All universities should be actively planning for what they would do if they were forced to close, according to the English regulator, which warned that many institutions ¡°are not always aware of the scale of the challenges involved¡±.

Universities subcontracting provision were, in particular, said to be ¡°not fully aware of the risks for students if one of their delivery partners ceased to offer higher education¡±, the Office for Students said in a , published on 3 April.

The current financial crisis in England¡¯s higher education sector has exacerbated the likelihood that providers will go under, with the OfS itself recently saying that?this risk has been heightened, given universities are expected to lose ?3.4 billion in 2025-26.

Its briefing ¨C based on two recent cases of market exit and ¡°instances where there was a serious risk of a closure which did not materialise¡± ¨C was intended to help inform other providers¡¯ contingency planning, should the worst occur.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°Institutional closures can sometimes be unforeseen, escalate quickly and require a lot of work to manage. We have seen that universities and colleges are not always aware of the scale of the challenges involved, or of what a route to closure looks like,¡± the briefing says.

The OfS urged universities to consider various factors stemming from a closure, including identifying alternative institutions where current students could continue their studies and the need to ensure that students¡¯ records were sufficiently detailed and?kept up to date, in case they needed to be passed on.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Institutions facing closure should communicate the situation to their students as early as possible, the briefing says, to allow them to ¡°fully appreciate the impact, seek advice and consider their options before making any decisions¡±.

This may include informing new or prospective students in advance of them beginning their studies to allow them to find another place with minimal disruption.

Contingency planning for potential closures should also involve identifying a third-party organisation that ¡°can receive, store and transfer student records, and will continue to be able to provide them to students¡±, the briefing notes.

Institutions should use information about their students¡¯ progress to ¡°undertake extensive course mapping¡± in their local area to identify potential alternative providers, it adds.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Where a course is franchised to another provider, a possible option could be for the partner university to take on the students themselves if their franchisee folded. But this would require consideration of what additional support they may need to succeed.

¡°We have recently seen situations when institutions were not fully aware of the risks for students if one of their delivery partners ceased to offer higher education, and where they had failed to plan adequately for this possibility,¡± the briefing says.

¡°We have also seen examples of institutions that validate courses at other institutions and did have appropriate arrangements in place to offer support for students when their delivery partners were at risk of closure.¡±

The OfS, which highlighted that it does not ¡°have the power to intervene to prevent a university or college from closing, nor any funds to help mitigate the effects¡±, said all universities should ensure they are aware of the risks.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°We recommend that senior managers and governing bodies routinely assess the current financial pressures on their university or college and its partners, and consider the circumstances in which these pressures might develop into a risk of closure¡±, the briefing says.

¡°Institutions¡¯ business as usual processes should incorporate the necessary contingency planning to ensure that all affected students would be protected in such an event.¡±

ÍøÆØÃÅ

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com