Notes on the data:
- Data includes all Honours Degree students reportable to HESA on level 6 and integrated level 7 courses. This includes Degree Apprenticeship qualifications and courses incorporating an Integrated Foundation Year, and delivery across University of Sunderland campuses in Sunderland, London, Online and Distance Learning where students fall within HESA populations.
- Data presented within this summary may vary from historical data previously published due to retrospective changes (e.g. change/removal of award due to appeal, retrospective changes in student demographic grouping).
- Data cited includes all fee status students (Home, EU, Overseas) unless such data is not available beyond Home (UK domiciled) students.
- Please note that the Access and Participation Plan covers a student population differing from those included in this report, and additionally reporting differences may exist due to timing of academic cycles and HESA reporting periods; therefore, some divergence in figures should be expected.
| Undergraduate Honours Degree Classification Profile | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Class | 30.23% | 25.50% | 21.45% | 25.04% | 24.19% |
| 2:1 | 46.80% | 47.74% | 47.33% | 45.20% | 47.65% |
| 2:2 | 19.14% | 22.08% | 25.06% | 24.04% | 23.64% |
| 3rd Class | 3.83% | 4.68% | 6.15% | 5.72% | 4.53% |
| Combined Good Honours Attainment (1st & 2:1) | 77.03% | 73.24% | 68.79% | 70.25% | 71.83% |
| Total Students | 3004 | 3655 | 3300 | 3482 | 3845 |
- Overall ‘good honours’ (1st/2:1) peaked at 77.03% (2020/21) with subsequent decline to 68.79% (2022/23), that has since recovered to 71.83% (2024/25). NB that 2020/21 was a lockdown year during which Emergency Regulations and a ‘safety net’ were in place.
- 2024/5 ‘good honours’ attainment shows a variation over the 5-year period of -5.2% (vs 2020/1 peak) and +3.04% (vs 2022/23 low).
- Attainment gaps are prevalent across all characteristics, with gaps evident by Age (Under 21 vs Over 21); Ethnicity gaps remain pronounced; a strong deprivation gradient is sustained across IMD; Gender and Disability show smaller but persistent differences in student attainment.
| Age | 2020/21 (%) | 2021/22 (%) | 2022/23 (%) | 2023/24 (%) | 2024/25 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 21 | 81.25 | 72.13 | 73.19 | 73.93 | 75.49 |
| Over 21 | 74.69 | 73.77 | 66.77 | 68.80 | 70.33 |
Attainment fell sharply from 2020/21 to 2021/22 for students aged Under 21, then improved gradually through to 2024/25. For students aged Over 21, the decline is more pronounced to 2022/23, with a partial recovery thereafter.
Under 21 improved to 75.49% by 2024/25, while Over 21 remained lower at 70.33% after a sharper dip in 2022/23. Under 21 attainment remains consistently above Over 21, indicating a persistent age-related gap (+5.16%).
| Disability | 2020/21 (%) | 2021/22 (%) | 2022/23 (%) | 2023/24 (%) | 2024/25 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | 77.26 | 73.41 | 68.81 | 70.25 | 72.08 |
| Prefer Not To Say | 57.14 | 55.56 | 72.97 | 73.91 | 80.19 |
| Yes | 75.42 | 72.19 | 68.24 | 70.08 | 68.76 |
Students declaring no disability show a pattern of decline to 2022/23 with subsequent recovery by 2024/25, with variations of -5.18 (2024/25 vs 2020/21 peak) and +3.27 (2024/25 vs 2022/23 low). Students declaring a disability also decline to 2022/23 and recover in 2023/24, but are lower again in 2024/25, consequently widening the gap compared with ‘No’ (3.32% variance). ‘Prefer not to say’ fluctuates substantially and rises to the highest level by 2024/25, which may indicate small cohort sizes and year-to-year volatility.
The attainment gap between students declaring a disability and those declaring no disability was smallest in 2023/24 (0.17% variance).
| Ethnicity (Grouped) | 2020/21 (%) | 2021/22 (%) | 2022/23 (%) | 2023/24 (%) | 2024/24 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian | 76.88 | 69.32 | 66.61 | 70.41 | 73.02 |
| Black | 62.68 | 64.42 | 59.11 | 58.30 | 64.40 |
| Mixed or Multiple | 82.00 | 71.93 | 65.31 | 73.85 | 68.89 |
| Other | 74.64 | 73.17 | 65.29 | 61.65 | 78.69 |
| White | 81.07 | 76.05 | 73.04 | 75.81 | 73.78 |
Most groups show a decline to 2022/23 followed by improvement in 2023/24 and/or 2024/25. Black student attainment is consistently the lowest across the period, with a particularly low point in 2023/24 and a recovery in 2024/25 (down to 58.30% in 2023/24; 64.40% in 2024/25) but remains below other groups. White attainment remains comparatively highest (73.78% in 2024/25), despite trends downward overall since 2020/21; several smaller groups (e.g., ‘Other’) show larger year-to-year swings, suggesting greater volatility of student numbers affecting the data.
| Gender | 2020/21 (%) | 2021/22 (%) | 2022/23 (%) | 2023/24 (%) | 2024/25 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 75.28 | 73.24 | 67.97 | 70.62 | 70.01 |
| Male | 79.87 | 73.17 | 70.01 | 69.67 | 74.71 |
| Other / Refused / Unknown | 88.89 | 80.00 | 66.67 |
Female attainment declines to 2022/23, improves slightly in 2023/24, remaining broadly stable into 2024/25 (70.01%). Male attainment also declines to 2022/23, dips marginally again in 2023/24, and then rebounds strongly in 2024/25 to (74.71%). The result is a widening gender gap in 2024/25, with male attainment higher than female (+4.7%) which is the widest attainment gap observed across the 5-year period.
| Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) | 2020/21 (%) | 2021/22 (%) | 2022/23 (%) | 2023/24 (%) | 2024/25 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quintile 1 | 73.10 | 68.52 | 66.30 | 68.23 | 69.39 |
| Quintile 5 | 85.57 | 81.94 | 77.67 | 76.86 | 75.23 |
A clear deprivation gradient persists, with Quintile 5 (least deprived) consistently above Quintile 1 (most deprived). Both quintiles fall to 2022/23, but Quintile 5 shows a sustained year-on-year decline across the full period (85.57% to 75.23%, while Quintile 1 partially recovers by 2024/25 (69.39% in 2024/25). Although the gap narrows somewhat over time, it remains substantial in 2024/25 (-5.84% variance Quintile 1 vs Quintile 5).
| POLAR 4 | 2020/21 (%) | 2021/22 (%) | 2022/23 (%) | 2023/24 (%) | 2024/25 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quintiles 1 & 2 combined | 78.52 | 71.28 | 70.09 | 70.42 | 70.05 |
| Other quintiles combined | 74.93 | 77.80 | 70.55 | 71.56 | 71.58 |
Attainment for Quintiles 1 & 2 combined declines from 2020/21 to 2021/22 and then remains broadly flat around 70% through to 2024/25. ‘Other quintiles combined’ is higher in 2021/22 but drops sharply in 2022/23 and then stabilises at a rate to Quintiles 1 & 2 by 2024/25. Overall, differences by POLAR4 appear smaller and less consistent than the IMD gradient.
The institution’s Assessment Innovation Programme (AIP) has driven significant and sustained improvements in assessment design, marking practices, and overall student performance. By embedding the principle that assessment is always for learning, the AIP has encouraged the adoption of more authentic, fair, and robust assessment opportunities across all programmes. This has been supported by institution-wide AI and Assessment roadshows, which have built staff confidence in navigating the evolving assessment landscape of artificial intelligence while maintaining academic standards. The Good Assessment Practice (GAP) process, central to the AIP, has been particularly influential, with participating modules demonstrating a 10% increase in first-time pass rates and a 10% reduction in non-submissions, outperforming institution-wide improvements by a significant margin.
These changes have been reinforced through updates to the institution’s assessment policy, including the introduction of a revised late submission policy that has contributed to reduced non-submissions and fewer extenuating circumstances claims. Marking and feedback approaches have benefited from clearer guidance, enhanced consistency, and improved transparency for students. The widespread embedding of updated practices - through staff development sessions, PGCert modules, and coordinated collaboration with library skills teams - has ensured that academic staff are supported in designing assessments that remain inclusive, future-facing, and responsive to student needs in an AI-enabled learning environment.
The University’s approach to degree classification is governed by clearly defined academic regulations, designed to ensure that awards are made consistently, transparently, and in line with sector expectations.
Undergraduate degree classifications are determined through an algorithm that calculates a weighted average of the ‘best 90 credits’ achieved at specified levels of study, with greater emphasis placed on final-stage performance. The algorithm applies defined weightings to modules contributing to the classification and includes provisions for the consideration of marginal cases, ensuring that students whose overall profile lies close to a classification boundary are treated consistently and fairly.
To ensure equity across both three-year degree programmes and final-stage entry programmes, the University also currently applies a final-stage calculation. Students are awarded the most favourable outcome, recognising final-stage performance (“exit velocity”) and aligning with the University’s strategic objectives relating to widening participation and student achievement. Use of this calculation is under review.
The University applies consistent rules in relation to module compensation, condonement at undergraduate level, reassessment, and the treatment of failed or repeated modules. This ensures that all students are assessed within a common regulatory framework. Integrated master’s awards and postgraduate taught programmes follow similarly structured approaches, with classifications determined through aggregated performance across defined stages of study.
In 2024/25, the University has continued to review and refine its classification approach as part of its commitment to transparency and alignment with sector expectations. This has included enhancing clarity around the application of weightings, strengthening guidance on borderline decisions, and supporting consistency in how regulations are operationalised through Assessment Boards. As part of this review, the University moved from a ‘best one hundred credits’ calculation to a ‘best ninety credits’ model, aligning with the transition to a standard 30-credit modular structure from 2025/26.
The University keeps its classification algorithms under periodic review to ensure they remain appropriate, transparent, and supportive of fair student outcomes. Any changes are subject to formal approval processes and are clearly communicated to students and staff in advance of implementation. Further review will be taking place into 2026/7 following national advice from the Office for Students on degree classification algorithms.
The University maintains robust academic governance arrangements to assure the quality, standards, and integrity of its awards. Central to this are formal assessment board structures and the oversight provided by External Examiners.
Assessment decisions are made through a structured framework of Programme Assessment Boards. These boards are responsible for confirming progression, award outcomes, and classifications in line with the University’s academic regulations. Recent developments have seen a transition from subject-based boards towards University-level Programme Assessment Boards, designed to enhance consistency, strengthen institutional oversight, and improve efficiency in decision-making. This approach reduces duplication while ensuring that academic judgement is applied consistently across provision.
Assessment Boards operate with delegated authority from Academic Board, with clear terms of reference and are supported by trained academic and professional services staff. Regulations and procedural guidance ensure that decisions are evidence-based, transparent, and consistently applied. Particular attention is given to the treatment of extenuating circumstances, academic misconduct, and borderline cases to ensure fairness and equity in outcomes.
External Examiners play a key role in assuring standards. They are appointed in line with sector expectations and provide independent oversight of assessment processes, marking standards, and student outcomes. External Examiners are actively engaged in reviewing assessment tasks, sampling student work, and attending Assessment Boards. Their reports are formally considered and responded to through institutional processes, with themes and recommendations informing continuous improvement. The University is in the process of appointing a Chief External Examiner, who will have the responsibility of reviewing practice and standards and reporting directly to the Academic Board.
Oversight of academic standards is maintained through institutional committees, including Education Committee, Academic Board and Academic Quality and Compliance Committee, which receive regular reports on assessment outcomes, External Examiner feedback, and emerging trends. The Board of Governors’ Academic Assurance Committee receives regular reports on quality and standards matters, including this Statement, to ensure Board-level oversight. This ensures that governance arrangements remain effective, risks are identified early, and enhancement activity is appropriately targeted.
Teaching practice has evolved in parallel with assessment transformation, prompted by institution-wide interventions designed to strengthen curriculum delivery and enhance student engagement. The alignment of teaching updates with assessment reforms has resulted in more coherent learning experiences, with staff increasingly adopting active, authentic, and personalised teaching and assessment strategies. The coordinated approach with library and Centre for Teaching Excellence teams has ensured that academic skills, AI literacy, and the AIP principles are embedded within modules, giving students clearer pathways to success. These developments extend into the in-house Postgraduate Certificate of Education, Success in Programme Leadership course, and will be a key ingredient in the new in-house Professional Recognition scheme, along with the wider staff training portfolio, meaning new and existing staff are equipped with current, evidence-informed pedagogic practices.
Learning resources have also been strengthened through the introduction of comprehensive SharePoint-based guidance for staff, including updated AI guidance, assessment and feedback good practice resources, academic integrity support, and inclusive teaching advice. Complementing this are our student-facing supportive academic misconduct induction courses, and study skills interventions delivered collaboratively with the library team. These resources not only reinforce expectations around academic conduct but directly support improved learning behaviours, contributing to reductions in misconduct and associated improvements in first-time pass rates. Together, these changes demonstrate a move toward a more integrated, supportive, and technologically enabled learning environment.
A clear area of good practice has been the widescale adaptation of assessment methods, driven by the AIP and the institution’s proactive response to AI developments. These changes reflect a sector-leading approach to ensuring assessments remain authentic, resilient, and aligned with contemporary learning needs. The coordinated SPRINT process has supported programme-level development through integrated pedagogic, AI, and assessment expertise; emerging as a strong model of coordinated academic enhancement. Its structured, collaborative approach has helped programme teams redevelop programmes in ways that prioritise inclusiveness, personalisation, and academic integrity, while also ensuring alignment with institutional frameworks and standards.
Looking ahead, a set of targeted actions for 2025/26 aims to build on these successes. The new FocUS project represents a major strategic development, offering data‑driven, tailored support to programme teams to improve outcomes across both assessment and teaching practice, including alignment with Access and Participation Plan (APP) priorities. This will be complemented by further updates to the assessment policy, refreshed AI guidelines, and the development of the SPARK curriculum design framework, with its seven pillars reflecting the institution’s broader culture framework. Additional staff training will enhance teaching excellence, specifically around personalisation, inclusiveness, integration of technology-enhanced learning, and sustainability to support student success. Collectively, these actions demonstrate a sustained commitment to continuous enhancement and sector-leading practice.
The University is alert to risks and challenges to the quality and standards of its provision, and to the student experience, through its quality and related processes. These include the annual Programme Enhancement Plans, which are ongoing reflections at programme level on the performance of programmes, student feedback, professional and statutory body feedback, and planned actions for enhancement of programmes. The University also carefully considers external examiner feedback on standards and on its assessment processes, and reports on that feedback through the academic governance processes outlined above.