Tuition fees for degrees should be capped at £6,000 to tackle the “financial bias” towards higher education in universities compared to colleges, a think tank has said.
In its ‘Augar Reviewed’ report published today, EDSK outlines why the post-18 education system in England remains “broken” and sets out an 18-point plan to “fix” it.
This includes rebalancing the cost and financial support available for further and higher education courses, including by radically cutting the cap on tuition fees for degrees, currently set at £9,250, by a third.
It comes at a time when universities are pleading with government to increase the fees amid widespread funding struggles.
Report authors – former adviser to skills ministers Tom Richmond and Eleanor Regan – argue that political instability has led to “little progress” being made since the 2019 Augar Review, an independent government report that addressed the “disparity” in funding between universities and further education.
They conclude that the Conservative government’s “experiment” with tertiary education has “failed” and led to “exorbitantly” high tuition fees for students, the “marketisation” of HE, slashing budgets for adult education, falling apprenticeship numbers and “further entrenching” the dominance of full-time university degrees over colleges and other tertiary provision.
To address “distortions and biases” in funding for post-18 education, Richmond and Regan say the government should integrate HE, FE and apprenticeships by switching to a “devolved model for tertiary education” that pushes providers to work together regionally.
Key recommendations include building a “new foundation” by formally recognising a single “tertiary” phase of post-18 education that is funded and overseen by a single independent body, in place of quangos like the Office for Students, that would act as a “steward for the whole system”.
Fees for all tertiary classroom-based courses should be limited to £6,000 and a single tuition loan system should established, with a “stepped repayment” system that would reduce monthly payments for low-earning graduates and save money.
The report argues that the government’s “uncoordinated” approach to post-18 education has led to duplication “hot spots” where hundreds of the same degree course are available in one region and isolated “cold spots” where education options are limited.
Addressing the recent change in government, and Labour’s repeated focus on “growth”, the authors wrote: “If the new Labour government wants to improve economic growth and productivity, increasing the skill levels of workers of all ages through a more effective and responsive approach to education and training will surely be a critical part of their agenda.”
The report is the last from EDSK, following Richmond’s announcement this week that the non-profit think tank will close after six years.
Here’re the key recommendations:
A new foundation for tertiary education
The government should formally divide education into four phases: primary, lower secondary, upper secondary and, for ages 18 and above, tertiary. This would cover all training and levels, including workplace training and apprenticeships.
A new National Tertiary Education Council (NTEC) would fund, regulate and oversee this.
Better deal for students
Alongside a “significant reduction” in the cap on tuition fees, a single loan system should be available to all students of level 4 to 6 courses.
Loans should be repaid through a “stepped” system that would aim to reduce the cost burden on those with low earnings by asking graduates to pay back different percentages of their earnings based on their total salary.
Coupled with lower tuition fees, this should reduce tuition fee and maintenance loan write-offs, freeing up “almost £2 billion” for a “student support fund” that would fund support for students from the poorest households.
Fairer funding
An apprenticeship and skills levy of 0.4 per cent on the annual payroll costs of all employers with at least ten staff would generate £4.1 billion a year to pay for apprenticeships and skills training.
A new £5 billion teacher support fund would pay for high-cost classroom-based courses in colleges and universities through two sources: The present £1.4 billion of teaching grants distributed by the Office for Students; and a new £3.6 billion employer levy of an additional 0.4 per cent Employers’ National Insurance contribution for organisations employing graduates.
EDSK said all HE and FE providers should also have access to a single capital funding pot.
Building a tertiary system
NTEC would set a “simple and transparent” funding system for HE and FE, with the more expensive courses receiving the most funding. The divide between HE and FE would be eliminated by offering sub-degree level 4 certificates and level 5 diplomas that learners could be awarded if they leave a course early.
A localised model
Devolved regions such as combined authorities should coordinate a local tertiary education plan for each area. They should also be given their proportionate share of the proposed new funding pots.
For greater stability, combined authorities should pay providers in three-year funding cycles and should also be given the power to licence providers receiving public funds to combat “inappropriate” franchising and subcontracting arrangements.
Rethinking the quality and regulatory landscape
For a more “coherent” approach to regulation, Ofsted should inspect all teaching up to level 5 and Ofqual should regulate all qualifications up to the same level. To improve the quality of apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships, a new ‘national apprenticeship inspectorate’ should report to the NTEC.
The Department for Education was contacted for comment.
Fairly typical of further education colleges. No real understanding of the distinctive nature of higher education. They are not degree factories as the further education sector aspires to be. Solution is not to dumb down higher education into an amorphous mass of the post 16 sector. Unfortunately further education aspires to teach anyone anything. Pack them in get as much money as possible and rely on part time often unqualified teaching staff to produce a product.