcome confidential, reducing their access to the usual sources of peer support, both within and beyond their institution.
As a previous member of such a team, however, I found the writing process incredibly valuable. The student submission and TEF panel report provided rich, valuable insights into how teaching and learning processes and approaches might be enhanced. By removing single-word gradings, the TEF could encourage greater engagement with these reports. In turn, this would afford a better understanding among university applicants of contextual factors that affect institutional performance.
Stripped of institutional single-word gradings, TEF reports would become analogous to Osted’s new “school report card” being introduced as part of the reforms to their inspections. A TEF report card could also include a brief annual report or log of developments (both positive and negative) since the original assessment that would impact student experience, such as significant changes in staffing or the closure of flagship departments. Such reporting would need to be proportionate and light-touch, however: the OfS research found that the average provider already spent 116 days of staff time on TEF 2023 submissions.
In no way am I proposing that the jeopardy for institutions be taken out of the TEF. Accountability is important, and students need to be helped to make well-informed decisions about which university would suit them best. I simply argue that medal ratings are not the way to do that. I acknowledge that some readers may lack the time or motivation to read a full TEF report card, but different ways of presenting headline information, such as via infographics, could be considered.
That way, students would derive a better understanding of different institutional contexts – and universities would not have to waste so much time and money appealing ratings that mean comparatively little and yet matter so much – at least to those applicants paying attention.
Steve Briggs is director of learning and teaching excellence at University of Bedfordshire.
