Not Being Left Alone. Reviewing Post-18 Education & Going Beyond Universities.

The government has introduced a year-long review of tertiary education, with Philip Augar leading an independent panel.

Prime Minister Theresa May didn’t provide many new details in her announcement speech, other than giving the four key questions that the panel will focus on:

“How we ensure that tertiary education is accessible to everyone, from every background.
How our funding system provides value for money, both for students and taxpayers.
How we incentivise choice and competition right across the sector.
And finally, how we deliver the skills that we need as a country.”

The full speech can be found on FE Week.

While the social hashtag online was #HEReview, the focus won’t be limited to universities. The review will also emphasise technical and vocational education provisions.

Whatever the review finds, this is no #AugarReview either, as Lucy Hunter Blackburn explains:

As the government seeks to showcase alternative routes into tertiary education with a vocational focus, Aaron Porter states, “…so much vocational & technical education happens in universities. And a decent chunk of more traditional offerings in colleges too”.

HEPI’s Nick Hillman adds:

“…the best technical education is often delivered in universities, particularly the modern and less prestigious universities that are sometimes thought to be in the Government’s sights.”

With this in mind, will the review look to universities providing an even wider remit that they currently do, with different routes to access and a broader approach?

That would not only stretch universities further than they already are, but also damage the currently under-appreciated alternative tertiary routes. The government’s message doesn’t look like that’s a route they’re willing to take.

But as Hillman continues:

“Currently, half of young people enter higher education, which still leaves half that do not. So we actually need to extend access to higher education and access to other opportunities. But we should avoid doing one at the expense of the other.”

Value for money and real-world application are key to the government’s review. Does this mean specific subjects will come under review, with reference to real-world application and direct value for money?

If so, Arts, Agriculture, Psychology, and Communications may be in trouble. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported in 2017 that median annual earnings were lowest for graduates in these subjects, five years after graduation.

The situation isn’t as simple as that, however. Accessibility makes a difference; taxpayer value makes a difference; and skills may be required that don’t currently highlight value, but which might in the future.

Ant Bagshaw and David Kernohan explain over on Wonkhe:

“The focus on “wage returns” is likely to be a dominant narrative in the review process and the Longitudinal Education Outcomes [LEO] dataset will be a major source of information for the panel.”

However, Mark Leach mentioned on the new Wonkhe podcast, the University Show, that using LEO data to associate with fees and value for money won’t be the best approach:

“The nightmare really, is they try and link fees to LEO data. Which doesn’t really make any sense. There’s lots of reasons why earnings might be lower for some courses and some universities in some regions. Particularly where labour markets are particularly depressed. So all you would do by that is entrench a cycle of poverty, essentially. But the obsession with outcomes is there and, I just feel it in my bones, that that’s the direction they’re going to take the discussion about fees.”

Time will tell.

Dr. Zubaida Haque tweeted that current government policy appears confused regarding accessibility and value:

Nevertheless, the PM’s core message was about helping all people find the right routes and the right reasons for ongoing education and lifelong learning. CBI’s Harry Anderson pointed out the, “Need to look at part-time student decline” as part of the process.

Les Ebdon, from the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), also sees the part-time and mature decline as a crucial matter for the governmental review:

“…the current system doesn’t seem to be working as well for mature and part-time students, whose numbers have dropped drastically in recent years and show no sign of recovering.”

After Theresa May’s speech, NUS President Shakira Martin, advises its membership to “Strike while the iron’s hot”, adding that the Prime Minister has emphasised “making education a real option for everybody, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, without talking about the importance of reinstating maintenance grants”.

Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, calls the review a “waste of time”. Rayner stated, “Labour will abolish tuition fees, bring back maintenance grants and provide free, lifelong education in Further Education colleges”.

But one point the wonks will have considered, some lamented perhaps, was summed up by Ed Marsh:

“21 years on and I’m still not entirely sure why we haven’t just implemented Dearing in full and then left HE alone?”