OfS consults on a condition of registration for subcontracted provision

Cast your mind back to the end of January this year.

The Department for Education proposed that all providers delivering a course via a franchise model to more than 300 students should register with the Office for Students.

The rationale was straightforward. An increasingly large number of students were studying at, effectively, unregulated providers – with the connection to the lead provider achieved via an office in the registry and subject to varying (shall we say) levels of oversight in terms of quality, standards, and – frankly – probity (as we and others have extensively reported).

That consultation concluded in April, and we have heard very little about these plans since. So when, just before summer recess, the Office for Students announced its own consultation on regulating franchise provision one could be forgiven for assuming that the two approaches would somehow link together.

Information requirement

What OfS has suggested addresses the other end of the issue – while DfE wants to register delivery providers, OfS wants to put a new condition of registration (E8) onto institutions with more than 100 students taught via subcontractual arrangements. The condition is not an arduous one – it basically suggests that a lead provider should have adequate governance and oversight of risks concerning subcontractual provision, and be prepared to share key information about these arrangements (a so-called “Comprehensive source of information”, or CSol). In return OfS can demand more information (“monitoring”) and make “directions” for the lead provider to start or stop doing stuff. All this would, consultation pending, come into force in January 2026.

Now, it would be fair to wonder whether this kind of effective governance in the public interest is already covered in conditions E1 and E2, and the information end of things feels a little bit F3. It is neither unreasonable nor arduous to expect providers to have adequate governance or to publish information – though it is questionable (given the applicability of these existing registration conditions) that this will have any meaningful impact on provider activity.

In other words, if you don’t have effective arrangements in place regarding subcontractual provision, you are already in breach of condition E2 and will face consequences. Just ask Leeds Trinity University, now £115,000 poorer as a result – and, as the consultation suggests, just the tip of a very large iceberg of provision where OfS has been regulating quietly behind the scenes.

Rationale

So why the need for E8? If providers are already required to be transparent around governance arrangements and oversight, why do we need another condition to do the same thing for subcontractual relationships? And if there are additional informational needs, or a need to limit what a particular provider can do, why not do a specific condition of registration relating to subcontractual activity? Or why not wait a few weeks to see whether DfE brings the people doing the actual course delivery into its regulatory ambit? OfS says:

We consider that implementing a general ongoing condition of registration sends a clearer signal to the sector about our expectations for managing subcontractual partnerships now and in the future. Including our requirements in the regulatory framework in this way provides greater transparency for all providers and for other stakeholders.

We are, once again, in the realms of vibes-based regulation: the purpose of this requirement is to make it look like OfS is finally doing something to address the problems with subcontractual provision that have been visible to the media since at least 2014.

In the weeds

You’ll look in vain within the consultation for any mention of OfS’ own long-promised publication of definitive data on the size and shape of franchised provision – now possibly coming in the last quarter of 2025 (following a very small pilot release last year). Where this gets interesting is the methodology for calculating where or not you are over the threshold (a total of 100 – headcount – students studying via subcontractual arrangements at relevant providers) as calculated by the OfS’ own student number methodology and that would be returned via HESES. While OfS has not yet been confident enough in this data to release it in full, it is somehow content to rely on it for regulation.

The 100 isn’t an exact cut off: if you generally recruit more than 100 subcontractual students but happen not to one year, you are still in scope – likewise if you make changes to your plans so that you will recruit more than 100 (or are “materially likely” to do so) you are in scope already. Or if OfS decides you are in scope, you are in scope.

To be clear, this isn’t all such arrangements. The use of the term “relevant” excludes by definition any provision in a state-funded school, FEC, sixth form, designated institution (FHEA 1992 section 28), provider of NHS services, local authority, or police and crimes commissioner. Also exempt in your calculation are students subcontracted to any provider with degree awarding powers authorised by or under an Act of Parliament or a Royal Charter (so all taught or research DAPs, basically).

Back end

For clarity, the traditional way in which subcontractual arrangements are regulated is via the registering provider – and these OfS proposals are an attempt to bring some of what should be going on already out a bit further into the open. The existing transparency conditions of registration (F1, which operationalises section 9 of HERA) don’t cover governing (or academic quality and standards) documentation. Indeed, OfS has been historically light on governance transparency – which is why it isn’t always easy to figure out what is going on inside a given provider.

It’s not so long ago that OfS was lambasting providers for “gold plating” internal quality assurance processes in a long-sustained campaign to flush out those in the sector who cleave to the much older doctrines of the UK Quality Code. You know, nonsense like:

Providers and their partners agree proportionate arrangements for effective governance to secure the academic standards and enhance the quality of programmes and modules that are delivered in partnership with others. Organisations involved in partnership arrangements agree and communicate the mutual and specific responsibilities in relation to delivering, monitoring, evaluating, assuring and enhancing the learning experience.

A big chunk of the documentation that OfS is asking for here (in the comprehensive source of information) is basically documentary proof that a provider is compliant with principle 8 of the UK Quality code (including the QAA’s recent guidance), not that you will be thanked by the regulator for pointing this out. Perhaps some of that “gold-plating” was important after all.

But there is one place where OfS goes further: it asks for a “strategic” rationale for entering into each subcontractual arrangement. We don’t get any guidance on what a suitable rationale would be, just that it must fit with a provider’s vision and strategic intent. Case law here is going to be fascinating.

Front end

From a student protection perspective OfS would gain powers to compel those franchising out provision to make changes to the terms of these agreements or the governance or process involved in running them – in extremis the regulator could require that an arrangement ends immediately, students have their fees refunded, and the registering provider steps in to teach out the remaining student. It can also tell you to stop recruiting students onto subcontracted out courses, or limit the number of students that can be recruited.

This is a large improvement on current arrangements, which have largely been predicated on a provider having an up-to-date student protection plan and being able to deliver on it. The fee refund requirement, in particular, should make anyone that is knowingly partnering with someone offering students a sub-par experience sit up and pay attention.

It’s not perfect, however: the January DfE proposal on franchising and partnerships was interesting precisely because it broke with established practice on subcontractual arrangements – those delivering teaching would be regulated, whether or not they were awarding the degrees in question. If OfS could intervene directly with a delivery provider, surely that would be quicker than going via the registration provider – the measures in this consultation would then be usable for purely punitive reasons (and, as above, duplicate other conditions of registration)

OfS has followed the DfE lead in excluding most publicly funded provision from these regulations – it made sense to exclude schools, colleges, and the NHS from active regulation as they are already regulated elsewhere. If the purpose of these OfS proposals is to ensure that the universities that are subcontracting out do so with a level of strategic intent, it seems unlikely that someone is incapable of making a strategically poor or under-resourced commitment to work with an FEC or sixth form: surely these arrangements also deserve a level of scrutiny?

And – frankly – why shouldn’t providers involved in subcontracting be required to publish information about it (rather than hold it until OfS asks for it)? The current concerns with this style of provision have developed precisely because agreements and fee-splitting agreements can remain obscure – a bit of public accountability for these kinds of decisions would do a lot to separate out the good and valuable subcontractual arrangements from the more questionable partnerships.