Franchising, like Topsy, has ‘just growed’. The Higher Education and Research Act (2017) cast a wide net, containing all ‘providers of higher education’, whether or not they had degree-awarding powers or the right to be called ‘universities’. It included providers offering higher education only up to Level 4, leading to Higher National Certificates, or Level 5, leading to Higher National Diplomas and externally accredited, for example by Pearson.
Some providers offer Level 6 courses but lack powers to award taught degrees to successful students; some offer research degree courses at Level 7 for which they lack research degree-awarding powers. Under ‘franchising’ and ‘validation’ arrangements these providers are able to offer their students courses which can lead to the degree of a franchising provider which has the necessary powers. HERA s. 50 (4) makes provision for such ‘arrangements between one registered higher education provider and another registered higher education provider’ under which the first provider:
(a) grants a taught award to a person who is a student at the other provider, or
(b) authorises the other provider to grant a taught award on behalf of the first provider.[1]
The legislation does not prescribe the rules to be followed in making such arrangements. A franchising agreement does not have to take the form of a written contract and there is no approved code of practice. Yet there is recognised risk to the taxpayer, to providers engaging in such arrangements and to students at franchised providers.
