Consultation

Consultation on quality
and standards conditions
This consultation runs from 20 July 2021
to 27 September 2021.

Reference OfS 2021.24
Enquiries to regulation@officeforstudents.org.uk
Publication date 20 July 2021

Consultation on quality and standards conditions
The Office for Students is consulting on its approach to regulating quality andstandards in higher education. Since 2018, our focus has been on assessing
providers seeking registration and we are proposing to develop our approach
now that most providers are registered. Our interventions are designed toprotect students’ and taxpayers’ investment in higher education by ensuringthat courses are high quality and standards maintained. We would like to hear
your views on the proposals in this consultation.

Timing ofconsultation

Start: 20 July 2021

Who should
respond?

Anyone with an interest in the regulation of the higher education
sector.

How to respond

Please respond by noon on 27 September 2021.

End: 27 September 2021

Use the online response form available athttps://survey.officeforstudents.org.uk/s/qualityandstandardscon
ditions/

Enquiries

Email regulation@officeforstudents.org.uk
Alternatively, call our regulation helpline on 0117 931 7305.

1

The Office for Students is the independent regulator for higher education in England. We aim
to ensure that every student, whatever their background, has a fulfilling experience of higher
education that enriches their lives and careers.
Our four regulatory objectives
All students, from all backgrounds, and with the ability and desire to undertake higher
education:••••

are supported to access, succeed in, and progress from, higher education
receive a high quality academic experience, and their interests are protected while
they study or in the event of provider, campus or course closure
are able to progress into employment or further study, and their qualifications holdtheir value over timereceive value for money.

2

Contents
About this consultation ................................................................................................................ 5
Who should respond to this consultation? ................................................................................. 6
How to respond ............................................................................................................................. 6
Consultation principles ................................................................................................................ 6
How we will treat your response .................................................................................................. 6
Next steps...................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8
The reasons for this consultation ................................................................................................ 9
About this consultation .................................................................................................................... 9
Reasons for this consultation .......................................................................................................... 9
Our proposals ............................................................................................................................. 11
What are we proposing? ............................................................................................................... 11
Proposal 1: impose three general ongoing conditions of registration relating to the quality of aprovider’s courses ......................................................................................................................... 12
Proposal 2: impose one general ongoing condition of registration relating to the standards of aprovider’s courses ......................................................................................................................... 22
Proposal 3: impose two initial conditions of registration, one relating to the quality of, and one
relating to the standards applied to, a provider’s course................................................................ 26
Proposal 4a: commission the designated quality body to provide evidence about compliance with
the initial conditions for a provider seeking registration ................................................................. 29
Proposal 4b: operate a flexible risk-based approach to evidence gathering and investigation forregistered providers ...................................................................................................................... 30
Proposal 4c: take account of a provider’s compliance history in relation to the quality and standards
conditions for the purpose of determining eligibility for other benefits of OfS registration .............. 33
Proposal 5: the OfS will use its role as the body responsible for External Quality Assurance for
integrated higher and degree apprenticeships to inform its judgements about condition B4. ......... 38
Proposed implementation ............................................................................................................. 41
Annex A: Proposed ongoing conditions for quality and amendments to the OfS’s regulatory
framework.................................................................................................................................... 42
Annex B: Proposed ongoing condition for standards and amendments to the OfS’s
regulatory framework ................................................................................................................. 68
Annex C: Proposed initial conditions for quality and standards and amendments to the
OfS’s regulatory framework ....................................................................................................... 73
Annex D: Sector-recognised standards .................................................................................... 79
Annex E: Consideration of alternative proposals ..................................................................... 97
Make no changes to our current approach .................................................................................... 97
Adopt an approach that involves scheduled cyclical reviews of all providers ................................. 97
Adopt a rules-based approach ...................................................................................................... 98
Annex F: Matters to which we have had regard in reaching our proposals ......................... 100
The OfS’s general duties............................................................................................................. 100
The public sector equality duty .................................................................................................... 103
3

Guidance issued by the Secretary of State ................................................................................. 104
The Regulators’ Code ................................................................................................................. 105
Annex G: Consultation questions............................................................................................ 107
Annex H: Section 2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 ................................... 109

4

About this consultation
In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we paused some of our regulatory
requirements while higher education providers adapted rapidly to the environment. We now
plan a phased resumption. However, we do not intend to reinstate our requirements exactly
as before. Instead, we will draw on our experience of the last three years and target our work
to ensure that it is focused where it is most needed. This revised approach will reflect thecommitment we made in the regulatory framework that providers that do not pose specificincreased risk should have less regulatory burden, now that the regulatory framework isestablished.
We undertook a preliminary consultation on a range of quality and standards issues during
the winter of 2020-21.1 The current consultation takes forward some aspects of that
consultation and makes more detailed proposals about new regulatory requirements. We
expect to take forward other aspects of the earlier consultation in due course, and this will
include proposals in relation to our approach to the regulation of student outcomes.
This consultation sets out the background to our proposals, the reasons we are proposing to
make changes and what we expect those changes to achieve. It constitutes our consultation
for the purposes of sections 5(5) and 75(8) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017
(HERA). In formulating our proposals, we have had regard to:•

The responses to the first consultation we conducted during the winter of 2020-21 –our analysis of those responses relevant to the current proposals is inwww.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-andstandards-in-higher-education-analysis-of-responses/•

Our general duties under section 2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017
(HERA)•The public sector equality duty•

Statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State•The Regulators’ Code•The consultation questions are listed in full in Annex G.

For more information about our approach to regulation, including our requirements for
quality and standards, see the regulatory framework at
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/the-regulatoryframework-for-higher-education-in-england/.

1 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-

higher-education/.
5Who should respond to this consultation?
We welcome responses from anyone with an interest in the regulation of English higher
education.
We are particularly (but not only) interested in hearing from students (particularly thosefrom underrepresented groups) and their representatives, and higher education
providers that are registered or applying for registration. These are the groups that may
be most affected by our proposals. We welcome the views of all types and sizes of provider.

How to respond
The consultation closes at noon on 27 September 2021.
Please submit your response by completing the online form at
https://survey.officeforstudents.org.uk/s/qualityandstandardsconditions/If you require this document in an alternative format, or need assistance with the online
form, please contact regulation@officeforstudents.org.uk. Please note: this email address
should not be used for submitting your consultation response.

Consultation principles
We are running this consultation in accordance with the government’s consultation
principles2.
At the OfS we are committed to taking equality and diversity into account in everything we
do. We have a legal obligation to show due regard to the public sector equality duty.

How we will treat your response
We will summarise and/or publish the responses to this consultation on the OfS website (andin alternative formats on request). This may include a list of the providers and organisations
that respond, but not personal data such as individuals’ names, addresses or other contact
details. If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please tell
us but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances. An automaticconfidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded by us as aconfidentiality request.
The OfS will process any personal data received in accordance with all applicable dataprotection laws (see our privacy policy3).

2 See www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance.
3 Available at www.officeforstudents.org.uk/ofs-privacy/.

6

We may need to disclose or publish information that you provide in the performance of ourfunctions, or disclose it to other organisations for the purposes of their functions. Information(including personal data) may also need to be disclosed in accordance with UK legislation(such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Data Protection Act 2018 and Environmental
Information Regulations 2004).

Next steps
Subject to the representations received as a result of this consultation, we intend to make adecision on whether and how to implement the proposals in later in 2021.

7

Introduction
1.

The OfS’s primary aim is to ensure that English higher education is delivering positive
outcomes for students – past, present and future. Our regulatory objectives reflect thethings that matter most to students: high quality courses, successful outcomes, and theongoing value of their qualifications. We use the tools in the regulatory framework to
mitigate the risk that these regulatory outcomes are not delivered in practice for students
from all backgrounds.

2.

There is no national curriculum for higher education; the regulator does not determine
the detailed content of courses or examinations, or decide how many qualifications
should be awarded with which grades. The strength and international reputation of the
English higher education system is built on the autonomy of institutions to decide thesethings for themselves. As long as courses remain high quality, outcomes good, andstandards rigorous, the OfS will not intervene. But when courses fall below our minimum
requirements, or we are concerned that they may do so, we need to be able to act toprotect the interests of students (including those from underrepresented groups4) andtaxpayers, and the reputation of the sector. Visible, active regulation in areas that
require improvement demonstrates that these issues are taken seriously.

3.

Our approach to the regulation of quality and standards is predominantly principlesbased. For example, students’ academic experience must be ‘high quality’, but we donot think it is for us to set out a prescriptive list of things that should or should not betaught. This is why, in some important areas, we expect to need to draw on thejudgement of academic experts as we decide whether our minimum requirements are
satisfied.

4.

Our principles-based approach allows us to set minimum requirements that are
applicable to all providers, and all types of course. In this way, we create a minimum
baseline of protection for all students and for taxpayers. Beyond this minimum, we
encourage choice for students and innovation by autonomous providers free to pursue
excellence as they see fit. The proposals in this consultation are consistent with thisestablished regulatory approach. We have, however, listened to points made in
response to the phase one consultation that providers want further information about
how our principles-based regulation is intended to work in practice and we have

4 We use the term ‘students from underrepresented groups’ throughout this consultation. It includes allgroups of potential or current students where the OfS can identify gaps in equality of opportunity indifferent parts of the student lifecycle. In determining the groups falling within this definition, the OfS
has given due regard to students who share particular characteristics that are protected under the
Equality Act 2010, as well as students who are otherwise underrepresented or disadvantaged. Whenreferring to underrepresented groups, the OfS considers this to include, among others, students fromdeprived areas, areas of lower higher education participation, or both; some black, Asian and minority
ethnic students; mature students; and disabled students (whether or not they are in receipt ofDisabled Students’ Allowance). There are some student groups with protected characteristics under
the Equality Act 2010 where the OfS has been prevented from determining whether they are
underrepresented at different points of the student lifecycle, because either: data is collected at anational level but there are gaps in disclosure and absence of comprehensive data (for example inrelation to religion or belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment); or data is not collected at anational level (for example in relation to marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity).
8

designed the proposals in the phase two consultation to be more precise and more
explicit about our requirements.

The reasons for this consultation
About this consultation
5.

This consultation builds on the phase one consultation we launched at the end of 2020
and which sought views on the principles and definitions that we proposed should
underpin our approach to the regulation of quality and standards.5 The current
consultation – the phase two consultation – takes into account the responses to thephase one consultation and sets out in more detail how we propose those principles anddefinitions would apply in practice.

6.

As we considered the responses to the phase one consultation, we noted that
respondents often provided a lot of information about the aspects of the proposals that
related to student outcomes, and less information about other aspects of the proposals.
We continue to take the view that the outcomes delivered for students are an integral
part of an assessment of the quality of a higher education course and we will bringforward detailed proposals about our future approach to regulating student outcomes in
the autumn. The current consultation focuses on those aspects of quality that are morequalitative and our intention in consulting on this separately is to allow providers andothers an opportunity to engage with these important proposals. In the current
consultation, therefore, we use the term ‘quality’ to mean these qualitative aspects ofquality,6 and the proposals in the current consultation are designed to ensure that ourrequirements in this area are clear, rigorous, and allow us to take action with confidence
where this is necessary.

7.

Our analysis of the phase one consultation responses that are relevant to the current
consultation, together with our policy response to the main points made by respondents,
is published on our website.7

Reasons for this consultation
8.

The OfS’s current approach to regulating quality and standards (which is delivered
through our ‘B conditions’) was set out in paragraphs 10-17 in the phase one
consultation document and is not reproduced here.

5 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-

higher-education/.
6 Where we refer to the ‘B conditions’ in this document, this should be taken to exclude current

condition B3 (student outcomes) and any proposed quantitative condition which regulates student
outcomes (unless the context suggests otherwise). ‘B conditions’ also excludes condition B6(Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework participation), as consideration of thiscondition is outside of the scope of this consultation.
7 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-

higher-education-analysis-of-responses/.
9

9.

Since April 2018, we have used this approach to make assessments of providers
seeking registration in relation to the initial B conditions as part of the registration
process. We refused registration to a number of providers because we did not consider
that they satisfied our quality requirements. We also imposed post-registration
requirements where we considered the risk of a future breach of one or more of the B
conditions was increased. Subsequently, we have reviewed the action plans producedby these providers and considered the outcomes of reviews for some of them by thedesignated quality body.8 We have also considered cases where our analysis suggeststhat there is evidence of unexplained grade inflation in the classification ofundergraduate degrees.

10. This regulatory activity has informed our understanding of the way in which our quality
and standards requirements are defined, how they work in practice, the protection they
provide to students, and the challenges some providers have experienced inunderstanding and meeting them. We have drawn on this experience in forming ourviews about the appropriate next steps for our approach to regulating quality andstandards.
11. Our experience of regulating over the past three years also suggests we need to do
more to make clear the significant latitude available to providers in a principles- and riskbased regulatory environment. The proposals in this consultation mean that the highest
quality providers should normally expect to meet our minimum baseline requirements
comfortably, and should not need to expend significant effort to demonstrate that
requirements are satisfied. This approach allows us to focus regulatory attention where
it is needed and to minimise regulatory burden that is not adding sufficient value forproviders or students.
12. We have considered responses to our phase one consultation and agree with the points
some respondents made, in particular about the need for more explanation and clarity
about our requirements and for there to be flexibility in the regulatory system to facilitate
diversity of courses and providers. We did not generally find consultation responses
arguing for the retention of the current B conditions. We did, however, find evidence in a
number of responses that confirms our view that providers and others do not understandour current requirements and approach, including the relationship between the current B
conditions and the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code), and thedifferent responsibilities of the OfS and the designated quality body.
13. Taken together, these points have led us to conclude that we should proceed with aphase two consultation that contains proposals for revisions to the B conditions and to
the guidance that accompanies these.

8 The designated quality body is an organisation designated by the Secretary of State underparagraph 3 of schedule 4 of HERA. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is currently
the designated quality body.
10

Our proposals
What are we proposing?
14. We consider that the regulatory requirements we set for quality and standards need to
be expressed clearly and comprehensively to allow providers to understand their
obligations and the approach the OfS is likely to take to regulating these important
issues. We also consider that the OfS needs to be able to regulate with confidence
where it considers that courses are not of sufficient quality or where standards are notmaintained. This is important to ensure that higher education in England is high quality
and that students and taxpayers continue to have confidence in the credibility ofdegrees awarded.

15. The government’s policy priorities for increased flexible learning and for growth in higher
technical qualifications prompted questions from respondents to the phase one
consultation about the extent to which the proposed definitions were suitable for thistype of higher education provision and whether it should be within the scope of the OfS’s
approach. Our view is that such provision is within scope of the current B conditions, but
the consultation responses underline the need for this to be clear. We consider thatsuch provision should also be within the scope of the proposed revised B conditions andthis is reflected in the current drafting of those proposed conditions. We have explained
this more fully in our proposals below.
16. In this consultation we propose to maintain the subject matter covered by the existing B
conditions, but revise those conditions to ensure our requirements are clearly expressedin a way that would allow us to take action where this is necessary. The proposals would
result in:a. Proposal 1: for registered providers, three ongoing conditions of registration
relating to quality and covering:i. Academic experience
ii. Resources, support and student engagementiii. Assessment and awards.
b. Proposal 2: for registered providers, one revised ongoing condition of registration
relating to standards that extends the definition of ‘sector-recognised standards’ toallow the regulation of undergraduate degree classifications.
c. Proposal 3: for providers seeking registration, two new initial conditions ofregistration that set evidence requirements in a way that is clearer and easier forhigh quality new providers to meet.
d. Proposal 4: revised guidance for each of these conditions that includes ourapproach to gathering evidence, assessment and compliance.

1117. The proposed wording for the revised conditions of registration, as well as theassociated guidance in the regulatory framework, is set out at Annexes A, B and C tothis consultation.
18. We are also including in this consultation proposals for the way in which the OfS would
operate its responsibilities for conducting External Quality Assurance (EQA) for
registered providers delivering integrated higher and degree apprenticeships and howthat activity would inform our judgements about aspects of the quality of apprenticeships(proposal 5).
19. We consider that the proposals in this consultation are a necessary and proportionate
means to:a. Ensure that all students are protected from providers delivering courses below aminimum baseline level of quality, or granting awards or qualifications that do notmeet sector-recognised standards. All students, including those fromunderrepresented groups and with protected characteristics, should have thisprotection regardless of what or where or how they study.
b. Provide clarity to providers, students and others about the regulatory requirements
in place for quality and standards and ensure that there is public confidence, in the
UK and internationally, in higher education awards and qualifications and thequality of courses that lead to them.
c. Ensure that the OfS can identify compliance concerns about quality andstandards, and intervene rapidly to investigate and, if necessary, take action toresolve them.
20. An explanation of the reasons for, and the effect of, our proposals, as well as how they
address our regulatory concerns, is set out below.
21. In developing these proposals, we have considered alternative options for securing our
objectives. These options, and the reasons why we do not propose to take themforward, are addressed in the sections that follow, in our analysis of consultation
responses and in Annex E.

Proposal 1: impose three general ongoing conditions of registration
relating to the quality of a provider’s courses
Proposals that apply to all three conditions
22. We propose to impose the general ongoing conditions B1, B2 and B4 contained in
Annex A on all registered providers. This proposal builds on the definition of ‘quality’ thatwas subject to consultation in phase one.9 We have given careful consideration to
responses to the phase one consultation as we have developed the proposed revised
9 See phase one consultation, paragraphs 29-54 and Table 1 of Annex A, available atwww.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-highereducation/.
12

conditions. The draft conditions in Annex A reflect our consideration of the points madein consultation responses which is set out in our analysis of consultation responses.10
23. The proposed conditions relate to the following subject matter:a. Academic experience. This condition would require a registered provider to ensurethat courses deliver a high quality academic experience for students. It includes
requirements for the content, structure and delivery of a course as proposed in thedefinition of quality included in the phase one consultation.
b. Resources, support and student engagement. This condition would require a
registered provider to ensure that the students registered on a course receive theresources and support necessary to have a high quality academic experience andsucceed on, and beyond, their course. It includes requirements relating to human,
physical and digital resources as was proposed in the definition of quality includedin the phase one consultation. It also sets out a minimum requirement for student
engagement.
c. Assessment and awards. This condition would require a registered provider toensure that assessment of students is rigorous and consistent, and the awards
and qualifications granted to students are credible and hold their value over time.
It provides more detailed information about the matters that would be within scopethan was included in the definition of quality in the phase one consultation, in
response to requests for further detail about this.
24. In response to feedback on the phase one consultation, we are not proposing aseparate condition relating to access and admissions, and have instead addressedsome of those issues in proposed condition B2 – see paragraphs 48-52 below.
25. Each of the proposed conditions is expressed as an over-arching principle, with
explanation of the matters that fall within the scope of that principle set out throughdefinitions of key terms. These conditions would replace the current conditions B1, B2
and B4 and cover broadly the same subject matter. The main change from the current
conditions is that the proposals include more detail about the matters that would fallwithin the scope of each condition and how these would be interpreted.
26. The revised drafting is intended to ensure that minimum ongoing requirements for
quality are expressed comprehensively and clearly. This should benefit providers
because they will have greater certainty about the matters that are in scope, andstudents because they can be clear about the aspects of a provider’s activities that fallwithin the scope of the OfS’s regulation. In addition, regulating quality is one of the mostimportant things the OfS does and we need to be able to do so rigorously and withconfidence that we can take action in areas of non-compliance. Clarity about ourrequirements makes it easier for us to do so.

10 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-

higher-education-analysis-of-responses/.
13

27. A number of respondents to the phase one consultation made points about the potential
regulatory burden of the proposals, in particular that the proposals would introduce
greater complexity and that further information was required to understand how burden
would be reduced in practice. Some respondents suggested that clarifying that thescope of regulation extends to all higher education courses and students would increase
burden and that this would disproportionately affect smaller providers, including pathway
providers and further education colleges. We consider that increased clarity about ourrequirements will reduce regulatory burden for all providers.
28. We also consider that our proposed approach would give all types of providers flexibility
to align their internal quality arrangements with our regulatory requirements in ways thatare efficient and effective. Because we do not mandate any particular approach, eachprovider is able to decide how to develop its courses and organise its internal processes
and governance arrangements in a way that best fits its size and context.
29. The guidance that accompanies the conditions reflects the fact that these conditions are
not being proposed as initial conditions – see proposal 3 for our proposed approach toinitial conditions. The guidance also provides more information about the approach we
propose to take to gathering evidence and considering compliance issues and, inparticular, the need for expert academic advice in areas relating to the curriculum andpedagogy – see proposal 4 below.
30. These conditions would apply to all registered providers. All of a provider’s higher
education courses, and the students on those courses, would be within the scope of theconditions, irrespective of where or how courses are delivered or who delivers them. It
includes:a. Any higher education course (whether that course is recognised for OfS funding
purposes or not), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules at any level,
and apprenticeships11 are included within the scope of these conditions.
b. All of the students who are registered with a registered provider, taught by aregistered provider or studying for an award of a registered provider. For example,
the conditions would apply where a registered provider is responsible (only) for
granting awards to students registered with and taught by another provider. This
includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered throughpartnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.

31. The reason for this approach is to ensure that all students benefit from regulatory
protection where a registered provider is involved in their higher education course,
regardless of the type of course they choose, or who delivers that course. This isconsistent with ensuring both quality and equality of opportunity. We have considered inparticular the points made in response to the phase one consultation about:
11 Some respondents to the phase one consultation asked for more information about the OfS’s role in

the regulation of apprenticeships and that has been included in the analysis document.
14

a. Whether modular and flexible courses should be within the scope of our regulationof quality and standards.
b. Whether courses which are not funded by the OfS are within our regulatory remit
and whether inclusion of these courses in the scope of our regulation increases
regulatory burden.
c. Whether the inclusion of partnership arrangements would disincentivise
partnership arrangements, lead to dual regulation and increased burden.
32. The OfS is permitted to regulate modular and flexible courses under HERA, and thecurrent B conditions apply to these courses.12 We consider that such courses should
also be within scope of proposed conditions B1, B2 and B4 (as well as the otherproposed B conditions, B5, B7 and B8) and this is reflected in the current drafting.13 Thisis for the reasons explained in paragraphs 34 and 35 below. We note that some
respondents commented that modular and flexible courses should not be within scopeof the revised B conditions. Our response to those points is set out in paragraphs 138140 of our analysis of consultation responses.
33. The OfS is empowered to regulate the quality and standards of ‘higher education
courses’ as defined in HERA.14 This definition is not linked to our funding power. Thismeans that we are able to regulate the quality and standards of a higher education
course whether or not we are able to, or choose to, fund that particular course. As withthe current B conditions, we consider that proposed B1, B2 and B4 (as well as the otherproposed B conditions, B5, B7 and B8) should cover courses regardless of whether or
not the OfS funds them, and this is reflected in the drafting. Our funding activities are
determined by policy decisions about the purposes to which a limited amount of funding
should be directed and our need to have regard for government priorities. Our role inrelation to the regulation of quality and standards is to provide protection to all students.
For example, providers in the Approved registration category are not eligible for OfS
funding and it would not be right to decide on that basis that their students should nothave the protection of our quality and standards conditions. We recognise that any formof regulation brings with it a regulatory burden, but our view is that it would not be in theinterests of students for courses that we happen not to fund to be outside the scope ofthe minimum requirements we impose for quality and standards.
34. We recognise that higher education providers deliver a diverse range of courses.
However, we do not consider that, as a matter of principle, different groups of students
should be subject to different minimum regulatory requirements for quality andstandards as a result of the type of course they study, in the same way that we do notconsider that different groups of students should be subject to different requirements asa result of their prior educational attainment or other personal characteristics. To do so
12 See the definition of ‘higher education course’ in section 83 of HERA and Schedule 6 of the

Education Reform Act 1988.
13 See proposed definition of ‘higher education course’ at Annexes A-C.
14 Sections 13(1)(a) and 83 of HERA.

15

would suggest that lower baseline requirements for quality and standards should apply
for students because of the type of course they choose to study.
35. Our view is that it is necessary to apply the same requirements to all providers to ensurethat all students benefit from regulatory protection and that taxpayers’ investment inhigher education funds the provision of high quality courses. There was no
disagreement with this principle in relation to the quality of courses or standards ofawards in responses to the phase one consultation. We would not set lower regulatory
requirements for providers that recruit students from underrepresented groups, or withprotected characteristics. This is important because all students are entitled to the same
minimum quality. We do, however, take the view that if a provider chooses to recruit
students from underrepresented groups and those students require particular resources
or support to succeed, that must be provided – see the explanation of the effect ofproposed condition B2 below.
36. In relation to partnership arrangements, respondents suggested that holding a leadpartner to account for the quality and standards of courses delivered by its delivery
partners, regardless of the nature of the contractual relationship between partners,
would disincentivise future partnership arrangements and lead to dual regulation. We
would not wish to unnecessarily curtail competition between providers, impose
unnecessary regulatory burden or limit choice for students, but we consider that theseshould not take precedence over ensuring a minimum level of protection for students.
37. Our proposals create incentives for lead providers to ensure that their current andprospective delivery partners meet our requirements for quality and standards on an
ongoing basis. We take the view that it is not appropriate for a lead provider to seek togenerate income, or gain other benefits, through partnership arrangements whileabrogating responsibility for the quality of those courses and the standard of awards. As
with any intervention, we are required to act proportionately and so would take into
account the context of a particular partnership arrangement in our regulatory decisions.
For a lead provider with degree awarding powers, concerns about quality and standardsof any award granted in the provider’s name would be relevant to decisions we makeabout the variation or revocation of those powers. This means that such a provider must
be responsible for the quality and standards of courses delivered by its partners.
38. Similarly, we have considered points made in relation to courses delivered to students
outside the UK, whether through partnership arrangements or not – see paragraphs
154-158 in the analysis of consultation responses. Our reasoning for including suchcourses within the scope of conditions B1, B2 and B4 (as well as the other proposed B
conditions B5, B7 and B8) is as set out above – we take the view that a provider’scommercial or other interests cannot override the need to provide regulatory protection
to students studying outside the UK, and that such students should have the same
rigorous education as UK-based students.
39. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we envisage amending definitions of‘provider’ in the regulatory framework to reflect final decisions on the proposed scope

16and application of the B conditions to providers that are directly and indirectly involved inprovision of higher education, both in the UK and beyond.
40. Some respondents to the phase one consultation had interpreted the proposed
definition for quality as being prescriptive. We consider that we have taken a principlesbased approach to proposed conditions B1, B2 and B4 which gives providers significant
autonomy to determine how to comply (for example, condition B1 would require acourse to be ‘up-to-date’, allowing the provider to meet this requirement however itchooses). We are taking a principles-based approach to setting minimum requirementsfor quality because we do not wish to push providers to adopt a particular approach to
the way they design and deliver higher education courses, as this would inhibit
innovation. We do not consider a more rules-based, prescriptive, approach to be in theinterests of students or of providers themselves, not least because we understand theimportance of institutional autonomy in relation to quality.
41. Other respondents asked for more detailed information about how such principles would
apply in practice. This is why we have included in each condition (including conditions
B5, B7 and B8, which are discussed below) definitions of key terms. We have also
provided in the guidance for each condition non-exhaustive lists of examples todemonstrate how we would approach the interpretation of that condition.
42. Some respondents commented that the proposed definitions should not include input
measures15 and should instead exclusively focus on outcomes. A focus on input
measures was seen by some respondents as infringing providers’ autonomy and as
detrimental to innovation in approaches to teaching and learning. We agree that theoutcomes achieved for students are important and that is part of our approach. But wealso think it is necessary to regulate the quality of the courses that lead to thoseoutcomes, and the resources and support students need to succeed. This is because
students and taxpayers are investing in an academic experience as well as an outcome
and we would not consider it sufficient for good outcomes to be achieved if theexperience that led to them is not of a minimum quality. We have therefore decided toretain requirement for inputs in the proposed revised conditions.
43. The guidance that accompanies each proposed condition has been simplified so that it
no longer refers to non-regulatory guidance published by other organisations, namely
the Quality Code. A provider is free to choose to follow the guidance in the Quality Codewhere that guidance does not, in the OfS’s view, conflict with the requirements of the
proposed conditions, but it does not need to do so to remain compliant with theconditions. A substantial number of comments were made in response to the phase one
consultation about the role of the Quality Code. Our response to these comments andthe reasoning for our decision not to include references to the Quality Code in theconditions or guidance is set out in paragraphs 203-227 in our analysis of consultation
responses. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we envisage removing the

15 These are a provider’s inputs into its courses, for example, the learning resources provided.

17

definition of ‘UK Quality Code’ from the glossary of the regulatory framework to reflect
final decisions on the proposed scope and application of the B conditions.
44. In relation to each condition, more information about the proposed condition, the effectof the proposal, and the reasoning for our approach is set out below. We have set out
our response to the main points made by respondents to the phase one consultationand the reasoning for the policy position we have taken on those points. The relevant
paragraphs are 12-126 and that detailed reasoning is not reproduced here.

Condition B1 – academic experience
45. Condition B1 would require a registered provider to ensure that students receive a highquality academic experience, including by ensuring that courses are up-to-date andprovide sufficient challenge, that course structure is coherent, and that courses are
effectively delivered, for example, ensuring an appropriate balance between different
learning activities. It therefore explicitly brings within its scope the features of a higher
education course that the OfS’s considers essential for a high quality academic
experience.
46. These requirements for a high quality academic experience apply in respect of eachhigher education course provided by a registered provider (see paragraphs 30 to 38
above), regardless of the type of students recruited to a particular course, and represent
a set of minimum regulatory requirements that would apply to all students in all contexts.
Setting an absolute requirement in this way serves to ensure that all students,
regardless of their background or mode, level or location of study, study on high quality
courses that equip them to succeed during and after their studies. It also ensures thatthe academic rigour and reputation of the English higher education sector are
maintained.
47. The proposed condition and guidance (see Annex A) contain definitions of key terms,
and examples of the matters that would fall within those definitions. We would draw
particular attention to the effect of the following:a. The condition is drafted to ensure that it will continue to be relevant as academic
disciplines and pedagogy develop. Such ‘future-proofing’ is contained in thedefinition of ‘up-to-date’ which requires a provider to ensure that a course
appropriately reflects developments in teaching and learning. This would include
developments in digital teaching and learning. The reasoning for this is that wetake the view that a high quality course must continue to contain up-to-datecontent that is delivered in an up-to-date way to students.
b. The condition is drafted to apply to all types of course and we have carefully
tested whether the terms and definitions used in the proposed condition are
relevant for modules and whether they would work for the development of flexible
provision. We consider that requirements for a course to be up-to-date, provide
educational challenge, develop relevant skills, and effective delivery are as
relevant to a module or micro-credential as to a larger course of study.

18

c. The condition is drafted to apply to each provider regardless of whether it is
responsible for the day-to-day delivery of the course to students. This is because
we do not wish to incentivise contractual arrangements between providers that
seek to limit regulatory liability to one of the partners.
d. The condition would mean that each higher education course, as appropriate to
the subject matter of the course, would require students to develop relevant skills.
In response to feedback from the phase one consultation, we have defined‘relevant skills’ using the same categories used in the degree classification
descriptors we are proposing to adopt as part of condition B5 (see proposal 2).
Respondents considered that consistency in the way we describe and categorise
different types of skills would be helpful, and we have adopted this approach. It is
important to note, however, that proposed condition B1 would apply to a muchwider range of courses than the classification descriptors which focus specificallyon Level 6 (bachelors’ degree with honours) qualifications.

Condition B2 – resources, support and student engagement
48. Condition B2 would require a registered provider to ensure that the students registeredon a course receive the resources and support to ensure a high quality academic
experience for those students, and their success on, and beyond, their course. It
requires a provider to understand the capabilities, potential and needs of the particularcohort of students registered on a course and to ensure that students have theresources and support they need to succeed. It follows that a provider that chooses toprovide courses to students less well-prepared for higher education, perhaps because
they have lower levels of prior attainment, would need to ensure sufficient resources
and support, even if this may require investment that would not be necessary for aprovider that has well-prepared students. The condition does not restrict recruitment of
any type of student provided resources and support are consistent with the capability
and needs of those students.
49. A small number of responses to the phase one consultation had interpreted our
proposals as imposing additional requirements on a provider to identify the support
needs of individual students at the point of admission. This was not the intention and wehave therefore not referred to admissions within the proposed condition. Our reasoning
for this is set out in paragraphs 46-55 in the analysis of consultation responses.
50. The requirements in proposed condition B2 mean that a provider is expected to ensurethat there is coherence between the way a course it provides is designed and delivered
to provide a high quality academic experience (as regulated through proposed condition
B1), the recruitment strategy and the students registered on that course, and theresources and support those students need to succeed. For example, a provider may
wish to deliver a course that requires substantial self-directed learning from students,
but if the students likely to be registered are not equipped to succeed in that learning
environment, the provider will need either to provide the resources and support thosestudents need, or to change the approach to the delivery of the course.

1951. The condition also contains a minimum requirement for student engagement that
requires a provider to ensure that opportunities for students to contribute to the future
development and delivery of their course are built into the course practices, to ensure
those students have a high quality academic experience and succeed in and beyond thecourse. There were a number of consultation responses that argued that we should go
further and be more prescriptive in this area, including by making explicit requirements
for the role of student representatives and consultation with students. In response wehave included in the proposed guidance for the condition information about our
expectations for student involvement in a provider’s governance arrangements. Moregenerally, we have taken the view that our role is to regulate minimum requirements thatare applicable to all providers and all courses and, in an increasingly diverse sector, it
would not be appropriate to set expectations that may not be appropriate for allcontexts. For example, a student who chooses a short professionally-oriented course
may have different views about the need for student engagement activities than astudent beginning a three-year campus-based undergraduate course, and providers
need to be able to respond to both views.
52. The proposed condition and guidance (see Annex A) contain definitions of key terms,
and examples of the matters that would fall within those definitions. We would draw
particular attention to the effect of the following:a. The condition applies in respect of each higher education course provided by aregistered provider (see paragraphs 30 to 38 above), including modules or microcredential courses and courses provided in partnership with other providers.
b. A provider is expected to fund the provision of resources, without additionalcharge beyond the course fee, where the students registered on the course are
not reasonably able to provide resources themselves, and where the availability of
those resources is necessary to ensure a high quality academic experience forstudents and for those students to succeed in and beyond higher education. A
provider may determine the approach it takes to making such resources available
to students, for example, on the basis of a loan of resources for the duration of thecourse.
c. The condition puts in place requirements for resources and support for ‘digitallearning’ (in addition to requiring resources and support for learning in person).
This means that, where all or part of a course is delivered digitally, the resources
and support needed for students to succeed in that environment need to be put inplace. This does not create a requirement that a course must be delivered
digitally, but ensures that students are able to succeed where that is the case.
d. ‘Support’ does not extend to non-academic support such as the provision ofcounselling services, or financial support such as bursaries that may be coveredby a provider’s access and participation plan. The reason for scoping the conditionin this way is that we are clear that the OfS can and should regulate minimum
requirements for academic support, because this is directly relevant to the qualityof a course and the likely success of students. We have not, to date, taken the20

view that we should set and enforce requirements for support of other types; if wewere to consider this necessary in future we would consult separately.
e. The condition puts in place a requirement that the staff team that designs anddelivers a course should be collectively sufficient in number, appropriately
qualified and deployed effectively to deliver in practice. In reaching judgements
about whether this requirement is satisfied, our focus is likely to be on the staff
team as a whole, rather than on individuals within that team. We take the view thata ‘staff team’ includes individuals employed by a provider or otherwise deployed toteach on a course, for example including but not limited to visiting lecturers, or
research students who undertake teaching activity alongside their research.

Condition B4 – assessment and awards
53. Condition B4 would require a registered provider to ensure that students are assessed
effectively, there is rigour and consistency in assessment practices and that the awards
and qualifications granted to students are credible and hold their value.
54. These requirements apply in respect of each higher education course provided by aregistered provider (see paragraphs 30 to 38 above), regardless of the type of students
registered on a particular course, and represent a set of minimum regulatory
requirements that would apply to all students in all contexts. Setting an absolute
requirement in this way serves to ensure that all providers adopt effective, rigorous andconsistent assessment practices and that the awards and qualifications granted as aresult are a reliable indicator of the achievement of students. We consider thisnecessary to protect the reputation of the English higher education sector and students’and taxpayers’ investment in higher education. It follows that the use of assessment
practices that have the effect of reducing academic rigour for some or all students insome or all parts of a course would not be permitted. The proposed condition does notaffect a provider’s duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments forstudents with a disability in respect of matters that do not relate to academic and othercompetence standards.
55. The condition does not prescribe particular forms of, or approaches to, assessment and
we would expect providers to innovate in their assessment practices, for example inrelation to digital assessment, provided that such innovations are consistent with therequirements in the condition designed to maintain rigour. We would expect assessmentof apprenticeships to be consistent with IfATE’s requirements – see proposal 5 below.

56. The proposed condition and guidance (see Annex A) contain definitions of key terms,
and examples of the matters that would fall within those definitions. We would draw
particular attention to the effect of the following:a. The condition applies in respect any type of award or qualification granted in
respect of a higher education course, including degrees (including foundation
degrees), diplomas, certificates, and awards of credit.

21

b. The condition puts in place a requirement for academic regulations to be designed
to ensure that awards and qualifications are credible. In this context, the term
‘academic regulations’ is defined broadly to include the provider’s requirements
governing how students’ work is assessed, how student academic discipline isaddressed, the requirements for awards and the way in which classifications arecalculated.
c. The condition requires a provider to design assessments to minimise academic
misconduct and facilitate its detection. This includes presenting work forassessment that is not the work of the student being assessed and includes, but is
not limited to, the use of services offered by an essay mill.
d. The condition puts in place a requirement for awards and qualifications granted to
students to be credible at the point of being granted and when compared to those
granted previously. The definition of ‘credible’ means that the OfS will judge
whether awards and qualifications reflect students’ knowledge and skills and indoing so, may take into account a range of factors that include an assessment of
the credibility of awards over time. This is an important component of ourapproach to tackling unwarranted grade inflation, where the same student
achievement is rewarded with higher classifications over time.
Question 1a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition
B1 and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex A?
Question 1b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 1a.
Question 1c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 1a?
Question 2a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition
B2 and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex A?
Question 2b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 2a.
Question 2c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 2a?
Question 3a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition
B4 and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex A?
Question 3b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 3a.
Question 3c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 3a?

Proposal 2: impose one general ongoing condition of registration
relating to the standards of a provider’s courses
57. We propose to impose the general ongoing condition B5 contained in Annex B on all
registered providers. This would replace current condition B5. New condition B5 would
require a provider to ensure that standards set for its courses comply with certain22

‘sector-recognised standards’, namely ‘threshold standards’16 currently referred to in the
OfS’s regulatory framework and new degree classification descriptors for bachelors’
degrees with honours. The condition would also require providers to ensure that awards
are only granted to students who meet these standards.
58. This proposal takes forward the definition of ‘standards’ that was subject to consultationin phase one and takes into account the feedback from respondents to that
consultation.17 We have set out our response to the points made by respondents to thephase one consultation and the reasoning for the policy position we have taken on thosepoints. The relevant paragraphs are 98-114 and that detailed reasoning is not
reproduced here.
59. This proposal extends the definition of ‘sector-recognised standards’ currently includedin the regulatory framework to include standards for the classifications for Level 6(bachelors’ degree with honours) qualifications. This would allow the OfS to regulate theclassifications awarded to students completing undergraduate degrees. Because thesestandards have been developed by the sector and we are adopting them unchanged,
proposed condition B5 is necessarily more rules-based than the approach we areproposing for the conditions relating to quality.
60. The subject matter of the proposed condition means that a provider would need toensure that:a. The standards set for its students, for example the volume and level of study
required for an award, and the achievement required of students for an award anda classification, are consistent with sector-recognised standards.
b. The standards achieved in practice by students, as demonstrated in theirassessed work, are consistent with sector-recognised standards.
61. The scope of proposed condition B5, in terms of the courses and providers to which it
would apply, would be the same as for proposed conditions B1, B2 and B4 as set out
and explained in paragraphs 30-38 above. This means that the condition applies inrespect of each higher education course provided by a registered provider, including
modules or micro-credential courses and courses provided in partnership with otherproviders, and regardless of whether the provider is involved in granting awards for thecourse.
62. We take the view that it is necessary to apply the same requirements to all courses andall providers to ensure that all students benefit from regulatory protection and that

16 A ‘threshold standard’ is the minimum acceptable level of achievement that a student has todemonstrate to be eligible for an award.
17 See Consultation on regulating quality and standards in higher education: Analysis of responses,

paragraphs 98-114 www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-andstandards-in-higher-education-analysis-of-responses/.
23

taxpayers’ investment in higher education funds the provision of courses that maintainstandards and lead to reliable awards and qualifications.
63. The guidance that accompanies the condition reflects the fact that this condition is not
being proposed as an initial condition – see paragraphs 74-84 below for our proposed
approach to initial conditions. The guidance also provides more information about theapproach we propose to take to gathering evidence and considering compliance issues
and, in particular, the requirement for us to seek expert advice from the designatedquality body in areas relating to standards – see proposal 4 below.

Sector-recognised standards
64. HERA permits the OfS to impose a condition of registration that relates to the standards
applied to higher education, including requiring particular standards to be applied.
Section 13 of HERA says that where there are one or more ‘sector-recognised
standards’, the condition regarding standards may relate only to the standards applied in
respect of matters for which there are sector-recognised standards. The sectorrecognised standards that we propose to use for the purpose of condition B5 (and initialcondition B8 – see below) are those set out in Annex D.
65. Section 13(3) of HERA defines ‘sector-recognised standards’ as standards which havebeen determined by persons representing a broad range of registered higher education
providers, and which command the confidence of registered higher education providers.
We consider the standards contained in Annex D to constitute ‘sector-recognised
standards’ for this purpose because:a. The standards contained in Part A of Annex D are taken from the version of ‘The
Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree Awarding Bodies’
published in October 201418 (FHEQ). The FHEQ was created by the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education, a body which represents a range ofhigher education providers, following public consultation. Standards contained in
the FHEQ were adopted into the OfS’s regulatory framework as ‘sectorrecognised standards’ as a result of consultation on the regulatory framework in2017 and have been used as we have made decisions about compliance with therelevant conditions of registration.
b. The standards contained in Part B of Annex D are taken from the document
published by the UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment (UKSCQA) in
June 2019.19 The UKSCQA is a sector-led body which represents a range ofhigher education providers. It approved the standards document following public
consultation, concluding that the standards constituted ‘sector-recognised
standards’ for the purposes of section 13(3) of HERA.

18 See https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qualifications-frameworks.pdf
19 See ukscqa.org.uk/2019/10/10/higher-education-sector-announces-new-initiatives-to-protect-value-of-uk-degrees/24

66. The phase one consultation responses confirmed that the sector-recognised standards
currently used for condition B5 and that relate to ‘threshold standards’ are widely
recognised to be appropriate for use in the OfS’s regulation – these are the standards inPart A of Annex D. Responses were significantly less positive about the proposal to use
the degree classification descriptors – the standards in Part B of Annex D – forregulatory purposes. Respondents’ comments included that these descriptors were too
new, did not meet the definition of ‘sector-recognised standards’ and would infringe
providers’ autonomy. We have carefully considered these points as set out inparagraphs 105-112 in the analysis of consultation responses.
67. We consider that the classification descriptors are appropriate for use in our regulation
because they were developed by a sector-led group on behalf of the sector, subject tofull consultation that tested the content of the standards and their status as ‘sectorrecognised standards’, and have been available in draft or final form to providers sinceNovember 2018.
68. We have decided to continue to include the descriptors in the proposal for condition B5
because the view we set out in our phase one consultation still holds. The current
sector-recognised standards included in the regulatory framework relate only to theminimum requirements a student needs to meet to be awarded a particular qualification.
In other words, they describe the achievement of a student who is awarded a bare passdegree. They do not set out the minimum requirements for the classes of degrees
awarded to undergraduate students; for example, they do not describe the achievementof a student who is awarded a first class degree.
69. The effect of adopting the classification descriptors for undergraduate degrees as part ofcondition B5 would be that we would be able to take regulatory action whereclassifications awarded to undergraduate students are not consistent with thesestandards. This means we would be able to regulate to ensure that students and otherstakeholders could be confident in the value of undergraduate qualifications. It would
also provide us with an additional regulatory tool to respond to concerns about grade
inflation, which has been the subject of public concern, by allowing an assessment to bemade about whether the classes of bachelors’ degrees awarded by a provider meet, intheory and in practice, sector-recognised standards.
70. We recognise that seeking to regulate degree classification standards in the way
proposed may represent an intrusion on providers’ autonomy, including because degree
awarding bodies have historically exercised their ability to set standards and award
degrees independently. However, we consider that the need to protect standards islikely to outweigh considerations of institutional autonomy. Our interventions would befocused on cases where there is evidence that standards are not consistent with sectorrecognised standards and so would be a proportionate response to a legitimate
regulatory concern.
71. In drawing together these two sets of standards into a single document we have madesome amendments to the explanatory text. This is to ensure the two parts fit together ina coherent way and that the explanation of the standards is consistent and clear for25

users of the document. We do not consider that we have made any changes to thestandards themselves.
72. Proposed condition B5 would apply to any awards granted in respect of a higher
education course (including awards for apprenticeships and research courses andawards of credit), regardless of whether or not the award is granted by a degree
awarding body.
73. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we envisage amending definition of‘standards’ in the glossary of the regulatory framework to reflect final decisions on the
proposed scope and application of the B conditions.
Question 4a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition
B5 and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex B?
Question 4b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 4a.
Question 4c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 4a?

Proposal 3: impose two initial conditions of registration, one relating to
the quality of, and one relating to the standards applied to, a provider’scourse.
74. We propose to impose the initial conditions B7 and B8 contained in Annex C for all
providers seeking registration with the OfS. This takes forward the proposal contained in
the phase one consultation and takes into account the feedback from respondents tothat consultation.20
75. The proposed initial conditions are expressed differently from the ongoing requirementsfor quality and standards, to ensure that our regulatory approach appropriately reflects
the context for a provider that may not yet have delivered higher education. During theinitial registration process conducted shortly after the OfS was created most of theproviders seeking registration were established higher education providers. The
applications we now receive are more likely to be from providers without a track recordof delivering higher education, or providers that are new to the regulated sector. Our
experience is that such providers have found it difficult to identify evidence ofcompliance with the current B conditions, for example it can be difficult for a provider todemonstrate that students are provided with the support they need to succeed (asrequired by current condition B2) when it has no students. In addition, review teams
deployed by the designated quality body have experienced challenges in formulating
forward-looking ‘in prospect’ judgements for providers that are not yet delivering higher
education and this presents challenges for the OfS in reaching judgements about
whether initial conditions are satisfied.

20 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-

higher-education-analysis-of-responses/.
26

76. The proposed initial conditions therefore focus on the extent to which a provider(whether or not it has previously delivered higher education) will be able to comply withthe ongoing conditions once it is registered, and are designed to test the credibility of its
plans to do so. They relate to the following subject matter:a. Quality. This condition would require a provider to have a credible plan that, if
implemented, would allow it to satisfy ongoing conditions B1, B2 and B4 from thedate of its registration. The provider would also need to demonstrate that its plan
would be properly resourced.
b. Standards. This condition would require a provider to demonstrate, in a credible
manner, that the courses it plans to provide once it is registered are consistent
with the sector-recognised standards set out in Annex D. In practice, this meansthat the provider would need to be in a position to satisfy condition B5 from thedate of its registration.
77. The guidance that accompanies the conditions reflects the status of these conditions as
initial conditions only. The guidance also provides more information about the approach
we propose to take to gathering evidence and assessing a provider’s compliance withthe conditions – see proposal 4 below.
78. We are making this proposal because the view we set out in our phase one consultation
still holds. We consider that the outcomes-focused formulation used in the current B
conditions has presented challenges for new providers with no track record of delivering
higher education. The responses to the phase one consultation were broadly supportiveof this proposal and we are therefore proceeding with the proposal in this consultation.
We have, however, reflected on the points made in response to the phase one
consultation as we have developed our proposals.
79. Some respondents commented that the requirements for registration should not be lessdemanding for new providers, and that all new providers should be subject to review by
the designated quality body.
80. The draft conditions in Annex C reflect these points and our consideration of the otherpoints made in consultation responses as set out in the analysis of consultation
responses.
81. Our proposals would have the effect of assisting providers seeking registration tounderstand our requirements and provide the evidence necessary to demonstrate thatthese have been satisfied. This will help, in particular, providers without a track record ofdelivering higher education to meet the requirements for registration in a morestraightforward way. This will also have a positive impact on students considering study
at such a provider because it will have satisfied a clear regulatory test of its future plans.
82. Taking a different approach to setting initial regulatory requirements for providers
seeking registration will ensure our approach works more effectively for providers thathave not previously delivered higher education. We expect the vast majority of futureapplications for registration to be from providers that are new to the regulated higher
27education sector. This means that our approach to setting initial conditions needs towork effectively for these providers, providing clarity about our expectations andallowing us to assess evidence that a provider will be able to deliver high quality courses
and protect standards, whether or not it currently delivers higher education courses.
This approach would reduce the regulatory barriers for new providers seeking to accessthe regulated sector and therefore expand choice for students.
83. Some providers seeking registration will have a track record of delivering higher
education. The effect of this proposal in those circumstances is that a provider would be
able to use evidence drawn from its current or previous delivery to demonstrate thecredibility of its plans to satisfy the ongoing conditions of registration. We haveconsidered whether it is necessary to require all providers, including those with a trackrecord, to produce a plan to inform our assessment of proposed initial condition B7. We
have concluded that this is a proportionate way to ensure we are able to confirm thateach provider will be able to satisfy the relevant ongoing conditions once it is registered.
It is in the interests of students and taxpayers that we are able to do so. We envisagethat the content of a provider’s plan would be informed by its context and, therefore, that
evidence from current or previous delivery of higher education would be relevant.
84. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we envisage amending the regulatory
framework to reflect that fact that the introduction of these initial conditions wouldchange the current position that all initial conditions are also ongoing conditions. We
also envisage amending the published guidance for providers seeking registration21 sothat it refers to the two new initial conditions and sets out evidence requirements and anassessment approach consistent with those conditions – see paragraphs 138-140 below
for further information about our proposed approach to the implementation of our
proposals.
Question 5a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of initial condition B7
and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex C?
Question 5b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 5a.
Question 5c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 5a?
Question 6a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of initial condition B8
and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex C?
Question 6b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 6a.
Question 6c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 6a?

21

See Regulatory advice 2: Registration of current providers for 2019-20
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-advice-2-registration-of-current-providers-for2019-20/ and Regulatory advice 3: Registration of new providers in 2019-20
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-advice-3-registration-of-new-providers-in-201920/.

28

Proposal 4a: commission the designated quality body to provide
evidence about compliance with the initial conditions for a provider
seeking registration
85. The guidance that accompanies each of the proposed initial conditions in Annex C sets
out the approach we propose to take to assessing compliance with those conditions forthe purposes of registration. We propose to commission the designated quality body togather evidence in the following circumstances:a. For every provider seeking registration we would commission a standards review
to provide evidence to inform our judgement about whether initial condition B8 issatisfied. We are required to seek advice from the designated quality body before
making a judgement about a condition relating to standards and this ensures wehave access to expert academic advice in this area.
b. Some providers apply to be authorised for New degree awarding powers (New
DAPs) at the same time as applying for registration. In these circumstances, wewould be able to ask the designated quality body to provide separate informationthat would allow the OfS to determine whether initial condition B8 is satisfied at
the same time as the New DAPs test for the provider. This would streamline theprocess and reduce the burden of overlapping scrutiny for providers.
c. Where we determine it necessary to commission a quality review to provide
evidence to inform our judgement about whether initial condition B7 is satisfied.
We would expect to commission a quality review in most circumstances, but may
decide not to do so, for example where a registered provider seeks registration ina different category, or where there are changes to a provider’s legal form that
result in a new registration application. The OfS is required by HERA to treat suchcases as a new registration application and to decide whether each of the initialconditions of registration are satisfied. In such cases, the OfS may consider
whether the evidence it already holds about a provider’s history of compliance withthe ongoing conditions for quality is sufficient and may decide not to commission
review activity from the designated quality body.
86. Commissioning the designated quality body in this way means that we would haveaccess to expert academic judgement as part of our decision-making process where we
considered that necessary. We expect this to particularly be the case in areas relating to
the curriculum and pedagogy. Review activity would require a provider to submit
information to the designated quality body, and to cooperate with a visit from a review
team which will include meetings with relevant staff and students. If, following thisconsultation, we decide to proceed with this proposal, the designated quality body islikely to consult on the approach it would take to conducting this review activity.
87. The reason for this is that we wish to ensure that all providers seeking registration areable to meet our requirements for quality and standards so that the interests of students
29and taxpayers are protected from the date a provider is registered. Commissioning thedesignated quality body to gather evidence in this way, including with a visit to a
provider, ensures a thorough and rigorous assessment of each provider that draws on
the evidence-based judgements of academic experts.
88. In registration cases where the OfS considers the risk of non-compliance to be low, forexample because a provider had previously been registered and had a positive
compliance record, we would be able to adopt a more flexible approach that did not
involve commissioning the designated quality body to provide evidence about initialcondition B7. We would always need to seek the designated quality body’s views before
making a decision about compliance with initial condition B8.
89. The reason for this is that, in our experience, it is sometimes necessary for a registeredprovider to make a fresh application for registration. This is the case, for example, if aprovider wishes to change registration category, or where a merger or acquisition results
in a new legal entity. In these cases, the evidence we hold about a provider’s previous
compliance history may be sufficient to allow us to decide that initial condition B7 issatisfied. We consider it may appropriate to reduce regulatory burden in thesecircumstances by not routinely seeking evidence from the designated quality body if we
consider the risk of non-compliance to be low.
90. Whether or not we have commissioned the designated quality body to provide evidence
in relation to a provider, in our proposed approach we reserve the right to gather
evidence ourselves or to ask another appropriate body or individual to do so. This
proposed approach ensures that we would retain the flexibility to draw on a range ofevidence for our decisions and would also allow us to make decisions more quickly for aprovider that is not likely to represent increased risk.
Question 7a: Do you agree or disagree with the approach to information gathering andassessment proposed in paragraphs 85-90 above and as set out in the proposedguidance for initial conditions B7 and B8 in Annex C?
Question 7b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 7a.
Question 7c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 7a?

Proposal 4b: operate a flexible risk-based approach to evidence
gathering and investigation for registered providers
91. The guidance that accompanies each of the proposed ongoing conditions in Annexes A
and B sets out the approach we propose to take to assessing compliance with thoseconditions on an ongoing basis. We propose a flexible, targeted approach toinvestigation.
92. To make decisions about compliance for some of the subject matter of the proposed
conditions we are likely to need to have access to the reasoned and evidence-based30

judgements of academic experts, including with expertise in a particular subject area.
For example, we would expect to draw on such expertise to inform a decision that aprovider does not comply with the requirement in condition B1 for the content of its
courses to be up-to-date, or that sector-recognised standards are not met as required bycondition B5. The consequence of this is that the approach we take to gathering
evidence needs to give us access to such expert academic judgement where we
consider that necessary. At the same time, we need to be able to adopt a flexible
approach to ensure we are able to respond to the circumstances of an individual case.
93. Where our general monitoring activity22 produces evidence that suggests there may becompliance concerns for an individual provider, we would be likely to adopt one of thefollowing approaches:a. Engage with the provider to ensure it is aware of the issues.
b. Gather further evidence, from the provider or from elsewhere, to clarify whether abreach of one or more conditions is likely.
c. Use our investigatory powers in cases where engagement increases ourconcerns, or where the evidence suggests that a breach of one or more conditions
is likely.
94. Responses to the phase one consultation included points about the need for the OfS to
engage with a provider about any emerging issues of concern, and to use less intrusivemeans of resolving issues. This is the approach we have adopted during the pandemic
and we expect to continue to work in this way if we consider that the use of our formal
powers is not likely to be necessary or proportionate. Where we consider that the use of
our formal powers may be necessary, it is important that we are clear with a provider
about this to ensure that it is able to respond appropriately.
95. Where engagement or further evidence-gathering is not possible or appropriate, or has
not resolved the issue, we may use our formal powers to gather information, including
as part of an investigation. We may gather more evidence for an investigation ourselves,or may ask the designated quality body, or another appropriate body or individual, togather evidence to inform our investigation.
96. For any investigation, we will set out the issues that are of concern. In the first instance,
evidence-gathering would focus on these particular issues, rather than involving abroad-based review of quality or standards matters. This means that regulatory activity
is targeted on the basis of risk and the burden of responding to regulatory action for a

22

See regulatory framework, paragraphs 128-160, available atwww.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/1406/ofs2018_01.pdf.

31

provider is minimised. It would also mean that the OfS’s resources are focused on thecases that represent the most risk to students.
97. We would expect to commission the designated quality body to gather evidence for aninvestigation in the following circumstances:a. For any case where we have opened an investigation because of complianceconcerns about condition B5 in relation to standards. We are required to seek
advice from the designated quality body before making a judgement about acondition relating to standards and this ensures we have access to expert
academic advice in this area.
b. Where we have opened an investigation because of compliance concerns about
one or more of conditions B1, B2 or B4, and we take the view that the expertise of
the designated quality body is likely to be necessary for us to reach a view aboutcompliance.
98. Commissioning the designated quality body in this way means that we would haveaccess to its expertise as part of our decision-making process where we considered thatnecessary. We would normally expect the designated quality body to undertake a visit to
the provider and hold meetings with its staff and students.
99. The likelihood of an investigatory visit to a provider when we have concerns is designed
to incentivise all providers to focus attention on ensuring ongoing compliance. Our
proposals would see an increasingly risk-based approach to the regulation of quality andstandards, with attention focused on those issues and providers that represent greatest
risk to students, with these providers incentivised to improve their performance.
Conversely, the highest quality providers would experience minimal regulatory burden in
relation to our regulation of the B conditions as a result of these proposals. Our view isthat adopting this approach to intervention would provide an appropriate balance
between minimising regulatory burden for providers that present least regulatory risk,
and ensuring that we are able to intervene rapidly in a targeted way in areas of mostrisk.
100. Where we decide that there is, or has been, a breach of any of the B conditions, we willconsider the use of the full range of our enforcement powers, including to require
improvement, to mitigate the impact of poor performance on students, or to incentivise
future compliance by this and other providers. We would expect to use the mostsignificant of those powers for a serious or persistent breach of one or more of the B
conditions. This would have the effect of ensuring that a provider acts to remedy abreach quickly so that students are not exposed to quality or standards below the OfS’s
regulatory baseline. For a breach of one or more of the B conditions we will, inparticular, consider whether any authorisation for degree awarding powers already heldby a provider should be varied or revoked.

32101. Using our enforcement powers in these circumstances, and publishing information23
about such cases to draw attention to a provider that requires improvement, will
incentivise compliance from other providers and provide public confidence that the OfS
is willing to actively regulate low quality provision.
102. We will follow any statutory consultation process as we take enforcement action. We
are not consulting on the approach to the use of our enforcement powers and thecircumstances in which we may use them in relation to non-compliance with our quality
and standards requirements – the position remains as set out in the regulatory
framework.
Question 8a: Do you agree or disagree with the approach to information gathering as part ofan investigation proposed in paragraphs 91-98 above and as set out in the proposedguidance for conditions B1, B2, B4 and B5 in Annexes A and B?
Question 8b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 8a.
Question 8c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 8a?

Proposal 4c: take account of a provider’s compliance history in relation
to the quality and standards conditions for the purpose of determining
eligibility for other benefits of OfS registration
103. The guidance that accompanies each of the proposed conditions in Annexes A and B
sets out the possible consequences of non-compliance for eligibility for other benefits of
OfS registration.
104. Where we decide that there is, or has been, a breach of B1, B2, B4 or B5,24 or there isan increased risk of a future breach, we propose to take this into account in consideringa provider’s eligibility for other benefits of OfS registration. This is the case whether or
not we have used our enforcement powers in relation to a breach, or imposed
requirements to mitigate increased risk of a future breach. We propose to take aprovider’s compliance history in relation to these conditions into account in the ways set
out below.

The TEF
105. We plan to consult on a new TEF framework in autumn 2021. In that consultation weare currently minded to set out proposals for the way in which a provider’s current andprevious compliance with the B conditions would be taken into account in determining
eligibility to apply for a TEF award. The reason for this is that we may not consider it
23 Subject to the outcomes of our consultation on publication of information about higher education

providers. The consultation is available at www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-onpublication-of-information-about-higher-education-providers/.
24 We intend to consult further on this issue in relation to condition B3 in our consultation on regulating

student outcomes in autumn 2021.
33

appropriate for a provider to obtain a TEF award that signals ‘teaching excellence’ if it
has breached, or is at increased risk of breaching, our minimum requirements for
quality or standards. We consider that granting such an award in those circumstances
could have the potential to mislead students and others about the OfS’s view of thequality and standards of a provider’s courses and the provider’s compliance history.
106. In addition, in our future consultation, we are currently minded to set out proposals forthe way in which a provider’s current and previous compliance with the B conditions
would affect any existing TEF award. The reason for this is that we may not consider it
appropriate for a provider to retain a TEF award that signals ‘teaching excellence’ if it
breaches, or is at increased risk of breaching, our minimum requirements for quality or
standards. Retaining such an award in those circumstances could mislead students
and others about the OfS’s view of the quality and standards of a provider’s courses.
107. The details and effect of these proposals for the TEF will be set out in the autumn TEF
consultation. We are signalling these likely future consultation proposals in the current
consultation because we consider it important that respondents understand thepossible future consequences of non-compliance with the proposed quality andstandards conditions.

Degree awarding powers
108. Where the OfS makes a final decision that there is, or has been, a breach25 of one ormore of the B conditions26, or a breach of another relevant condition27, we will take that
into account in the following ways:
a. We will consider using our power to suspend the aspects of the provider’s registrationthat relate to the authorisation of degree awarding powers (DAPs). We would be likely
to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for new28 or extended degree
awarding powers. In any decision to impose a suspension we would explain the steps
the provider is required to take in order for the suspension to be lifted.
b. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, we would be likely to
decide that the provider is not suitable to be authorised for new or extended degree
awarding powers (DAPs).
c. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing, we would be likely
to decide to investigate further to determine whether that conduct has recurred such

25 By ‘breach’ we mean here that the OfS has made a formal finding that one or more conditions has

been breached and has set that out to the provider in a final decision.
26 For the current consultation we mean B1, B2, B4 and B5, and we will consult further on this issue inrelation to condition B3 in the autumn consultation on regulating student outcomes.
27 The regulatory framework refers to conditions relating to financial viability and sustainability, andmanagement and governance in this context.
28 In this context ‘new’ means powers that the provider has not previously held, whether or not it

seeks to hold those powers on a probationary basis.
34

that we would consider there to be a new breach or an increased risk of a future
breach.
d. Where we have previously identified an increased risk of a future breach, we would be
likely to decide to investigate further to determine whether our concerns have been
resolved or whether there is a new breach.
109. We would take this approach whether or not the authorisation sought is to gain new
powers, or extend existing powers, for example by time, level or subject. We would
have regard to the intervention factors set out in paragraph 167 of the regulatory
framework and consider, in particular, the proportionality of taking this approach.
110. Where we consider, exceptionally, that it is in the interests of students for a new or
extended authorisation to be made, for example, because a provider’s existing timelimited authorisation is due to expire, we would consider authorising a limited extensionof the provider’s existing powers to allow it time to take the steps necessary for thesuspension to be lifted, or to resolve the issues that resulted in the finding of thebreach.
111. The reason for this approach is that a provider that has breached our minimum
regulatory requirements for quality and standards would, in our view, be unlikely to beable to exercise its own degree awarding powers securely. If we were to authorise
DAPs in these circumstances we would be exposing students to the risk that theprovider would not be able to retain those powers, and so would not be able to award
the qualifications for which students had registered. That situation would also damage
the reputation of the English higher education sector.
112. Where a provider needs to make a fresh application for registration, for example,
because it wishes to change registration category, or where a merger or acquisition
takes place, we will take the following approach:a. Where the provider seeking registration is either the same entity, or is a new entity
operating the same higher education business as the previous entity, we will take into
account the compliance history of the previously-registered provider.
b. Where the provider seeking registration is a new entity that is not operating the same
higher education business as the previous entity, we will treat that provider as a newprovider for DAPs purposes. This will mean that the previous provider’s track record29
cannot be transferred to the new entity.
113. This approach is designed to ensure that a provider cannot take advantage of aprevious entity’s track record for DAPs purposes without also being responsible for that
previous entity’s compliance history.

29 A provider that has been delivering higher education for less than three years does not have asufficient track record to apply for Full DAPs authorisation. It may instead apply for authorisation on aprobationary basis.
35

114. Similarly, where a provider with DAPs merges with one or more other providers, we willtake into account the compliance history of each provider as we determine whether the
new entity should be authorised for DAPs.
115. This proposal in relation to degree awarding powers does not affect our ability to takeenforcement action, for example to vary a provider’s authorisation to restrict its ability toaward degrees, or to revoke a provider’s existing authorisation. Nothing in this proposal
fetters our discretion to take such enforcement action on the basis set out in HERA. A
provider’s compliance history in relation to the B conditions is likely to be relevant
evidence in decisions about any such enforcement action.
116. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we envisage amending the sections of theregulatory framework that relate to DAPs, and other guidance documents,30 to reflect
final decisions on this proposal to take account of a provider’s compliance history in
relation to the conditions for quality and standards.

University title
117. Where the OfS makes a final decision that there is, or has been, a breach31 of one ormore of the B conditions32, or a breach of another relevant condition33, we will take that
into account in the following ways:
a. We will consider using our power to suspend the aspects of the provider’s registrationthat relate to the authorisation of university or university college title. We would be likely
to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for university or university college
title. In any decision to impose a suspension we would explain the steps the provider isrequired to take in order for the suspension to be lifted.
b. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, we would be likely to
decide that the provider is not suitable to be authorised for university or university
college title.
c. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing, we would be likely
to decide to investigate further to determine whether that conduct has recurred suchthat we would consider there to be a new breach or an increased risk of a future
breach.

30 We anticipate making changes to Regulatory advice 12: How to apply for degree awarding powers

and Regulatory advice 17: Variation and revocation of degree awarding powers.
31 By ‘breach’ we mean here that the OfS has made a formal finding that one or more conditions has

been breached and has set that out to the provider in a final decision.
32 For the current consultation we mean B1, B2, B4 and B5, and we will consult further on this issue inrelation to condition B3 in the autumn consultation on regulating student outcomes.
33 The regulatory framework refers to conditions relating to financial viability and sustainability, andmanagement and governance in this context.
36

d. Where we have previously identified an increased risk of a future breach, we would be
likely to decide to investigate further to determine whether our concerns have been
resolved or whether there is a new breach.
118. We would have regard to the intervention factors set out in paragraph 167 of theregulatory framework and consider, in particular, the proportionality of taking thisapproach.
119. The reason for this approach is that a provider that is not satisfying our minimum
regulatory requirements for quality and standards would, in our view, be unlikely to beable to exercise its own degree awarding powers securely. The secure exercise of
DAPs is central to the award of university title and therefore in such cases we would
not wish to authorise the use of university or university college title. That situation
would also damage the reputation of the English higher education sector.
120. Where a provider needs to make a fresh application for registration, for example,
because it wishes to change registration category, or where a merger or acquisition
takes place, we will take the following approach:a. Where the provider seeking registration is either the same entity, or is a new entity
operating the same higher education business as the previous entity, we will take into
account the compliance history of the previously-registered provider.
b. Where the provider seeking registration is a new entity that is not operating the same
higher education business as the previous entity, we will treat that provider as a newprovider for university, or university college, title purposes. This will mean that theprevious provider’s track record34 cannot be transferred to the new entity.
121. This approach is designed to ensure that a provider cannot take advantage of aprevious entity’s track record for university, or university college, title purposes without
also being responsible for that previous entity’s compliance history.
122. Similarly, where a provider with university, or university college, title merges with one ormore other providers, we will take into account the compliance history of each provider
as we determine whether the new entity should be authorised for university, or
university college title.
123. This proposal in relation to university and university college title does not affect ourability to take enforcement action, for example to revoke a provider’s existing
authorisation for university title. Nothing in this proposal fetters our discretion to takesuch enforcement action on the basis set out in HERA. A provider’s compliance history
in relation to the B conditions is likely to be relevant evidence in decisions about any
such enforcement action.

34 To be eligible to apply for university, or university college, title, a provider must have authorisation

to grant taught awards (other than foundation degree only DAPs) or research awards on an indefinite
basis.
37

124. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we envisage amending the sections of theregulatory framework that relate to university title, and other guidance documents,35 toreflect final decisions on this proposal to take account of a provider’s compliancehistory in relation to the conditions for quality and standards.

OfS public grant funding
125. We may decide to take account of a provider’s current and previous compliance with
the B conditions in determining allocations of some types of OfS public grant funding.
The reason for this is that we may not consider it appropriate for a provider to receive
public funding if it has breached, or is at increased risk of breaching, our minimum
requirements for quality or standards. Allocating funding in those circumstances would
mean that taxpayers’ money was being allocated to providers that were not providing
high quality higher education courses, or were not maintaining standards.
126. The details and effect of these proposals to take account of a provider’s compliancehistory in relation to eligibility for funding would be set out in any future funding
consultation. We are signalling these possible future consultation proposals for funding
in the current consultation because we consider it important that respondents
understand the possible future consequences of non-compliance with the proposed
quality and standards conditions.
Question 9a: Do you agree or disagree with the approach to taking account of a provider’scompliance history for the purpose of determining eligibility for other benefits of OfS
registration proposed in paragraphs 103-126 above and as set out in the proposed guidancefor conditions B1, B2, B4 and B5 in Annexes A and B?
Question 9b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 9a.
Question 9c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 9a?

Proposal 5: the OfS will use its role as the body responsible for External
Quality Assurance for integrated higher and degree apprenticeships toinform its judgements about condition B4.
127. The OfS is the body responsible for External Quality Assurance (EQA) of End Point
Assessment Organisations (EPAO). All apprentices undertake an end-point
assessment at the end of their apprenticeship to confirm they have achieved
occupational competence. EPAOs are responsible for undertaking end-point
assessments.
128. An integrated degree apprenticeship is where a degree qualification is included in theapprenticeship and assessment relating to the degree is fully integrated with the end35 We anticipate making changes to Regulatory advice 13: How to apply for university college anduniversity title.
38

point assessment. In these circumstances the provider delivering the degree within theapprenticeship also acts as the EPAO and undertakes the end-point assessment.
129. A non-integrated degree apprenticeship is where a degree qualification is included in
the apprenticeship but assessment relating to the degree is conducted separately andis not integrated with the end-point assessment. The degree qualification must be
achieved prior to the apprentice passing through the end-point assessment gateway. In
these circumstances the provider delivering the degree as part of the apprenticeship is
responsible for the assessment related to the award of the degree; however, an
independent EPAO would be responsible for undertaking the end-point assessment of
the apprentice.
130. EQA monitors the delivery of end-point assessment to ensure that it is fair, consistentand robust across different apprenticeship standards and between different EPAOs.
131. IfATE is responsible for the oversight and requirements of EQA. It consulted on asimplified approach from February to May 2020 which proposed that the OfS would be
responsible for EQA for OfS registered providers that deliver integrated higher anddegree apprenticeships (and are therefore responsible for delivering the end-point
assessment themselves rather than through an independent EPAO).
132. The quality of assessment and awards is within the scope of proposed condition B4
which would require a registered provider to ensure that students are assessed
effectively and that each assessment is reliable and valid. In relation to integrated
higher and degree apprenticeships, this means end-point assessments are also within
the scope of proposed condition B4. IfATE has set out, in its EQA framework36, what
constitutes effective, reliable and valid end-point assessment for these apprenticeships.
133. This means that a judgement about whether condition B4 is satisfied in relation to a
provider’s integrated higher and degree apprenticeships would take account of therequirements of the IfATE’s framework that relate to the effectiveness, reliability andvalidity of assessment.
134. The designated quality body will undertake EQA on behalf of the OfS according to the
IfATE’s EQA framework. We propose that where a registered provider delivers one ormore integrated higher or degree apprenticeships, meaning that it also acts as the
EPAO and undertakes end-point assessment of apprentices itself, the OfS would:
a. Commission the designated quality body to assess the end-point assessments
undertaken by a provider according to the IfATE’s framework for EQA and to use
this assessment to:i. Provide evidence about the provider's compliance with proposed condition B4
in relation to integrated higher and degree apprenticeships.

36 See www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/media/4424/eqa-framework-august-2020.pdf [PDF].

39

ii. Provide evidence about the provider's assessment practices used in its
integrated higher and degree apprenticeships in relation to the aspects of the
IfATE's framework for EQA that relate to the quality of higher education thatare not covered by proposed condition B4.
b. Consider and address any compliance issues arising in relation to condition B4 in
the normal way.
c. Publish information regarding the assessment of each apprenticeship standard,setting out the findings of the designated quality body in relation to the aspects of
the IfATE’s framework for EQA that relate to the quality of higher education thatare not covered by proposed condition B4.

d. Share information with the IfATE in relation to individual providers and the wider
operation of EPA within integrated higher and degree apprenticeships.
135. The effect of this proposal is that there would be regular assessment of some aspectsof quality for a provider that undertakes end-point assessments for apprentices
because it delivers one or more integrated higher or degree apprenticeships. Suchassessment would allow the provider to continue to meet the requirements of the
IfATE’s framework and therefore continue to be eligible to deliver EPAs and remain on
the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s (ESFA’s) Register of End-Point Assessment
Organisations.
136. Evidence of compliance concerns in relation to a provider’s conditions of registration
gathered through this process would be considered in the normal way. This could resultin engagement with the provider to seek improvement, or the use of the OfS’s
enforcement powers where we consider that appropriate.
137. The reasoning for this proposal is that the proposed approach would implement theapproach consulted on by the IfATE in accordance with its published framework for
EQA. It would also allow the assessment of condition B4 for integrated degree andhigher apprenticeship provision without the requirement for additional review orassessment by the OfS or the designated quality body. This means that providers
would already be familiar with these requirements and would not need to engage withdifferent parallel requirements.
Question 10a: Do you agree or disagree that the OfS should use its role as EQA provider toinform assessments of condition B4?
Question 10b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 10a.
Question 10c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 10a?

40

Proposed implementation
138. The OfS is mindful of the context within which higher education providers are currently
operating, because of the continuing effect of the coronavirus pandemic. The OfS has
made clear its commitment to reducing regulatory burden and supporting providers in
the interests of students during this period.37
139. Nonetheless, given the benefits to students arising from more effective regulation ofquality and standards, it is important not to delay seeking views on our proposals.
140. Subject to the representations received as a result of this consultation, we intend to
make a decision on whether to impose the conditions in Annexes A, B and C andrevise the regulatory framework, as set out in these proposals, in autumn 2021. The
new ongoing conditions would come into effect for registered providers on the date of
publication of that decision. The new initial conditions of registration would come into
effect for any provider submitting an application for registration on or after the date of
publication of that decision.

Question 11: Do you have any comments about the proposed implementation of the
proposals in this consultation?
Question 12: Do you have any comments about any unintended consequences of these
proposals, for example for particular types of provider or for any particular types of student?
Question 13: Do you have any comments about the potential impact of these proposals on
individuals on the basis of their protected characteristics?
Question 14: Do you have any other comments about the proposals?

37 See our letter of 25 March 2020: www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-

requirements-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/.
41

Annex A: Proposed ongoing conditions for
quality and amendments to the OfS’s
regulatory framework
Condition B1: Academic experience
Scope
B1.1 This condition applies to the quality of higher education provided in any manner orform by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to, circumstances where aprovider is responsible only for granting awards for students registered with anotherprovider).

Requirement
B1.2 Without prejudice to the scope of B1.1, the provider must ensure that the students
registered on each higher education course receive a high quality academic
experience.

B1.3 For the purposes of this condition, a high quality academic experience includes but
is not limited to ensuring all of the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

each higher education course is up-to-date;each higher education course provides educational challenge;
each higher education course is coherent;each higher education course is effectively delivered; andeach higher education course, as appropriate to the subject matter of thecourse, requires students to develop relevant skills.

Definitions
B1.4 For the purposes of this condition B1:
a. “appropriately informed” will be assessed by reference to:i.
the time period within which any of the developments described in thedefinition of up-to-date have been in existence;ii.
the importance of any of the developments described in the definition of
up-to-date to the subject matter of the higher education course; andiii.
the time period by which it is planned that such developments describedin the definition of up-to-date will be brought into the higher education
course content.
b. “coherent” means a higher education course which ensures:i.
there is an appropriate balance between breadth and depth of content;ii.
subjects and skills are taught in an appropriate order and, where
necessary, build on each other throughout the course; and
42

iii.
c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

key concepts are introduced at the appropriate point in the course
content.
“educational challenge” means a challenge that is no less than the minimum
level of rigour and difficulty reasonably expected of the higher education
course, in the context of the subject matter of the course.
“effectively delivered”, in relation to a higher education course, means themanner in which it is taught, supervised and assessed (both in person andremotely) including, but not limited to, ensuring:i.
an appropriate balance between lectures, seminars, group work andpractical study, as relevant to the content of the course; andii.
an appropriate balance between directed and independent study or
research, as relevant to the level of the course.
“higher education course” is to be interpreted:i.
in accordance with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017; andii.
so as to include, for the avoidance of doubt:
A. a course of study;
B. a programme of research;
C. any further education course that forms an integrated partof a higher education course; andD. any module that forms part of a higher education course,
whether or not that module is delivered as an integrated
part of the course.
“relevant skills” means:i.
knowledge and understanding relevant to the subject matter and level ofthe higher education course; andii.
other skills relevant to the subject matter and level of the higher
education course including, but not limited to, cognitive skills, practicalskills, transferable skills and professional competences.
“up-to-date” means representative of current thinking and practices in thesubject matter to which the higher education course relates, including being
appropriately informed by recent:i.
subject matter developments;ii.
research, industrial and professional developments; andiii.
developments in teaching and learning, including learning resources.

Summary
Applies to: all registered providers
Initial or general ongoing condition: general ongoing condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA

43

Guidance
Condition B1.1
1.

The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher
education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or
any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules, andapprenticeships are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses
provided face-to-face, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.

2. The reference to higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider” includes
higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registeredprovider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registeredprovider. This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered
through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
3. The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider is
responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider”
means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where itis the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider has any other role in thedesign or delivery of that course.
4. Where a provider is not the awarding body for a course, this condition applies to acourse the provider itself delivers, regardless of the identity of the awarding body,whether or not that awarding body is registered with the OfS, or the nature of any
partnership agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this means for example, that aprovider delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by Pearson is responsible
for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses. Similarly, a provider
delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by another higher education
provider, whether that awarding provider is located in England or elsewhere, is
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses.
5. In practice, these provisions may result in more than one registered provider being
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to the same course.

Condition B1.3
6. The subject matter of this condition includes matters that relate to the curriculum andpedagogy for higher education courses. The OfS would expect to draw on expert
academic judgement, including from subject experts, before reaching a view that thecondition was not satisfied in relation to such matters.

Condition B1.4
7. The requirement of condition B1 is expressed as a principle that can be satisfied indifferent ways. To assist providers in understanding how the OfS may interpret thisprinciples-based requirement in practice, the following paragraphs provide a small
number of illustrative examples. These examples are not exhaustive.
44

8. In relation to “up-to-date” and “appropriately informed”, the following is an illustrative nonexhaustive list of examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to theinterpretation of this condition:a. The subject matter of a course is not representative of current thinking andpractices. For example, course content, including topics and reading lists, thatis not informed by research and scholarship, or does not reflect professional
developments, such as the adoption of the latest professional or industry
standards, would be likely to be of concern.
b. The pedagogy of a course is not representative of current thinking andpractices. For example, a course delivered wholly or in part online that does
not use pedagogy appropriate to digital delivery, would be likely to be ofconcern.
c. The length of the period during which aspects of the course have not been
updated. For example, a course that has not been updated for a number ofyears such that its content or pedagogy do not reflect current rigorous
academic thinking in that subject area, or more generally, would be likely to
be of concern. This may depend on the subject matter of a course, forexample, for an accounting course, tax modules are likely to require frequent
updating, whereas management accounting modules may need less frequent
updating.
d. The scale and nature of the changes needed to ensure the course is up-todate. For example, a course that requires significant changes to ensure its
content or pedagogy reflect current rigorous academic thinking in that subject
area, or more generally, would be likely to be of concern. Similarly, a coursewith an out-of-date core component would be likely to be of concern.
e. The impact on students and others of an out-of-date course. For example, acourse that does not contain content that is required by a professional,
statutory or regulatory body (PSRB), whether or not that course has recently
been updated, would be likely to be of concern. The OfS would be particularly
concerned about a course that was not up-to-date where this could
reasonably be viewed as creating a risk to the public, for example a coursethat provided graduates with the recognition to practice medicine or to teachin schools.

f.

Whether a provider has plans to make changes to a course to ensure it is upto-date. For example, plans to make changes to a course that post-date the
OfS’s interest in that course are less likely to reduce concerns.

9. In relation to “educational challenge”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of
examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of thiscondition:45

a. An integrated masters’ course with a final year of study that does not provide
sufficient rigour and difficulty, for example because students at different
stages of the course are taught together in a way that does not recognise thedifferent challenge needed, would be likely to be of concern.
b. An undergraduate degree course with an integrated foundation year, where
the foundation year does not provide sufficient rigour and difficulty such thatstudents are not prepared for successful study in the undergraduate course,
would be likely to be of concern.
c. A research degree course that is focused on a narrowly defined researchquestion that provides limited scope for original ideas would be likely to be ofconcern.
10. In relation to “coherent”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples todemonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:a. The content of a course is too narrow. For example, a three-year
undergraduate degree that does not provide sufficient opportunity for students
to study optional subjects beyond a mandatory core, either because thecourse was designed without such options, or because options are not inpractice available, would be likely to be of concern.
b. The content of a course is too broad. For example, a 20 credit module that
contains too much material for students to demonstrate the depth ofunderstanding expected for the course, would be likely to be of concern.
c. Students are not secure in foundational topics. Students do not learn key,foundation concepts before moving onto more difficult topics, for example, acourse that requires competence in mathematics does not teach theseconcepts before or alongside the topics they underpin would be likely to be ofconcern.
d. Practical or practice-based components are not taught in an appropriate
order. For example, laboratory practical sessions are delivered in a
disconnected way from related theory.
e. Skills are not taught at the right time. For example, appropriate research skills
courses not being available for research students before they begin theirresearch programme, would be likely to be of concern.
f.

Modules are not available to students at the appropriate time to construct a
coherent pathway. For example, joint degree students not able to accessrelevant modules at the appropriate time, would be likely to be of concern.

11. In relation to “effectively delivered”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of
examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of thiscondition:46

a. The range of learning activities is too narrow. For example, a course that is
predominantly taught through large-scale lectures and does not provide
opportunities for small group teaching would be likely to be of concern.
b. The research environment does not support students’ learning. For example,
a postgraduate research course without regular and effective supervisionsessions, or without opportunities for structured engagement with otherresearchers, would be likely to be of concern.
c. Professional or practice-based elements are not integrated with academic
elements. For example, an apprenticeship that does not require academic
reflection on work-based learning would be likely to be of concern.

d. Assessment is not designed into the course. For example, assessment
activities not being scheduled to consolidate students’ learning, or feedback
not sufficient or timely to support learning, would be likely to be of concern.
12. In relation to “relevant skills”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of
examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of thiscondition:
a. A course that does not require students to develop and demonstrateintellectual skills, such as evaluating evidence, mobilising an argument,
solving problems, consistent with the subject and level of the course, would
be likely to be of concern.

b. A course designed to lead to a particular profession that does not require
students to develop and demonstrate the skills necessary for success in thatprofession would be likely to be of concern.
c. A course in which students are not required to develop and consistently
demonstrate technical proficiency in the use of written English, where the
OfS, employers and taxpayers would reasonably expect such proficiency,
would be likely to be of concern.

Evidence gathering, assessment and enforcement
13. The OfS will use its general risk-based approach to monitoring as set out in theregulatory framework.
14. Where monitoring activity produces evidence that suggests there may be complianceconcerns for an individual provider, the OfS would be likely to adopt one of the following
approaches:a. Engage with a provider to ensure it is aware of the issues.
b. Gather further evidence, from a provider or from elsewhere, to clarify whether
a breach of one or more conditions is likely.
47

c. Use its investigatory powers in cases where engagement increases its
concerns, or where the evidence suggests that a breach of one or moreconditions is likely.
15. Where the OfS considers it necessary to use its investigatory powers it may conduct aninvestigation itself, or may ask the designated quality body, or another appropriate bodyor individual, to gather further evidence. For any investigation, the OfS will set out theissues that are of concern. An investigation will normally involve a visit to the provider
and interviews with relevant staff and students.
16. Having gathered further evidence as necessary, the OfS will reach a view about aprovider’s previous and ongoing compliance with the condition. Where the OfS takes theview that there is or has been a breach of the condition, it will write to the provider to set
out the reasons for its provisional decision and set out the evidence it has used to reachthis view. The provider is able to submit any further information it considers relevant in a
representations process and the OfS will consider this before reaching a final decision.
17. Where the OfS has decided that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it willconsider the use of the full range of its enforcement powers. This includes the impositionof a monetary penalty, suspension of elements of a provider’s registration, for example
its access to student support funding or OfS public grant funding, or deregistration. The
OfS is likely to require improvement, to mitigate the impact of poor performance on
students, or to incentivise future compliance by this and other providers. The OfS will
follow any statutory consultation process as it takes enforcement action.
18. Where the OfS considers there to be an increased risk of a breach, it may impose one ormore specific ongoing conditions of registration and will also consider whether additional
monitoring requirements are necessary, for example, a requirement to report additional
matters as reportable events.
19. Where there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or where the OfS considers there
to be an increased risk of a breach, the OfS may take this into account in the following
ways:
a. The eligibility requirements for participation in the TEF. The OfS will set out in
its TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous
compliance with this condition may be taken into account in determining
eligibility for the TEF.

b. Changes to, or removal of, an existing TEF award. The OfS will set out in its
TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous compliancewith this condition may affect any existing TEF award.
c. Regulation of degree awarding powers. Where the OfS makes a final decisionthat there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will take that into
account in the following ways:48

i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of DAPs andwould be likely to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for
new or extended degree awarding powers.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for new or extended DAPs.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
The OfS would take this approach whether or not the authorisation sought is
to gain new powers, or extend existing powers, for example by time, level orsubject.
d. Regulation of university, and university college, title. Where the OfS makes a
final decision that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will takethat into account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of university oruniversity college title and would be likely to suspend the provider’seligibility to be authorised for university or university college title.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for university or university college title.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.

49

e. The criteria for allocation of OfS public grant funding. The OfS may decide to
take account of a provider’s current and previous compliance with thiscondition in determining allocations of some types of OfS public grant funding.

50

Condition B2: Resources, support and student
engagement
Scope
B2.1 This condition applies to the quality of higher education provided in any manner orform by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to, circumstances where aprovider is responsible only for granting awards for students registered with anotherprovider).

Requirement
B2.2 Without prejudice to the principle set out in condition B1 and the scope of B2.1, theprovider must ensure:a. each cohort of students registered on each higher education course receives
resources and support to ensure:i.

a high quality academic experience for those students; andii.

those students succeeding in and beyond higher education; andb. effective engagement with each cohort of students to ensure:i.

a high quality academic experience for those students; andii.

those students succeeding in and beyond higher education.

Definitions
B2.3 For the purposes of this condition B2:
a. “academic misconduct” means any action or attempted action that may resultin a student obtaining an unfair academic advantage in relation to anassessment, including but not limited to plagiarism, unauthorised collaborationand the possession of unauthorised materials during an assessment.
b. “appropriately qualified” means staff have and maintain:i.

expert knowledge of the subject they design and/or deliver;ii.

teaching qualifications or training, and teaching experience, appropriate forthe content and level of the relevant higher education course; andiii.

the required knowledge and skills as to the effective delivery of their higher
education course.

c. “assessment” means any component of a course used to assess student
achievement towards a relevant award, including an examination and a test.
d. “cohort of students” means the group of students registered on to the higher
education course in question and is to be interpreted by reference to theparticular academic needs of those students based on prior academic
attainment and capability.
51

e. “engagement” means routinely building into the course delivery opportunities forstudents to contribute to the future development of the higher education
course in a way that maintains the academic rigour of that course, including, but
not limited to, through membership of the provider’s committees, including thegoverning body, opportunities to provide survey responses, and participation in
activities to develop the course and the way it is delivered.
f.

“higher education course” is to be interpreted:i.

in accordance with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017; andii.

so as to include, for the avoidance of doubt:A.

a course of study;B.

a programme of research;C.

any further education course that forms an integrated partof a higher education course; andD.

any module that forms part of a higher education course,
whether or not that module is delivered as an integrated
part of the course.

g. “physical and digital learning resources” includes, as appropriate to thecontent and delivery of the higher education course, but is not limited to:i.

physical locations, for example teaching rooms, libraries and laboratories;ii.

physical and digital learning resources, for example books, computers andsoftware;iii.

the resources needed for digital learning and teaching, for example,
hardware and software, and technical infrastructure; andiv.

other specialist resources, for example specialist equipment, software andresearch tools.

h. “relevant award” means:i.

a research award;ii.

a taught award; and/oriii.

any other type of award or qualification in respect of a higher
education course, including an award of credit granted in respectof a module that may form part of a larger higher education
course,whether or not granted pursuant to an authorisation given by or under theHigher Education and Research Act 2017, another Act of Parliament orRoyal Charter.
i.

“research award” and “taught award” have the meanings given in section 42(3)of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

j.

“resources” includes but is not limited to:

52

i.

the staff team that designs and delivers a higher education course being
collectively sufficient in number, appropriately qualified and deployedeffectively to deliver in practice; andii.

physical and digital learning resources that are adequate and deployedeffectively to meet the needs of the cohort of students.

k. “sufficient in number” will be assessed by reference to the principle that thelarger the cohort size of students, the greater the number of staff and amount ofstaff time should be available to students, and means, in the context of the staff
team:

l.

i.

there is sufficient financial resource to recruit enough staff;ii.

the provider allocates appropriate financial resource to ensuring staff are
equipped to teach courses;iii.

higher education courses have an adequate number of staff, and amountof staff time, to provide students with the academic experience advertised;
and

iv.

the impact on students of changes in staffing is minimised/minimal.

“support” means the effective deployment of assistance, as appropriate to thecontent of the higher education course and the cohort of students, including
but not limited to:i.

academic support relating to the content of the higher education course;ii.

support needed to underpin successful physical and digital learning andteaching;iii.

support relating to avoiding academic misconduct; andiv.

careers support,

but for the avoidance of doubt, does not include other categories of non-academic
support.

Summary
Applies to: all registered providers.
Initial or general ongoing condition: general ongoing condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA

53

Guidance
Condition B2.1
20. The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher
education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or
any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules, and apprenticeships
are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses provided face-toface, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.
21. The reference to higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider” includes
higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registeredprovider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registeredprovider. This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered
through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
22. The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider is
responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider”
means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where itis the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider has any other role in thedesign or delivery of that course.
23. Where a provider is not the awarding body for a course, this condition applies to acourse the provider itself delivers, regardless of the identity of the awarding body,whether or not that awarding body is registered with the OfS, or the nature of any
partnership agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this means for example, that aprovider delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by Pearson is responsible
for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses. Similarly, a provider
delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by another higher education
provider, whether that awarding provider is located in England or elsewhere, is
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses.
24. In practice, these provisions may result in more than one registered provider being
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to the same course.

Condition B2.3
25. The requirement of condition B2 is expressed as a principle that can be satisfied indifferent ways. To assist providers in understanding how the OfS may interpret thisprinciples-based requirement in practice, the following paragraphs provide a small
number of illustrative examples. These examples are not exhaustive; nor are they
provided as rules that, if followed, would constitute compliance with the condition.
26. “Cohort of students” includes students registered on postgraduate research courses,
whether or not those courses are designed for students to study and progress as ‘acohort’.

54

27. “Academic misconduct” includes presenting work for assessment that is not the work of
the student being assessed and includes but is not limited to the use of services offeredby an essay mill.
28. Where the condition contains requirements that relate to the staff team for a course, the
OfS’s focus is likely to be on the staff team as a whole, rather than on individuals withinthat team. The staff team includes individuals employed by a provider or otherwise
deployed to teach on a course.
29. The following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples that would not be likely tosatisfy these requirements:a. A staff team comprised solely of inexperienced teachers is not likely to beappropriately qualified.
b. A staff team with narrow collective expertise in a subject area is not likely to
be appropriately qualified if the range of options available to students extend
beyond that collective expertise.
c. A staff team in which none of the individuals hold a teaching qualification or
have been trained to undertake teaching is not likely to be appropriately
qualified.
d. A staff team that is over-reliant on visiting teachers to deliver large orsignificant elements of a course is not likely to be appropriately qualified.
e. A staff team that does not conduct research at the forefront of relevant
discipline(s) is not likely to be appropriately qualified to provide supervision toresearch students.
30. Where the condition contains requirements that relate to learning resources a provider is
expected to fund the provision of these resources, without additional charge beyond thecourse fee, where the students registered on the course are not reasonably able toprovide resources themselves, and where the availability of such resources is necessary
to ensure a high quality academic experience for students; and those students
succeeding in and beyond higher education. A provider may determine the approach it
takes to making such resources available to students, for example, by loaning resources
to students for the duration of the course.

31. In relation to “physical and digital learning resources” the following is an illustrative nonexhaustive list of matters relating to ‘physical learning resources’ that would fall within
the definition:
a. Appropriate laboratory and technical resources for STEM subjects.
b. Appropriate studio, performance, and technical resources for creative
subjects.

55

32. In relation to “physical and digital learning resources” the following is an illustrative nonexhaustive list of matters relating to ‘digital learning resources’ that would fall within thedefinition:
a. Appropriate hardware. Students have the hardware that allows them toeffectively access all course content. Hardware is of the specification required
to ensure that the student is not disadvantaged in relation to their peers.
b. Appropriate software. Students have the software they need to effectively
access all aspects of course content.
c. Robust technical infrastructure. Technical infrastructure and systems work
seamlessly and are repaired promptly when needed.
d. Reliable access to the internet. Students have reliable and consistent accessto an internet connection. Reliability and bandwidth of the internet connection
are at a sufficient level to ensure that a student is not disadvantaged inrelation to their peers.
e. A trained teacher or instructor. Students have a trained teacher or instructor
who is equipped to deliver high quality digital teaching and learning.
f.

An appropriate study place. Students have consistent access to a quiet spacethat is appropriate for studying.

33. In relation to “support” the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of matters thatwould fall within this definition:a. Academic support includes support to help students with course content or onplacements, to identify and address skills gaps, and make decisions about
future study choices.
b. Support needed to underpin successful physical and digital learning andteaching includes support to help students make best use of digital learning.
c. Support relating to avoiding academic misconduct includes support for essayplanning and accurate referencing, and advice about the consequences ofacademic misconduct.
d. Careers support includes the information, advice and guidance students need
to identify their capabilities and the way in which these may be suited toparticular careers, and to articulate these in a way likely to result in successful
job applications.
34. “Support” does not include other categories of non-academic support, for example, theprovision of welfare and counselling services for students.
35. In relation to “engagement” the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples
to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition:56

a. Membership of the provider’s committees. An absence of student
membership of a provider’s governing body may be of concern, depending on
the size and corporate structure of the provider. An absence of student
membership of a provider’s committees responsible for academic governanceand learning and teaching would be likely to be of concern. An absence ofstudent membership of learning and teaching committees, or course-levelcommittees, in a subject area, or department, would be likely to be ofconcern.
b. Student feedback. Students not given opportunities to provide feedback on
their course and the way it is delivered would be likely to be of concern.
c. Maintaining academic rigour. Changes, as a result of student feedback
provided through any mechanism, to the content of a course, or the way thecourse is delivered or assessed that, in the reasonable view of the OfS do not
maintain the academic rigour of the course would be likely to be of concern.

Evidence gathering, assessment and enforcement
36. The OfS will use its general risk-based approach to monitoring as set out in theregulatory framework.
37. Where monitoring activity produces evidence that suggests there may be complianceconcerns for an individual provider, the OfS would be likely to adopt one of the following
approaches:a. Engage with a provider to ensure it is aware of the issues.
b. Gather further evidence, from a provider or from elsewhere, to clarify whether
a breach of one or more conditions is likely.
c. Use its investigatory powers in cases where engagement increases its
concerns, or where the evidence suggests that a breach of one or moreconditions is likely.
38. Where the OfS considers it necessary to use its investigatory powers it may conduct aninvestigation itself, or may ask the designated quality body, or another appropriate bodyor individual, to gather further evidence. For any investigation, the OfS will set out theissues that are of concern. An investigation will normally involve a visit to the provider
and interviews with relevant staff and students.
39. Having gathered further evidence as necessary, the OfS will reach a view about aprovider’s previous and ongoing compliance with the condition. Where the OfS takes theview that there is or has been a breach of the condition it will write to the provider to set
out the reasons for its provisional decision and set out the evidence it has used to reachthis view. The provider is able to submit any further information it considers relevant in a
representations process and the OfS will consider this before reaching a final decision.

57

40. Where the OfS has decided that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it willconsider the use of the full range of its enforcement powers. This includes the impositionof a monetary penalty, suspension of elements of a provider’s registration, for example
its access to student support funding or OfS public grant funding, or deregistration. The
OfS is likely to require improvement, to mitigate the impact of poor performance on
students, or to incentivise future compliance by this and other providers. The OfS will
follow any statutory consultation process as it takes enforcement action.
41. Where the OfS considers there to be an increased risk of a breach, it may impose one ormore specific ongoing conditions of registration and will also consider whether additional
monitoring requirements are necessary, for example, a requirement to report additional
matters as reportable events.

42. Where there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or where the OfS considers there
to be an increased risk of a breach, the OfS may take this into account in the following
ways:
a. The eligibility requirements for participation in the TEF. The OfS will set out in
its TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous
compliance with this condition may be taken into account in determining
eligibility for the TEF.
b. Changes to, or removal of, an existing TEF award. The OfS will set out in its
TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous compliancewith this condition may affect any existing TEF award.

c. Regulation of degree awarding powers. Where the OfS makes a final decisionthat there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will take that into
account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of DAPs andwould be likely to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for
new or extended degree awarding powers.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for new or extended DAPs.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
58

The OfS would take this approach whether or not the authorisation sought is
to gain new powers, or extend existing powers, for example by time, level orsubject.
d. Regulation of university, and university college, title. Where the OfS makes a
final decision that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will takethat into account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of university oruniversity college title and would be likely to suspend the provider’seligibility to be authorised for university or university college title.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for university or university college title.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
e. The criteria for allocation of OfS public grant funding. The OfS may decide to
take account of a provider’s current and previous compliance with thiscondition in determining allocations of some types of OfS public grant funding.

59

Condition B4: Assessment and awards
Scope
B4.1 This condition applies to the quality of higher education provided in any manner orform by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to, circumstances where aprovider is responsible only for granting awards for students registered with anotherprovider).

Requirement
B4.2 Without prejudice to the scope of B4.1, the provider must ensure that:a. students are assessed effectively;
b. Each assessment is valid and reliable;c. academic regulations are designed to ensure that relevant awards are
credible; andd. relevant awards granted to students are credible at the point of being granted
and when compared to those granted previously.
Definitions
B4.3 For the purposes of this condition B4:
a. “academic misconduct” means any action or attempted action that may result ina student obtaining an unfair academic advantage in relation to an assessment,
including but not limited to plagiarism, unauthorised collaboration and thepossession of unauthorised materials during an assessment.
b. “academic regulations” means regulations adopted by the provider, which govern
its higher education courses, including but not limited to:i.

the assessment of students’ work;

ii. student discipline relating to academic matters;iii. the requirements for relevant awards; andiv. the method used to determine classifications, including but not limited to:A. the requirements for an award; andB. the algorithms used to calculate the classification of awards.
c. “assessed effectively” means assessed in a challenging and appropriately
comprehensive way, by reference to the subject matter of the higher education
course, and includes but is not limited to:i.

providing stretch and rigour consistent with the level of the course;

ii. testing relevant skills;
iii. requiring technical proficiency in the use of the English language; and60

iv. assessments being designed in a way that minimises the opportunities foracademic misconduct and facilitates the detection of such misconduct
where it does occur.
d. “assessment” means any component of a course used to assess student
achievement towards a relevant award, including an examination and a test.
e. “credible” means that, in the reasonable opinion of the OfS, relevant awards
reflect students’ knowledge and skills, and for this purpose the OfS may take into
account factors which include, but are not limited to:i.

the number of relevant awards granted, and the classifications attached tothem, and the way in which this number and/or the classifications changeover time and compare with other providers;ii. whether students are assessed effectively and whether assessments arevalid and reliable;iii. any actions the provider has taken that would result in an increased numberof relevant awards, and/or changes in the classifications attached to them,whether or not the achievement of students has increased, for example,
changes to assessment practices or academic regulations; andiv. the provider’s explanation and evidence in support of the reasons for any
changes in the classifications over time or differences with other providers.
f.

“higher education course” is to be interpreted:i.

in accordance with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017; andii. so as to include, for the avoidance of doubt:
A. a course of study;
B. a programme of research;
C. any further education course that forms an integrated part of ahigher education course; andD. any module that forms part of a higher education course, whether or
not that module is delivered as an integrated part of the course.
g. “relevant award” means:i.

a research award;ii.

a taught award; and/oriii.

any other type of award or qualification in respect of a higher
education course, including an award of credit granted in respectof a module that may form part of a larger higher education
course,whether or not granted pursuant to an authorisation given by or under theHigher Education and Research Act 2017, another Act of Parliament orRoyal Charter.
h. “relevant skills” means:

61

i.

knowledge and understanding relevant to the subject matter and level ofthe higher education course; andii. other skills relevant to the subject matter and level of the higher
education course including, but not limited to, cognitive skills, practicalskills, transferable skills and professional competences.
i.

“reliable” means that an assessment, in practice, requires students todemonstrate knowledge and skills in a manner which is consistent as between
the students registered on a higher education course and over time, as
appropriate in the context of developments in the content and delivery of thehigher education course.

j.

“research award” and “taught award” have the meanings given in section 42(3) ofthe Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

k. “valid” means that an assessment in fact takes place in a way that results instudents demonstrating knowledge and skills in the way intended by design of theassessment.

Summary
Applies to: all registered providers.
Initial or general ongoing condition: general ongoing condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA

Guidance
Condition B4.1
43. The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher
education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or
any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules, and apprenticeships
are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses provided face-toface, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.
44. The reference to higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider” includes
higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registeredprovider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registeredprovider. This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered
through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
45. The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider is
responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider”
62means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where itis the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider has any other role in thedesign or delivery of that course.
46. Where a provider is not the awarding body for a course, this condition applies to acourse the provider itself delivers, regardless of the identity of the awarding body,whether or not that awarding body is registered with the OfS, or the nature of any
partnership agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this means for example, that aprovider delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by Pearson is responsible
for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses. Similarly, a provider
delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by another higher education
provider, whether that awarding provider is located in England or elsewhere, is
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses.
47. In practice, these provisions may result in more than one registered provider being
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to the same course.

Condition B4.3
48. The requirement of condition B4 is expressed as a principle that can be satisfied indifferent ways. To assist providers in understanding how the OfS may interpret thisprinciples-based requirement in practice, the following paragraphs provide a small
number of illustrative examples. These examples are not exhaustive; nor are they
provided as rules that, if followed, would constitute compliance with the condition.
49. “Academic misconduct” includes presenting work for assessment that is not the work of
the student being assessed and includes but is not limited to the use of services offeredby an essay mill.
50. In relation to “assessed effectively”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of
examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of thiscondition:a. An undergraduate degree course in which students at different stages of thecourse are taught together on a module and assessed in the same way, but
without differentiation in the marking criteria, would be likely to be of concern.
b. A course that assesses a limited range of subject matter, or knowledge andskills would be likely to be of concern.

c. An integrated higher or degree apprenticeship end-point assessment that
does not meet the requirements of external quality assurance monitoring, forexample because it is not delivered in line with the published EPA plan, would
be likely to be of concern.
d. An absence of feedback on students’ performance before a final essay or
exam, or feedback not returned in time for students to learn from it before thenext assessment, would be likely to be of concern.

63e. Marking criteria for assessments that do not penalise a lack of proficiency inthe use of written English in an assessment for which the OfS, employers andtaxpayers, would reasonably expect such proficiency, would be likely to be ofconcern.
f.

Assessments designed in a way that allows students to gain marks for workthat is not their own would be likely to be of concern.

g. A provider not taking reasonable steps to detect and prevent plagiarism,
advertising by essay mills, or other forms of academic misconduct by
students, would be likely to be of concern.
h. Selection of examiners for research students in a way that does not preserve
academic rigour would be likely to be of concern.
51. In relation to “valid” and “reliable”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of
examples to demonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of thiscondition:a. An assessment that tests in practice the things it was designed to assess. For
example, an assessment that focuses only the material taught at the end of along course is, on its own, is unlikely to provide a valid assessment of thatcourse.
b. An assessment that results in differences in the marks awarded to students
demonstrating the same achievement. For example, different marks awarded
to projects or dissertations where students have worked on different topics
but have demonstrated the same level of achievement suggest that theassessment design may not be reliable.
52. In relation to “credible”, the following is an illustrative non-exhaustive list of examples todemonstrate the approach the OfS may take to the interpretation of this condition, and to
identifying circumstances in which it is likely to be concerned about the credibility of aprovider’s qualifications:a. An increase in the number or proportion of first class or 2i degrees awarded
over time. For example, where a provider is unable to provide evidence toaccount for an increase in the proportion of first or 2i classifications it hasawarded.
b. Changes to academic regulations. For example, where a provider haschanged its degree classification algorithm, or other aspects of its academic
regulations, such that students are likely to receive a higher classification thanprevious students without an increase in their level of achievement.
c. Students are not penalised for poor technical proficiency in written English.
For example, for assessments that would reasonably be expected to take theform of written work in English and for which the OfS, employers and64

taxpayers, would reasonably expect such proficiency, the provider’sassessment policy and practices do not penalise poor spelling, punctuation orgrammar, such that students are awarded marks that do not reflect areasonable view of their performance of these skills.
d. Research degrees awarded to recognise a student’s contribution to the outputof their research group rather than their individual contribution to knowledge.
53. Where a provider has an evidenced explanation of the reasons for an increase in awards
or the classifications of awards, the OfS is more likely to place weight on this evidence if
it pre-dates the OfS’s interest and demonstrates that the provider has routinely satisfied
itself that its approach has not resulted in increased awards or classifications, regardlessof whether or not the achievement of students has increased. An absence of rigorous
evidence and evaluation in advance of changes a provider makes, or has made, to it
academic regulations or assessment practices, is likely to cause concern.

Evidence gathering, assessment and enforcement
54. The OfS will use its general risk-based approach to monitoring as set out in theregulatory framework.
55. Where monitoring activity produces evidence that suggests there may be complianceconcerns for an individual provider, the OfS would be likely to adopt one of the following
approaches:a. Engage with a provider to ensure it is aware of the issues.
b. Gather further evidence, from a provider or from elsewhere, to clarify whether
a breach of one or more conditions is likely.
c. Use its investigatory powers in cases where engagement increases its
concerns, or where the evidence suggests that a breach of one or moreconditions is likely.
56. Where the OfS considers it necessary to use its investigatory powers it may conduct aninvestigation itself, or may ask the designated quality body, or another appropriate bodyor individual, to gather further evidence. For any investigation, the OfS will set out theissues that are of concern. An investigation will normally involve a visit to the provider
and interviews with relevant staff and students.
57. As part of its approach to assessing compliance with this condition, the OfS is likely toneed access to students’ assessed work, including for students who are no longer
registered on a course. Providers are therefore expected to retain appropriate records ofstudents’ assessed work for such regulatory purposes. In the absence of such records,
the OfS may consider making negative inferences about compliance and/or may taketargeted regulatory action to address the risk that it is unable to monitor compliance andregulate effectively.

6558. Having gathered further evidence as necessary, the OfS will reach a view about aprovider’s previous and ongoing compliance with the condition. Where the OfS takes theview that there is or has been a breach of the condition it will write to the provider to set
out the reasons for its provisional decision and set out the evidence it has used to reachthis view. The provider is able to submit any further information it considers relevant in a
representations process and the OfS will consider this before reaching a final decision.
59. Where the OfS has decided that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it willconsider the use of the full range of its enforcement powers. This includes the impositionof a monetary penalty, suspension of elements of a provider’s registration, for example
its access to student support funding or OfS public grant funding, or deregistration. The
OfS is likely to require improvement, to mitigate the impact of poor performance on
students, or to incentivise future compliance by this and other providers. The OfS will
follow any statutory consultation process as it takes enforcement action.
60. Where the OfS considers there to be an increased risk of a breach, it may impose one ormore specific ongoing conditions of registration and will also consider whether additional
monitoring requirements are necessary, for example, a requirement to report additional
matters as reportable events.
61. Where there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or where the OfS considers there
to be an increased risk of a breach, the OfS may take this into account in the following
ways:
a. The eligibility requirements for participation in the TEF. The OfS will set out in
its TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous
compliance with this condition may be taken into account in determining
eligibility for the TEF.
b. Changes to, or removal of, an existing TEF award. The OfS will set out in its
TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous compliancewith this condition may affect any existing TEF award.
c. Regulation of degree awarding powers. Where the OfS makes a final decisionthat there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will take that into
account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of DAPs andwould be likely to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for
new or extended degree awarding powers.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for new or extended DAPs.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
66

whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
The OfS would take this approach whether or not the authorisation sought is
to gain new powers, or extend existing powers, for example by time, level orsubject.
d. Regulation of university, and university college, title. Where the OfS makes a
final decision that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will takethat into account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of university oruniversity college title and would be likely to suspend the provider’seligibility to be authorised for university or university college title.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for university or university college title.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
e. The criteria for allocation of OfS public grant funding. The OfS may decide to
take account of a provider’s current and previous compliance with thiscondition in determining allocations of some types of OfS public grant funding.

67

Annex B: Proposed ongoing condition forstandards and amendments to the OfS’s
regulatory framework
Condition B5: Sector-recognised standards
Scope
B5.1 This condition relates to the standards applied to higher education provided in any
manner or form by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to, circumstanceswhere a provider is responsible only for granting awards for students registered with anotherprovider).

Requirement
B5.2 Without prejudice to the scope of B5.1, the provider must ensure that, in respect of any
relevant awards granted to students who complete a higher education course provided
by, or on behalf of, the provider (whether or not the provider is the awarding body):a. any standards set are consistent with any applicable sector-recognised
standards; andb. awards are only granted to students whose knowledge and skills are consistent
with any applicable sector-recognised standards.

Definitions
B5.3 For the purposes of this condition B5:
a. “higher education course” is to be interpreted:i.

in accordance with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017; andii.

so as to include, for the avoidance of doubt:
A. a course of study;
B. a programme of research;
C. any further education course that forms an integrated part of a higher
education course; andD. any module that forms part of a higher education course, whether or
not that module is delivered as an integrated part of the course.

b. “relevant award” means:iv.

a research award;v.

a taught award; and/or

68

vi.

any other type of award or qualification in respect of a higher
education course, including an award of credit granted in respect of amodule that may form part of a larger higher education course,

whether or not granted pursuant to an authorisation given by or under theHigher Education and Research Act 2017, another Act of Parliament or Royal
Charter.
c. “research award” and “taught award” have the meanings given in section
42(3) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
d. “sector-recognised standards” means the standards contained in the
document of that title published by the OfS from time to time.

Summary
Applies to: all registered providers.
Initial or general ongoing condition: general ongoing condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA

Guidance
Condition B5.1
1. The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher
education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or
any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules, and apprenticeships
are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses provided face-toface, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.
2. The reference to higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider” includes
higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registeredprovider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registeredprovider. This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered
through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
3. The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider is
responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider”
means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where itis the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider has any other role in thedesign or delivery of that course.

69

4. Where a provider is not the awarding body for a course, this condition applies to acourse the provider itself delivers, regardless of the identity of the awarding body,whether or not that awarding body is registered with the OfS, or the nature of any
partnership agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this means for example, that aprovider delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by Pearson is responsible
for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses. Similarly, a provider
delivering courses leading to a qualification awarded by another higher education
provider, whether that awarding provider is located in England or elsewhere, is
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to those courses
5. In practice, these provisions may result in more than one registered provider being
responsible for compliance with this condition in relation to the same course.

Condition B5.2
6. “Relevant award” includes, but is not limited to, the awards made by a provider in relation
to an apprenticeship.

Evidence gathering, assessment and enforcement
7. The OfS will use its general risk-based approach to monitoring as set out in theregulatory framework.
8. Where monitoring activity produces evidence that suggests there may be complianceconcerns for an individual provider, the OfS would be likely to adopt one of the following
approaches:a. Engage with a provider to ensure it is aware of the issues.
b. Gather further evidence, from a provider or from elsewhere, to clarify whether
a breach of one or more conditions is likely.
c. Use its investigatory powers in cases where engagement increases its
concerns, or where the evidence suggests that a breach of one or moreconditions is likely.
9. Where the OfS considers it necessary to use its investigatory powers it will ask thedesignated quality body to gather further evidence. For any investigation, the OfS will set
out the issues that are of concern. An investigation will normally involve a visit to theprovider and interviews with relevant staff and students.
10. As part of its approach to assessing compliance with this condition, the OfS and thedesignated quality body are likely to need access to students’ assessed work, including
for students who are no longer registered on a course. Providers are therefore expected
to retain appropriate records of students’ assessed work for such regulatory purposes. In
the absence of such records, the OfS may consider making negative inferences aboutcompliance and/or may take targeted regulatory action to address the risk that it isunable to monitor compliance and regulate effectively.
7011. Having received evidence from the designated quality body, the OfS will reach a view
about a provider’s previous and ongoing compliance with the condition. Where the OfS
takes the view that there is or has been a breach of the condition it will write to theprovider to set out the reasons for its provisional decision and set out the evidence it has
used to reach this view. The provider is able to submit any further information it
considers relevant in a representations process and the OfS will consider this before
reaching a final decision.
12. Where the OfS has decided that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it willconsider the use of the full range of its enforcement powers. This includes the impositionof a monetary penalty, suspension of elements of a provider’s registration, for example
its access to student support funding or OfS public grant funding, or deregistration. The
OfS is likely to require improvement, to mitigate the impact of poor performance on
students, or to incentivise future compliance by this and other providers. The OfS will
follow any statutory consultation process as it takes enforcement action.
13. Where the OfS considers there to be an increased risk of a breach, it may impose one ormore specific ongoing conditions of registration and will also consider whether additional
monitoring requirements are necessary, for example, a requirement to report additional
matters as reportable events.
14. Where there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, or where the OfS considers there
to be an increased risk of a breach, the OfS may take this into account in the following
ways:
a. The eligibility requirements for participation in the TEF. The OfS will set out in
its TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous
compliance with this condition may be taken into account in determining
eligibility for the TEF.
b. Changes to, or removal of, an existing TEF award. The OfS will set out in its
TEF guidance the way in which a provider’s current and previous compliancewith this condition may affect any existing TEF award.
c. Regulation of degree awarding powers. Where the OfS makes a final decisionthat there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will take that into
account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of DAPs andwould be likely to suspend the provider’s eligibility to be authorised for
new or extended degree awarding powers.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for new or extended DAPs.

71

iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
The OfS would take this approach whether or not the authorisation sought is
to gain new powers, or extend existing powers, for example by time, level orsubject.
d. Regulation of university, and university college, title. Where the OfS makes a
final decision that there is, or has been, a breach of this condition, it will takethat into account in the following ways:
i. The OfS will consider using its power to suspend the aspects of theprovider’s registration that relate to the authorisation of university oruniversity college title and would be likely to suspend the provider’seligibility to be authorised for university or university college title.
ii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is ongoing, the
OfS would be likely to decide that the provider is not suitable to beauthorised for university or university college title.
iii. Where the conduct that led to the finding of a breach is not ongoing,
the OfS would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether that conduct has recurred such that it would consider there to
be a new breach or an increased risk of a future breach.
iv. Where the OfS has previously identified an increased risk of a future
breach, it would be likely to decide to investigate further to determine
whether its concerns have been resolved or whether there is a newbreach.
e. The criteria for allocation of OfS public grant funding. The OfS may decide to
take account of a provider’s current and previous compliance with thiscondition in determining allocations of some types of OfS public grant funding.

72

Annex C: Proposed initial conditions for
quality and standards and amendments to the
OfS’s regulatory framework
Condition B7: Initial condition relating to quality
Scope
B7.1 This condition applies to the quality of higher education to be provided in any manner orform by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to, circumstances where aprovider would be responsible only for granting awards for students registered with anotherprovider).

Requirement
B7.2 Without prejudice to the scope of B7.1, the provider must:a. have credible plans that would enable the provider, if registered, to comply withconditions B1, B2 and B4 from the date of registration; andb. have the capacity and resources necessary to deliver, in practice, those plans.

Definitions
B7.3 For the purposes of this condition B7:
a. “capacity and resources” includes, but is not limited to:i.

the financial resources of the provider;ii.

the number, expertise and experience of the staff employed, and to be
employed, by the provider; andiii.

the provider’s management and governance arrangements.

b. “credible” includes, but is not limited to, evidence of the provider’s past performancedelivering higher education.

Summary
Applies to: all providers seeking registration.
Initial or general ongoing condition: initial condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA

73

Guidance
Condition B7.1
1.

This condition applies to the courses that the provider plans to provide when it isregistered.

2. The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher
education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or
any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules, and apprenticeships
are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses provided face-toface, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.
3. The reference to higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider” includes
higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registeredprovider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registeredprovider. This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered
through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
4. The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider would be
responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider”
means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where it
would be the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider would have anyother role in the design or delivery of that course. In practice, this may result in morethan one registered provider being responsible for compliance with this condition in
relation to the same course.

Condition B7.2
5. Where a provider seeking registration has previously delivered, or is currently delivering,higher education courses, the “plans” required under this condition may include evidence
relating to the provider’s experience of delivery of those courses. The OfS will haveregard to that evidence in determining whether the condition is satisfied.
6. Where a registered provider is seeking registration in a different category of registration,
this requires the OfS to deregister the provider and make a new registration decision by
deciding whether each of the initial conditions is satisfied. In these circumstances “dateof registration” means the date of the new registration.

Condition B7.3
7. The OfS is likely to draw on evidence submitted by the provider as part of its application
for registration to make a judgement about whether a provider has the “capacity andresources” necessary to deliver, in practice, its plans. For example, evidence submitted
in relation to a provider’s financial viability and sustainability, or its management andgovernance arrangements are likely to be relevant.

74

Assessing compliance
8. The OfS will assess compliance with this initial condition for all providers seeking
registration. It will normally commission the designated quality body to conduct a quality
review to provide evidence to the OfS to inform the OfS’s decision about whether thecondition is satisfied. An assessment by the designated quality body will involve thesubmission of specified evidence to the designated quality body and will normally involvea visit to the provider and interviews with relevant staff and students.
9. The OfS reserves the right to gather evidence itself or to ask another appropriate body orindividual to gather evidence and, in these circumstances, would not commission thedesignated quality body to undertake review activity. For example, where a registeredprovider seeks registration in a different category, the OfS may consider whether theevidence it already holds about a provider’s history of compliance with the ongoingconditions for quality is sufficient to reach a judgement about whether initial condition B7
is satisfied. In these circumstances the OfS may decide not to commission review activity
from the designated quality body.
10. Where a provider, or another legal entity that the OfS considers to be operating
substantially the same higher education business, has previously been registered, ahistory of non-compliance with ongoing conditions B1, B2 or B4 is likely to result in ajudgement that initial condition B7 is not satisfied.
11. Where the OfS considers this initial condition to be satisfied, but that there is anincreased risk of a breach of one or more of the general ongoing conditions for quality(conditions B1, B2 and B4), it may impose one or more specific ongoing conditions ofregistration and will also consider whether additional monitoring requirements arenecessary, for example, a requirement to report additional matters as reportable events,
or to have an additional review by the designated quality body.

75

Condition B8: Initial condition relating to standards
Scope
B8.1 This condition relates to the standards to be applied to higher education to be provided
in any manner or form by, or on behalf of, a provider (including, but not limited to,circumstances where a provider would be responsible only for granting awards for students
registered with another provider).

Requirement
B8.2 Without prejudice to the scope of B8.1, the provider must demonstrate, in a credible
manner, that any standards to be set and/or applied in respect of any relevant awards
granted to students who complete a higher education course provided by, or on behalf of,the provider (if registered), whether or not the provider is the awarding body, are consistent
with any applicable sector-recognised standards.

Definitions
B8.3 For the purposes of this condition B8:
a. “credible” includes, but is not limited to, evidence of the provider’s past
performance delivering higher education.
b. “higher education course” is to be interpreted:i.

in accordance with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017; andii.

so as to include, for the avoidance of doubt:
A. a course of study;
B. a programme of research;
C. any further education course that forms an integrated part of a higher
education course; andD. any module that forms part of a higher education course, whether or
not that module is delivered as an integrated part of the course.

c. “relevant award” means:i.

a research award;ii.

a taught award; and/oriii.

any other type of award or qualification in respect of a higher
education course, including an award of credit granted in respect of amodule that may form part of a larger higher education course,76whether or not granted pursuant to an authorisation given by or under theHigher Education and Research Act 2017, another Act of Parliament or Royal
Charter.
d. “research award” and “taught award” have the meanings given in section
42(3) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
e. “sector-recognised standards” means the standards contained in the
document of that title published by the OfS from time to time, and which apply
as at the date of the provider’s application for registration.

Summary
Applies to: all providers seeking registration.
Initial or general ongoing condition: initial condition
Legal basis: section 5 of HERA

Guidance
Condition B8.1
12. This condition applies to the courses that the provider plans to provide when it isregistered.
13. The reference to higher education provided “in any manner or form” includes any higher
education course (whether or not that course is recognised for OfS funding purposes, or
any other purpose), at any level, and with any volume of learning. This means, forexample, that postgraduate research courses, the study of modules, and apprenticeships
are included within the scope of this condition. It also includes courses provided face-toface, by distance learning, or a combination of delivery approaches.
14. The reference to higher education provided “by, or on behalf of, a provider” includes
higher education provided to all of the students who are registered with a registeredprovider, taught by a registered provider or studying for an award of a registeredprovider. This includes UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered
through partnership arrangements both within the UK and internationally.
15. The reference to “including, but not limited to, circumstances where a provider would be
responsible only for granting awards for students registered with another provider”
means that a provider is required to comply with the provisions of this condition where it
would be the awarding body for a course, whether or not that provider would have anyother role in the design or delivery of that course. In practice, this may result in more77

than one registered provider being responsible for compliance with this condition in
relation to the same course.

Condition B8.2
16. Where a provider seeking registration has previously delivered, or is currently delivering,higher education courses, the OfS may have regard to evidence relating to the standards
set for those courses, and achieved by students receiving those awards in practice, in
determining whether initial condition B8 is satisfied.
17. Where a registered provider is seeking registration in a different category of registration,
this requires the OfS to deregister the provider and make a new registration decision by
deciding whether each of the initial conditions is satisfied. In these circumstances, the
OfS’s assessment of this condition will relate to the courses the provider plans to provide
from the date of the new registration.

Assessing compliance
18. The OfS will assess compliance with this initial condition for all providers seeking
registration. It will commission the designated quality body to conduct a standards review
to provide evidence to the OfS to inform the OfS’s decision about whether the conditionis satisfied. An assessment by the designated quality body will involve the submission of
specified evidence to the designated quality body and may involve a visit to the provider
and interviews with relevant staff and students.
19. The purpose of a standards review is for the designated quality body to scrutinise thecourses that the provider will deliver when it is registered, whether or not they are
currently delivered, and reach a judgement about whether the standards set in thosecourses are consistent with sector-recognised standards.
20. Where a provider has applied to be authorised for New DAPs at the same time as its
application for registration, the OfS will commission a New DAPs test from thedesignated quality body and may ask the designated quality body to include in its advice
separate information that would allow the OfS to determine whether initial condition B8 issatisfied.
21. Having received evidence from the designated quality body, the OfS will reach a view
about whether the initial condition is satisfied. Where a provider, or another legal entity
operating substantially the same higher education business, has previously beenregistered, a history of non-compliance with ongoing condition B5 is likely to result in ajudgement that initial condition B8 is not satisfied.
22. Where the OfS considers this initial condition to be satisfied, but that there is anincreased risk of a breach of the general ongoing condition for standards (condition B5),
it may impose one or more specific ongoing conditions of registration and will also
consider whether additional monitoring requirements are necessary, for example, a
requirement to report additional matters as reportable events, or to have an additional
review by the designated quality body.
78

Annex D: Sector-recognised standards
Sector-recognised standards
1.

This document contains the sector-recognised standards that are in force throughgeneral ongoing condition B5 (sector-recognised standards) and initial condition B8(initial condition relating to standards). Further information about these conditions canbe found in the regulatory framework.38

Part A: Threshold standards for qualifications at all levels39
A.1: Examples of the typical higher education qualifications at each level
Conventions for qualification titles
2. Public understanding of the achievements represented by higher education
qualifications requires transparent and consistent use of qualification titles. The title ofany qualification, therefore, should accurately reflect the level of students’ achievement,
and the volume, nature and field(s) of study undertaken. Qualification titles should not
be misleading.
3.

To ensure that qualification titles accurately convey information about the level of thequalification:•

the titles 'honours' (for example, bachelors' degree with honours), 'master' (for example,
Master of Arts) and 'doctor' (for example, Doctor of Philosophy) are used only for
qualifications that meet, in full, the expectations of the qualification descriptors at level 6,level 7 and level 8 respectively (but see note to the masters' degree qualification
descriptor).

•

titles with the stem 'graduate' (for example, 'graduate diploma') are used for qualifications
from courses that typically require graduate entry, or its equivalent, and that meet
relevant parts of the qualification descriptors at level 6.

•titles with the stem 'postgraduate' (for example, 'postgraduate diploma') are restricted toqualifications that meet relevant parts of the qualification descriptor at level 7.

Qualifications at each level
4. The levels for higher education courses are numbered 4-8, and follow levels 1-3 which
relate to levels of study below higher education, and which are set out in the Regulated
Qualifications Framework (RQF).
5.

Table 1 below lists typical higher education qualifications for each level.

38 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/the-regulatory-framework-for-higher-education-in-england/
39 The content of this Part is drawn from ‘The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK

Degree Awarding Bodies’ published in October 2014. See https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/qualitycode/qualifications-frameworks.pdf
79

Typical higher education qualifications within each level

Level

Doctoral degrees (e.g. PhD/DPhil, EdD, DBA, DClinPsy)a8

Masters’ degrees (e.g. MPhil, MLitt,MRes, MA, MSc)

7

Integrated masters’ degrees(e.g. MEng, MChem, MPhys, MPharm)b
Primary qualifications (or first degrees) in medicine, dentistry and veterinaryscience(e.g. MB ChB, MB BS, BM BSc; BDS; BVSc, BVMS)dPostgraduate diplomas
Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)e/Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE)
Postgraduate certificates
Bachelors’ degrees with honours (e.g. BA/BSc Hons)

6

Bachelors’ degreesf
Professional Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)e
Graduate diplomas
Graduate certificatesFoundation degrees (e.g. FdA, FdSc)

5

Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)
Higher National Diplomas (HND)g
Higher National Certificates (HNC)g

4

Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)
Notes to Table 1
Professional doctorate programmes include some taught elements in addition to theresearch dissertation. Practice varies but typically professional doctorates include
postgraduate study equivalent to a minimum of three full-time calendar years with study atlevel 7 representing no more than one-third of this.
bIntegrated masters' degree programmes typically include study equivalent to at least four
full-time academic years in England, of which study equivalent to at least one full-timeacademic year is at level 7 (i.e. at the level of the qualification). Thus study at bachelors'level is integrated with study at masters' level and the programmes are designed to meetthe qualification descriptor in full at level 6 and level 7.
cThese are all abbreviated forms for the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor ofSurgery.
dPrimary qualifications in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science typically include study
equivalent to at least four full-time academic years in England, of which study equivalent toat least one full-time academic year is at level 7 (i.e. at the level of the qualification). Thus
a

80

e

f

g

study at bachelors' level is integrated with study at masters' level and the programmes aredesigned to meet the qualification descriptor in full at level 6 and level 7. For historicalreasons the qualifications retain the title 'Bachelor'.
The title Postgraduate Certificate in Education is reserved for those PGCE qualifications
that are set at level 7 and align with the qualification descriptor for level 7. The title
Professional Graduate Certificates in Education is used for those PGCE qualifications thatare set at level 6 and align with the qualification descriptor at level 6.
A bachelors’ degree without honours includes an Ordinary degree or a Pass degree which
consist of a smaller volume of credit and so meet the qualification descriptor in part at level
6.
HNDs and HNCs may either be awarded by degree awarding bodies under a licence from
Pearson (which allows them to devise, deliver and award Higher National qualifications
themselves), or they may be awarded directly by Pearson. The majority of thesequalifications are awarded by Pearson.

A.2: Typical volumes of credit for qualifications at each level6.

The award of higher education qualifications is based on the demonstrated achievementof outcomes rather than years of study. Higher education providers are not required toadopt a credit system to define the volume of learning expected of students, althoughmany providers do express their courses by reference to credit. The credit system used
in England equates ‘credit’ with ‘learning time’, with 10 notional learning hours equatingto 1 credit. This means that the volume of study for a course expressed in credit
provides an indication of the approximate learning time for a student.

7.

Volume of study can therefore be used as an indicator of the range and depth ofstudents’ learning and can, as a consequence, distinguish between types ofqualifications at the same level. For example, the title 'diploma' generally indicates asmaller volume of learning than a ‘degree’ but a larger volume than a ‘certificate’. A
range of diplomas and certificates are offered by higher education providers.

8.

Table 2 below sets out the typical credit values associated with courses leading tocommon higher education qualifications. The values shown in column 3 are theminimum that are typically associated with a qualification (with any minimum or
maximum at a specified level shown in parentheses).

Typical higher education qualifications withineach level
PhD/DPhil

Level
8

Professional doctorates (if credit rated) (e.g. EdD,
DBA, DClinPsy)
Research masters’ degrees (e.g. MRes, MPhil)

Typical credit values
Not typically credit rated
540 (360 at level 8)7

Not typically credit rated

Taught masters’ degrees (e.g. MA, MSc)

180 (150 at level 7)

Integrated masters’ degrees (e.g. MEng, MChem,
MPhys, MPharm)

480 (120 at level 7)81

Typical higher education qualifications withineach level

Level

Typical credit values

Primary (or first) qualifications in medicine (e.g. BM
BS), dentistry (e.g. BDS) and veterinary science(e.g. BVSc)

Not typically credit rated

Postgraduate diplomas

120 (90 at level 7)

Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)

60 (40 at level 7)

Postgraduate certificates60 (40 at level 7)

Bachelors’ degrees with honours (e.g. BA/BSc
Hons)

6

360 (90 at level 6)

Bachelors’ degrees

300 (60 at level 6)

Postgraduate Graduate Certificate in Education(PGCE)

60 (40 at level 6)

Graduate diplomas

80 (80 at level 6)

Graduate certificates40 (40 at level 6)Foundation degrees (e.g. FdA, FdSc)

5

240 (90 at level 5)

Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)

240 (90 at level 5)Higher National Diplomas (HND)

240 (90 at level 5)Higher National Certificates (HNC)
Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)4

120 (60 at level 4)120 (90 at level 4)

A.3: Qualification descriptors
9.

Qualification descriptors set out the generic outcomes and attributes expected for theaward of a particular type of qualification (for example a bachelors’ degree withhonours). They describe the minimum acceptable level of achievement that a student
has to demonstrate to be eligible for an award. They are ‘generic’ because they describe
the outcomes and attributes expected from any subject of study, rather than from any
particular subject, and so are applicable across subjects and modes of study.

10. The qualification descriptors set out below describe the threshold academic standard for
those qualification types in terms of the levels of knowledge and understanding and thetypes of abilities that holders of the relevant qualification are expected to have.
11. The qualification descriptors are in two parts. The first part is a statement of outcomes,
achievement of which is assessed and which a student should be able to demonstrate
for the award of the qualification. This is a statement of the threshold academic standard
for the qualification. This part is of particular relevance to providers in designing,approving, assessing and reviewing academic programmes. The second part of thedescriptor is a statement of the wider abilities that a typical student would be expected
to have developed. It assists providers to understand the general capabilities expectedof holders of the qualification.
8212. Each qualification descriptor sets out the outcomes for the typical or main qualification
type at each level. At most levels there is more than one type of qualification that may
be achieved (for example postgraduate diplomas and certificates in addition to master's
degrees at level 7). Within each level, the various types of qualifications involve different
volumes of learning (for example master's degrees entail more learning thanpostgraduate certificates). As a consequence, there are differences in the range andnature of outcomes and attributes expected of students. Not all of the qualification types
at each level therefore meet all of the expectations of the qualification descriptor. Wherea qualification type has a smaller volume of learning than the main qualification type, thequalification descriptor for the degree is used as a reference point and the sub-degree
qualification is expected to meet the descriptor in part. This is also the approach taken
for individual modules, where credit is awarded for completion of a smaller volume oflearning than the main qualification type.

A.3.1 Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 4: Certificate ofHigher Education
13. The descriptor provided for this level is for any Certificate of Higher Education, whichshould meet the descriptor in full. This qualification descriptor should also be used as areference point for other qualifications aligned with level 4.
14. Certificates of Higher Education are awarded to students who have demonstrated:•knowledge of the underlying concepts and principles associated with their area(s) ofstudy, and an ability to evaluate and interpret these within the context of that area of
study

•

an ability to present, evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative data, in order todevelop lines of argument and make sound judgements in accordance with basic
theories and concepts of their subject(s) of study.

15. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:•evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems related to theirarea(s) of study and/or work•communicate the results of their study/work accurately and reliably, and with structured
and coherent arguments•

undertake further training and develop new skills within a structured and managed
environment.

16. And holders will have:•the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise ofsome personal responsibility.

17. Holders of a Certificate of Higher Education will have a sound knowledge of the basic
concepts of a subject, and will have learned how to take different approaches to solving
83

problems. They will be able to communicate accurately and will have the qualities
needed for employment requiring the exercise of some personal responsibility. The
Certificate of Higher Education may be a first step towards obtaining higher level
qualifications.

A.3.2 Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 5: Foundation
degree18. The descriptor provided for this level is for any foundation degree which should meet thedescriptor in full. This qualification descriptor should also be used as a reference point
for other qualifications at level 5, including Diplomas of Higher Education and Higher
National Diplomas.
19. Foundation degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:•knowledge and critical understanding of the well-established principles of their area(s) ofstudy, and of the way in which those principles have developed•ability to apply underlying concepts and principles outside the context in which they werefirst studied, including, where appropriate, the application of those principles in an
employment context•

knowledge of the main methods of enquiry in the subject(s) relevant to the named award,
and ability to evaluate critically the appropriateness of different approaches to solving
problems in the field of study•

an understanding of the limits of their knowledge, and how this influences analyses andinterpretations based on that knowledge.

20. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:•use a range of established techniques to initiate and undertake critical analysis of
information, and to propose solutions to problems arising from that analysis•

effectively communicate information, arguments and analysis in a variety of forms tospecialist and non-specialist audiences and deploy key techniques of the discipline
effectively•

undertake further training, develop existing skills and acquire new competences that will
enable them to assume significant responsibility within organisations.

21. And holders will have:•the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of
personal responsibility and decision-making

22. The foundation degree is an example of a qualification that meets, in full, theexpectations of the qualification descriptor.

8423. Holders of qualifications at this level will have developed a sound understanding of theprinciples in their field of study, and will have learned to apply those principles more
widely. Through this, they will have learned to evaluate the appropriateness of different
approaches to solving problems. Their studies may well have had a vocational
orientation, for example HNDs, enabling them to perform effectively in their chosen field.
Holders of qualifications at this level will have the qualities necessary for employment insituations requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and decision-making.

A.3.3 Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 6: Bachelors’
degree with honours
24. The descriptor provided for this level is for any bachelors' degree with honours whichshould meet the descriptor in full. This qualification descriptor should also be used as areference point for other qualifications at level 6, including bachelors' degrees, andgraduate diplomas.
25. Bachelors' degrees with honours are awarded to students who have demonstrated:•a systematic understanding of key aspects of their field of study, including acquisition ofcoherent and detailed knowledge, at least some of which is at, or informed by, theforefront of defined aspects of a discipline•

an ability to deploy accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry within adiscipline•

conceptual understanding that enables the student:−

to devise and sustain arguments, and/or to solve problems, using ideas andtechniques, some of which are at the forefront of a discipline−

to describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research, or equivalentadvanced scholarship, in the discipline•

an appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge•

the ability to manage their own learning, and to make use of scholarly reviews andprimary sources (for example, refereed research articles and/or original materials
appropriate to the discipline).

26. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:•apply the methods and techniques that they have learned to review, consolidate, extend
and apply their knowledge and understanding, and to initiate and carry out projects•

critically evaluate arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and data (that may be
incomplete), to make judgements, and to frame appropriate questions to achieve asolution - or identify a range of solutions - to a problem

85•communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialist and nonspecialist audiences.

27. And holders will have:•the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring:−

the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility−

decision-making in complex and unpredictable contexts−

the learning ability needed to undertake appropriate further training of a professional
or equivalent nature.

28. Holders of a bachelor's degree with honours will have developed an understanding of acomplex body of knowledge, some of it at the current boundaries of an academic
discipline. Through this, the holder will have developed analytical techniques andproblem-solving skills that can be applied in many types of employment. The holder ofsuch a qualification will be able to evaluate evidence, arguments and assumptions, toreach sound judgements and to communicate them effectively.
29. Holders of a bachelor's degree with honours should have the qualities needed for
employment in situations requiring the exercise of personal responsibility, and decisionmaking in complex and unpredictable circumstances.

A.3.4 Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 7: Masters’ degree
30. The descriptor provided for this level is for any masters' degree which should meet thedescriptor in full. This qualification descriptor should also be used as a reference point
for other qualifications at level 7, including postgraduate certificates and postgraduate
diplomas.
31. Masters' degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:•a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems
and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic
discipline, field of study or area of professional practice•a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research oradvanced scholarship•

originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how
established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret
knowledge in the discipline•

conceptual understanding that enables the student:−

to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline86−to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, topropose new hypotheses.

32. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:•deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements inthe absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist
and non-specialist audiences•

demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act
autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level•

continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to ahigh level.

33. And holders will have:•the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring:−

the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility−

decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations−

the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development.

34. Much of the study undertaken for master's degrees is at, or informed by, the forefront ofan academic or professional discipline. Successful students show originality in theapplication of knowledge, and they understand how the boundaries of knowledge areadvanced through research. They are able to deal with complex issues both
systematically and creatively, and they show originality in tackling and solving problems.
They have the qualities needed for employment in circumstances requiring soundjudgement, personal responsibility and initiative in complex and unpredictableprofessional environments.

A.3.5 Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 8: Doctoral degree
35. The descriptor provided for this level is for any doctoral degree which should meet thedescriptor in full. This qualification descriptor should also be used as a reference point
for other level 8 qualifications.
36. Doctoral degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:•the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or otheradvanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of thediscipline, and merit publication•a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which isat the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice87•the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of
new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and toadjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems•

a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academicenquiry.

37. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:•make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the absence ofcomplete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly andeffectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences•

continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an advanced
level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas or
approaches.

38. And holders will have:•the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of
personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictablesituations, in professional or equivalent environments.

39. Doctoral degrees are awarded for the creation and interpretation, construction and/or
exposition of knowledge which extends the forefront of a discipline, usually throughoriginal research.
40. Holders of doctoral degrees are able to conceptualise, design and implement projects
for the generation of significant new knowledge and/or understanding. Holders of
doctoral degrees have the qualities needed for employment that require both the ability
to make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields and an innovative
approach to tackling and solving problems.

88Part B: Classification descriptors for Level 6 bachelors’ degrees40
41. Classification descriptors set out the generic outcomes and attributes expected for theaward of a bachelors’ degree with a particular classification. They build on the thresholdstandards set out above in the descriptor for a bachelors’ degree with honours (seeA.3.3) and describe the minimum acceptable level of achievement that a student has todemonstrate to be eligible for a particular classification. They are ‘generic’ because theydescribe the outcomes and attributes expected from any subject of study for thatclassification, rather than from any particular subject, and so are applicable acrosssubjects and modes of study.
42. The classification descriptors also describe the outcomes and attributes that would
demonstrate that a student has not met the expected standard for the award of anhonours degree.
43. The classification descriptors set out below describe the standard for each classificationin terms of the levels of knowledge and understanding and the types of abilities that
holders of the relevant classification are expected to have. A graduate can be expected
to have demonstrated the skills and attributes attached to their respective classification,
as set out in Table 3.
Table 3: Typical skills and attributes for each classification for level 6 bachelors’
honours
Not successful

Third-classhonours(3rd)
The student
achieved all theirrequired course
learning
outcomes and:Lower secondclass honours(2.2)
The student
achieved all theirrequired course
learning
outcomes and:Upper secondclass honours(2.1)
The student
achieved all theirrequired course
learning
outcomes and:First-classhonours(1st)
The student
achieved all theirrequired course
learning
outcomes and:did not consistently
demonstratesufficientknowledge andunderstanding,cognitive, practicaland transferable
skillsdemonstrated
knowledge andunderstanding,cognitive, practicaland transferable
skillsdemonstrated
strong knowledge
and understanding,cognitive, practicaland transferable
skillsdemonstrated
thoroughknowledge andunderstanding,cognitive, practicaland transferable
skillsconsistently
demonstrated
advancedknowledge andunderstanding,cognitive, practicaland transferable
skillsdid not consistently
demonstrateadequate initiativeand personal
responsibility

demonstrated
initiative andexercised personal
responsibility

demonstrated
initiative andpersonal
responsibility

demonstrated goodinitiative andpersonal
responsibility

consistently
demonstrated
exceptional
initiative and

The student did
not achieve therequired course
learning
outcomes and:40 The content of this Part is drawn from the degree classification descriptions for bachelors’ degrees

adopted by the UKSCQA in June 2019. See ukscqa.org.uk/2019/10/10/higher-education-sectorannounces-new-initiatives-to-protect-value-of-uk-degrees/89personal
responsibility
did not consistently
demonstrate ability
to reflect on theirwork

demonstrated
some ability toreflect on their work

demonstrated anability to reflect on
their work

demonstrated anability to reflect
critically on theirwork

consistently
demonstrated
ability to reflect
critically andindependently on
their work

did not consistently
demonstrateproblem-solving
skillsdemonstrated
problem-solving
skillsdemonstrated
strong problemsolving skills

demonstrated
thorough problemsolving skills

consistently
demonstrated
exceptional
problem-solving
skills

44. Bachelors’ degree courses vary in their content and the way students are assessed. A
higher education provider may therefore give the different areas of the classification
outcomes in Table 4 different weight for different subjects and courses. For example,
numeracy and digital skills may not be as applicable to some arts courses as creativity
skills, while the reverse may be the case for some STEM courses.
45. The outcomes in table 4 express a holistic view of the outcomes a graduate would be
expected to demonstrate for each classification. It presents a detailed articulation of how
the typical skills and attributes acquired by graduates set out in Table 3 above apply
across the following different areas:•

Knowledge and understanding•

Cognitive skills•

Practical skills•

Transferable skills•

Professional competences (where appropriate)46. ‘Knowledge and understanding’ is defined as a systematic extensive and comparative
understanding of key aspects of the field of study, including coherent and detailed
knowledge of the subject and critical understanding of theories and concepts, at least
some of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of defined aspects of a discipline.
47. ‘Cognitive skills’ is defined as a conceptual understanding of a level that is necessary todevise and sustain arguments, and/or to solve problems and comment on research andscholarship in the discipline, with an appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limitsof knowledge.
48. ‘Practical skills’ is defined as an ability to manage one’s individual learning and to deploy
accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry within a discipline or asnecessary for the discipline.

9049. ‘Transferable skills’ is defined as personal and enabling skills appropriate to thediscipline, including the ability to communicate information, ideas, problems andsolutions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences, the exercise of initiative andpersonal responsibility and decision-making in complex and unpredictable contexts.
50. ‘Professional competences’ (to the extent that they are expressed by the course
learning outcomes) covers specific professional requirements and the learning ability
needed to undertake appropriate further training of a professional or equivalent nature.
Where the award of a qualification requires an assessment of professional
competencies, no award will be made if a student does not meet them.

91Table 4
Knowledge and understanding

Not successful

3rd (pass or threshold)

2.2

2.1

1st

The student's knowledge andunderstanding of the subject isinadequate, without the required
breadth or depth, with
deficiencies in key areas.

The student has demonstrated adepth of knowledge andunderstanding in key aspects of
their field of study, sufficient todeal with terminology, facts andconcepts.

The student has demonstrated asound breadth and depth ofsubject knowledge andunderstanding, if sometimes
balanced towards the descriptive
rather than the critical or
analytical.

The student has demonstrated
sophisticated breadth and depthof knowledge and understanding,showing a clear, critical insight.

The student has shown
exceptional knowledge andunderstanding, significantly
beyond the threshold expectationof a graduate at this level andbeyond what has been taught.

The student has demonstrated
inadequate understanding of
subject-specific theories,
paradigms, concepts andprinciples, including theirlimitations and ambiguities.

The student has demonstrated anunderstanding of
subject-specific theories,
paradigms, concepts andprinciples.

The student has consistently
demonstrated an understandingof subject-specific theories,
paradigms, concepts andprinciples as well as more
specialised areas.

The student has demonstrated athorough understanding of
subject-specific theories,
paradigms, concepts andprinciples and a soundunderstanding of more
specialised areas.

The student has demonstrated an
exceptional understanding of
subject-specific theories,
paradigms, concepts andprinciples, and in-depth
knowledge, if not mastery of arange of specialised areas.

The student has not produced
sufficient evidence of backgroundinvestigation, analysis, research,enquiry and/or study.

The student has conducted
general background investigation,
analysis, research, enquiry and/or
study using establishedtechniques, with the ability to
extract relevant points.

The student has conductedbackground investigation,
analysis, research, enquiry and/or
study using establishedtechniques accurately, and cancritically appraise academic
sources.

The student has conductedthorough backgroundinvestigation, analysis, research,enquiry and/or study using
established techniques
accurately, and possesses a welldeveloped ability to criticallyappraise a wide range of sources.

The student has conductedindependent, extensive andappropriate investigation,
analysis, research, enquiry and/or
study well beyond the usual
range, together with criticalevaluation, to advance work
and/or direct arguments.

92

Cognitive skills

Not successful

3rd (pass or threshold)

2.2

2.1

1st

The student has displayed anover-reliance on set sources.
They have not demonstrated anadequate ability to select andevaluate reading and research.

The student has demonstrated
the ability to select, evaluate andcomment on reading, researchand primary sources.

The student has selected,
evaluated and commented onreading, research and primarysources, sometimes beyond theset range.

The student has thoroughly
selected, critically evaluated andcommented on reading, researchand primary sources, usually
beyond the set range.

The student has demonstrated an
exceptional ability to select,consider, evaluate, comment on
and synthesise a broad range of
research, primary sources, views
and information and integratereferences.

The student's arguments andexplanations are weak and/or
poorly constructed, and they are
not able to critically evaluate thearguments of others or consider
alternative views.

The student has shown the ability
to devise and sustain anargument, with someconsideration of alternative views,
and can explain often complex
matters and ideas.

The student has argued logically,
with supporting evidence, andhas demonstrated the ability toconsider and evaluate a range ofviews and information. They haveclearly and consistently explainedcomplex matters and ideas.

The student has demonstrated
the ability to make coherent,
substantiated arguments, as wellas the ability to consider, criticallyevaluate and synthesise a rangeof views and information. They
have demonstrated a thorough,perceptive and thoughtfulinterpretation of complex mattersand ideas.

The student has made consistent,
logical, coherently developed,
and substantiated arguments,
and demonstrated the ability tosystematically consider, criticallyevaluate and synthesise a wide
range of views and information.
They have demonstrated
sophisticated perception, criticalinsight and interpretation ofcomplex matters and ideas.

The student has shown a limited
ability to solve problems and/or
make decisions.

The student has demonstrated anability to solve problems, applying
a range of methods to do so, andthe ability to make decisions incomplex and unpredictable
circumstances.

The student has consistently
solved complex problems,
selecting and applying a range ofappropriate methods, and canmake decisions in complex and
unpredictable circumstances.

The student has demonstrated
thorough problem-solving skills,
selecting and justifying their useof a wide-range of methods, andcan make decisions in complex
and unpredictable circumstanceswith a degree of
autonomy.

The student has demonstrated awide range of extremely welldeveloped problem-solving skills,
as well as a strong aptitude fordecision-making with a highdegree of autonomy, in the mostcomplex and unpredictable
circumstances.

The student has shown little or noreal creativity.

The student has produced somecreative work.

The student has consistently
demonstrated creativity.

The student has shown a highlevel of creativity and originality
throughout their work.

The student has demonstrated
exceptional creative flair andoriginality.

93Practical skills

Not successful

3rd (pass or threshold)

2.2

2.1

1st

The student has notdemonstrated sufficient evidenceof discipline-specific skills
development or application.

The student has demonstrated
evidence of developing andapplying discipline-specificspecialist skills.

The student has consistently
demonstrated the development
and informed application of
discipline-specific specialist
skills.

The student has demonstrated acapable and effective applicationof discipline-specific specialist
skills.

The student has demonstrated
an accomplished and innovative
application of discipline-specificspecialist skills.

The student has attempted
practical tasks/processes but
followed a limited, procedural ormechanistic formula, and they
contain errors, with little or no
independence.

The student has completed
practical tasks and/or processes
accurately and with a degree of
independence.

The student has consistently
completed practicaltasks/processes mainly
independently in an accurate,well-coordinated and proficientway.

The student has performed
practical tasks and/or processes
autonomously, with accuracy andcoordination.

The student has autonomously
completed practical tasks and/or
processes with a high degree of
accuracy, coordination andproficiency.

The student has demonstrated alack of technical, creative and/or
artistic skills in most, or key,areas.

The student has demonstrated
technical, creative and/or artistic
skills.

The student has consistently
demonstrated well-developed
technical, creative and/or artistic
skills.

The student has a thoroughcommand of highly-developed
relevant technical, creative
and/or artistic skills.

The student has a full range of
exceptional technical, creative
and/or artistic skills.

The student has not presented
their research findings clearly or
effectively, and their gathering,processing and interpretation ofdata is unsatisfactory.

The student has presented theirresearch findings, in several
formats, and has gathered,processed and interpreted data
effectively.

The student has consistently
presented their research findings
effectively and appropriately inmany formats, and has gathered,processed and interpreted data
efficiently and effectively.

The student has presented
thorough research findings
perceptively and appropriately ina wide range of formats, and hasgathered, processed andinterpreted a wide range ofcomplex data efficiently andeffectively.

The student has presented
research findings perceptively,
convincingly and appropriately ina wide range of formats, and hasgathered, processed andinterpreted a wide range ofcomplex data efficiently andeffectively.

94

Transferable skills

Not successful

3rd (pass or threshold)

2.2

2.1

1st

The student is not able tosufficiently express ideas andconvey clear meaning verbally,
electronically and/or in writing,uses inaccurate terminology, withmany errors in spelling,
vocabulary and syntax. They
have been unable todemonstrate consistently basic
numeracy and digital literacy
skills.

The student can communicate
information, ideas, problems andsolutions verbally, electronicallyand in writing, with clear
expression and style. They havealso demonstrated numeracy anddigital literacy skills.

The student can consistently andconfidently communicate
information, ideas, problems andsolutions verbally, electronicallyand in writing. They show a clear,coherent, expressive style, with arange of vocabulary. They haveconsistently demonstrated strong
numeracy and digital literacy
skills.

The student can communicate
information, ideas, problems andsolutions with a high-degree of
proficiency verbally, electronicallyand in writing. They have a clear,fluent and expressive style withappropriate vocabulary. They
have a high standard ofnumeracy and digital literacy
skills.

The student can communicate
information, ideas, problems andsolutions to an accomplishedlevel verbally, electronically andin writing. They have shown an
accurate, fluent, sophisticatedstyle. They possess exceptional
numeracy and digital literacy
skills.

The student has made infrequent
contributions to group
discussions and/or project work.

The student has demonstrated acapability of making usefulcontributions to group
discussions and/or project work.

The student has consistently
demonstrated the capability tomake coherent and constructive
contributions to group
discussions and/or project work.

The student has demonstrated
the capability to make strong,valuable contributions to group
discussions and/or project work,with an understanding of teamand leadership roles.

The student has demonstrated
the capability to make clear,authoritative and valuable
contributions to group
discussions and/or project work,with exceptional teamwork andleadership skills.

The student has demonstrated
little or no ability to manage theirlearning and/or work without
supervision.

The student has shown an ability
to manage their learning andwork with minimal or nosupervision.

The student has consistently
shown an ability to systematicallymanage their learning, and workwithout supervision.

The student has shown a strong
ability to systematically manage
their learning, and work without
supervision.

The student has shown an
exceptional ability to manage
their learning on their own
initiative, and work without
supervision.

The student has notdemonstrated adequate initiative
or personal responsibility.

The student has demonstrated
initiative and/or personal
responsibility.

The student has consistently
demonstrated initiative and/or
personal responsibility.

The student has consistently
demonstrated well-developed
initiative and/or personal
responsibility.

The student has demonstrated
exceptional initiative and/or
personal responsibility.

The student has shown little or
no ability to reflect on their work.

The student has demonstrated
the ability to reflect on their work.

The student has consistently
demonstrated a well-developedability to reflect on their work.

The student has demonstrated
the ability to reflect critically on
their work.

The student has demonstrated
an exceptional ability to reflect
critically and independently on
their work.

95

Professional competences
Not successful

3rd (pass or threshold)

2.2

2.1

1st

The student has notdemonstrated achievement ofprofessional competence whenassessed against therequirements of a professional,
statutory or regulatory body
(PSRB).

The student has demonstrated achievement of professional competence when assessed against the requirements of a PSRB.

The student has failed to adhere
to the appropriate rules and/or
conventions set by regulators or
the industry.

The student has adhered to the appropriate rules and/or conventions set by regulators or the industry.

96

Annex E: Consideration of alternative proposals
1.

In formulating the proposals in this consultation we have considered alternative approaches.
Alternatives that relate to particular aspects of individual proposals are discussed in theanalysis of responses to our consultation on regulating quality and standards in higher
education held between 17 November 2020 and 25 January 202141 and in the main body ofthis document. More generally, we have considered the following broad policy alternatives.

Make no changes to our current approach2.

We have considered whether it is necessary to make any changes at all to our approach toregulating quality and standards. We could simply continue to apply the requirements set out
in the regulatory framework. We have discounted this approach, because our experience ofregulating in this area over the past three years leads us to conclude that changes arenecessary if we are to deliver our regulatory objectives and protect the interests of students
and taxpayers. We consider it necessary to amend our quality and standards requirements toensure they are clear and comprehensive, in order to provide clarity to providers, students andothers, and so that the OfS can regulate with confidence where it considers that courses are
not of sufficient quality or where standards are not maintained. This is important to ensure thathigher education in England is high quality and students and taxpayers continue to haveconfidence in the credibility of awards granted. Our proposals are therefore designed to allow
us to regulate actively where we are concerned that a provider’s courses are falling below ourminimum requirements, or may do so.

3.

In addition, responses to our phase one consultation have reinforced our view that ourrequirements for quality and standards needs to be expressed clearly and comprehensively toallow providers to understand their obligations and the approach the OfS is likely to take toregulating these important issues. We have seen responses that suggest important features ofour existing approach are not properly understood, for example the extent to which the existing
conditions cover all types of higher education course, or the role the designated quality bodyplays in the statutory framework. We take the view that it cannot be in the interests ofstudents, taxpayers, or providers themselves for this uncertainty to continue. We therefore
consider that the current consultation is a necessary step to improving understanding of thescope and effect of our requirements.

4.

At the same time, we consider that improved clarity about our requirements will allow us tomake progress on our commitment to reduce regulatory burden for those providers with highquality courses, good outcomes, and rigorous standards.

Adopt an approach that involves scheduled cyclical reviews of allproviders5.

A small number of respondents to the phase one consultation suggested a return to the quality
assessment approach adopted in England before the creation of the OfS. The main feature ofthat approach was that each provider was subject to a full quality and standards review on afour or six-year cycle. That review process focused on a provider’s internal quality and

41 See www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-in-higher-

education-analysis-of-responses/.
97

standards assurance arrangements and required an extensive evidence base of policies andprocedures.
6.

There are two main reasons for not proposing this type of approach. The first is that the OfS is
required by HERA to regulate in proportion to the risk posed by an individual provider. This isreflected in the risk-based approach to regulation set out in the regulatory framework.
Requiring every registered provider to cooperate with a quality and standards review on acyclical basis would not, in our view, be consistent with that risk-based approach because it
would mean the same level of scrutiny and regulatory burden for all providers, regardless ofthe extent to which they may be complying with our conditions of registration.

7.

The second reason for not proposing an ‘institutional audit’ type of approach is that the OfS’s
regulatory objectives focus on whether students (in practice) receive a high quality academic
experience, and whether their awards and qualifications (in practice) hold their value overtime. Delivering these objectives requires us to set and assess regulatory requirements that
explicitly relate to these tangible things, rather than to the policies and process that providers
may have in place. Our proposed approach would focus squarely on courses, resources,
support, assessment and standards and we consider this necessary to ensure that students
and taxpayers are receiving value for money.

Adopt a rules-based approach8.

We have considered whether it would be possible or desirable to propose revised conditions ofregistration that take a rules-based approach. We have taken a more rules-based approach toproposed condition B5 which relates to standards. This is because the ‘sector-recognised
standards’ that we propose to use in that condition have themselves been written in a morerules-based way when drafted by the sector. However, the proposed conditions for quality are
expressed in a principles-based way.

9.

Many consultation responses asked for more information or more detail about our proposed
requirements and how these would be interpreted in practice. Such requests were perhaps
inevitable in a phase one consultation that set out broad principles for our future approach,and we expect the detail contained in the current proposals to resolve many of these issues.
But a very small number of responses asked for a more rules-based approach that provided aclear list of requirements that each provider is required to meet. The reasons given for thispreference included that a rules-based approach is easier to understand and comply with.

10. The regulatory framework says that the imposition of a narrow rules-based approach would
risk leading to a compliance culture that stifles diversity and innovation and prevents thehigher education sector from flourishing. This remains our view and we remain committed to aprinciples-based approach to regulation. As we set out in our Insight brief, we see the key
features of a principles-based approach as including a concern with qualitative standards of
behaviour rather than the enforcement of compliance with specific prescriptions andprocesses.42

42 A matter of principles: regulating in the student interest (October 2020) is available atwww.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/a-matter-of-principles-regulating-in-the-studentinterest/#principlesbasedregulation.
9811. This means we can accommodate the diversity of courses and providers we see in a sector
with more than 420 registered providers. It also means individual providers have significant
latitude in deciding what and how they teach, provided this meets our minimum requirements.
Our approach is therefore less intrusive into providers’ autonomy than an alternative rulesbased approach. It also minimises regulatory burden by giving providers flexibility to decide
how to comply.
12. We recognise that, in a principles-based regulatory system, guidance for providers about how
those principles are likely to be interpreted in practice has an important role. This is why wehave included in the proposed conditions definitions of key terms, and we have also included
in guidance illustrative examples of the approach we will likely take to compliance judgements.

99Annex F: Matters to which we have had regard inreaching our proposals
The OfS’s general duties
1.

In formulating these proposals, the OfS has had regard to its general duties as set out insection 2 of HERA – these are reproduced in Annex H. We consider that the proposals in thisconsultation are particularly relevant to general duties (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g), which relate
to: institutional autonomy; quality, choice and opportunities for students; competition where
this is in the interests of students; value for money; equality of opportunity; and best regulatory
practice.

2.

In formulating these proposals, we have given particular weight to (b), (d) and (e): promoting
quality, choice and opportunities for students; value for money; and equality of opportunity.

3.

The OfS’s regulatory objectives reflect the things that matter most to all students: high quality
courses, successful outcomes, and the ongoing value of their qualifications. In thecircumstances where a provider seeking registration, or already registered, is not meetingthese objectives for its students, it is important that the OfS can intervene to ensure thatcurrent and future students are not exposed to courses of low quality. Students making
choices about what and where to study need to be confident that the regulatory system
ensures that they are able to choose from a range of providers and courses that meet
minimum regulatory standards. Opportunities for study are not meaningful if students are able
to choose, or continue on, low quality courses, because the regulatory system has endorsed
such performance. Neither are they meaningful if the awards and qualifications granted are notcredible and do not hold their value over time. Many English higher education providers offer
high quality courses to students from underrepresented groups and we do not accept that it isnecessary to compromise quality and standards to deliver to these groups. Our provisionalview is that this means that the interests of students outweigh the interests of a provider in thissituation, and that an approach to regulating quality and standards that involves setting clear
minimum requirements for performance is an appropriate way to protect students’ interests.
This view is consistent with the OfS’s general duty to have regard to the need to promote
quality, choice and opportunities for students.

4.

Value for money in the provision of higher education is important for both students and thetaxpayer. Students normally pay significant sums for their higher education and incur debt for
tuition fees and maintenance costs whether or not the course, for example, is up-to-date,provides educational challenge, is appropriately resourced, and delivers a credible awards andqualifications. Investing in a higher education course that is of low quality or results in awards
and qualifications that are not credible, is unlikely to represent value for money for students.
Similarly, the taxpayer contributes significantly to higher education through the provision of
government-backed student loans and, for some providers, public grant funding. This
investment is unlikely to represent value for money if, for example, courses are of low quality,with students not equipped with the skills they need to succeed in their future careers. To
protect the interests of students and taxpayers, our provisional judgement is that it isappropriate to regulate quality and standards in the way described in this consultation toensure that student and taxpayer investment is focused on providers and courses that are highquality and deliver credible awards and qualifications.
100

5.

The OfS’s approach to regulation is designed to promote equality of opportunity in connection
with access to, and participation in, higher education. This means that we are concerned withensuring that students from underrepresented groups are able to access higher education,
and also to succeed on and beyond their courses. Our proposed conditions of registration are
designed to ensure that students from all backgrounds are admitted to a course for which they
have the potential to succeed and that the course is designed, delivered and assessed
effectively for all students.

6.

We consider it important that students from underrepresented groups are able to succeed
when they enter higher education, and to do so at the same rates as students from more
represented groups. The cost in financial and personal terms of being exposed to a badly
designed course or receiving inadequate support, and failing to succeed in employment
beyond their course, is significant for any student. For students from underrepresented groups,
the cost may be more significant because there may be fewer choices available to them. Ourview is that a provider that recruits students from such backgrounds is obliged to ensure thatthey have a high quality academic experience and receive a credible award or qualification on
the same basis as students from more advantaged backgrounds. This is reflected in theapplication of the minimum quality and standards requirements in the proposed conditions toall students, including those from underrepresented groups, regardless of what or where or
how they study. Further, proposed condition B2 requires a provider to specifically cater for
students from underrepresented groups if it recruits them; requiring the provider to understandthe capabilities, potential and needs of each particular cohort of students, and ensure that they
have the resources and support necessary to succeed.

7.

We have considered whether our proposals are likely to create disincentives for providers to
recruit some types of students (such as those from underrepresented groups) and therefore
reduce student choice for some groups. This was suggested as a possible unintended
consequence of our proposals in some responses to our phase one consultation. We havetaken the view in this consultation that no student from any group should study on a coursethat does not meet minimum requirements for quality and standards, as such courses would
not amount to meaningful student choice, and that it is the role of the regulator to ensure thatsuch courses are not available for students to choose. The incentive we intend to create
through these proposals is for providers to ensure that their courses meet our minimum
requirements such that all students have meaningful choices of high quality courses. We do
not consider that extending equality of opportunity for underrepresented groups could or
should be achieved by reducing our minimum requirements for quality and standards for any
student groups.

8.

We have also considered the potential impact on equality of opportunity for students fromunderrepresented groups of any enforcement action we may take in relation to the proposed
conditions. It is important to remember that enforcement action takes place because a provider
is not compliant with our regulatory requirements – such a breach is not in the interests ofstudents, regardless of their characteristics. Before we make interventions, including
enforcement action, in relation to compliance with any condition, we consider the intervention
factors set out in the regulatory framework, including the impact of an intervention on students.
We also have regard to the public sector equality duty in enforcement decisions. We would
therefore always consider the impact of enforcement action on underrepresented groups andwhere we consider that a particular intervention would be likely to have a materially negative
impact on students and their experience, we would be more likely to decide to use a less101significant intervention to address the issue where this is consistent with remedying the harmcaused by the breach.
9.

In formulating these proposals, we consider general duties (a), (c) and (g) important, but havegiven less weight to these.

10. The OfS is required to have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of higher
education providers. It does not, however, have an absolute obligation to protect the autonomy
of providers. Several respondents to our phase one consultation suggested higher education
providers should have autonomy for managing quality and standards, with many describing apreferred system where providers had freedom and responsibility for developing their own
processes appropriate for their courses. Our proposals support the exercise of institutional
autonomy by taking a principles- and outcomes-based approach to setting minimum
requirements for quality and by adopting standards created under sector-led processes. Ourview remains that using rigid rules-based mechanisms in relation to qualitative requirementsfor quality, or for the internal quality assurance processes providers use, would risk pushingproviders to adopt a particular approach to the way they design and deliver higher education
courses and support their students, and would inhibit innovation.
11. We do not consider that this would be in the interests of students or of providers themselves,
not least because we understand the importance of institutional autonomy in relation to quality
and standards. Where we consider that it makes sense to adopt a more rules-based approach,
we are proposing to do so: our proposed requirements for standards are expressed in a waythat provides more precise information for providers about the performance required, because
the sector-recognised standards we propose to adopt are written in that way.
12. The general approach set out in the regulatory framework and expanded on in thisconsultation attaches weight to institutional autonomy. But we are giving weight to autonomy
insofar as this is consistent with the need to protect the interests of students and, in particular,
students from underrepresented groups. Where the quality or standards of a provider’scourses is of concern, we propose that its autonomy is likely to carry less weight than theinterests of current and future students. Similarly, we would not consider it appropriate forautonomy to outweigh taxpayers’ interests where our minimum requirements for quality andstandards are not met.
13. We have particularly considered institutional autonomy in the context of our proposal tocontinue to impose a condition of registration that relates to standards. Our view is that itremains necessary to regulate standards on the basis set out in HERA in relation to defined
sector-recognised standards, because the credibility of awards and qualifications granted to
students remains an essential feature of the higher education sector, both within the UK andinternationally. Degree awarding bodies remain responsible for the standard of their awards
and we would expect them to discharge that responsibility effectively. Our proposal to impose
a condition of registration in this area would, however, allow us to intervene where standards
were not maintained.
14. The OfS is required to have regard to the need to encourage competition between providers,
where that competition is in the interests of students and employers. We are encouraging
competition by setting requirements only as minimum baselines, with providers free toinnovate and respond to incentives to improve above these baselines as they see fit.
102Competition could be further encouraged by removing regulatory barriers such that any
provider is able to compete for students, regardless of the quality of its courses, or thecredibility of the awards and qualifications its students receive. However, our view is that suchcompetition would not be in the interests of students because they are not generally
sophisticated consumers able to make unaided choices about what and where to study. This isparticularly the case for students from underrepresented groups, or with protectedcharacteristics, who may not have access to the information, advice and guidance needed tomake the right choice for them. The role of the regulator in this context is to set minimum
requirements for quality and standards, to ensure that students are able to choose from avariety of providers and courses that meet minimum regulatory requirements.
15. Our proposal to ensure that the initial quality and standards requirements placed on a provider
seeking registration are specified in a way that takes account of the context for new providers
that have not previously delivered higher education is designed to encourage competition by
reducing regulatory barriers for such providers.
16. We have considered the principles of best regulatory practice and, in particular, considerationsof proportionality. We consider the proposed approach set out in this consultation to be
proportionate and appropriate in ensuring that the OfS can protect the interests of students
and balance this with the interests of providers. We have given particular consideration to the
proportionality of our proposals, to ensure that regulatory attention is focused on those
providers that represent most regulatory risk. As part of this, we have considered the impact ofour proposals on small providers, or those with small numbers of higher education students.
Some respondents to the phase one consultation suggested that smaller providers would havea smaller number of staff available to consider and address the OfS’s regulatory requirements
and this meant that such providers would experience a disproportionate regulatory burden
when compared to larger providers. We currently take the view that it is necessary to require
all providers to comply with minimum quality and standards requirements regardless of theirsize, in order to ensure a minimum level of regulatory protection for all students,
notwithstanding that it may be more burdensome for some providers to comply than others.
17. We have also considered points made in response to the phase one consultation about theneed for our requirements and approach to be transparent (a principle of best regulatory
practice). The proposals in the current consultation seek to address these points by including
definitions of key terms in the proposed conditions, and illustrative examples of the approach
the OfS will take to making judgements about compliance in the associated guidance.

The public sector equality duty
18. We have had regard to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. This requires
the OfS to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, foster good
relations between different groups and advance equality of opportunity. Related to this, wehave had regard to our published equality and diversity objectives and action plan,43 inparticular the following objectives:

43 Our equality and diversity statement and objectives, and our equality and diversity action plan, areavailable at www.officeforstudents.org.uk/about/equality-and-diversity/.
103

19. Objective 4, which states that the OfS will work to address the risk of some students notreceiving a safe, healthy and inclusive higher education experience. It lists as a priority‘implementing the initial and ongoing conditions of registration for quality to drive a high quality
academic experience for all students, giving explicit attention to the outcomes for students
from underrepresented groups.’
20. Objective 1, which states that the OfS will develop, implement and consult on our equality,
diversity and inclusion objectives, evidence base, impact assessments and action plan toensure successful implementation of our Public Sector Equality Duty.
21. Objective 3, which states that the OfS will challenge the sector to significantly reduce gaps inaccess, success and progression for students from all backgrounds and identities and acrossall disciplines.

22. Objective 5, which states that the OfS will work to reduce the risk that some students areprevented from maximising their outcomes through their higher education experience andtherefore do not maximise their potential in terms of employment or further study.
23. We have also had regard to the Equality Impact Assessment conducted in relation to the OfS’s
regulatory framework,44 which states that the impact of the current quality and standards
conditions is assessed as positive, in particular because the regulatory framework frames
these conditions in a way designed to achieve a positive impact on students with protectedcharacteristics and from underrepresented groups. These proposals are framed to have thesame positive impact on students by securing minimum requirements for quality and standards
for all student groups, while our broader approach to regulation means that we have regard to
the impact of interventions on all student groups in deciding whether to take regulatory
action.45
24. In line with objectives 4 and 5 of our published equality and diversity objectives, it is our viewthat the requirements for quality and standards set out in the current proposals represent theminimum acceptable level of quality and standards for higher education provided by a provider
on the OfS Register to be offered to any students. We will continue to have due regard for our
obligations under the Equality Act 2010, as we consider responses to this phase two
consultation.

Guidance issued by the Secretary of State
25. We have had regard to guidance issued to the OfS by the Secretary of State under section
2(3) of HERA, including the following guidance:46

44 Our equality and diversity statement and objectives, and our equality and diversity action plan, areavailable at www.officeforstudents.org.uk/about/equality-and-diversity/
45 Further analysis of responses regarding equality considerations received to our phase one consultation isset out in www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/consultation-on-regulating-quality-and-standards-inhigher-education-analysis-of-responses/.
46 All statutory guidance cited is available at www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/guidance-from-government/.
104

a. ‘Guidance to the Office for Students – Secretary of State’s strategic priorities’ (February2021).
b. ‘Additional teaching grant and funding/reducing the bureaucratic burden on providers’ (24September 2020).
26. The February 2021 guidance refers to the regulation of quality and standards, and sets out the
Secretary of State’s full support for ‘the OfS’ desire to ensure that decisions on regulatoryintervention and registration can be made in relation to minimum absolute standards of quality
which apply across the whole of higher education provision’ and his firm belief that ‘every
student, regardless of their background, has a right to expect a minimum standard ofeducation that is likely to improve their prospects in life’.
27. The guidance supports the way in which our work to establish ‘universal minimum standards’is addressing ‘both the content and the process by which such standards can be establishedand, if necessary, adapted in the future in a clear and robust way’ and states that this work
was likely ‘to take account of, though not be confined to, quantitative measures’.
28. We also note the Secretary of State’s view that the development of the government’s Lifelong
Loan Entitlement and ambition to provide greater choice and flexibility for learners should beseen to be ‘fully consistent with a robust approach on quality, as students should be confidentof high quality and positive outcomes whether they are undertaking a module or a three-year
degree’.
29. From the September 2020 guidance, we continue to have regard to the Minister of State’scomments about regulatory burden, including that ‘there is now an opportunity to consider how
we can continue to reduce the bureaucratic burden on providers for the long term, enablingthem to continue to focus on delivering high quality outcomes for students next year andbeyond, while also ensuring you are equipped to deliver the range of functions granted to you
under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017’.
30. The February 2021 guidance echoes this point about regulatory burden setting out the viewthat ‘providers delivering high quality provision and strong outcomes for students should not be
adversely affected by additional unnecessary bureaucracy or reporting in relation to quality’and that the OfS should ‘take a risk-based approach to quality assessment and regulation,
focusing its efforts on lower quality providers’. From the same letter, we note his view that he‘would like the OfS to implement a markedly more risk-based model of regulation, withsignificant, meaningful and observable reductions in the regulatory burden upon high quality
providers within the next 12 months’.

The Regulators’ Code
31. We have had regard to the Regulators’ Code. Section 3 of the code is particularly relevant,which discusses the need to base regulatory activities on risk:
a. Paragraph 3.1 provides for regulators to use an evidence-based approach to determine
priority risks and allocate resources where most effective.
b. Paragraph 3.2 provides for regulators to consider risk at every stage of the decision-making
process and choose the most appropriate type of intervention, using a targeted approach.
105

c. Paragraph 3.5 provides for regulators to review the effectiveness of their activities and makenecessary adjustments accordingly.
32. Section 5 of the code is also particularly relevant, in its discussion of the need for regulators toensure that clear information, guidance and advice is available to help those they regulate
meet their responsibilities to comply:
a. Paragraph 5.1 provides for regulators to provide advice and guidance that is focused on
assisting those they regulate to understand and meet their responsibilities.
b. Paragraph 5.2 provides for regulators to publish guidance, and information in a clear,accessible and concise format.
33. In Section 1 of the code, paragraph 1.1 is also particularly relevant. This requires regulators to
avoid the imposition of unnecessary regulatory burdens through their regulatory activities.
34. We consider that our proposal particularly encapsulates these aspects of the code.

106Annex G: Consultation questions
Questions relating to proposal 1
Question 1a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition B1
and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex A?
Question 1b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 1a.
Question 1c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 1a?
Question 2a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition B2
and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex A?
Question 2b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 2a.
Question 2c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 2a?
Question 3a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition B4
and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex A?
Question 3b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 3a.
Question 3c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 3a?

Questions relating to proposal 2
Question 4a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of ongoing condition B5
and associated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex B?
Question 4b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 4a.
Question 4c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 4a?

Questions relating to proposal 3
Question 5a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of initial condition B7 andassociated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex C?
Question 5b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 5a.
Question 5c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 5a?
Question 6a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of initial condition B8 andassociated changes to the OfS’s regulatory framework as set out in Annex C?
Question 6b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 6a.
Question 6c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 6a?

Questions relating to proposal 4a
Question 7a: Do you agree or disagree with the approach to information gathering andassessment proposed in paragraphs 85-90 above and as set out in the proposed guidance for
initial conditions B7 and B8 in Annex C?
Question 7b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 7a.
Question 7c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 7a?

107Questions relating to proposal 4b
Question 8a: Do you agree or disagree with the approach to information gathering as part of aninvestigation proposed in paragraphs 91-98 above and as set out in the proposed guidance forconditions B1, B2, B4 and B5 in Annexes A and B?
Question 8b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 8a.
Question 8c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 8a?

Questions relating to proposal 4c
Question 9a: Do you agree or disagree with the approach to taking account of a provider’scompliance history for the purpose of determining eligibility for other benefits of OfS registration
proposed in paragraphs 103-126 above and as set out in the proposed guidance for conditions B1,
B2, B4 and B5 in Annexes A and B?
Question 9b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 9a.
Question 9c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 9a?

Questions relating to proposal 5
Question 10a: Do you agree or disagree that the OfS should use its role as EQA provider toinform assessments of condition B4?
Question 10b: Please give the reasons for your answer to Question 10a.
Question 10c: Do you have any alternative suggestions to the proposal in Question 10a?

Questions relating to all proposals
Question 11: Do you have any comments about the proposed implementation of the proposals inthis consultation?
Question 12: Do you have any comments about any unintended consequences of these
proposals, for example for particular types of provider or for any particular types of student?
Question 13: Do you have any comments about the potential impact of these proposals on
individuals on the basis of their protected characteristics?
Question 14: Do you have any other comments about the proposals?

108Annex H: Section 2 of the Higher Education andResearch Act 2017
2. General duties(1) In performing its functions, the OfS must have regard to—a. the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers,b. the need to promote quality, and greater choice and opportunities for students, inthe provision of higher education by English higher education providers,c. the need to encourage competition between English higher education providers inconnection with the provision of higher education where that competition is in theinterests of students and employers, while also having regard to the benefits forstudents and employers resulting from collaboration between such providers,d. the need to promote value for money in the provision of higher education by
English higher education providers,e. the need to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access to andparticipation in higher education provided by English higher education providers,f.

the need to use the OfS's resources in an efficient, effective and economic way, andg. so far as relevant, the principles of best regulatory practice, including the principles
that regulatory activities should be—i. transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, andii. targeted only at cases in which action is needed.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to choice in the provision of higher education by
English higher education providers includes choice amongst a diverse range of—a. types of provider,b. higher education courses, andc. means by which they are provided (for example, full-time or part-time study,
distance learning or accelerated courses).
(3) In performing its functions, including its duties under subsection (1), the OfS must haveregard to guidance given to it by the Secretary of State.
(4) In giving such guidance, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect theinstitutional autonomy of English higher education providers.
(5) The guidance may, in particular, be framed by reference to particular courses of study but,whether or not the guidance is framed in that way, it must not relate to—109

a. particular parts of courses of study,b. the content of such courses,c. the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed,d. the criteria for the selection, appointment or dismissal of academic staff, or how they
are applied, ore. the criteria for the admission of students, or how they are applied.
(6) Guidance framed by reference to a particular course of study must not guide the OfS to
perform a function in a way which prohibits or requires the provision of a particular courseof study.
(7) Guidance given by the Secretary of State to the OfS which relates to English higher
education providers must apply to such providers generally or to a description of suchproviders.
(8) In this Part, “the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers” means—a. the freedom of English higher education providers within the law to conduct their
day to day management in an effective and competent way,b. the freedom of English higher education providers—i. to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they
are taught, supervised and assessed,
ii. to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal ofacademic staff and apply those criteria in particular cases, andiii. to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply thosecriteria in particular cases, andc. the freedom within the law of academic staff at English higher education providers—i. to question and test received wisdom, andii. to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions,
without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at theproviders.

110© The Office for Students copyright 2021
This publication is available under the Open Government Licence 3.0 except where it indicates thatthe copyright for images or text is owned elsewhere.
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/