If teaching needs fixing, is TEF the right tool for the job?

Isn't there a problem that in purporting to measure the 'learning environment' the Times Higher has just joined in with those who've encouraged the metric view of measuring teaching excellence? We've had 20 years of league tables and have grown accustomed to them. They are actually a reason to dispute the Minister's overall thesis that because there isn't a REF for teaching - universities don't value it. Universities value it a lot, inherently. But also because manifestations of metrics about teaching appear in league tables this is also a concern to universities. Find a university governing body that doesn't have a league table report - and particularly one that doesn't get a report on the metrics that appear in them - think NSS or employablity. But that doesn't mean the THE rankings measure the quality of teaching - your presumption that measuring aspects of the 'Humboldtian' ideal actually measures teaching is entirely wobbly - and so (as you note) inappropriate for other kinds of university. It's not actually doing the job for research universities anyway. The TEF, even in its mature form, is simply going to be unable to make valid judgments on 'teaching excellence' between universities - and so obviously it should be uncoupled from money. But any graded judgement coming out the TEF, Pass/Fail, Bronze/Silver/Gold, Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory/Excellent is going to be invalid as well.

I watched the meeting, and wrote this partly in response, on the myth of the level playing field. https://stumblingwithconfidence.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/higher-education-and-the-myth-of-the-level-playing-field/ Together I thought the two panels presented a reasonably unites front, and put forward some sitting arguments against a simple, one-size-fits-all TEF. But as we are in the realm of policy-based evidence, I have little faith in any meaningful or useful outcome.