Commissioned by Theresa May as a panicky response to Labour’s better-than-expected performance in the 2017 general election, Philip Augar’s review of post-18 education in England has concentrated, rightly, on further education. Successive governments have neglected non-university courses and training, but these institutions of further education, so often ignored in favour of the more prestigious higher education sector, hold the key to boosting social mobility and productivity.
While universities and their voluble stakeholders are bound to object to any shrinkage of their own scope and resources, the proposed rebalancing of the post-18 system so that FE colleges are no longer quite such poor relations is sound. Mr Augar’s recommendation that £3bn in extra funds should flow to colleges and other vocational training providers annually, as well as a one-off £1bn capital funding boost for a national network, could have a transformative effect on a sector for too long left on the sidelines.
The commission was set up to address the question of what to do about student finance when faced by the popularity of Labour’s plan to abolish tuition fees. And here its answer is less persuasive. Lowering the annual cap on undergraduate fees from £9,000 to £7,500 is not a bad idea. The reintroduction of maintenance grants is a good one (removing them was a bad mistake that the government should have avoided, especially since Tony Blair had already tried it). The removal of interest on loans during the period of study makes sense politically. The cutting off of funding for foundation years, on the grounds that such preparation is the proper business of colleges, is worth considering but will be resisted by universities that rely on them to widen participation.
But the extension of the loan repayment terms from 30 to 40 years is a regressive measure, which would mean more lower earners would be forced to repay debts that would previously have been written off. Also concerning is an implicit threat to some non-vocational courses at less prestigious universities. No one wants students to finish their degrees feeling disappointed, and universities must be responsible recruiters. But the assumption that the “value” of courses can be calculated by measuring the salaries of graduates is simplistic – and can be used to provide cover for both snobbery and philistinism. Young people should be supported in going to university if they want to. Learning has value in and of itself.
The risk is that a report which was commissioned to frame government thinking will fall into oblivion with the prime minister who commissioned it. This would be a pointless waste. Even if we do not agree with all the commission’s prescriptions, its diagnosis is broadly accurate. While UK universities are global big hitters, we do much less well when it comes to sub-degree qualifications. A renewed focus by policymakers on this level (between A-level and degree) makes sense. And the proposal for a lifelong learning loan allowance is excellent.
Labour’s stated commitments in this area make its rapid dismissal of Mr Augar’s work disappointing. But Mrs May must take responsibility for having failed to seek consensus early on. A standing commission, or a cross-party agreement to review the sector periodically, could ensure that the same mistake is not made again. Tuition fees, meanwhile, will remain a hot political question – and one which it does not make sense to view in isolation from other factors, including house prices, that have led to so much anger with the government on the part of the young.
