An ¡°indiscriminate¡± tuition fee cap on foundation courses may force English universities to abandon them entirely, hampering the Labour government¡¯s widening access agenda.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has been warned by sector leaders that her recent confirmation that institutions will be able to charge a?maximum of ?5,760 for classroom-based foundation years risks destroying a?¡°potentially powerful tool¡± that has given non-traditional learners a?route into ÖйúAƬ.

¡°Foundation years have been fantastic for widening participation and giving people a second chance,¡± said Julie Hall, vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University.

¡°We have been really proud of doing that work, so the cut has been quite devastating. It probably means we won¡¯t be able to run them any more.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

In recent years, London Met has ¨C like dozens of other universities ¨C begun to offer an additional introductory year as part of its degree courses for those not ready to enter a full programme. Fees for these foundation courses are currently subject to the sector-wide ?9,250 cap.

Figures released by the Department for Education last year showed that foundation course enrolments have exploded by 700?per cent over the past decade, while the programmes have been criticised for high dropout rates and for being used as a money-spinner by institutions.

ÖйúAƬ

Professor Hall said that given the nature of the students enrolling and the amount of support they need, this type of provision was costly, and it was not viable to run them effectively at the new fee level. The cut will cost London Met ?1.1 million, she added, more than the ?800,000 it expects to raise from the increase in the main fee cap to ?9,535.

¡°We are having to really consider what we can do next; whether there is any opportunity to teach them at a lower cost while recognising all the support the students need. We are just in that process at the moment,¡± Professor Hall said.

Other universities, including Birkbeck, University of London and the University of Staffordshire, have committed to continuing to offer foundation courses, albeit recognising that they will be loss-making under the new system.

Matt Innes, Birkbeck¡¯s deputy vice-chancellor, said the courses were too central to the university¡¯s mission to consider scrapping them, but they would have to be cross-subsidised and the income streams for this were increasingly drying up.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°We would much rather these were funded properly because I?think it does cut against the government¡¯s access mission,¡± he?said.

A lower cap was first envisaged by the previous Conservative government after it was recommended by the Augar review, and there had been some expectation that it would be reversed by Labour.

¡°Given one of Bridget Phillipson¡¯s big priorities now is access and participation, it is a bit surprising they have maintained this policy, given foundation years are a potentially powerful tool,¡± said Josh Freeman, policy manager at the ÖйúAƬ Policy Institute.

Mr Freeman¡¯s research published earlier this year identified two types of foundation course: one that was effective at addressing historic inequalities and the other ¨C more typically found in franchised provision ¨C that was seen primarily as a way of enrolling students who did not meet typical entry requirements.

ÖйúAƬ

He said the problem with the fee cap policy was that it did not discriminate between the two, and he suggested that the quality of a course should be better factored into what universities can charge for it.

As it is, Mr Freeman predicted a big retrenchment in these types of courses, given that it was in essence a ¡°charitable act¡± to continue to put on something that is loss-making.

ÖйúAƬ

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com