“Post-18 report” or “Augar report” – there has been talk about this long-awaited report in the HE sector for a while, and it played a pivotal role in the discussions at the ABT Conference (see our last blog post). Yesterday, it finally was published, but what is all that about??
Last year, for the first time in more than 50 years, the government commissioned a review into student finance to inform the sector. The report was conducted by an independent panel following an initiative by businessman Philip Augar, and was originally expected to be released in February 2019. With much delay and long awaited, the “Review of Post-18 Education and Funding” was finally published on May 30th. 216 pages long, it gives a wide variety of recommendations (50 in total) and considers many details that affect student finance and the cost of Higher (and Further) Education. What’s remarkable is that it includes all post-compulsory education funding, so covers both HE and FE.
And one of its most important conclusions is that Further Education is in much greater need of support than the Higher Education sector. A new mission is needed for Further Education, and it needs solid financial backing. The three main recommendations for this sector are the protection of the title “College” (just in line with that of “University”) to enhance the knowledge of its meaning in society and a certain quality-control, a creation of a coherent network of colleges across the UK that deliver skills (focussed on levels three to five), and a substantial increase in funding.
On apprenticeships, the main recommendation is a growth in degree-level and level seven apprenticeships, though acknowledging the expense of that route. One suggestion is to limit the funding for apprenticeships to those apprentices who do not already hold a degree-level qualification. The panel sees a need for Ofsted to assume responsibility for assessing all levels of apprenticeships.
The recommendation that Higher Education should reduce the tuition fee cap to £7,500 (and then freeze it until 2022/23 before increasing it in line with inflation) has made the national news over the past 24 hours. The recommendation also says that the income gap should be closed by the increase of teaching grants by the government, and should be adjusted on a subject-level basis, according to the cost of each subject. According to the report, the funding for widening participation should not be taken out of a proportion of the student fee (the current system), but instead a funding system comparable to the schools’ Student Premium should be introduced. Using this method, a university would receive its grant based on the actual intake numbers of socially and economically disadvantaged students.
On the wider topic of student
finance (which affects all above-mentioned kinds of non-compulsory
education), the basis of the recommendations is that the tax-payer should be
covering a smaller proportion of the student finance system. Based on research
conducted by the Department of Education that suggests that people would prefer
higher monthly repayments and a longer repayment period in return for lower
fees and lower interest rates (surprisingly!), the recommendations say that
there should be zero interest applied during the study, that the repayment
threshold should be reduced (to median non-graduate salary) and that the
repayment period should be extended to forty years. There are also suggested changes
to interest rates and the lifetime repayments to avoid those who earn more
later in their careers being penalised.
However, the most interesting recommendation for the sector is perhaps the
re-introduction of maintenance grants of at least £3,000 per eligible student.
The panel also recommends that the expectation of parents’ contributions (of
families of higher income) should be made clearer, so both students and parents
know what kind of financial support a student could or should expect from their
parents.
Overall, the report has been conducted in a mindful way, with awareness of current pressures on student finance, addressing the needs of Further Education and a sense of detail about university finance. Whether the report reflects the realities faced by students and universities and supports their interests more widely is another question. Whether any of these recommendations will be carried out, given the current political climate, is an entirely different issue.
The full report can be downloaded from the Gov.uk website.
Gold Leaf 