The Office for Students has published a proposed assessment approach for its revised quality and rating system, outlining how assessors would judge evidence on student experience, student outcomes and consistency across groups, subjects and provision. The consultation, published on 22 October 2026, is aimed at making ratings more evidence-based, transparent and consistent while still relying on expert judgement.
Key facts
- Assessors would judge student experience using provider submissions, expanded NSS-based indicators and additional evidence from students.
- Student outcomes would be assessed using continuation and completion indicators, plus expanded post-study indicators and contextual evidence.
- The approach would embed equality of opportunity by checking whether quality and outcomes are consistent across different student groups.
- As a rule of thumb, the OfS says at least 80% of students experiencing a similar level of quality would be considered broadly consistent.
- For providers not applying for TEF ratings, assessors would decide whether the evidence supports Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory outcomes for each aspect.
What does this mean for students and providers?
The proposal matters because it changes how the OfS would decide whether a provider meets minimum quality requirements and, for TEF applicants, how it would reach ratings. Students and staff should expect assessors to look not only at numerical indicators but also at submissions, contextual evidence and any signs that quality is uneven across subjects, modes of study or student groups.
For student experience, the OfS says assessors would normally give half the weight to NSS-based indicators and half to other evidence. For student outcomes, the initial view would come from continuation, completion and post-study measures before contextual evidence is considered. That means providers may need to show not just strong headline results, but evidence that quality is sustained across their provision.
The proposal also points to a practical threshold: if around 20% of students experience lower quality or poorer outcomes and that is not adequately justified or addressed, it is likely to limit the judgement. In other words, providers could face pressure to identify weaker pockets of provision earlier and respond before ratings are affected.
For providers undergoing enhanced assessment, the OfS says a visit and additional evidence gathering would carry significant weight when risks have been identified.
How would the OfS weigh evidence?
Under the proposal, assessors would reach and record a judgement for each criterion before combining those judgements into an overall aspect outcome or rating. For student experience, the criteria would be judged against evidence from indicators, submissions, enhanced assessment evidence where relevant and any other evidence available to the regulator.
The OfS says assessors would normally give less weight to a provider describing an initiative without evidence of impact, or to student views that do not show they were gathered from a range of students. Where evidence conflicts, assessors would use expert judgement and give more weight to evidence that is more robust, representative or directly relevant.
For student outcomes, assessors would first form an initial view from the indicators and then consider contextual information. The OfS says it may ask for further information or clarification, including on whether certain courses should be removed from the data, and may ask its data specialists to verify those effects.
Why is consistency across groups so important?
Because the OfS wants higher ratings to signal quality across an entire provider, not just in its strongest pockets. The draft guidance says a Silver or Gold rating should indicate that students can reasonably expect high or outstanding quality across all provision, while significant weaknesses in particular subjects, modes of study or student groups would constrain the overall rating.
The proposal would also ask assessors to look at whether quality and outcomes are consistent across student groups, subjects and areas of provision when awarding ratings. The regulator says the aim is to allow some variation, but not enough to mask substantial weaker performance affecting a significant minority of students.
For student experience, the six criteria linked to conditions B1, B2 and B4 include whether courses are up to date, coherent and effectively delivered; whether students have resources, support and engagement; and whether assessment and academic regulations are credible and reliable.
What would count as satisfactory?
For providers not applying for TEF ratings, the OfS would decide whether the evidence provides sufficient assurance that the relevant quality conditions are met. For student experience, that means conditions B1, B2 and B4. For student outcomes, it means condition B3.
If the criteria are judged satisfactory, the outcome for that aspect would be Satisfactory. If one or more criteria are judged unsatisfactory, the outcome would be Unsatisfactory. For TEF assessments, criteria would be judged as outstanding, high quality or satisfactory before the aspect rating is determined.
What does the proposal say about post-study outcomes?
The OfS says assessors would consider a basket of post-study measures and would normally place more weight on the most positive measure. It says student outcomes judgements should take account of continuation, completion and post-study evidence together, along with contextual information.
The regulator says the approach is intended to reflect both success during study and outcomes after study, and to allow trends over four years of data to be considered. Sustained improvement or sustained decline could affect how indicators are interpreted.
FAQ
What is the 80% rule of thumb in the proposal?
The OfS says 80% is an indicative threshold for whether quality or outcomes are broadly consistent. If at least 20% of students experience lower quality or poorer outcomes and that is not adequately justified, it is likely to limit the judgement.
Would the same approach apply to TEF and non-TEF providers?
Yes, but in different ways. TEF applicants would be rated, while providers not applying for TEF would be judged on whether the evidence supports Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory outcomes for each aspect.
