Minimum entry standards ‘blunt tool’ to tackle franchise abuse

The proposed use of language requirements to crack down on poor-quality higher education provision, particularly in the franchise sector, would be disproportionate and undermine Labour’s target of improving university access for disadvantaged students, according to groups representing universities.

The government has confirmed that it will open a consultation in the autumn on introducing a minimum English language requirement for prospective undergraduates to access student finance. 

Policymakers see bringing in a language requirement as a way to address perceived abuse within the franchise system. 

Currently, UK nationals and those with settled status in the UK are generally eligible to receive student finance for their first higher education qualification without having to prove their language ability to the Student Loans Company. 

Last year, the education secretary blocked new applicants to Oxford Business College, a franchise partner of several mainstream universities, from accessing student finance. 

Court documents show that the government justified this, in part, because of the alleged lack of evidence of students’ English language proficiency, which is currently left to higher education providers to determine. 

In its case against OBC, the Department for Education (DfE) also referenced allegations of students not attending classes and, in some cases, not living in the UK. 

A judge later ruled that the DfE’s decision to block student loan funding was unlawful because of a lack of procedural fairness and misrepresentations of evidence.   

Some politicians have previously criticised the number of foreign nationals applying for student loans, and there are ongoing concerns that phoney students could be enrolling in university courses purely to access student finance. 

In a letter to higher education providers sent on 25 June that referenced the planned consultation, skills minister Jacqui Smith says there must be “robust standards to protect students and taxpayers from abuse”. 

But some believe using entry requirements as a tool to tackle abuse in the franchise system would be disproportionate, given that the entirety of the higher education sector could be subject to the rules, regardless of individual institutions’ teaching quality and student outcomes. 

“We know that quality across the sector is very high,” said Susanna Kalitowski, director of policy at University Alliance. “It’s really small pockets where there are issues with quality so, in tackling that, they want to impose a blunt tool on the whole sector.”

She continued: “It seems like using a sledgehammer to tackle a nut.” 

The government has also positioned the prospective policy change as a way to protect students from taking on debt to study courses they might not be academically equipped to succeed in. 

In the letter, Smith says the policy would “provide greater confidence that recipients are able to benefit from their course”. 

“We will, of course, want to design this carefully, in collaboration with you,” she writes. 

The Russell Group of research intensive universities is one of the few mission groups in the sector to back a minimum entry standard, saying it is “needed to protect student interests and maximise public investment”.

But much of the rest of the higher education sector is opposed to any kind of government-mandated entry standard, arguing that it would undermine institutional autonomy and disproportionately affect students from disadvantaged backgrounds – the same students Labour has been explicit about wanting to help access university. 

Brooke Storer-Church, chief executive of GuildHE, said setting minimum entry standards “risks undoing years of successful widening access efforts by restricting entry to more advantaged students and those who follow traditional routes into higher education”. 

Rachel Hewitt, chief executive of MillionPlus, added that “there is a particular risk this approach could restrict access for mature learners seeking to reskill, running counter to wider policy aims, including the Lifelong Learning Entitlement”. 

In 2021, Conservative ministers looked at introducing minimum entry requirements to access student loans. However, the proposals were later dropped, with some suggesting that it would be too complex given the exemptions required for certain groups, such as mature learners and those with special needs.

“This is really the wrong time, I think, for this kind of policy to be announced, given the aim for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to upskill and reskill learners who might not have accessed higher education in the past,” added Kalitowski. 

“We really believe that universities are the best place to determine who can study,” she continued. “And if there are poor pockets of quality, then they should be dealt with by the regulator. That’s the whole purpose of the regulator.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “We are restoring our world class universities as engines of opportunity, aspiration, and growth.

“That is why we are cracking down on poor quality courses, strengthening oversight on university franchising arrangements, and soon consulting on minimum English language requirements for prospective under-graduates to access student finance.

“We’re also making sure students from all backgrounds can go to university by reintroducing targeted maintenance grants, increasing maintenance loans every year in line with forecast inflation, and capping interest rates on student loans.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com