Business, Innovation and Skills Committee
Oral evidence: Assessing quality in Higher Education
HC 572-iii
Tuesday 8 December 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 8 December 2015.
Witnesses including written evidence where submitted:
At 10.15am:
Members present: Mr Iain Wright (Chair), Richard Fuller, Paul Blomfield, Amanda Milling, Amanda Solloway, Jo Stevens, Kelly Tolhurst, Craig Tracey, Chris White
Questions [131- 215]
Witnesses: Professor Madeleine Atkins CBE, Chief Executive, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Douglas Blackstock, Chief Executive, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Professor Les Ebdon, Director of Fair Access to Higher Education, Office for Fair Access (OFFA), Rob Behrens, Independent Adjudicator and Chief Executive, Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), and Professor Stephanie Marshall, Chief Executive Officer, Higher Education Academy (HEA), gave evidence.
Q131 Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for sharing some time with the Select Committee and for giving us your insight into assessing quality in higher education. For the purposes of the record, could you tell us who you are and where you come from, starting with you, Madeleine?
Professor Atkins: I am Madeleine Atkins. I am the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Douglas Blackstock: I am Douglas Blackstock. I am interim Chief Executive of the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Professor Ebdon: I am Les Ebdon, Director of Fair Access to Higher Education.
Rob Behrens: Good morning. I am Rob Behrens. I am the ombudsman for higher education for the OIA.
Professor Marshall: I am Stephanie Marshall. I am the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Academy.
Q132 Chair: Mr Blackstock, may I start with you? HEFCE is proposing changes in how quality assurance is carried out. The Minister is suggesting the introduction of a teaching excellence framework designed to raise quality. What have you done wrong?
Douglas Blackstock: I do not believe we have done anything wrong, and I am not sure anyone has said we have. The ambition that colleagues in HEFCE and the other funding bodies have set out is to look for a quality system that is fit for the next 10 years, building on the strength of the current system. If you look at the proposals the Minister has set out for the teaching excellence framework, the first level of the TEF is based on a successful QA review. We are building on strengths. What we are trying to do is to move forward with improvement and to keep the high standards and high quality of the UK system.
Q133 Chair: You believe there are high standards in the quality‑assurance regime now. It is not a failing system.
Douglas Blackstock: No, it is a world‑class system. It is emulated in many other countries. If you take the example of QAA, at the moment we have been commissioned and contracted to run the Hong Kong University Grants Committee’s university audit programme, because of the reputation we have. Last week I met the executive director of the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications, and she said, “We look constantly to QA in the UK to see what good practice is.” We are internationally renowned.
There was a recent article published online by the British Council in which the chief executive of the Knowledge and Human Development Authority in Dubai set out the high standing that QAA is held in. We have a good system, but what we are trying to do is to raise the bar and make the system even better.
Q134 Chair: In terms of the new regime that will be coming out, as regards to what HEFCE wants to do and what the Minister wants to do, what are the elements of the existing system we should retain and what improvements should we be making?
Douglas Blackstock: To start with, we retain the UK‑wide academic infrastructure that is set out in the quality code. That is something that helps us, across the nations of the UK, to have a common understanding of what a degree looks like and to have a common understanding of what good learning, teaching and assessment looks like. Most importantly, it provides confidence to you in Parliament, and to students, employers and professional bodies, that we have high‑quality institutions in the UK.
In terms of where we can improve, we all agree that we need to make more effort to make the system more risk‑based and more proportionate so that we focus attention—by “attention”, I mean both scrutiny and support—on those institutions that need it more so that we do not have a one‑size‑fits‑all system where we look at every institution as if it were exactly the same, but actually take their track record into account.
Q135 Chair: Is that in contrast to what has been proposed by HEFCE, Professor Atkins? The proposed annual checks do not sound proportionate and risk‑based. How will that work in relation to what QAA is doing and what the Minister wants to achieve?
Professor Atkins: Thank you for the question. By the way, I would say that, indeed, our proposals are for the next decade. We are looking at an increasingly diverse sector with new providers, many different types of students and many different types of provision. This is not in any way a criticism of the past. I would just like to endorse that point.
In terms of how the system can work in the future, we have good responses to our consultation and strong endorsement of just about all the proposals in there. Indeed, we need to wait for the responses to the Green Paper to see how the TEF part is going to be seen by the sector and take account of that. We then need to move that forward as a single system in design, working closely with BIS to achieve that.
Q136 Chair: What is your initial assessment? At the start of your answer, you mentioned the huge diversity in the higher education sector. How do you have a common set of metrics and a common teaching excellence framework, given that huge diversity? What recommendations would you be providing to us?
Professor Atkins: Again, if I may echo what Douglas has just said, we need a common set of criteria for entry into the higher education sector against which any new provider can be assessed. That is really important to get some commonality across the sector. In terms of the quality assessment part, our recommendations are very much to see that each provider should be in a dynamic of continuous improvement against the mission, the location and the nature of their student body, very much reflecting the uniqueness and diversity of the sector.
On top of that, you bring in a teaching excellence framework that looks at the assessment of the teaching excellence bit right on top of that. In terms of whether you can have a common set of metrics that informs the teaching excellence framework element, as opposed to the metrics that an institution may be using itself to assess its own performance and to see where it needs to improve, there are a number of mitigations. For example, we would recommend to BIS that metrics are very carefully benchmarked so that, for each provider, account is taken of the characteristics of the student body, their location and so on when looking at what those metrics are saying. There should be an expert panel that can bring judgment to bear on the metrics, alongside the narrative from each particular provider. You are not just doing a tick‑list kind of approach on metrics that may not be as valid or robust as one might wish.
Q137 Chair: This is a question to all of you. The Minister suggests that teaching provision is patchy and could even be lamentable. Everybody agrees with the idea of continuous improvement when it comes to teaching quality. Is this a major problem in our higher education system? Is teaching provision poor? Professor Marshall, perhaps I could come to you.
Professor Marshall: Thank you very much for the question. At the Higher Education Academy, we promote teaching excellence. It is our mission; it is what we do at the strategic level with institutions and at the individual level. In terms of patchiness, I am minded of Mr Blackstock’s comment on what good looks like. Quality is what good looks like. What we are aiming to do is to push for great, which is what excellence looks like.
In terms of patchiness, one of the big issues across the sector now is that we have a lot of good, but we want to be great. We have an international reputation, and we do not want to damage that reputation—we want to enhance and to keep driving that reputation. Internationally, we are looked at as being leaders in higher education. We have the recognition in terms of the metrics with respect to research. We are striving now and welcoming the TEF as an opportunity to do that with teaching as well.
However, in terms of the patchiness, it is because we have a number of outstanding teachers now. What they are doing in terms of meeting the needs of diverse learners is exceptional. What they are doing in terms of some of their initiatives in supporting the WP agenda is remarkable, but we want that to be common across the piece. That is something the TEF will help achieve.
Rob Behrens: Good morning. What we see are complaints from students who feel that they have not had satisfaction from their universities. We are the classic ombudsman service. We will only look at those complaints where the internal processes have been exhausted. Very importantly, the Act of 2004 says that we cannot look at academic judgments. A lot of teaching is about the exercise of an academic judgment. What we need to say in respect of that is that an academic judgment is not whatever a teacher happens to say at any particular time. We do get a minority of complaints about the quality of teaching in universities, which we are prepared to look at because the student claims that the university has not delivered what it promised in the prospectus. That is the benchmark we use.
If, for example, a university promises a course in British and American history and there is no American history in it, that is a reasonable issue to criticise the university about. If a university promises that engineering students will build a racing car in their second year and they do not provide the facilities to do so, that is a legitimate criticism. There are issues, but most of the complaints we get are not about the teaching itself; they are about the outcomes of teaching in terms of the degree classification.
Q138 Chair: You would suggest, then, that that is a reflection of the fact that, in the main, teaching quality in higher education is good.
Rob Behrens: I am not in a position to say that, because I look at cases where things go wrong. In the majority of cases we look at—more than 55%—we find the cases are not justified.
Q139 Chair: If there were systematic failings in higher education teaching, you would presumably be picking that up.
Rob Behrens: We would be, and we would pass it on straightaway to the QAA.
Q140 Chair: You are not finding that, however.
Rob Behrens: We occasionally find it and we have passed things on to the QAA, but that is not a key issue for us at the moment.
Professor Ebdon: I would postulate that, by and large, teaching is very good in our universities. However, the key issue is that there is now a changed dynamic. Now that students are paying fees, they have every right to expect excellence in teaching. We need to respond to that. We also need to raise the status of teaching at our universities. The research excellence framework has raised the status of research and demonstrably improved research in the UK. The hope is that the teaching excellence framework will do the same.
In terms of patchiness, there are some significant attainment gaps that worry me in my role as Director of Fair Access. There are attainment gaps for disadvantaged students, who appear to do less well in university than those from advantaged backgrounds. There is a quite shameful attainment gap for those from some minority ethnic groups. Why should male students with Caribbean heritage underperform by about 25% in terms of their classification of degree, even when you normalise for entry requirements? That is clearly something to which we need to attend.
My hope is that, by having a series of metrics in the teaching excellence framework that are differentiated by disadvantage and by other characteristics, we will be able to identify those institutions that are excellent in terms of teaching for a diversity of students and, indeed, we will see others raise their game as they want to be regarded as excellent. The way we design the teaching excellence framework is terribly important in terms of attending to those attainment gaps and making sure that widening participation and access is really enhanced by having a TEF.
Q141 Chair: We will come on to widening participation and the TEF in a moment. Mr Blackstock, do you want to comment?
Douglas Blackstock: QAA, in its assurance processes, actually finds many examples of good practice in learning and teaching, as well as finding concerns. That is actually what external assurance is there to do: to find and highlight good practice to help institutions to raise the bar and, when we find failing practice, to work with institutions on action plans to help them to improve.
To give you some examples, in the first two years of QAA’s higher education review, we highlighted 295 good-practice examples across a range of colleges and universities in learning and teaching. Rob, however, mentioned our QAA concerns scheme. In 2014‑15, 55% of allegations we investigated were about learning and teaching, but that is only 18 examples. It is a high proportion of the concerns scheme, but there are only 18 examples. What we have found, particularly in those new and alternative providers that we review for the Home Office and BIS, is that volatility in the teaching staff actually leads to issues where we find an unsatisfactory judgment.
Q142 Chair: Can I push you on this? That is very important. We took evidence from UCU last week. Does volatility in this mean casualisation? Does this mean zero‑hours contracts?
Douglas Blackstock: It means regular changes of teaching staff. It means teaching staff who have little or no experience. Those are the sorts of issues we have highlighted. We have published a report on that, which I will send you through if you would welcome that.
Q143 Chair: That would be very helpful. Professor Atkins, do you have anything to add?
Professor Atkins: Only that it would be a brave Vice-Chancellor, Chancellor or Principal who asserted that the learning and teaching was absolutely excellent right across the institution that she or he was responsible for. The whole thrust of our QA recommendations and proposals is the continuous improvement dynamic.
Having said that, if I may just pick up one other point Mr Behrens made, again, our proposals around external examining are very much directed in support of the student and employer interests, and in making sure that the standard of our degrees has the integrity and the reputational clout that it should have. There is nothing more important than the integrity of those degree standards.
Q144 Chris White: I take it from what you have said as a panel that you see the TEF as a positive step forward. Professor Atkins, you talked about bringing “judgment to bear”, and I wondered whether you could define and expand on that a little bit. Professor Marshall, you talked about reputation being damaged, and I would like to understand what you mean by that phrase. Mr Behrens, you have talked about academic judgment. Generally, in terms of systems failing and integrity, something like the TEF as a framework would provide some of this clearer judgment and integrity. What are your thoughts on those points?
Professor Atkins: The concept of “judgment” is about expert peer judgment being brought to bear on the metrics, properly contextualised and benchmarked, on the one hand, against the narrative that each provider will put into the TEF about themselves on the other—what is their mission; what are they are trying to achieve; and what are the good things that they want to bring to the attention of that panel?
As we do with the REF, it is about bringing the exercise of expert judgment to bear, rather than having a mechanistic tick‑list approach to whether or not an organisation is deemed to have teaching excellence. It is important, because we have this tension—I know this has been brought to your attention in previous hearings—between, on the one hand, a desire for light touch and, on the other hand, a desire that the TEF should fully embrace and give due weight to the diversity of providers.
Those are the intentions. One of the ways to bring those two things together is to make sure that there is the application of expert peer judgment in the decisions about that excellence.
Q145 Chris White: Before the other panel members come in, you talk about a tick list, which is generally seen as a disparaging phrase, but a tick list could also be seen as common criteria that institutions could be measured on. Would that not be a better phrase to use?
Professor Atkins: Certainly, yes, if you wish. The point I was trying to make was that when you have such diversity of providers in the sector, it is very difficult to have a simple, mechanistic process that determines whether or not somebody is excellent, or the extent of that excellence. You really need to bring human judgment to bear—that was the point I was trying to make. Certainly, there are suggestions in the Green Paper as to certain essential criteria that a provider would need to meet to enter the TEF process. One of those is compliance with the Competition and Markets Authority requirements around information, for example. That would indeed be a tick list.
Professor Marshall: I would like to build on what Professor Atkins has said in terms of the tick list. I would define it as not about systems improvement, whereby one has a list and you can tick that the systems are in place to assure the quality exists, but rather it is about behavioural and cultural changes. There is a big difference between quality assurance and what the TEF is proposing to do. Quality assurance is very much the gateway into the TEF and, at the moment, the TEF is deemed to be voluntary. Certainly, working with our Pro‑Vice-Chancellor Network—pro‑vice-chancellors being the executive lead for the institutions’ strategic leadership teaching and student experience goals—it is very much about reputational enhancement. They will engage with the TEF because they see it as a valuable means of enhancing the reputation of the institution.
Rob Behrens: I have four things in response to what you had to say. You used the word “integrity”; I would use the word “trust”. The TEF would be important in managing the expectations of students in terms of what they can expect from their programmes, and that is a good thing. It will address the issue of the status of teaching in institutions. We know the NSS scores on assessment run very far behind the scores of overall satisfaction. There is something to address there. It is also important that there is a proportionate approach to all this. We need to have value for money and not an overtly bureaucratic response.
Also—this is very easy to say but very difficult to address—there need to be no perverse incentives in the TEF. That will need to be looked at very carefully and discussed, and perhaps even trialled. From our perspective at the OIA, there need to be meaningful benchmarks that actually have a reflection on complaints and appeals-handling, which is a feature of teaching. This needs to be included in either the TEF itself or in the kitemark, which is also raised in the Green Paper.
Q146 Jo Stevens: You mentioned “perverse incentives”. I wanted to ask you all about the driver for linking tuition fees to teaching excellence in the Green Paper. What are your views on that?
Professor Atkins: Ultimately, that has to be a question for the Government and the Minister. We do not have a role in the decision about where fees are set. I am aware that there is a range of views in the sector on that topic. From our point of view, as the regulator we are concerned with the financial health of the sector and of individual providers. In the medium term, the concerns that worry us the most are the pattern of things such as increased borrowing, decreasing liquidity and very fine margins or surpluses that are heavily dependent on international student recruitment. In a sense, as the regulator, our focus is around financial issues. It is a Government decision as to what the fee cap should be.
Douglas Blackstock: I would agree with Madeleine that the decision on linking TEF with fees is an issue for the Government. What QAA is clear on is that judgments about quality should not be driven by funding policy. However, I fully accept that decisions about funding could be driven by quality outcomes. It is important that the independent judgments we make about the quality of institutions are not in any way driven by the fees regime.
Professor Ebdon: Decisions about fees are a Government issue, frankly, although I note that Parliament also votes on them, so Members have an opportunity there.
Q147 Chair: We will not be given the proposals, though, Professor Ebdon. This will be in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than Parliament.
Professor Ebdon: You will need to agree that before it happens.
Chair: Let us see what happens.
Professor Ebdon: Obviously, there must come a time when the fee levels put disadvantaged students off going to university. The evidence is that we have not reached that point. We have seen a 60% increase in the most disadvantaged students going on to higher education since 2006. We are seeing really quite dramatic improvements in disadvantaged students going.
There is still a long way to go, but the Government, of course, have a target of doubling the numbers of disadvantaged students in higher education compared to 2009 by the end of this Parliament. Therefore, one is cautious about fee rises, but at the moment that does not seem to have affected take‑up by disadvantaged students.
Q148 Jo Stevens: Will there be a tipping point at which the level of debt incurred will start to narrow access rather than widen it?
Professor Ebdon: If you look to the United States, there is some evidence they have reached that kind of position. There, of course, you have a very different system with much higher levels of fees and a much less generous repayment system. There will also, of course, be a concern in the Treasury that the higher the debt goes, the less of it will be repaid. There should be a caution there as well.
Rob Behrens: I agree with everyone else that this is a matter for the Government. At the OIA, we want the TEF to be supported and to succeed. It is clear that it would probably have greater support, from the evidence I have seen to the Committee so far, if it were not linked to fees. One perverse incentive is to see the TEF as a backdoor to increasing the financial clout of the university, which is not what it is designed to do. Your report will be important in reflecting on that.
Professor Marshall: As the Higher Education Academy, our PVC Network is against the fees linkage, particularly the network group that has been looking at the TEF and working with us on what we would like that to look like and how it would roll out. We are satisfied that, in the first instance, a linkage of TEF against a successful quality judgment is fair. Beyond that, however, we are agreed that it undermines the integrity of the TEF, and the TEF is about reputational enhancement.
Putting yourself in the shoes of students, for example, what might a student think when, suddenly, their institution loses the banding they have? If they have a gold banding, what does that mean to them? What does it mean to employers? What does it mean to the reputation of the institution? What does it mean internationally? There is a huge raft of risks we have gone through at the HEA with our PVC Network. We would recommend that it be decoupled, as mission group heads reported to this Committee last week.
Q149 Jo Stevens: Given those risks identified, when you had your deliberations, were there any mitigation steps that you thought would remove those risks, either entirely or partially?
Professor Marshall: I have to say that we found ourselves quite stuck. When we were looking at an example of moving to TEF3, which is supposed to be at the subject level, our fear was that if one particular subject was downgraded as a result of TEF and some perhaps upgraded, what would that mean when you have an institution where fees are high in one area and low in another? In terms of competing for students, perhaps that is fair enough. However, in terms of the overall grading of the institution that was being proposed, we thought that was unfair and very, very damaging to the reputation—damaging to the reputation for students who are perhaps already in employment and would find out that their institution had been downgraded.
Q150 Paul Blomfield: I wonder whether I could probe a little on Jo’s question and then move on to a couple of others points. I understand the reluctance to comment given the way the question was posed. Can I ask a slightly different one? The argument runs that the REF and its financial rewards incentivise a positive attitude towards research in universities and a focus on research. Therefore, linking tuition fee increases to the TEF will focus universities on teaching quality. Do any of you think that giving the universities the opportunity to increase fees by the current inflation rate is going to transform the approach to teaching quality in the sector? Are our universities not bothered about teaching quality as it is?
Douglas Blackstock: Universities are bothered. Universities put great effort into it. The work of Stephanie’s organisation, supported by universities, to raise professional standards is testament to that. Universities are working really hard.
Q151 Paul Blomfield: Can I interrupt you? Will giving universities the opportunity to increase fees in line with inflation be a game changer in terms of their focus on teaching quality?
Douglas Blackstock: I do not know that it would be a game changer on its own. The reputational advantages of the TEF would be an added incentive.
Professor Ebdon: Initially, the sums would be quite small. It would not be a significant incentive. However, over a five‑year period, of course, they would mount up to a significant difference for institutions. Regarding the REF—speaking, perhaps, as a former vice-chancellor rather than as Director of Fair Access—the major motivator for my kind of university going into the REF is reputational. It is terribly important, particularly with international recruitment, to have a strong research reputation in certain areas. The money was kind of a bonus. That will be what happens in the TEF: reputation will be really important.
Universities are very competitive. They will go into the TEF for reputation. One or two universities might think their reputation is so high they can stand aside from TEF for the first few years. We saw that with the national student survey, but everybody joins in that now. That will be the pattern.
Q152 Paul Blomfield: So far, the impression we have gained is that there has been, particularly in recent years, an increasing focus—probably because of reputation and the competitive environment—on teaching quality anyway. None of you think that linking fees to the TEF would have significant impact; the concern is already there is in the sector.
Professor Marshall: Could I just follow up on the whole notion of professional standards? When we go back to 2012 and look at the raising of fees within England, as Douglas said, there was a huge push then with huge investment in terms of raising the game on the teaching and learning front. Certainly my organisation, which accredits programmes for new teaching and CPD programmes, has seen a massive rise in the number of teaching staff in higher education qualified to teach. Now, beyond 25% of staff are qualified to teach. We have over two thirds of universities that have CPD schemes. The drive for excellence is there right from the top; however, it is the reputation that is making all the difference.
I have an anecdote that might be useful here. One vice-chancellor said to me, “We will never be able to compete in the REF, but, by God, we are going to pull out all the stops to compete in the TEF.” It was not about money. In that sense, it will be a bit of a game changer, irrespective of the fees linkage. In fact, I would say that the fees linkage is what would complicate and undermine the integrity of the TEF, as I say. However, there is a real will in terms of reputational gain to be had by this and to be able to showcase what they have put a huge amount of effort into. We see it, though, as continuous improvement and continuous development.
Q153 Chair: Professor Marshall, you made a really important point there. Forgive my ignorance; I do not know whether I am getting mixed messages. Are you suggesting that in the four years since we have had the tuition fees increase that that has pushed the higher education sector to think, “Teaching really matters”? Is there a direct correlation between the ability to raise fees—triple fees since 2011‑12—and the emphasis on teaching? Have you seen an improvement in teaching excellence since that time?
Professor Marshall: Yes, we have. However, a multitude of factors is at play there. Certainly, our role in the global market is a key factor. The ever‑changing learning landscape is also exceptionally important. We live in a digital world now, so patterns of teaching that might have suited the likes of me when I was at university are no longer appropriate. Knowledge is ubiquitous. We have to help our students to navigate the digital world in terms of drawing upon knowledge. We also have to encourage our students to learn how to learn.
With a diverse set of learners and looking at the WP agenda as well, we are not talking about traditional 18‑year-olds either. We have to be able to devise pedagogies that are appropriate to suit a really diverse range of learners. It has really required a lot of continuing professional development on the part of institutions to be able to upskill their staff. The upskilling of staff has been a major piece. Once again, the raising of fees has helped in terms of universities then thinking, “Let us put some investment into this as well, because there are so many factors suggesting we really do need to raise our game.”
Chair: I am sorry I interrupted you, Paul.
Q154 Paul Blomfield: No, that was helpful.
May I move on to a different area? One of the things that has come out of our deliberations so far is about learning gain. Is that the best way of looking at teaching excellence? If so, how do we do it effectively? Obviously, HEFCE is doing some work on that. I wondered whether you could share with us, Professor Atkins, how that is looking. How might that inform the measurement of teaching excellence?
Professor Atkins: The first thing to say is that we have just set up the pilot and it is just now under way. Clearly, I cannot prejudge what the outcome of that work will be yet. The potential benefit in the context of continuous improvement within an institution and, indeed, teaching excellence judgments is that the measures being trialled are closer to actual learning and teaching than some of the proxies we currently have databases for that are potentially going into the TEF. Potentially, it is a compensating aspect of a basket of measures.
The important point to make is that it is probably not a silver bullet. What we are looking for is whether these measures being trialled have credibility. Are they robust? Do they do the things they say they do? Are they better used singularly or in combination? We have a number of consortia trying out very different approaches to how you might measure learning gain.
If I take one consortium, for example, it is using a measure from North America known as the CLA—the Collegiate Learning Assessment—which looks at things like problem solving, analytical capabilities, writing skills and so on. It looks at what that tells it against a self‑assessment by students of their confidence in learning, or their motivation or engagement to learn, and then also against actual marks attained on particular types of work. By bringing all three together, you get a sense of whether you can use a particular tool to stand for learning gain or not.
It is important that we let those pilots go through. Some of them are over three years. They are tracking a whole cohort of students through their time as undergraduates, from beginning to end, and we need to see what comes out from that. However, we are not alone as a country in being really interested in these kinds of measures, as we move from looking at processes and systems to looking at student outcomes from their learning and their time at university or college. This absolutely is part of a global movement to try to find better ways of assessing learning gain.
Q155 Paul Blomfield: Are any other countries ahead of us within that global movement, or is that what your pilots are trying to assess?
Professor Atkins: There has certainly been some work done in North America, particularly around this instrument known as CLA. There have been some attempts to look at it within Europe, but that has not, perhaps, gone very far—indeed, it has now been suspended. I would say that in this country we are probably at the leading edge of trialling and trying to establish the credibility and validity of these instruments—as I say, either singularly or in combination—and I do know that other countries are watching this with enormous interest.
Q156 Paul Blomfield: You say that these studies are over a two or three‑year period. They clearly will not assist in terms of TEF1. TEF1 looks as though it will be light touch. Can these studies assist in informing how we move forward with TEF2 and beyond?
Professor Atkins: That would be the hope, certainly by the time we get to TEF3 and maybe even at TEF2. Indeed, one of the areas in the Green Paper where we are very supportive of the Government is this sense of, “We will take the test step by step and evaluate as we go so that it is going to evolve and get better as these other instruments come in over time.”
We are also changing the national student survey—that change will come in in 2017. The rather crude item, “Are you satisfied? How satisfied are you?” is being replaced with much better items around student engagement, intellectual stretch in their study and the extent to which they have felt part of the learning community. According to the research, all those are correlated with deep and successful learning. That survey instrument will also be better as part of a basket of measures in the TEF—again, of course, properly contextualised and benchmarked.
Q157 Paul Blomfield: Could I move on to a slightly different topic? Professor Ebdon, the Government have very ambitious and commendable targets for widening participation. Particularly thinking about the metrics, as the TEF exists at the moment, how will it assist them in that objective?
Professor Ebdon: The TEF can make a very positive contribution to achieving the Government’s targets, provided that we recognise the importance the Minister attaches—as he has repeated on a number of occasions—to excellence being about the ability to bring about opportunity and success for a wide diversity of students. In the metrics for TEF, and our understanding of what constitutes excellence, it is important that we recognise that it needs to be excellence for a diversity of students. That is why I am very keen to ensure all the metrics are differentiated by those different groups.
Of course, if we do not do this, there could be a severe downside. If we do it, we place widening participation and fair access at the heart of the teaching debate. If we do not, people will look and say, “Which are the students who are more likely to drop out? Which are the students who are less likely to get a first or a 2.1? Which are the students who are less likely to get a professional job? Which are the students who are less likely to get a high salary?” The answer to all those questions is the students from disadvantaged and under-represented groups—the very groups the Government are seeking to encourage into higher education.
Of course, the last thing we want is for anybody to think that it would be a good idea not to take so many of those students. We need to make sure that widening participation is built into the very fabric of the teaching excellence framework. So far, I am encouraged that the Minister has been very clear about that in what he said. The Prime Minister has made a strong commitment to widening participation. Under the teaching excellence framework, we have a real opportunity to do something that academics will agree with: excellence is not just about taking the elite and educating them; it is about providing that opportunity and that success for a wide variety of students.
Q158 Paul Blomfield: Are we too focused in terms of measuring the success of widening participation on entry to university? Earlier, you made a telling point about the differential progress some ethnic groups make within university. Should we be focused more on retention, outcome or graduate jobs?
Professor Ebdon: Yes, we should. I plead not guilty to the charge as, since I became director, together with the Higher Education Funding Council for England, we have spent a lot of time thinking and talking about the whole student lifecycle. In fact, that was embedded in the national strategy for access and student success. I have a guidance letter at the moment that talks about retention and student success. I am expecting another one—it is presaged in the Green Paper—that will have an even stronger focus on that, I hope. I believe it is definitely not sufficient. Probably the first thing you do is to make sure you improve the entry to university.
Access without success is not real access at all. Those students need to be successful. Those gaps in attainment I referred to earlier have to be understood and dealt with. I am grateful to the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s research that has shown that. It is important to remember that many of the things we are talking about today, such as the work on learning gain and the work on attainment gaps, come from the input of HEFCE in looking ahead as to what the issues might be.
Q159 Amanda Milling: One of the things I have been taking from everything I have heard so far is that, actually, generally you welcome the TEF. You welcome the idea of this aspiration and desire for excellence, from the perspective of students and international reputation, and also in terms of the enhancement of the reputations of the institutions themselves. A number of you have mentioned diversity in the sector, and I want to explore this in a little bit more detail, if you do not mind. There are a couple of things here, both in terms of the diversity of the institutions as well as diversity of the characteristics of the student. It is a question to each of you. How should the TEF account for this diversity at both levels?
Professor Atkins: Working with BIS, we are very much committed to the idea that QA and the TEF form a single system; you do not see this as two things in tension with one another. Under the quality assessment part of what is going to be a single system, things like the diversity of the provider, the student body and the modes of learning are very much centre stage. The aim is that the institutions themselves need to have this dynamic of continuous improvement against their own mission in the marketplace. There is no doubt that institutions and providers of all kind need to be agile and responsive as market conditions change—not just in this country, indeed, but globally.
We need to be encouraging innovation and intervention. For example, around this very difficult issue of differential outcomes, what actually works? We want universities and providers of all kinds to be thinking deeply about how they might change their teaching and learning and how they might work more effectively with students to achieve the outcomes they desire. That is fundamental to our proposals around quality assessment as it goes into the next decade. Again, we believe the governing bodies of each institution must step up to the responsibilities in the higher education code of governance, which makes the governing body responsible for academic governance and for the quality of the student experience. They are the people who sign off the academic vision for that institution. It is very important that we do not forget the role of the governing body in all of this. From that perspective, as I say, the whole QA bit is all about encouraging and understanding that diversity and making sure that, whatever the nature of the provision and the provider, it is excellent, and it is going to retain that excellence.
As we move into the metrics around the TEF, the answer there has to be around very careful benchmarking and caveating so that diversity is not stifled and there is not a push towards homogeneity again, which would not be in the student interest. Students need choice. By having a narrative element in the TEF, the institution can put forward what it is trying to achieve and what its purpose is, what it is trying to do for its students, its location and the predominant mode of delivery it has chosen to use. That then enables the metrics to be properly contextualised. That is why, if I may say it again, expert peer judgment is then brought to bear holistically on that; then you can give due recognition to that diversity. Indeed, we need to do so. Although we strongly support the TEF and, indeed, the way it which it raises the reputation of teaching, of course, across the sector as a whole the vast majority of providers are teaching‑only. This idea of “research versus teaching” simply does not apply. We just need to bear that in mind.
Douglas Blackstock: On the question of the diversity of providers, QAA is unique at this table in that we review almost 600 providers across the UK—alternative providers and colleges providing higher education as well as well-established universities. We see quality in all sorts of different settings. It is important that we maintain that system that goes across all types of providers.
Actually, one of the things about the debate about the TEF is that publically there has been an awful lot of focus on the metrics whereas, as Madeleine was just saying, the metrics are only part of it. Part of the TEF process will be institutions themselves making the case for their excellence and then teams of experts—including students, employers and academic experts—making a judgment about excellence in the context of the individual setting of each institution.
Chair: I am conscious of time, so could we move on, if that is okay?
Q160 Craig Tracey: This fits in here nicely. Coming back to the point Professor Atkins made about the expert peer systems, I was very interested in that, because it seems a potential way to bridge some of the metrics. You have obviously given this some thought, so I wondered how you envisaged that working. Where would the people come from? Would it be from other institutions, would it be a body set up, or would it be from business? Is it possible to have consistency when you are bringing in people’s individual judgments who are actually measuring like for like? I would then open that up to the panel to hear their thoughts.
Professor Atkins: Obviously, with the REF, we have had considerable experience in dealing with this kind of issue over 30 years. The important point is that the panel, however constituted, has the confidence of the stakeholders here—that is, the sector itself—the student voice and employers, and indeed the taxpayer, who is not to be forgotten.
The intention will be for the sector and others to put forward their nominees who will have the expertise and experience to bring to bear. There will be a period where the panel is assembled and you go through a training process with the panel to ensure consistency in the way things operate and to make sure that the process is sound and is in good standing, as far as any challenge might come.
Both we and the QAA have considerable experience in putting that kind of process into operation. As I say, it must secure the confidence of those who will be affected by the outcome. That is critical. It would be good to see some international experience brought to bear because, again, we are looking at a higher education system that is globally regarded as world class.
Douglas Blackstock: Along very similar lines, the current quality assurance process run by QAA operates with peers drawn from a range of different institutions, plus students, on every single review we run. Ourselves, QAA, HEFCE, OFFA and HEA are offering BIS advice on the criteria around the TEF and what the assessment process might look like. The point about the credibility of the people on the panel is critical, if we want to keep the confidence of the sector. We all agree on that. The one thing I would add is that we would suggest to BIS that there is some form of moderation across panels to make sure there is that level of consistency.
Rob Behrens: We commend HEFCE for its quality survey, and we accept and agree with the key objectives it has set out. The question that your question prompts is whether or not the meaningful externalities that HEFCE set out are ones that carry consent. On that, there is a difference of opinion. Our view is that we need to think very carefully before losing the specialist, high‑quality and independent input into this process. That is a big question that will be answered by the White Paper and the subsequent legislation. We do need to clarify the relationships between the regulators on this issue.
Professor Marshall: Looking at the operationalisation of the TEF, I would like to endorse Professor Atkins’ statements about those panels and the rigour and credibility they need. However, in part, the credibility will come from making sure we work with, for example, our pro‑vice-chancellors within institutions, who will be concerned with the delivery of the TEF. We need to involve them in helping to shape what the panels will look like in terms of expertise, and we need to include international expertise. If we are all committed to this fact that TEF will really put us on the map internationally, which it will, because we will be leading globally on this, we will also need individuals who understand and recognise the diversity of the sector, as well as individuals who understand the diversity of the student learning body. We are not alone, globally, either in saying that the student body is changing radically. Participation rates are moving towards 40% globally now as well. We are no longer an elite system. Moving towards that mass system, how do we make sure, as well, that we see success for each and every student who is involved within our higher education system?
Q161 Craig Tracey: Do you see a place for business in that, looking in terms of outcome for the student—for employability?
Professor Marshall: Yes, definitely. We engage with business now on a number of things we do. We are looking at national teaching fellows, and that is a round that goes on to nominate five national teaching fellows every year who are outstanding teachers, as nominated by their institutions within the REF, and so it goes on. In many of our bodies, we are looking at what will deliver the best student learning outcomes. Of course, we need to involve employers.
Chair: Thank you. I need to move on. I am very conscious of time. I have two Members wanting to come in.
Q162 Amanda Solloway: In what way will the TEF change the way students select their university in the short term and the long term?
Professor Atkins: The intention of the Government is that the TEF outcome will be one of those pieces of information that potential students and their advisors—whether in this country or, indeed, abroad—would look at to determine both where to study and, to some extent, what to study, but certainly where to study.
As we move the TEF over time to a subject base, which is the Minister’s intention, that will have the most meaningful currency for students. They tend to think about, “What subject am I going to study?” as a very important consideration. I can see that that will have considerable potential.
From the point of view of employers, if I may come back to the point I made on meaningful externality, one of the really serious thrusts in our proposals and recommendations under QA is that meaningful external intervention is built in, in many ways, to what a university does. That certainly includes the employer voice.
Professor Ebdon: TEF could be a very powerful asset for disadvantaged and non‑traditional students, provided that the information, advice and guidance gets to them. At the moment, unless you are plugged into the system, it is very difficult to understand this diversity, which is a great strength of our education system. There is a lot of misunderstanding about it. Indeed, TEF has the opportunity for many of what I call the heavy lifters in widening participation to be recognised for the strengths they have and for us to recognise that different universities and higher education institutions are right for different kinds of students, and for students to match themselves to the right kind of provider. That is one of the potential strengths.
Q163 Richard Fuller: I want to come back to widening participation because the progress and statistics there underpin and support the issue on fees and a whole bunch of other things. There have been a number of comments that look towards tension between the two. Professor Ebdon, in the Green Paper there is a recommendation that your group should report into the Office for Students, which has a whole wide remit of 10 or more responsibilities that are outlined. Part of your strength is that you can speak truth to power and carry a big stick for people who do not achieve the goals that the Prime Minister has set out. Are you concerned about reporting relationships?
Professor Ebdon: There are strengths in being part of a larger group. As I say, there are strengths in putting issues about widening participation and fair access centre stage, so they are in every discussion and every debate. For example, if there is a debate about postgraduate loans or other things, fair access and widening participation should be part of that debate from day one. There are strengths in that.
Of course, the challenge is to make sure that we maintain the things that have led to success since OFFA was established, such as the independence of the directorate, at which you were hinting there. I do not report to the Minister in the sense of him being able to overrule my decisions. I report to the Minister and Parliament in terms of defending my actions, but not the individual decisions. I would not expect that the Director of Fair Access, whoever he or she was, would be reporting in that sense to the head of the Office for Students. The danger there would be that if there were an appeal to somebody else, certain providers would always take that appeal and undermine the authority of the directorate.
The single focus has been important as well. Madeleine was talking about how she needs to worry, quite rightly, about the financial position of providers. I do not have to worry about that. My concern is, “Are they being fair to students in terms of access and widening participation?”
Chair: We have a final brief question from Paul; could you give brief answers?
Q164 Paul Blomfield: There is diversity in institutions as well as within the sector as a whole. Is it fair to institutions—and, perhaps more importantly, helpful to students—for the focus to be on institutional teaching quality? Should it be focused on subjects?
Professor Marshall: I go back to the point that was raised earlier: students, by and large, are looking at the subject. Their greatest allegiance is to the subject—the discipline they are studying. It is absolutely right that the plan is to move towards a system of the TEF that looks at the subjects post the institution proving they have the infrastructure there to support teaching excellence. That is the thing that will really drive excellence because, particularly for some of our very large institutions, excellence across every single subject area at the top level is something we should certainly wish to strive for, but it is certainly not going to happen within the next five years.
Rob Behrens: Two points: the data that we have on complaints cannot be disaggregated down to course level, so it has to be looked at on an institutional basis. That is why there needs to be a reflection on whether something else should inform the kitemark or the TEF other than the numbers of complaints institutions get. For us, it is the good practice framework that all universities are now adopting.
Professor Ebdon: Yes, it should move to a subject basis when it can, because that is the meaningful criteria. The caveat there would have to be that setting individual fees for individual subjects would not only be an enormous headache for the Student Loans Company, but there would be a wonderful jamboree for students who change courses mid‑year. It would be an impossible system so, at the end of the day, there will have to be, if you are going to link it to fees, one grade for the institution into which the subject grades would feed.
Douglas Blackstock: I think students look at a broad range of issues when selecting which institution they want to go to, but I do agree that it is right that the TEF should move to a subject level. However, I do not think the subject level and the institutional level judgments are mutually exclusive and, overall, we should be making the judgment on institutions.
Professor Atkins: Like the others, I think that we should move to a subject or discipline basis, acknowledging some of the issues there. However, some things are at an institutional level: the learning environment; the way in which a university supports those who teach; the whole framework of continuing professional development; and the academic vision of the university. Those are genuinely institution‑level factors, so I do think it is reasonable to have a balance across those, but ultimately a student will look at the subject. If it is for the student’s benefit, that is where I think it will look, and employers also look, to some extent, at a subject base—not entirely, but to some extent.
Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your time; we appreciate it.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Joseph Johnson MP, Minister for Universities and Science, and Polly Payne, Director of Higher Education, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, gave evidence.
Q165 Chair: Minister, good morning. Thank you for joining us. We aim to finish by about 11.15 am. There is an awful lot to get through, so let us crack on. For the purposes of the record, could you introduce yourself and your colleague and say where you are from?
Joseph Johnson: Yes, of course. I am Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science, and this is Polly Payne from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a director in the higher education bit of the Department; is that correct?
Polly Payne: Yes, Director of Higher Education.
Q166 Chair: Minister, we welcome the Green Paper. We welcome the emphasis on a number of things within it, such as improving the quality of teaching, widening participation, and making sure that we retain the status of being world class in higher education. Can I take you back to your speech on 9 September about higher education fulfilling our potential? There is a particular passage in there that is really interesting, talking about a family and varying levels of experience. May I quote you? “This patchiness in the student experience within and between institutions cannot continue. There is extraordinary teaching that deserves greater recognition. And there is lamentable teaching that must be driven out of our system.” Could you tell us where that lamentable teaching is?
Joseph Johnson: Thank you very much for having me, and I will certainly come to that in just one second. What I want to say is that it is a pleasure to be here to give evidence before you, and I am delighted at the interest the Committee is taking in this very important subject. There is extraordinary excellence across our higher education system; that is the first thing to say. We have a great university system in this country, it is one of our national success stories, and it is a terrific calling card for us on the global stage. It is very important to put that frame in context out there, but of course the sector cannot stand still. University systems around the world are becoming more and more competitive. Developing countries are putting in place stronger and stronger frameworks for their own university systems, and in that environment it is incumbent on us to continue to make a great sector greater still. That is the opening frame of how I see the sector. It is continuing and continuous improvement, and that is all the more important for us, as a sector, at a time when we are seeing ever‑increasing numbers of our young people go through university. We are now at a stage of mass higher education in this country, with about 47% of people likely to go through higher education at some point in their lives, and it is vital for us, as a Government, that we ensure that they are getting the best-quality experience for the time and for the money that they are investing in higher education.
You referred back to a speech I gave to Universities UK and I used that word; it made a point. It made a point that there is, essentially, patchiness in provision and I am happy, before you, to give evidence of where I see patchiness, if that is helpful.
Q167 Chair: Would you use the word “lamentable” again?
Joseph Johnson: I certainly made the point, and the point was made in order to highlight the fact that there is patchiness and variability in provision.
Q168 Chair: “Patchiness” is not “lamentable” though.
Joseph Johnson: Patchiness and variability are the features that I want to stress before you today. I am quite happy to give plenty of supporting evidence of that and I think the sector, in its responses to you as a Committee, has also agreed that there is a need to focus on the quality of teaching in our institutions. I am happy to give more evidence on that, if you want.
Q169 Chair: I would be very keen for you to give evidence to us, but just to push you on this, “lamentable” is an extraordinarily strong word. Would you use it again?
Joseph Johnson: I think there are patches of poor-quality provision and whether or not we want to use that word—
Q170 Chair: Lamentable patches?
Joseph Johnson: Whether we want to use that word, it certainly made a point. It highlighted the point I was trying to make. I do not see the need to repeat it ad nauseam, but I think I made my point.
Q171 Chair: Okay, thank you. Could you give us some evidence as to where teaching is patchy?
Joseph Johnson: Yes, certainly. We can see it in a number of different ways. It is obviously a very important issue for the Committee, and it is central to our thinking in terms of our work in introducing the teaching excellence framework. Let us, first of all, look at patchiness in terms of how students themselves see the system. In the NSS 2015 survey, two thirds of providers are performing well below their peers on at least one aspect of the student experience; and 44% of providers are performing well below their peers on at least one aspect of the teaching, assessment and feedback part of the student experience.
Let us take another aspect of how students perceive their experience. The Higher Education Academy’s recent survey came out earlier this year, and one third of undergraduates paying tuition fees in England believe their course represents very poor or poor value for money. Let us take another aspect of that: 21% of students found the information given before they started their course vague; 10% said it was misleading. One in three said that knowing what they now know they would have chosen a different course. Over 60% of those felt their course was worse or worse in some ways than expected. Of these, 32% said the course was poorly organised, 30% said they received fewer contact hours than they were expecting and so on. Therefore, from the student perspective, there is certainly some room for improvement.
Let us take a look at how this is having an impact on their study. It is resulting in a variation in the amount of study time that students are undertaking. There is evidence that students in this country are not as engaged as those in other countries and are studying less than other European countries in term time. That is from the student perspective.
We can also see some evidence of patchiness in terms of outcomes. Dropout rates vary hugely across the system, and you heard earlier from the Director of the Office for Fair Access about the differential attainment rates and progression rates of different groups through university that cannot be explained by prior educational attainment. These dropout rates vary hugely, as I said. Non‑continuation rates for certain black entrants into university are much higher than for white students, for example, and these are differences that cannot be explained by prior educational attainment. They have to do with issues like the degree of teaching support and academic support that students are getting at university.
Let us take some aspects of patchiness in outcomes for students. At least 20% of graduates are not finding jobs in high‑skilled graduate employment three and a half years after graduation, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency statistics, and it might be as much as 58% according to a survey on this subject by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Therefore, there is a very significant body—somewhere between 20% and 58%—of students who are not finishing up in graduate jobs or going on to further study three and a half years after graduation.
Q172 Chair: Is that not something to do with skills mismatch in the economy and the structure of our employment base rather than teaching in higher education?
Joseph Johnson: It is to do with a lot of factors, and I am not saying teaching quality is the sole factor, but the quality of teaching and the right choice of course and the right amount of information available to prospective applicants to universities are all factors that contribute to these poorer outcomes.
Can I just finish off? The last aspect of it is on how employers see the quality of teaching and whether employers could support an assertion of patchiness. Almost one quarter of employers, according to the Association of Graduate Recruiters, have open vacancies because they could not find the right skills in the recent graduate cohort. The OECD is producing research that shows that twice the proportion of UK graduates have low levels of basic skills than the OECD average, at about 6.9% versus 3.6% across the OECD. Thus, we are seeing poorer outcomes from our system of higher education in some ways than in other countries, and that is all supporting evidence for the assertion of patchiness.
Q173 Chair: Do you put that down to teaching?
Joseph Johnson: If universities are not dealing with low levels of basic skills to that extent, we have to attribute it to a system of admission that is not working or a system of value added that is not working either—one or the other.
Q174 Paul Blomfield: I think it is worth saying at the outset that across the Committee and from all the witnesses we have spoken with, there is support for your decision to focus on teaching quality. There is a concern—I am sure you share it—that we need to get it right. It is also welcome—the Chairman has made this point on a number of occasions—that you see the Green Paper very much as a Green Paper, and that ideas can evolve through the discourse that you have kicked off.
In that context, one of the issues that has come to us time and again is about the link between fees and the TEF. Clearly, we are going to have to bite the bullet at some stage on the need to increase fees to enable universities to continue to function. However, there is concern about whether this is the appropriate way of doing it. For example, we have heard that within institutions teaching is patchy, and is it right that some subject areas will be able to charge higher fees when they might not be teaching as well and they are on the back of another department. We have heard also that from the way data is collected there could be perverse outcomes; and that fees will go up, reflecting what is happening at one point in time, but the teaching quality might have slipped by the point that people are paying the fees. Do you think that there is a case for thinking about whether we detach the decision to increase fees from the TEF?
Joseph Johnson: As a Committee, you have heard a variety of messages on this theme, and I would say it has not been entirely one-way. There have also been people who have come before your Committee in recent weeks who have made the case for or can at least see a positive way of seeing a link between, tuition fees and teaching quality. Professor Gaskell, for example, said that if there were evidence that minimal standards of teaching were not being increased, he would have no problem in that being linked to a denial of the opportunity to increase fees. Dame Julia King of Aston University, writing in the Times Higher, said, “Aligning fees with a quality assessment based on research evidence…could give more of our graduates a richer, more tailored experience—and a better start in their careers”. There is not a blanket view on this question.
It is important that when we think about how we sustainably fund our universities, we have a framework for recognising how we want to provide the underpinning support to universities. It has to be based on some principles and teaching quality, as an organising principle of how we arrange our system of finance for universities, seems to me to be a very sensible one. We want provision to expand where there is high-quality teaching. Universities that offer high-quality teaching will be able to invest more in their teaching and now that we are in an era of limitless student places—we have lifted the cap on student numbers—universities that want to expand their provision and provide more opportunities for people to study at high-quality institutions can do so. Similarly, and in the other direction, institutions that have not received the additional resources from the TEF in this way would find that they would need to refocus their efforts on teaching to get the benefits that higher teaching would bring. I think it is a good organising way of thinking about how we sustainably fund the system in the interests of students.
Q175 Paul Blomfield: Do you think it might produce perverse outcomes? For example, coasting departments increasing their fees on the back of an institutional rating or the time-lag issue.
Joseph Johnson: We want to ensure that institutions as a whole are assessed by the panel. That means taking into account the overall framework within which teaching operates in a university, so obviously the experience that students get in a particular discipline is very important. However, so too are the institution‑wide attitudes and status accorded to teaching that universities have and they justify looking at the uplift on an institution basis. Obviously, in time, we want to be able to be more granular and to have the TEF operating on a course‑by‑course and faculty and discipline line, but there is also merit in taking an institutional approach, because that captures the institutional factors that contribute towards the teaching and learning environment.
Paul Blomfield: We could pursue this for some time, but I am conscious of the time.
Q176 Chair: Before you come back in, Paul, do you anticipate, Minister, that in the future some iteration of TEF—TEF3, TEF4; whatever—could be having tuition fees based on a course-by-course basis?
Joseph Johnson: At the moment, we are looking at an institutional framework for fees, and that is what we are proposing in the Green Paper and that is what we are consulting on. Obviously, there is scope for systems to evolve over time and we will take the responses to the consultation on this point very seriously, but what we are proposing in the early years of the TEF is institution‑based fee structures.
Q177 Paul Blomfield: Just pursuing a slightly different issue, we have talked a lot about learning gain and how we measure it and that being the real goal for an effective TEF, if we can get it right. Do you agree that the work that HEFCE is doing in its pilots will help to inform perhaps not TEF1, but certainly TEF2 and beyond?
Joseph Johnson: We certainly hope so, but there is no guarantee of it. Measuring learning gain is a really important objective for any system that seeks to assess teaching quality, but it is difficult and we do not know yet how the HEFCE pilots are going to be doing—what kind of results they will come up with, whether they will be relevant, useable and so on—so we cannot guarantee it, but certainly it is something we are looking at with great interest, and I hope they produce some really valuable results that will inform future variations of the TEF.
Q178 Paul Blomfield: You would accept that if we do not get TEF2 and beyond right, there could be some real potential damage for the sector.
Joseph Johnson: No, I do not accept that.
Q179 Paul Blomfield: If we do not get it right in terms of ensuring that we have an effective assessment of quality when we begin to differentiate more, because TEF1 is not going to, is it? It is going to be fairly light touch.
Joseph Johnson: Let us just be clear about how we are phasing in the teaching excellence framework, so everyone is totally clear on that. We are phasing it in very, very gradually. For the first year, in 2017-18, the process is looking at the baseline review of quality assurance as the threshold for an institution being eligible to increase its fees in line with inflation. In 2018-19 and thereafter, we will be using the TEF framework to be the basis on which we make these judgments. For the moment, until we have the learning gain pilots—and they will not be ready for some years yet—we are proposing to use the metrics that we are consulting on in the Green Paper, supplemented by any qualitative information that institutions themselves want to put forward. All this information—quantitative and qualitative—will be assessed in the round by a panel of expert reviewers, so that they can take an informed, nuanced judgment. We are not basing it just on metrics, nor are we basing it just on what institutions supply—it is a blend of the two assessed by the panel.
Q180 Chris White: In his opening remarks, the Chairman gave you the opportunity to give the Committee some statistics. Could you broadly outline how you think the framework would address the variability of some of the quality of education, and could you also expand on the consultation process that you are having with institutions and explain how genuine it is?
Joseph Johnson: Yes. As the Chair and Mr Blomfield said, this is a Green Paper. It is not a White Paper. It is a genuinely open consultation running until 15 January, and we are holding a lot of stakeholder events in BIS. I have been going around holding roundtables in every bit of the country I get to, with vice-chancellors and others in universities with views on this. We are and have always been completely intent on working with the sector to make sure we are coming up with a framework that does what it intends to, which is to ensure that students consistently get the high-quality teaching and learning environment they have a right to expect, that employers get the skills pipeline they need, and that taxpayers have confidence that they are underwriting a system that is delivering value for everybody.
It is a very consultative process, and we will be consulting again in the new year on the technical details of the metrics and how they would be operationalised, how we would do the benchmarking for all the important contextual factors that we would need—i.e. how many disadvantaged people are studying at particular universities and so on—what is the background, and what is the particular characteristic of that area and region? Those technical details will be fleshed out in a further consultation document in the new year.
Q181 Richard Fuller: I will ask Ms Payne, if I may, if this is the first Government to look to try to implement a teaching excellence framework?
Polly Payne: This is the first Government to implement something quite like this. Other Governments have looked at enhancing teaching quality and have looked at things like measuring learning gain. Madeleine talked about the CLA system in the US. The Australians have also done some work on teaching excellence, and we have been discussing those initiatives with those Governments.
Q182 Richard Fuller: It just seems to me a normal thing one might expect to have. You go to university to learn; why is there not a framework for showing who is good and who is not? Why has it never been done before?
Polly Payne: Internationally nearly all Governments have a system of quality assurance of universities focusing on teaching, as indeed the UK does, and, as Douglas previously said, the UK is a world leader. The additional and new element, which the UK is at the cutting edge of, is having this teaching excellence framework. Again, as Madeleine said, the UK is at the cutting edge of trying to measure learning gain, so this is new territory.
Q183 Richard Fuller: Given that this Government have grasped the nettle about it, I would have anticipated participants from the sector to have been all over the Minister for a love‑in about how excited they were about this, yet in the earlier sessions there was quite a bit of grumpiness from some of the participants. From what you are hearing from the sector, having been given this great opportunity, are they a bit grumpy about saying how hard it is going to be? There is a word we hear time and time again, which has a certain truth to it, but it also sounds like a word thrown up to be a roadblock, which is “diversity”.
Joseph Johnson: Can I come in on that?
Richard Fuller: Please do.
Joseph Johnson: You are right. We are the first Government who are taking action as clearly to address this issue, but that is not to say we are the first Government to recognise that there is a problem. My predecessor David Willetts said very clearly that universities have primarily focused on research, because that is where the funding and prestige come from and where the competition was strongest. However, this is not just a Conservative focus. Before him, we have had leading figures from the Labour years in office make similar points. Lord Mandelson, your predecessor as MP for Hartlepool, Chair, said, “We also need to look, in my view, for ways of incentivising excellence in academic teaching. We have to face up to the challenge of paying for excellence.” Before him, Gordon Marsden, my current shadow in this role, said, “We must reassess the balance between teaching and research. HEFCE should seriously consider incorporating a teaching quality assessment exercise in the Research Assessment Exercise”, which is the parallel exercise for research. David Lammy has made similar comments.
I think the sector has not been hostile en bloc. There are many supportive voices in the sector, and before your Committee you have had a number of witnesses come before you who have said things that are supportive of what the Government are trying to do. Steven Courtney at the University of Manchester said, “Teaching in UK education institutions has, since the emergence of the Research Assessment Exercise, lacked parity of esteem with research in terms of its contribution to an institution’s reputation, funding, position in key international league tables and importance in attracting staff”. Professor Colin Riordan of Cardiff said, “It is clear that there is a culture in research‑intensive universities and perhaps in all universities that does value research more highly than teaching”.
Q184 Chair: Forgive me, Minister. With the greatest respect, we can read those transcripts.
Joseph Johnson: Good. I just did not want it to be misrepresented.
Chair: I can understand there is broad support for what you are doing, but we are trying to interrogate in terms of—
Q185 Richard Fuller: Indeed, and also, Minister, I think there is support. It is the passivity of the responses that struck me.
Joseph Johnson: It is an opportunity for the sector.
Q186 Richard Fuller: I have one other question on widening access. Minister, you are trying to achieve two things, which are to improve the educational excellence at higher education, and also to meet the Prime Minister’s goal on widening participation. We have heard, from the panel before and others, about some of the tensions between those. Indeed, my colleague Mr Blomfield just mentioned those. Can you assure the Committee that in your deliberations beyond the Green Paper you will put front and centre maintaining the progress on widening participation as you think about the teaching excellence framework?
Joseph Johnson: Yes, absolutely. I see teaching quality, widening access and improving outcomes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, as the Director of the Office for Fair Access was saying earlier, to be intimately related. That is why the teaching excellence framework looks very closely at how well institutions are doing at supporting people from disadvantaged backgrounds into university, through university and then on into good-quality outcomes for them in the labour market, whether that is in a graduate job or in the decision to go on to further study. Access and improving outcomes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds is very central to how we are thinking about teaching quality and, yes, we are continuing to be very ambitious on our widening participation goals. As a Committee, you know that the Prime Minister has himself put out a goal for us, as a Department, to make sure we achieve and that is to double the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university by 2020 from 2009 levels.
Q187 Chair: You have mentioned a number of times that widening participation is central; your commitment to this is commendable, and what the Prime Minister is trying to do is commendable also. In respect of the link between teaching excellence and the raising of tuition fees, why do you have that? Why do you not have a link between the raising of tuition fees and how an institution widens participation?
Joseph Johnson: There is a number of different ways of how you can organise the sector. We want to make sure that we are achieving our widening participation goals and we have a system that involves the Director of the Office for Fair Access linking an institution’s ability to charge the maximum amount of fees, the £9,000 threshold, to their progress in bringing on and into their institution people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is the link. It is the link there, mediated by Les Ebdon behind me. That is the way we are operating the fee system with respect to widening participation, so it is already hard‑wired into our system.
Q188 Amanda Milling: I am going to pick up on a term that Richard used, which was that there has been quite a lot of grumpiness. There has, but I think a lot of it has been about detail and mechanics. There has been a lot of sessions, as you have seen, where there is a lot of support and recognition that there is a need to enhance teaching excellence. I have a couple of questions, though. You will also have heard there has been a lot of discussion about diversity and that is in terms of the diversity of institutions—some of them are quite specialist—and also the student characteristics. We keep touching on this, but one question is about how the TEF can account for this.
The other question is we talked a lot about metrics and you also identified there are qualitative aspects. I would like you to talk to us a little more about how this is going to work, so could you give us a bit more of an explanation?
Joseph Johnson: If it is okay, I am going to ask Ms Payne to do that, but I am happy to come back if you have any further questions for me directly.
Polly Payne: As the Green Paper sets out, we are initially proposing three basic metrics, which are the metrics we have across all institutions—they have been going for some time and are compatible. We are going to have those benchmarked, which is incredibly important both for the diversity of the institution and the diversity of students. The proposal then is for each institution to put forward evidence for why their particular form of excellence is indeed excellent and that will include any evidence they have. At the moment, there are some metrics that are not collected across the sector. For example, the UK student engagement survey, which not all institutions participate in, might add good evidence where institutions do participate. Institutions can also add any other information that they think is relevant. There is obviously a balance for how prescriptive you are and you do not want to be inundated with huge volumes of evidence, so there will be a question of how prescriptive that is or is not, but we hope to give institutions choice. We are consulting on that and will be taking advice also from our delivery panel.
Q189 Amanda Milling: Are you suggesting that there will almost be some kind of principles they might need to demonstrate to frame the qualitative aspects?
Polly Payne: Yes. The Green Paper sets out the aspects of teaching excellence that we will be focusing on, which are teaching quality, the learning environment, student outcome and learning gain. Those are the aspects we will be focusing on as TEF develops—TEF level 1, 2 and 3. As the Minister said, we see TEF very much as something that we will be evolving—we will be not running before we can walk. We will be listening to the sector and to other experts, and learning and evaluating the progress of TEF as it goes forward. We have started with the three core metrics, which are mostly based on what data is available and that we think is robust. The ONS is reviewing the robustness of that data. As TEF develops, we will incorporate more core metrics, which might be, for instance, learning gain, as the pilots develop, and also the institutional evidence.
Q190 Amanda Milling: The reason why I ask the question is, as you will have seen from the evidence sessions and the discussions you have had, there has been a lot of emphasis simply on the quantitative metrics, and it is just weighing that up with the qualitative aspects as well in terms of being able to demonstrate excellence. I just want to get a sense of the balance between the two.
Polly Payne: We have not yet. That is one of the things that we will be consulting on further and setting out our proposals in more detail when we do our technical consultation. I think the main thing to remember is that, ultimately, these will be human assessments by a panel of experts. There is no black box where you put in various numbers and out comes the magic answer. It will be very much human expert judgment.
Q191 Jo Stevens: Minister, can I just take you back to some of your earlier evidence, just to clarify it? You talked about assessing, under TEF, institutions as a whole and then you said, “In time, we would move to a course-by-course and faculty-line assessment.” Can I just ask you whether you envisage a TEF applying within individual institutions to a course‑by‑course or a faculty‑line assessment?
Joseph Johnson: Yes, in time, but not in the opening year.
Q192 Jo Stevens: By when do you think that will happen?
Joseph Johnson: We are consulting on this at the moment, but we anticipate this happening as the metrics develop in year two and onwards.
Q193 Jo Stevens: You do not have any date in your mind about when you would like it to happen.
Joseph Johnson: No, we are not fixing ourselves to a particular date at this time.
Q194 Jo Stevens: If the link then, as you envisage, between TEF and the level of fees applies, can you explain how that would work if you end up with a course‑by‑course assessment linked to TEF linked to fees?
Joseph Johnson: Again, that is not something that we are immediately embarking upon. It is some years into the future, but in the first instance what we are proposing is that any institution that, in time for the 2017-18 academic year, has met baseline standards for teaching and quality generally, as determined by whether they have had a successful quality assurance review, would be able to increase their fees only up to the amount of inflation. In subsequent years, when we are applying the TEF framework as the means of awarding inflationary fee uplifts, we will see how we can best allocate that on a course-by-course basis.
Q195 Jo Stevens: Do you think there is a tipping point, essentially, which affects widening participation? If fees go up, obviously you have performed well in terms of widening participation so far, do you think there is a tipping point at which that will then start to narrow?
Joseph Johnson: Obviously, we are sensitive to those issues. We are pleased that, as you said, widening participation has been a strong success story and a positive feature of the reforms that the last Government, from 2011 onwards, put into place. As you said, we now see the very positive story of record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to universities. It is up at about 18.2% this year of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university—up substantially from where it was in 2010—and we want to see that progress continue. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has set us a target of doubling it from the 2009 level by 2020, and we have every intention of achieving that goal. Of course, we are very sensitive to the fears you outline, but thus far we have not seen any evidence to suggest that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are being deterred from applying to university.
Q196 Jo Stevens: You do accept that there might come a tipping point.
Joseph Johnson: What people are seeing is that higher education is a transformational experience for many people. When they get great teaching and when they are properly supported at university, and when they get on and get good outcomes in the labour market, university can be a fantastic thing for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why more and more people from these backgrounds want to go to university, and we entirely support their aspirations in that respect.
Q197 Jo Stevens: However, some of your evidence today has been about graduate‑level jobs and people not attaining those until three years after graduation. Therefore, they pay more fees, they do not get a graduate job at graduate levels so that they can pay their loans back, and we have the highest ever rate of debt repayment default. That is why I want to press you on this tipping point. Will the system collapse at some point? Do you accept there is a risk of that?
Joseph Johnson: On average, higher education is still a great investment. Lifetime earnings are £100,000 greater than if the same person with the equivalent A-levels did not go to university so, on average, it is a great investment. However, that is an average and I want to make sure that the system is delivering consistently good returns for everybody. Part of that is about the kind of teaching experience and learning environment that they have at university, and I want to make sure that everybody who goes to university has the best possible teaching and learning environment.
Q198 Jo Stevens: Just going back to some of the points that my colleagues have made about some of the witnesses we have heard being a bit grumpy about the proposal, do you think that might have anything to do with your comment about there being lamentable teaching in the sector?
Joseph Johnson: I think the sector, rightly, wants credit for the progress that has been made in recognising that teaching is an important issue. Since the arrival of the national student survey a few years ago, the sector has begun to redouble efforts on the teaching front and maybe there was a sense that their efforts were not being recognised. They are recognised, but I still think there is room for more rapid progress.
Q199 Chair: I have two very brief questions, Minister, if I may, before I bring in Amanda. Jo mentioned about that link on a course-by-course basis with TEF and with the ability to raise fees. Do you anticipate that that will happen in this Parliament?
Joseph Johnson: I cannot give any guarantee of that.
Q200 Chair: Would you like to?
Joseph Johnson: I cannot give any guarantee. We obviously want to make sure we are phasing in the TEF in a careful, thought-through way. That is why, as I said to Mr Blomfield, we have a three‑stage process of phasing it in over a number of years. We want to make sure that we are getting it right, that we are not doing anything that has unintended consequences, and we are consulting very deliberately at every stage of this process. This is an important thing to get right. Raising the quality of teaching to the best in the world across our sector is an important objective for us all and we want to work very carefully to get it right.
Q201 Chair: What is a graduate job?
Joseph Johnson: HESA has a definition; the ONS has a definition. There are widely available definitions of this out there. There is also a debate about it. The CIPD has a different definition from the HESA definition, which is why I cited that broad range of outcomes from 20% of graduates not getting a graduate job, according to the HESA definition, and as many as 58% of graduates not getting a graduate job, according to the CIPD definition. Somewhere on the spectrum lies an important number for Government policy. We need to focus on this issue and look at why so many people seemingly are not getting jobs that correspond to what they would expect, given their investment in qualifications and in skills.
Q202 Amanda Solloway: That was exactly what I was going to ask: how the TEF will help with the skills mismatch, as an example, because if the TEF is about content, how will it lead on to getting a job in that particular field?
Joseph Johnson: It will address squarely the skills mismatch, because a big part of it is going to be about making sure students are properly informed about what is on offer in a particular course at a particular institution: how it will be taught; what the mix will be between lectures, self‑study and other forms of teaching; what the outcomes have been of people who have previously done that course; how they have tended to go on in their careers; and so on.
There will be a lot more information that will enable prospective students to make really well-informed choices. In that sense, better information will be a very important way that the TEF contributes towards addressing the mismatch that we see in the graduate labour market, but it is not the only way. We also want to see very strong employer engagement with universities coming through as a feature that the TEF will reward and recognise. We want to see a stronger role for accrediting bodies working in universities, so that more courses are clearly endorsed by accrediting employer and industry groups, so that there is demand for them from the providers of jobs in the labour market. We see that link as also being helpful in terms of reducing the labour market mismatch.
Q203 Amanda Solloway: As an example, my background is manufacturing, and one of the things that we used to see was a lot of students opting into a very good design course background. However, we had very few designer posts, but we would have things like merchandisers or possibly buyers, so you are saying that could be addressed at the outset. In other words, it is managing the expectation of the students, saying, “You will be doing this. This will be part of the learning experience. However, at the end of it you will not be just getting to be a designer.” Is that what you are saying?
Joseph Johnson: We want to see more employer engagement with universities in helping them to think about curriculum design, helping them think about how they can get their courses accredited so that there is more confidence in the qualifications that people are coming out with—that employers really recognise them as being a true signal of future productivity. In that sense, we think that will be helpful to students. They will be emerging from university with degrees—pieces of paper to which employers attribute real and lasting value. In that sense, the closer engagement between universities and employers will be really helpful to students.
Polly Payne: Where the information helps us identify particular areas where there is, possibly, a greater skills mismatch or employment outcomes, we can take other action. For instance, at the moment Sir Nigel Shadbolt is reviewing computer science graduate employability, because that is an area where there seems to be a skills mismatch and poorer employment outcomes than you would expect. Therefore, he is reviewing that particular area and working with employers and universities to see what can be done.
Q204 Chair: Minister, how will the TEF take into account local economies and the distinctiveness of the regions? Two LSE graduates, one staying in central London, one going to Hartlepool: they will have different salary expectations and different experiences. How will the TEF take that into account?
Joseph Johnson: On the salary point, the employment outcome is not going to look at the salary level per se. We just want to see whether an institution is doing well or not at getting people into graduate jobs. We are not trying to measure a university’s teaching quality by whether it has a very high proportion of people who go on to earn very high salaries. That would not be very helpful. In that sense, we are just focusing on whether they are getting into a graduate job or not or going on to further study.
As my colleague Ms Payne was saying earlier, all these factors will be contextualised, and background factors will be taken into account and benchmarked in the TEF exercise, so the regional variations in employment, for example, would be considered in whether an institution has achieved success or not against that particular benchmark.
Q205 Paul Blomfield: In a very powerful section of his speech to the Conservative party conference in September, the Prime Minister made the point that too often, for too many people, the ability to get a certain job was influenced by the fact that they might have a foreign name, or the colour of their skin. Was he wrong?
Joseph Johnson: I think we have taken steps to address subconscious bias lately. It is certainly a possible factor and you will have seen that we have asked UCAS and the sector generally to work closely on introducing a system of name‑blind admission.
Q206 Paul Blomfield: With respect, Minister, my point is about graduate outcomes. Was the Prime Minister wrong to say—
Joseph Johnson: No, he was not wrong. That is why I was giving the example of what we have done in the university sector, but I could have given a much broader example of what we are doing across the public sector and across the civil service, and also a number of companies have come on board as well behind that initiative, to address issues of subconscious bias.
Q207 Paul Blomfield: My point is that if we all agree with the Prime Minister that your race, your social class or other factors are significant in determining job outcomes, how useful is it to measure teaching quality by job outcomes?
Joseph Johnson: There are many drivers of outcomes. Teaching quality and the quality of the higher education you have experienced is going to be an important factor. Obviously, you are then going to encounter in life many other factors that determine your success, and encountering other people’s subconscious bias will be among them. However, it does not mean that we should not ensure that people at university are getting the highest quality teaching that they possibly can and we want them to.
Q208 Paul Blomfield: I think we are all agreed that people should be getting the highest possible quality teaching, but the question is: is that an effective measure of teaching quality or is it a measure of those wider factors that you were talking about and that the Prime Minister was highlighting?
Joseph Johnson: As we have said in answer to other questions, we will be taking into account background factors, such as if you are from a BME background and likely, according to the concerns you are raising, to encounter some of these subconscious biases, we would be taking them into account with the background and contextualisation, and controlling for external factors that we will be doing systematically when we look at these metrics. However, again it is worth stressing that the metrics are just one part of the TEF exercise. They are just the quantitative part and they give you a first cut of information. They are then supplemented by the qualitative information. All those pieces of information are then assessed by a panel of expert human beings who can take a rounded judgment. Therefore, we are not robotically relying on one metric to assess teaching quality.
Q209 Paul Blomfield: As the discourse around the metrics has gone on, there does seem to be an increasing consensus about the importance of the qualitative aspect. Is that your view as well?
Joseph Johnson: Yes, it has certainly been a strong feature of the responses that we have had in the Department from all our stakeholder engagement meetings that you cannot do this by metrics alone. We are in agreement with that and we have never proposed a system that is solely metrics‑based. We have always accepted that it would have a qualitative component and we recognise the importance of that.
Q210 Chair: Following on from Paul’s point, Minister, how would you respond to the letter that I think went to HEFCE from 169 academics, which said it would be “completely inappropriate” to use student outcomes? Do you agree, or are they wrong?
Joseph Johnson: No, I do not agree. As a basket of indicators that are correlated with teaching quality, I think it has its place. It is not the sole metric, as I was saying. It is one of a basket of metrics that itself will be supplemented by qualitative information considered by an expert panel of reviewers. It has its place. It does not have a dominant place, but it makes a contribution to our ability to make an assessment.
Q211 Chris White: In the discussion, we appreciate that the TEF is going to evolve, that there will be a number of phases, and that consultation is taking place. However, I just wondered, if you were back in front of the Committee in five years’ time, what would your metrics be?
Joseph Johnson: I think you are right; it will evolve over time, just as the research excellence framework, previously the research assessment exercise, has evolved since Mrs Thatcher created it under Keith Joseph in the early 1980s. It has gone through many iterations over the last 30‑odd years, and we are now in I think REF 6.0 or 7.0, and each one is different from the last. There is a process of continuous improvement and evolution, but the result we can see on the research side has been that the quality of our publicly funded research in this country has increased tremendously, and we now have one of the most effective and efficient research bases in the world. We are world‑leading in science and our system of funding excellence very rigorously is a part of that. We want to see and expect to see a similar evolution of the teaching excellence framework in the years ahead.
We can already anticipate some changes that will come in years to come. We will have a greater ability to use the matched data from other Government Departments in future years that will give us more granular information about the relationship between the choices people make at secondary school, and their outcomes later in life and their passage through university. As has already been mentioned, in a few years’ time we will also be able to learn from the learning gain pilots that HEFCE is now running at 70 institutions around the country. We can already see, in the future, ways in which this might evolve and those look to be positive, but that does not mean we are going to stand still and wait for them to arrive. We need to crack on and we should not let the best be the enemy of the good.
Q212 Chair: Minister, are you trying to do too much?
Joseph Johnson: An important thing to do as a Government is to make sure that students are getting the best-quality teaching. It is a very important part of our higher education system and we have to ensure that universities are fulfilling their potential as drivers of productivity and engines of social mobility. They are doing well, but they can do even better.
Q213 Chair: The reason I ask is, on the one hand, you are changing quite radically the higher education architecture: changes to HEFCE, establishment of the Office for Students. You are changing quality assurance and establishing a new teaching excellence framework. You are clever—you are the nice and clever Johnson, if I may say so—but are you that clever?
Joseph Johnson: First of all, we are consulting. Nothing is being rushed and we will proceed when we are confident we have the right answers.
Q214 Chair: Would it not be better to choose one, whether you change the institutional architecture or you put in place the priority regarding teaching excellence? Why do all this all at once?
Joseph Johnson: The system is a coherent whole and it needs to be looked at as a whole. It is difficult sensibly to do bits and pieces without thinking of the interactions between the different parts.
Q215 Chair: How do you stop the whole teaching excellence and quality assurance regime from becoming big, bossy and bureaucratic? How do you make sure that it adds value but remains light touch and risk‑based?
Joseph Johnson: That has always been our goal right from the start: to ensure that we look at this not as a mirror image of the research excellence framework exercise, which has encountered some criticisms for the institutional and individual burdens it imposes on universities. To that extent, we do not look at the TEF as a mirror image of the REF. We always have said we want it to be light-touch in spirit and that means the outcomes‑focused metrics is one aspect of it, with universities having the opportunity to supplement them with additional information, and then a panel that reviews it. We think it is proportionate to the objectives of the whole exercise and so, to that extent, I do not think it is going to be bureaucratic—i.e. disproportionate relative to the gains it is seeking to achieve.
Chair: Minister, Ms Payne, thank you very much. We are very keen to help and to add value by making meaningful recommendations, because I think we have a shared objective, which is that while we have an incredible asset for Britain in the higher education sector, with really excellent teaching, we want to make it even better, so thank you for what you are doing. We hope to help you as much as possible.
Joseph Johnson: Thank you very much.
Oral evidence: Assessing quality in Higher Education, HC 572-iii 2