Keir Starmer’s recent speech at the Labour conference placed the UK at a “fork in the road”, telling the audience that there is a choice between “renewal or decline”.
Schools, colleges and higher education providers might be pleased to hear that the prime minister sees that education has an important role to play in this renewal. However, the details of the plans contain some challenges – as well as opportunities – for universities, colleges and young people.
Starmer’s vision for a changed education sector in England attempts to use the same measures to tackle two separate problems. On the one hand, proposed reforms attempt to remedy gaps in skills in the workforce. On the other, they address the need to promote social mobility. This is a precarious path to walk.
A key announcement that preceded Starmer’s speech was the limited return of student maintenance grants. At present, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access a maintenance loan to support their study.
This must be paid back once the recipient starts to earn above the threshold of £25,000 for students starting their degree since 2023. The threshold is higher for those who began their studies earlier. The proposed grants will not need to be repaid, lowering student debt for those who are eligible.
However, these grants will only be available to students from lower-income backgrounds studying “priority” courses. These include computing, engineering, the mathematical sciences and health and social care.
This announcement has received a cautious welcome from some quarters. A spokesperson for the Access Project, an organisation focused on improving access to higher education, said: “While we welcome the decision to reintroduce maintenance grants for priority subjects, we hope future funding extends grant eligibility to all higher education courses.”
But some responses have been distinctly negative. These grants seem to be based on taking funding directly from universities in the form of a levy on international student fees. This has resulted in much concern in the already cash-strapped higher education sector.
This is now accompanied by the scrapping of Labour’s long-standing target of half of all young people entering university – now a reality. This will perhaps not be unexpected for those in higher education, who have seen the sector and its students struggle with decreasing resources in the last decade.
Instead, Starmer announced that the aim is now for two-thirds of young people to enter either higher education or an apprenticeship by the age of 25. Starmer spoke directly about attempting to change perceptions about further education, which he described as “the Cinderella service, ignored because politicians’ kids don’t do it”.
This is a valuable and welcome initiative. A more integrated approach to funding and regulation for further and higher education also provides opportunities for the education sector to undergo meaningful renewal.
But again, there is a focus on skills: 14 new technical excellence colleges will concentrate on “high-growth sectors such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and digital”.
A social shift that would raise the status of further education to equal that of university will take significant time to achieve – especially when so many careers now require a degree. It is likely to be well into the next parliament and beyond before the target of two-thirds of young people in apprenticeships or higher education can be realised.
What’s more, widespread concerns about the value of university and especially of the worth of “rip-off” degrees can be misplaced. Higher education remains an incredibly powerful tool for social mobility for young people from poor backgrounds.
I believe that many parts of the higher education sector are ready to adapt to become part of the “renewal” the government seeks. Extra funding and opportunities for further education are also to be welcomed.
However, the funding problems colleges and universities face remain serious, despite the government’s investment. And a focus on specific skills means that education in the arts, for instance, remains far more accessible for wealthier young people.
While I appreciate the ambition of trying to address the thorny problem of a skills gap alongside social mobility, there is a risk that in trying to do both, the government achieves neither.
Helena Gillespie receives funding from TASO.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
