The report, published by the think tank Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), highlights concerns that some institutions have expanded student numbers at a rapid pace. It points to Canterbury Christ Church University as an example, noting that the institution has nearly tripled in size over the past decade. Meanwhile, Arden University is reported to have grown by more than 3,000% over the same period.
According to the report’s author, education policy analyst Tom Richmond, several universities – including Bath Spa University and Buckinghamshire New University – have driven rapid expansion through franchising arrangements, also known as subcontracted provision. The report sets out that these institutions now educate more students through franchised partners than on their own campuses.
The report notes that, in the absence of student number controls, these providers have not breached any rules, but its author says there has been “growing disquiet about this unchecked growth”.
It argues that rapid expansion, alongside increasing reliance on franchised provision and other financial strategies, has raised concerns about whether some providers are sufficiently prioritising sustainability and resilience. The report links these pressures to wider risks across the sector, including exposure to volatile recruitment patterns and growing borrowing levels.
To address these issues, the report proposes a “toolkit” of eight measures designed to limit excessive risk-taking while preserving the autonomy of well-managed providers.
Among the recommendations is a cap on institutional growth, suggesting that annual increases in student numbers should be limited to 5%. The report also calls for tighter regulation of franchising, including requiring government approval for all agreements – both new and existing – and capping the proportion of income providers can derive from franchising at 20%.
The findings come as the government is already strengthening oversight of franchising arrangements across the sector.
Richmond, a former adviser to two education secretaries, commented: “There is so much good work being done by so many higher education providers and academics to deliver a great experience to their students, but my analysis suggests that some providers have taken too many risks, ignored students’ interests and damaged the reputation of the sector by pursuing extra tuition fee income above all else.”
“Given the pivotal role of higher education in our society and economy, the government should set new boundaries that aim to curtail excessive risk-taking and promote financial sustainability because, ultimately, the interests of the sector are more important than the interests of any single provider.”
The government should set new boundaries that aim to curtail excessive risk-taking and promote financial sustainability because, ultimately, the interests of the sector are more important than the interests of any single provider
Tom Richmond, report author
Rose Stephenson, director of policy and strategy at HEPI, said that the recommendations are “intentionally forthright”.
“We recognise they may be challenging and will prompt a range of views across the sector. However, they reflect the scale and urgency of the issues facing higher education today,” she said.
“If we are serious about building a more sustainable and resilient system, it is important that we engage with these ideas and foster an open, constructive debate about the sector’s future.”
Elsewhere, the report also urges a series of safeguards to protect students’ interests in the face of growth of the sector, including caps on recruitment relative to teaching capacity, stricter requirements on accommodation, greater transparency over course sizes, and reforms to standardise degree classifications.
