Key questions remain lacking for universities involved with weekend learning provision

Last week nine UK universities, including Bath Spa University, formally indicated their intention to pursue legal action against the Department for Education and the Student Loans Company following the sudden withdrawal of maintenance funding from students studying on weekend-based courses.  

BSU students affected by the Department for Education’s decision include those studying at the University’s London teaching centres in Hackney and Canary Wharf, where some weekend-based courses are offered.

As a result, around 22,000 students, at more than 20 universities, continue to face serious financial distress, many of whom are juggling employment, caring responsibilities and their studies, and rely on maintenance loans to meet basic living costs. 

Following the Department for Education’s response to the Pre‑Action Protocol letter from nine universities, those institutions that are publicly named; Southampton Solent University, Bath Spa University, Buckinghamshire New University and London Metropolitan University remain deeply concerned that critical questions about student finance eligibility for weekend provision remain unanswered. Students continue to face uncertainty and financial hardship as a result. 

There is still no coherent explanation for why courses delivered over weekdays are eligible for student finance while the same or greater number of hours delivered at weekends are not. Neither the Department for Education (DfE) nor the Student Loans Company (SLC) has justified this distinction, which is inconsistent with longstanding practice. For more than 15 years, weekend provision operated with SLC’s tacit approval, with students treated equivalently to weekday learners. This position changed abruptly in December 2025, when SLC amended guidance mid‑academic year without consultation or protections for affected students. 

From December 2025 to March 2026, universities were repeatedly told that SLC was awaiting a policy steer from the Department for Education, leaving institutions unable to properly advise students. Matters were exacerbated on 26 March, when SLC contacted students directly ahead of universities, causing avoidable distress for an estimated 22,000 students and highlighting serious failures in coordination and communication. 

Universities are also concerned that any Equality Impact Assessment undertaken appears to have fallen short of understanding the impact that this move would have on widening participation for mature, working, disabled and disadvantaged students. While some policy clarification has since been suggested, significant uncertainties remain, including whether targeted grants paid to date (eg. childcare grant) will have to be paid back and when the next maintenance loan payment will be made to eligible students (which was due this week). 

Following the response from the DfE, the universities are calling for them to provide clarification on why students studying courses delivered in person at weekends are not eligible for the same support as those studying on weekdays, as well as confirmation that students do not have to repay targeted grant payments as initially instructed given students would have never been expected to repay these. 

The universities remain committed to working constructively with the Department for Education and SLC, but stress that students urgently need clarity, transparency and financial stability. Continued ambiguity risks further harm to students and undermines confidence in the student finance system at a critical time for access and flexibility in higher education. 

Professor Georgina Andrews, Bath Spa University 

“If the regulations are as clear as is claimed, why did the Student Loans Company change their guidance in December 2025? Universities have acted in good faith since 2011, following guidance provided by the Student Loans Company, which is owned by the Government, with no indication that weekend study made students ineligible for support. 

“This is not just a technical dispute about definitions; students are still being punished by decisions and chaotic actions of the Government and the Student Loans Company. Students deserve to be supported to complete their studies.” 

Professor Damien Page, Buckinghamshire New University 

"Policy change announcements don’t pay rent or bills. Thousands of students remain unclear about when maintenance payments for eligible courses will be paid, and those who’ve received grants must wait until September to learn their fate with regard to clawback.  

"The classification of in-person, timetabled, campus-based weekend teaching as “distance learning” defies common sense, and, as the universities now taking legal action have rightly argued, it is inconsistent with regulations that have been applied consistently since 2011. Universities did not invent this classification system. We followed guidance from the Student Loans Company, as we have done for years. The suggestion that this shambolic set of events is primarily an institutional failure misrepresents what actually happened and, frankly, deflects from a regulatory failure that was systemic." 

Professor James Knowles, Southampton Solent University 

“We are deeply concerned that the government’s actions continue to unfairly disadvantage students who choose to pursue higher education through non‑traditional routes. The Student Loans Company does not appear to be adequately equipped to deliver on the government’s requirements, and the resulting confusion has been exacerbated by inconsistent and chaotic communication with both students and universities.

This approach runs counter to the government’s stated ambition to support flexible education pathways that reflect the realities of modern learners’ lives. At a time when the UK urgently needs to upskill and reskill its workforce, restricting access to student finance risks closing off opportunities for individuals and undermining progress towards wider economic goals.”

Professor Julie Hall, London Metropolitan University: 

"A month on from the original decision, our students still do not know when their payments will arrive, or whether they will have to repay grants they received in good faith. For parents, carers, and mature learners relying on this funding to meet basic living costs in the capital, that is not a policy abstraction. It is the difference between continuing their studies and walking away. 

"This situation is the result of systemic failures in how government and its agencies communicate with each other, with universities, and with students. At every stage, the people who can least afford to absorb the impact have carried the cost. 

"We have been shocked by the tone with which the government has engaged with universities throughout this process. Demonising the institutions that serve some of the most disadvantaged students in the country, rather than working in partnership to act in their best interests, has done nothing to help the students at the heart of this crisis.