Applications for higher TEF awards will be informed by ‘common metrics’ initially drawn from a set of three (C3, P12) to include measures of employment and earnings (starting with DLHE but going on to use data from the HMRC data match), retention and continuation (from HESA’s performance indicators), and student satisfaction (derived from the NSS).

The provider will need to state whether or not they use a Grade Point Average assessment system (C1, P40) but note the requirement is only to state their position, and actual use of such a system is not to be a ‘prerequisite’ for higher TEF awardsĬ.The provider will need to show it is compliant with ‘market practice’ guidelines set out by the Competition and Markets Authority (C2, P3).The provider will need an Access Agreement or similar device (C1, P19).Applications for higher TEF awards will be subject to three ‘pre-conditions’ that will be assessed by the Independent Panel: Those who reach TEF Level 1 in 2016/17 will be allowed to raise their fees along with inflation in 2017/18.ī. Candidacy for these awards will not go to the Independent Panel, as far as we can tell. In 2016-17, a satisfactory quality assurance review from QAA, ISI for course designation or equivalent, in place by February 2016, will lead directly to a TEF Level 1 award (Chapter 1, Paras. KEY (with references to the Green Paper in parentheses) The inputs:Ī. Click here to open the model in a new window. The main lesson is perhaps that the TEF may prove to be an ‘incredible’ machine in both senses of the word. The process has also raised new questions about the TEF that haven’t emerged in the commentary thus far, and these can be fed into the consultation. The exercise has helped us to understand what is being proposed, and hopefully it will help others, but we are also happy for this to be ‘version one’ and eagerly invite crowdsourcing of improved diagrams, either based on ours, or completely different approaches. Our interpretation sees the TEF as a modular machine, with inputs, processing, and outputs – and each set of components is associated with different rules and conditions. This is because the many different bits and pieces of TEF architecture it describes are scattered throughout the document without any logic, and means are jumbled with ends.Īs the government hasn’t thought it beneficial to provide any visual plan of the overall design, we will make the first attempt.

Since the Green Paper was released under embargo yesterday, we at Wonkhe have found that one has to read it over and over again, with a set of multi-coloured post-it notes on hand, to really get to grips with the Teaching Excellence Framework proposals it contains. The idea of nudging a basketball into a rubbish bin using a set of bellows may stand as a metaphor for contemporary policy design. Some wonks may remember an addictive computer game called The Incredible Machine, in which the player has to construct increasingly convoluted machines to achieve specified goals. This page is now out of date following the publication of the Higher Education White Paper.

The incredible machine 3 guide