The Office for Students (OfS) opened a consultation in July 2025 to seek views on proposals for tighter control of subcontractual arrangements in higher education.
Following a rapid expansion of subcontracted courses in recent years, the OfS highlighted concerns that this activity is generating significant risks for students and taxpayers, including inappropriate claims for student loan funding. To address the risk of poor practice and to increase transparency about subcontractual delivery, the OfS is proposing a new general ongoing condition of registration. Proposed condition E8 would apply to providers where the total number of students registered on courses delivered through subcontractual arrangements is 100 or more.
The consultation ran from 22 July 2025 to 1 October 2025. A summary of responses to the consultation is expected in early 2026.
Our response
In our response, we support the principle that regulatory responsibility for this provision lies with the awarding provider and welcome the OfS’ steps to reinforce this within the regulatory framework. However, we believe further clarity and action are needed to ensure transparency, accountability, and equity in partnership arrangements.
We welcome the ambition to balance risk with burden, and recognise that this was the aim when selecting the 100 FTE threshold. In our response to DfE's proposed thresholds, IHE argued that a headcount threshold of 300 was already too low to be workable due to the burden and cost of the regulatory system on small providers. While the OfS’ proposal to use an FTE methodology over headcount is preferable, a threshold of 100 is equally problematic as it ignores the impact on smaller providers that may be partnered with a lead provider whose overall subcontracted student population exceeds 100 FTE students. Furthermore, publicly available data has not yet demonstrated that quality-related risks are concentrated at this threshold.
The consultation gives the impression that delivery providers must be controlled rather than treated as equal partners. For partnerships to function effectively, they require not only robust due diligence and oversight, but also healthy, collaborative relationships free from power imbalances. The current framing by the OfS risks undermining trust between partners, potentially leading to a culture of compliance over openness, where concerns may be concealed rather than addressed. This environment is unlikely to foster the positive, transparent working relationships needed to support high-quality provision and student outcomes.
We repeat our calls for an additional category of registration, focused on assessing a provider’s suitability as a partner. This should be based on due diligence covering governance, ownership, contractual transparency, and accountability for quality and standards.
Other points we raised in our response:
- We have several concerns with the proposed definition of subcontractual arrangements and have noted particular areas which need to be clarified. In the absence of clarification, it will be difficult for both lead and teaching providers to place their models within the OfS definition. The sector already struggles to use terminology effectively due to conflicting uses of 'subcontract' and franchise' and we refer the regulator to IHE research on this matter, which sets out definitions for a proposed typology.
- The proposed Comprehensive Source of Information (CSoI) should be reconsidered and divided into two core requirements: published information, aligned to the existing requirements of CMA; and an internal CSoI. We also call for a phased implementation of the CSoI, focusing first on partnerships where there is already identified risk.
- Requiring providers to state the ‘strategic aims’ of their partnerships risks becoming an exercise in public relations, with little means of verifying the accuracy of such statements. It is unclear how this will meaningfully improve accountability.
- While tackling poor behaviour is essential, the OfS also has a role in promoting examples of high-quality subcontractual and franchise partnerships. Current public debate often focuses on negative cases, damaging the reputation of the wider sector. The OfS should use its insight function to highlight case studies of effective partnerships and share lessons on how oversight arrangements can support strong student outcomes.
Read our full response using the download link below.