ɫ��ֱ��

Keir Starmer’s parting gift to universities is a plan to introduce a minimum English language requirement for access to student finance, likely mandating that applicants have at least a GCSE in English to qualify for a loan. For some, this is a no-brainer if we want to ensure that all who enrol in higher education in England can benefit from it and to stamp out fraudulent activity. For this camp, requiring a single GCSE is hardly a high bar.

But for others, minimum entry requirements are a dangerous encroachment on university autonomy and a cap on opportunity, especially for mature learners who may not have excelled at school for whatever reason but whose lives could still be transformed by higher education. For these critics, if the Department for Education’s actual aim is to crack down on poor-quality franchised provision, this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and the risk is that the sledgehammer could further hurt already shaky university finances.

All these ingredients make for a polarised debate, but the stakes were increased when the Russell Group decided to come out in favour of minimum entry requirements. While this reflects long-held views among some member institutions, it was also a conscious decision to put clear water between the mission group and the rest of the sector at a time when their fortunes are increasingly diverging. It left other vice-chancellors seething.��

This week we invite a range of contributors to weigh in on the debate, including Russell Group chief executive Libby Hackett, who argues minimum entry standards “would not create a barrier but would protect students’ interests by setting them up for success”, and notes that universities are experienced in assessing non-traditional equivalents to GCSEs. “The key question is not whether standards matter but how any new framework is designed. It must be evidence-based, protect opportunities for disadvantaged learners, recognise different educational pathways, and command confidence across the sector,” she writes.

Other contributors to our piece note that educational attainment is not a straightforward reflection of academic aptitude but is shaped by family, socio-economic and educational factors, and warn that fresh restrictions could push some universities closer to collapse. Diana Beech of City St George’s, University of London, sums it up well: “Lower-tariff providers should not be prevented from recruiting students below a certain threshold while more selective institutions continue to exercise discretion and recruit below their usual requirements when it suits them. This would squeeze the part of the sector that has done most to widen participation and to unlock the potential of students whose talent is not fully reflected in traditional qualifications.”

As Andy Burnham enters No 10, universities will be watching closely – and lobbying furiously – while he makes up his mind about which side of the fence he sits on. We can all agree that students should only be enrolled in courses on which they can succeed. But if a policy like this is to be prevented from cutting off that second chance route, it may have to be designed with such flexibility that it might not be strong enough to achieve ministers’ aims. If the real target is franchised provision, a solution with greater precision could be more appropriate – and that would avoid the potential unintended consequences that come with a policy like this.��

chris.havergal@timeshighereducation.com