探花视频

Government to back student limits for ‘low-quality’ universities

Higher education institutions could be penalised if they offer courses deemed subpar as universities await Labour’s reform plans

Published on
十月 20, 2025
Last updated
十月 20, 2025
Two young female students studying outdoors.
Source: iStock/TraceyAPhotos

The government will impose student number limits on universities offering poor-quality courses as it moves to give the Office for Students (OfS) greater powers.

With Labour’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper set to be published on 20 October, the Department for Education is on what it deems low-quality teaching.

Under the proposals, the government may look to measure students’ progress more closely and restrict the number of students institutions can recruit in cases of poor performance.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, also plans to legislate to give the OfS, which regulates English universities, more powers to take “decisive action” against some providers.

Phillipson told The Times: “Students deserve high-quality education that sets them up for success, not courses that leave them with poor prospects.

“Our ambitious white paper will set out how we will work closely with the OfS to develop new powers, allowing them to take decisive action.”

The regulator already announced proposals earlier this year to impose student number limits on universities that perform poorly in a revised version of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).?

New data from the regulator show the proportion of business and management students who complete their course has fallen to a record low.

It follows investigations into several universities and franchise providers related to poor-quality courses in this subject area.

Proposals to force franchise providers with more than 300 students to register with the OfS in order to be eligible for student loan funding are also set to move ahead, taking effect from the academic year 2028-29.

The paper is also expected to address the funding of the higher education sector as universities face significant financial pressures.

Phillipson is due to set out full details of the paper in Parliament on Monday afternoon.

The government has already announced plans to introduce new qualifications, known as V levels, as part of an overhaul of the post-16 education system.

“Our reforms are?building a post-16 education system that truly matches young people’s aspirations and abilities, delivering the opportunity and growth our economy needs,” Phillipson said.

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (6)

Good news. Time to cut away the dead wood of Higher Education. A whole host of low-quality "academics" in joke subject areas need putting out of a job, and quickly, if we're to save the sector.
The actions noted here are not about specific subjects but about the providers. So you will have engineering and similar courses which you may not consider 'joke' subjects closed as they are taught in poorly performing institutions. You may also get the subjects you don't like awarded more places as they are taught in places that did well in the TEF. In fact this is more likely as such subjects tend to be cheaper to teach so unis will seek to expand these and this means that more academics in these areas will be needed. Glad you think this is a good idea.
Potential negative impact on widening participation in vocational programmes like nursing should not be overlooked (not everything is about so called 'joke' subject areas). TEF is a very blunt tool for such significant decisions. Also asking providers to improve by restricting access to cash seems potentially counter intuitive. Glad to see franchised provision will be sorted in some form though. As always its the details that will determine how effectively the new approach will work. I am sure there will be plenty of debate over the coming months on all of this.
Addressing the issue of poor quality teaching and courses makes sense, but as already noted, the TEF must be a reliable tool to help achieve this, and STEM courses should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any other course.
So, poor student progress is SOLELY due to the quality of education? Student motivation, engagement, and background do not play ANY role at all?
new
Again dodgy ill-defined metrics, what is "good" or "poor" quality anyway? How is it defined? By whom? How is it measured? By whom? Is this the OfS trying to dream up reasons why it should continue to exist?
ADVERTISEMENT