Labour’s New Student Grants: Help for Some, Questions for All
Image Credit: Bridget Phillipson
Last week at the Labour Party Conference, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced the reintroduction of the student maintenance grant.
It will be for “disadvantaged students studying priority courses” and will be funded by a new international student levy. It is intended to allow students not to be hampered by debt, as they would not have to pay back the grant, and to stop students “working every hour God sends,” as the Education Secretary told the Conference in Liverpool.
The maintenance grant was abolished in 2016 by the Conservatives in favour of the maintenance loan, under which students are eligible for a loan of up to £10,544 if they live outside London and are away from home. As well, many universities offer their own grants and scholarships. For example, Leeds offers the Leeds Bursary, which allows eligible students to receive a grant of up to £2,000 if they are full-time undergraduates.
Phillipson’s reintroduction of a national maintenance grant comes as the maintenance loan becomes less able to accommodate student needs. The Higher Education Policy Institute published research earlier this year suggesting that the loan now covers only “half of students’ costs” and that, for a “socially acceptable standard of living,” students really need over £60,000 during their three years of study. In addition, the Department for Education stated that the maintenance loan had seen a “20% reduction in real terms value” compared to five years ago, highlighting how reform to student finance is really needed, particularly for the most disadvantaged.
While the evidence above highlights how there is a real need for change, is Bridget Phillipson’s announcement really the way to fix it? There are two questions that her announcement raises: one of fairness, and the second of funding.
It is, of course, fair for grants to be given to students who need them most, but is it fair to do so only for “priority courses”? While no information has been given on what these “priority courses” would be, we can be almost certain that they will be STEM-related courses. Does this not hinder the whole point of higher education – to be able to study whatever you want, no matter your background?
It brings up another question: the state’s involvement in university education. State-designated “priority courses” would almost certainly mean that non-priority departments would see reduced funding from universities. This is also reminiscent of the previous government’s claim about “Mickey Mouse degrees,” which Labour had rejected. These questions are not meant to critique the reintroduction of the maintenance grant – which is almost certainly a good thing – but rather to critique the second half of the announcement concerning “priority courses.”
The second question is that of funding. The Department for Education has stated that the maintenance grant would be paid for by the new international student levy of six percent on international student fees, which was announced by Labour in their immigration white paper.
Phillipson’s proposal for the levy to cover the new grant has received criticism from many in the higher education sector, as it is believed that the levy will simply not be able to cover the cost of the grants due to the negative effects it will have itself.
The Higher Education Policy Institute suggested that the levy will cost universities £621 million a year, with Leeds being hit with a levy cost of £20 million. The HEPI’s director, Nick Hillman, suggested that the levy would be a “weight dragging [universities] down” and would hit the university sector both financially and in its international competitiveness. If the levy discourages international students — a major source of income for universities — the very funding Labour plans to rely on to help the most disadvantaged could quickly dry up.
Phillipson has made her tenure as Education Secretary centred around making sure education is accessible for all, and her announcement of the maintenance grant should be seen as an extension of this.
However, it has raised the age-old issues of whether international students should foot the bill for the sector and whether some degrees are more important than others. Until these issues are settled, Phillipson’s plan may be remembered less as a solution to the student finance crisis, and more as the start of another debate about what – and who – university is really for.
Words by Ioan Trigger