While the government’s stated aim of protecting students from poor outcomes is understandable, the proposal to introduce a GCSE English requirement for student loan access raises serious concerns that deserve scrutiny — and some of the assumptions underpinning it need challenging. This cuts across widening participation and lifelong learning commitments A blanket GCSE English threshold would disproportionately affect mature returners to education, people who left school without qualifications for reasons unrelated to ability, and those from under-represented backgrounds. These are precisely the groups that widening participation policy exists to support. Introducing a national loan eligibility barrier at this point risks embedding the disadvantages of someone’s school experience permanently into their adult opportunities — which sits in direct tension with any serious commitment to lifelong learning. Universities are already equipped to assess readiness Universities are not passive recipients of whoever applies. They have admissions processes, access and participation plans, foundation years, and pastoral support structures. Many institutions have long experience assessing the academic readiness of mature students and those without traditional qualifications through portfolio, interview, and diagnostic assessment. The suggestion that a GCSE — often taken decades ago, in very different circumstances — is a more reliable proxy for university readiness than an institution’s own professional judgement is difficult to sustain. The think-tank framing deserves scrutiny Policy Exchange is a right-leaning think tank that has consistently argued for reducing university student numbers. That position reflects a particular ideological view about who higher education is for — not a neutral evidence base. The question of whether to enter HE or FE is ultimately a matter of individual choice and aspiration, and policy should expand informed access, not restrict it through eligibility gatekeeping driven by think-tank preference. The policy landscape is incoherent The DfE has simultaneously removed funded apprenticeship places for those aged 25 and over, and is now proposing to restrict loan access for those without GCSEs. Taken together, these moves close off both the vocational and academic routes for a significant cohort of adult learners. That is not a skills policy — it is a retreat from adult education. If the government is serious about economic productivity and social mobility, removing pathways for adults to re-enter education and gain qualifications is a counterproductive direction of travel. The real problem is franchise quality, not student qualifications The IFS data and the minister’s own remarks point to the real issue: a subset of franchised provision offering poor outcomes and limited value. That is a regulatory and quality assurance problem — and it should be addressed through the Teaching Excellence Framework, the Office for Students, and robust oversight of franchise arrangements. Using loan eligibility as a blunt instrument to manage a quality problem in one corner of the sector risks penalising students and institutions with legitimate, high-quality provision for mature and non-traditional learners. The government should consult widely — and listen carefully — before implementing any threshold that could close the door on adults seeking a second chance at education.

Currently, the rigour of any university's admissions process is under pressure from the financial unsustainability of the sector - universities are exercising their discretionary admissions powers to admit students who are not ready and not suited for academic pursuits. This is done so that universities can meet enrollment targets to balance their accounts. As an academic in this sector for close to two decades, I have personally seen some egregious cases. For example, admitting students with ZERO suitable formal entry qualifications. I am sorry, but being 50 years old and 'schooled' in Life is NOT a suitable entry qualification.