Fragmented Accountability, Unified Standards? Regulatory Governance and Neurocognitive Inclusion in Franchised Higher Education in England

Abstract

Franchised higher education (FHE) represents a growing delivery model in England, enabling universities to expand provision through further education colleges and private partners. While this model enhances access and flexibility, it also fragments responsibility for quality assurance, student support, and regulatory compliance. Within this complex governance terrain, neurocognitive learning variability encompassing not only conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, and working memory differences, but also contextual learner differences such as non-native English speakers, working-class students, and mature learners remains critically under-examined. Current regulatory frameworks, particularly under the Office for Students’ Condition B3, require providers to demonstrate strong continuation, completion, and progression outcomes, yet offer limited guidance on how this broad spectrum of cognitive diversity should be addressed across diverse delivery contexts. This paper explores how existing regulatory governance structures conceptualise and operationalise cognitive inclusion in FHE partnerships. Through a qualitative document analysis of OfS regulatory texts, awarding body policies, and publicly available institutional quality assurance frameworks, the study identifies gaps between the aspirations of inclusive practice and the mechanisms of regulatory control. It further examines how the centralised compliance logic of the OfS interacts with the decentralised realities of franchised delivery. Drawing on the author’s professional experience as a HE partnerships lead, the paper argues that regulatory homogeneity may inadvertently constrain context-sensitive support for cognitively diverse learners in franchise settings. The paper concludes by proposing governance recommendations that better accommodate the complexity of distributed provision while advancing cognitive accessibility. It contributes to the literature on inclusive education governance and urges a rethinking of regulatory models to better serve all learners in a diversified HE sector.