David Willetts: Sunak’s Mais lecture, Ministers’ Augar response – and a better approach to universities

1 Mar

David Willetts is President of the Resolution Foundation. He was Minister for Universities and Science 2010-2014. His book A University Education is published by OUP.

The invasion of the Ukraine and its heroic resistance is of course dominating our thinking. As David Gauke pointed out yesterday on ConservativeHome, this has diverted attention from the Chancellor’s Mais Lecture, which set out his economic strategy more clearly than any Budget which inevitably has to focus on specific measures.

On the same day Nadhim Zahawi and Michelle Donelan set out a higher education and skills package which complemented the Chancellor’s approach. Together, they add up to a coherent strategy for the public finances and also boosting productivity.

The case for the education package is simply that graduates earn more than non-graduates and it makes sense for graduates to pay back for their higher education provided they can afford it. This is the moment to quote Karl Marx – as I used to do at meetings with the National Union of Students. He objected to a plan from the German Social Democrats for taxpayers to fund higher education because: “[if] higher education institutions are also ‘free’, that only means in fact defraying the cost of education of the bourgeoisie from the general tax receipts”.

Theresa May ignored his wise words, and increased the repayment threshold above which graduates start paying back, so that half of graduate debt was going to be written off by taxpayers. That is far too much.

Phil Augar was commissioned by May to look at reforms to the system. Ironically, his main proposed reform is to reverse her own increase in the threshold, and extend the repayment period so that now only about 20 per cent of graduate loans will be written off. I always envisaged that the typical graduate should expect to pay back in full and that taxpayers should only help those who for whatever reason had unusually low earnings. The package very persuasively explained by Michelle Donelan in her piece on this site last Thursday gets that balance right.

It will not just get the public finances back on track. I hope it also provides an opportunity to get the whole Tory approach to higher education back on track. Many young people and their parents aspire to go to university – all of us out canvassing have seen the photograph of the child or grandchild in graduation robes on the mantlepiece. But Conservatives seemed to be getting into a mind-set that universities are the enemy.

I suspect many readers of ConservativeHome believe that over 50 per cent of young people going is too large a proportion. Indeed, I am surprised how often I am told it must have happened because we in the Coalition slavishly followed Blair’s target.

But I never believed in any such target. It has happened because of millions of personal choices – and carried on increasing, despite our making it clear that, as graduates, they would usually have to pay back for the cost of their university education in full. Participation is also over 50 per cent in countries like USA and Australia with relatively flexible labour markets and fewer protections for big industrial employers. It is not some eccentric English experiment.

Opinion surveys show very few young people regret going to university, though more do come to regret their choice of subject – and there the problem is early specialisation.

If too many people are going to university then this social problem is most acute in prosperous Tory constituencies where participation is over 60 per cent – such places as Wimbledon, Hitchen and Harpenden, Rushcliffe and Tatton. By contrast, my former constituency of Havant had low rates of young people going to university. I could see that if the only way for more young people from the tough council estate in my constituency to get a place was for fewer to go from Chelsea or Beaconsfield, then they were in for a long wait.

That is why I am against number controls. The Government is now consulting on some specific ones, but I think it would be very hard to make them work effectively and fairly.

Do all these graduates then become Labour voters? Just occasionally Tories, get close to Trump’s notorious remark that ‘I love the poorly-educated’. Three years of higher education does change people. Graduates are more liberal and individualistic. The more education they receive, the more likely they are to create their own businesses – doctorates are increasingly a route to a tech start-up not to academia.

Graduates have better health and longer life expectancy – not because they are somehow better people, but because of the effects of access to higher education. They are more tolerant of alternative views and more likely to vote. They are more more sceptical of the state. Whenever I met students, they were not focused on destroying capitalism: instead, they were unhappy that it took so long to get their essays back and that wifi coverage on campus wasn’t very good. Even the Woke agenda did not preoccupy them – though it is a serious issue which I hope to turn to in a future column.

The real political problem for Conservatives is not graduates, but young people in general, whether they go to university or not. A graduate earning £28,000 shouldn’t be turned into a socialist because she has to pay back £17 a month. What does turn them away from us is the retreat from the property-owning democracy. It is the difficulty of getting started on the housing ladder and the lack of any kind of company pension matching the one their parents got for themselves.

Ministers rightly want more adult learning and more vocational education – it was a key theme of the Mais Lecture. That must be right. But universities as well as FE College are key agents for this. More than half of university courses are vocational. There is the exciting new initiative of higher apprenticeships, but there are many other ways in which university courses link with employers – from being accredited by employer groups through to including a sandwich year in industry. Many doctoral students are now co-funded by employers and tackle a research problem directly relevant to an innovative company.

The Chancellor identified skills, investment and R&D as his three main routes to boosting the real economy. Universities are key to all three. I include investment because a lot of overseas investment comes from companies attracted by the quality of our universities for their recruitment and business innovation.

There have been times over the past few years when our party was in danger of becoming hostile to universities and the young people and their families who aspired to go. But last week’s two important statements boost my hopes that we are getting out of that dead-end. The real battles as we can see this week are so very different.

Nick Hillman: Three options for higher education. Less support for students, fewer of them – or else they pay more

10 Nov

Nick Hillman is the Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and a former Special Adviser to David Willetts during his time as Minister for Universities, but this piece was written in a personal capacity while he was on annual leave.

Politics is governed by the rule of three, whether it is Blairite rhetorical flourishes (‘Education, Education, Education’) or policy options provided by civil servants to Ministers (generally one good, one bad and one ugly). Even Brexit was a three-headed beast: Remain, Deal or No Deal.

This lesson was rammed home for me when working on pensions policy in the early 2000s. Adair Turner was tasked with finding a solution to the ‘pensions crisis’ and he liked to make it sound deceptively simple by saying there were only three solutions: more taxes for bigger state pensions; a higher retirement age; or people saving more. He recommended all three.

Ministers similarly claimed there were just three options when, a decade ago, the Coalition was looking for ways to save public spending on higher education in England: fewer students; less spending on each student; or higher fees backed by higher loans. They rejected the first two options, as had New Labour before them, and announced much higher fees.

The changes delivered a settlement that has stood the test of time. The Cameron/Clegg £9,000 tuition fee system has already lasted longer than the £1,000 fees of 1998 to 2006 and the £3,000 fees of 2006 to 2012. It is likely to survive longer too, as promising to end student fees has little electoral appeal: it didn’t work for Michael Howard or Jeremy Corbyn.

But the reason £9,000 fees delivered savings to the Treasury was the way that student loans scored in the national accounts. To cut a long story short, tripling fees and loans to £9,000 in 2012 reduced the deficit (though it still increased the national debt). This was because accounting standards said repayable student loans did not count as current public spending.

Some accused the Coalition of using financial trickery. In one light, the new system looked like win:win, as it enabled more support for universities and big savings for the Treasury. In another light, it looked like lose:lose, as students accrued larger debts while the Government still faced high costs in the long term because of larger loan write-offs.

Either way, the bigger fees prompted an angry response. Exactly a decade ago, in November 2010, fierce student protests on the streets of London targeted CCHQ, the Cenotaph and even the Prince and Princess of Wales. Yet the arguments of those who opposed the system were hugely overcooked.

Yes, the progressive features of the student loan repayment terms mean some money is never repaid. But, as David Cameron’s memoirs make clear, higher fees and loans allowed for the removal of the student number cap. And more graduates mean more tax. The OECD said the loan write-off costs ‘are just a tiny fraction of the added fiscal income due to better educated individuals paying higher taxes.’

Anyone who still believes the wool was pulled over people’s eyes back in 2010 should remember there is only one thing worse than politicians keeping to standard accounting conventions – and that is politicians ignoring standard accounting conventions. Gordon Brown tried to do this on tax credits, and all governments would try similar tricks if they could get away with it.

Nonetheless, the debate over student finance is far from over because two big things have happened since 2012.

First, in a wasteful and opportunistic announcement at the 2017 Conservative Party Conference, Theresa May relaxed the already loose student loan repayment terms. By increasing the repayment threshold to £25,000 (up from £21,000), she ensured that a significantly lower proportion of public money lent to students would be repaid.

Second, and in part because of this increase in the repayment threshold, the accountants changed their mind. Now, the portion of any student loan that is expected to be unpaid counts as in-year government spending when the loan is taken out. Osborne saved billions overnight via £9,000 fees (as well as the subsequent shift from maintenance grants to larger maintenance loans), but the new rules reverse those savings.

In March 2020, before the pandemic let rip, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the reclassification of student loans was a key factor in pushing the UK’s financial forecasts for 2023/24 and after from the black and into the red. The inclusion of so much student loan outlay in the national accounts has therefore put spending on students on the radar for the coming spending review.

As the financial commentator Paul Wallace warned in Prospect last year: “The Treasury was happy to countenance a big expansion of university finance when it did nothing to blemish its scorecard in reducing the deficit. It will take a sterner view once the actual costs show up in the budget deficit.”

We are also awaiting the official response to the Augar review of post-18 education. Among its many recommendations, this included ways to reduce taxpayer exposure to tuition fee loans, such as via a lower fee cap of £7,500 and a longer student loan repayment period (up from 30 to 40 years).

Once again, the Government is facing three options: providing less money per student through lower fees and loans, which would drive some universities to the wall; reducing student places, just as the number of school leavers is about to start a decade-long growth; or tougher student loan repayment terms, which would mean paying a little more. None of these options is palatable.

If it were down to me, I wouldn’t cut education spending at all. The triple whammy of Brexit dampening down skilled migration to the UK, economic change wrought by the pandemic and higher unemployment among lower skilled people in the coming recession mean we should be investing as much as we can in all types of education. More education is always better than leaving people to build blank spaces on their CVs.

Yet if the higher education sector must take some further pain in the spending review, then tougher student loan repayment terms of the sort in place in other countries and of the type recommended by the Augar panel is a better place to start than pushing universities to the brink or blocking aspirational learners from enrolling in higher education.

Feel for the students and pupils who must cope with this chaos as best they can

20 Aug

It is a week and a day since our newslinks led with a Daily Mail story which we headlined “Government “rips up exam system to give pupils ‘triple lock’ on grades”.  That’s a day after Nicola Sturgeon’s apology for the debacle in Scotland.  Gavin Williamson was dashing to find an escape route for England.  We all know what happened during the next six days.

At least two bad news stories will compete today, as GCSE results are issued later this morning.  They pull in opposite directions.

One is bad for the system and good for pupils – in the very short term, at least.  There will be high grade inflation. About a third of papers will apparently get top grades, rather than the usual fifth.

But even in the short-term, there will be consequences: namely, a Russell Group University-style rush of pupils into the better sixth forms, which will have knock-on effects further down the chain.  There is talk of aptitude tests to weed out some pupils who have made a sixth form only because of the inflation.

The other is bad for system and bad for pupils.  Some are about to find they’ve received lower grades than in their last set of predicted papers at school.

Why?  Because teachers in schools will have feared that if they were too permissive with the “centre assessed grades” that they sent to the examiners, their pupils would be marked down in consequence.  So they will have tried to game the system by sending lower CAGs than those last predicated grades.

That those CAGs might become the final measure of their pupils’ performance would never have occured to them.  Furthermore, 500,000 BTEC students now won’t get their results on time.

Pearson, the exam board, first said that it would not be recalibrating the results…before saying that it will recalibrate them.  Which means that they can’t be issued this morning.  Williamson is under further fire for overlooking these students, the very type that the Government wants to “level up”.

This is unfair, but it is now open season on the Education Secretary, as it will continue to be until he resigns, is moved – or is sacked.

The Times opens up a new front this morning by reporting that Williamson was warned by a former Director-General of his department about the algorithm’s failings.  A contrast is drawn between this briefing and the Education Secretary’s claim that he only became aware of the full scale of the problem last weekend.

In Williamson’s defence, it must be said that an advance warning of a problem, from no matter how distinguished a figure, isn’t quite the same as experiencing the problem itself.

But few will feel like being fair to the Education Secretary – to whom the fatal lobby cliches “embattled” and “beleaguered” will soon be applied, if they haven’t been already.  He must now grapple with no fewer than four sets of policy and polical problems.

First, with the consequences of today’s results for sixth forms and further education colleges.  Second, with those of his decision on A-levels for universities and other higher education institutions.

Third, with seeking to follow through the Government’s manifesto commitments on the Augar Review in these chaotic circumstances.  Finally, he must try to lead the re-opening of schools in less than a fortnight.  We could write for a third day running that Williamson should be moved, but we rest our case.

Some say that the exams fiasco won’t affect the Conservative poll ratings.  For evidence, they may point to today’s YouGov poll, which sees the Tory vote holding up, despite the Party’s lead being cut to two per cent.

The rise in Labour’s standing comes largely at the Liberal Democrats’ expense, while the Conservatives have a 24 point lead among the over-65s, who are not touched directly by the exam turbulence.

However, another view is that the Government’s reputation on competence, already damaged by parts of its handling of the Coronavirus, will slide further by the time of next year’s local elections.  We hope not have to lead our newslinks with another episode of the results-and-schools-and-universities story in a week and a day’s time, but wouldn’t bet on it.  Feel for the students and pupils who have to cope with it all as best they can.