State turns to Pearson for help placing for-profit outcasts

This is an interesting development. Course designation is BIS' main tool in the regulation of private providers (although the Home Office gets to regulate those who want students who need visas). The process of designation has been beefed up to deal with private providers, with HEFCE’s role confined to processing and providing analysis of applications from alternative providers but BIS setting the criteria for designation and, referring to HEFCE’s analysis, deciding whether or not an alternative provider’s course should be designated or de-designated It's sensible for BIS to ask the awarding body to think what would happen if it didn't designate courses. As of today St Patricks and LSBF are among quite a number of providers who haven’t been designated yet. Maybe that needs to include all the students in these providers - that could easily be 6000. The course designation is a bit of a misnomer, as it's really the provider that is assessed on the basis of quality assurance; financial sustainability, management and governance; and course eligibility. So it's unlikely that individual courses wouldn't be designated (that's an interesting point - BIS decides what is an appropriate subject - so could decide on Astrology courses). So its interesting that these providers have been in touch with *BIS* providing it with 'routine' information. That implies, doesn't it, that HEFCE have not made an unequivocal recommendation in favour of designation (unless BIS is second-guessing HEFCE's role). So, maybe BIS has an interesting set of decisions to make: after all, if it were not to designate some of these providers that would put a rather large hole in the plan to expand the private sector – but to continue to provide loans to students at colleges where there are concerns about QA, finances or governance would be worse.