Summary of Coalition Government Education Policies (2010-2015)

1. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-2015 • In this PowerPoint I aim to summarise the key points made in my longer document on Coalition Education Policies. You may refer back to the longer document for more detailed information. • Coalition Ideology Slides 2-7 • The National Curriculum Slides 8-12 • Examination Changes Slides 13-18 • Academies Slides 19-25 • Free Schools Slides 26-29 • Vocational Education Slides 30-39 • Abolition of EMA Slides 40-41 • Pupil Premium Slides 42-43 • Higher Education: Tuition fees Slides 44-50

2. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—15 Coalition Ideology Difficult to assess the overall ideological location of the Coalition Government. David Cameron has claimed that he is ”not a particularly ideological politician.” “A lack of clarity about Thatcherism has been central to Cameron’s master class in political ambiguity.” [Sunder Karwala] He has sometimes aimed to identify himself with One Nation Conservatism. However others have identified him with aspects of New Right Thatcherite ideology.

3. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010--15 Thatcherite New Right Ideology contains elements of neo-liberalism and elements of neo-conservatism. Some have argued that David Cameron has tended to espouse neo-liberalism while distancing himself to some extent from some elements of neo-conservatism. It is argued that under the leadership of Nick Clegg the Liberal Democrat’s ideology comprises a mixture of New Right ideology and more orthodox social liberalism. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats sought to demonstrate political unity in the early stages of the Coalition but they appear more disunited as the General Election approaches.

4. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010--15 As Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove has argued that his education policies have been implemented on practical rather than ideological grounds. He claims to be seeking policies which work rather than following a particular ideological programme. Of course this is disputed strongly by his critics. However many would argue that though some education policies have been chosen on the basis of practicality others have been much influenced by New Right ideology tempered to some extent by social liberalism. I have also produced an assignment designed to help students to assess the ideological content of Coalition education policies.

5. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010--: New Right Ideology: Elements of Neo-Liberalism [1] Support for individual freedom Support for the capitalist market mechanism and the private sector Support for economic inequality combined with equality of opportunity Opposition to Socialism Opposition to the post- second world war political consensus

6. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—New Right Ideology: Elements of Neo-Liberalism [2] Opposition to the post second world war political consensus has involved the following element. Support for lower levels of government spending and lower levels of taxation Support for privatisation rather than nationalisation. Support for lower levels of spending on welfare benefits Support for privatisation of welfare services Support for private health care and private education Support for quasi-markets in Health and Education Support for reduced local government autonomy Support for monetarist rather than Keynesian economic policies Support for reduced trade union power

7. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—New Right Ideology: Elements of Neo-Conservatism Support for traditional sources of authority. Support for the State Support for strong punitive approaches to law and order Support for traditional approaches to morality Support for the traditional family Support for traditional approaches to education Support for a greater emphasis on national culture rather than multiculturalism Euroscepticism Note that neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism may partly complement each other but also sometimes conflict

8. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—15 The National Curriculum 1 National Curriculum first introduced 1988 and modified in various ways 1988-2010 by Conservative and Labour Governments. S.S. Michael Gove announces review of N.C hoping for introduction of new revised NC in September 2014. NC Core Subjects: English ,Mathematics and Science. Compulsory at all key stages 1-4 Introduction of new NC for KS4 English and Mathematics postponed until Sept. 2015. Introduction of new NC for KS Science postponed until Sept 2016.

9. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: The National Curriculum 2 • Foundation Subjects: PE, art and Design, Citizenship, Design and Technology, Geography, History, ICT, Modern Languages, Music • PE: compulsory at all key stages • Other Foundation Subjects: compulsory at some key stages but not others. • RE: compulsory at all key stages • Sex and Relationship education: compulsory for all Secondary School pupils • Non-NC subjects such as Business Studies, Religious Studies and Sociology may be offered at KS 4 level

10. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: The National Curriculum 3 • There are Teacher Assessments at age 4-5. • There are Teacher Assessments and National Tests in English, Mathematics and Science at age 6-7 [Key Stage 1] • There are Teacher Assessments and National Tests in English and Mathematics and Teacher Assessments in Science at age 10-11 [Key Stage 2] • There are examinations in GCSE and other national qualifications usually at age 15-16 although some students may sit these examinations earlier.

11. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-2015: The National Curriculum 4: Possible Criticisms • Aim was to create a more rigorous , demanding curriculum but critics argued that some of the more difficult aspects could lead to greater pupil disaffection and hence failure. • Claims that there is excessive emphasis on memorisation of facts. • There have been claims that Mr Gove and other Ministers intervened personally and idiosyncratically in the development of some subject curricula. • These claims have , of course, been denied. • Claims that there is now excessive emphasis on English, Mathematics and Science at Primary School level which leaves insufficient time for other important subjects.

12. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-2015: The National Curriculum 5. Possible Criticisms • Claims that there is too much emphasis on Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar. • Claims that Primary School pupils should not be expected to master the terminology of clause analysis which includes terms such as “subordinate clause” and “subjunctive mood” formerly taught in Secondary Schools, if at all. • Claims that the NC History Syllabus is excessively chronological. • Claims that “teaching to the test” is encouraged. This is a criticism that might be applied to all examination based education systems.

13. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-2015: Examination Changes 1 • In November 2010 Secretary of State Michael Gove announced that Secondary Schools’ performance would be assessed in terms of the percentages of their pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE A* -C pass grades including English and Mathematics and in terms of the percentages of their pupils attaining A*-C pass grades in 5 newly designated EBacc subjects. • The designated EBacc subjects were English, Mathematics, Science, a Modern Foreign Language and History or Geography. • This policy reflected Mr Gove’s view that competence in EBacc subjects gave a good indication of all round educational achievement and hat this new accountability criterion would deter schools from entering their pupils for “easier” GCSE subjects or GCSE equivalents in an attempt to inflate their overall GCSE performance

14. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-2015: Examination Changes 2 • Critics argued that this emphasis on EBacc subjects would undermine the status or equally useful vocational GCSEs and other GCSE subjects which were not on the EBacc list. • It also soon became clear that differences in GCSE pass rates between students eligible and ineligible for free school meals were even greater for EBacc subjects and that this could be expected to under mine even further the future educational prospects of disadvantaged students. • In September 2012 Michael Gove announced a proposal to introduce an EBacc Certificate based on examinations in EBacc subjects which were to be more difficult than existing GCSE examinations. • It was intended that each individual EBacc subject would be delivered by a separate examination board thereby preventing competition among boards from leading to declining standards

15. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: Examination Changes 3 • It was planned that GCSE courses would continue to operate alongside the gradually expanding EBacc certificate for several years but by this time it seemed that the long term future of GCSE courses might be in doubt. • There were also concerns that although many pupils were to be entered for EBacc subjects many might fail the more difficult examinations and leave school with no qualifications or perhaps with some sort of record of achievement. • However in January 2013 Mr Gove announced that plans for the EBacc Certificate would be scrapped and that GCSE course would continue for the foreseeable future. • Mr Gove did announce very significant changes to GCSE courses which he originally hoped might be introduced for first teaching in September 2015.

16. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: Examination Changes 4 • In the event although new GCSE courses in English, English Literature and Mathematics were introduced in September 2015 it was recognised that it would take longer to introduce new GCSE courses in other subjects. • For these new GCSE courses all assessments would take place at the end of 2year courses; the distinctions between Foundation and Higher Tiers would be discontinued; there would be no modularisation and no coursework except in a minority of subjects where it was deemed appropriate; and the new course examinations would be graded 8-1 rather than A*-G although it was subsequently agreed that the new grades would be form 1-9. • In order to reduce incentives for teachers to concentrate their attention on pupils on borderline grade C pupils an additional accountability criterion is to be introduced in 2016. Perhaps you can find out about this!!!!

17. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: Examination Changes 5 • Itwas announced in November 2012 that from 2013 students would only be able to sit GCE AS and A2 examinations in the Summer. • In support of this change of policy it was claimed that it would discourage “bite size” learning whereby the interconnections between different elements of the overall subject were insufficiently recognised; that it would enable students and teachers to spend more time on actual learning and teaching rather than direct preparation for examinations; and that it would inhibit the development among students of a “resit culture.” • However it may be argued that opportunities for resits are especially helpful to students, possibly from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who are finding the transition from GCSE to AS /A2 work more difficult.

18. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—15 : Examination Changes 6 In January 2013 Michael Gove announced that in future GCE Advanced Level courses would be examined only at the end of a 2 year Advanced level Course. GCE AS courses would remain as stand alone courses but AS courses would no longer be a one year component of two year Advanced Level courses. Mr Gove intended initially that all of the new Advanced Level Courses could be introduced for first teaching in September 2015 but in the event it was agreed that the new courses in different subjects would be introduced in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Many have regretted this policy change arguing , for example, that in some cases good performances in AS examinations serve to improve student’s self-confidence which in turn may improve their performance in the second year of their course..

19. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010— 15 Academies 1 In this section of the Presentation I shall summarise the broad contours of the Academies Programme . Some of the issues involved are analysed in a little more detail elsewhere on my site. The Academies programme was initiated by the previous Labour Government in 2002 and by 2010 203 so –called Sponsored Academies were in operation. These Sponsored Academies were essentially Independent State Schools which received the bulk of their financing directly from Central Government rather than from Local Education Authorities. There were set up mainly in areas of social deprivation to replace existing schools which were deemed to be failing.

20. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010–15 Academies 2 The new schools would be housed either in entirely new buildings or in radically refurbished existing school buildings. They were to be set up as charitable companies controlled by Sponsors which might be individuals, businesses, charities or churches or, subsequently, universities, colleges, hospitals or private schools Initially the Sponsors were to contribute £2M to the building and/or refurbishment costs of the schools with the remaining £20 M or so of capital costs contributed by the Government although the Sponsors’ financial contributions were gradually phased out.

21. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—15 Academies 3 The day to day running of Academies would be under the direction of a Principal or Head Teacher but the Sponsors have considerable freedom to determine the composition of the Governing Body, the pay and condition of staff and the spending priorities and ethos of the school. However they must also comply with a wide range of regulations laid down by the Secretary of State for Education. The basic rationale for Academisation was the belief that the Sponsors would be relatively free of the Local Authority regulations which according to supporters of academisation were holding schools back . Instead the Sponsors would use their own wider experiences to improve school efficiency.

22. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—15 Academies 4 Several so-called Academies chains developed in which Sponsors took on the governance of several academies. Examples are the academy chains directed by the Lord Harris organisation and ARK[Absolute Resource for Kids. The Academisation Programme was vigorously criticised by opponents and such criticisms included the following. It was argued that Local Education Authorities had actually played a very positive role in the local organisation of schools and that in many cases Sponsors actually lacked the expertise necessary to run schools effectively. It was argued that local accountability was much stronger in LEA –controlled schools than in Sponsored Academies.

23. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: Academies 5 • It is argued that the design of some new Academy buildings was inappropriate for educational purposes and that high expenditure on Academies reduced the finance available in other parts of the education system. • It is argued that Academies might manipulate admission procedures to ensure that fewer pupils eligible for free school meals are admitted and that more Academy pupils may have been admitted for GCSE equivalent subjects rather than orthodox GCSE subjects . • Consequently when Academy GCSE results appeared to improve substantially this may not have been evidence of real progress.

24. Coalition GovernmentEducation Policies 2010-15: Academies 6 • These and other criticisms were rejected by supporters of Academies and it has proven very difficult to determine the overall effectiveness of the Academies Programme with any certainty. • In an important report by the House of Commons Departmental Select Committee on Education published in 2015 it was concluded that the overall effectiveness of Labour’s Sponsored Academies Programme could not be determined with any certainty and that it was certainly too soon to determine the effectiveness of the significantly different Coalition Academies Programme. • Thus in relation to Labour’s programme it was pointed out that there were wide variations in the performances of both LEA schools and Academies so that no general case in support of or against Academies could be made

25. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15: Academies 7 • In any case the Coalition’s Academies Programme has differed very significantly from Labour’s Programme. • The most significant difference is that although there has been some relatively small increase in the number of Sponsored Academies between 2010 and 2015 the Coalition also provided for the conversion of existing schools to Converter Academy status and the subsequent growth of Converter Academies has been much greater than that of Sponsored Academies. • In the Select Committee Report of 2015 it was stated that it was a yet impossible to assess the effectiveness of the new Converter Academies. • Nevertheless compulsory academisation is on the horizon. • Click here for most recent data on number of Academies and Free Schools open

26. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—15 Free Schools 1 The setting up of Free Schools was proposed in the Conservative Manifesto of 2010 and given approval in the Academies Act of 2010 which also paved the way for existing state primary and secondary schools to become Academies. Free Schools are established as Academies independent of Local Authorities and with increased control of their curriculum, teachers' pay and conditions  and the length of the school day and terms. They may be set up by groups of parents, teachers, businesses, universities, trusts and religious and voluntary groups but are funded by central government. 21 Free Schools were set up in England in September 2011 as of September 174 Free Schools were in operation. One Free School was closed in December 2013 but approximately 130 new Free Schools are due to open in 2013-14 Several Free Schools have been set up by chains which already run several Academies and some schools have transferred from the Private to the State sector and been designated as Free Schools The New Schools network has been set up as a charity with government funding to advise groups wishing to set up Free Schools

27. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—Free Schools 2 The New Schools network has been set up as a charity with government funding to advise groups wishing to set up Free Schools Groups setting up Free Schools are also very likely to contract an Education Provider to deliver the educational services necessary for the running of the schools These education providers are not currently allowed to make a profit out of the running of the schools.

28. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—Free Schools 3 The Government's decision to fund the setting up or Free Schools can be seen as an important aspect of its general support for the operation of a quasi-market in education. Thus it is argued that in localities where parents or teachers or other groups believe that the local authority schools are unsatisfactory they will now have the opportunity to set up Fee Schools and that increased competition between the new Free Schools and existing local authority schools will drive up overall educational standards This has occurred , according to the Government, in Sweden where such a system has been in operation Furthermore the UK Government claim that the introduction of Free Schools will increase equality of educational opportunity for disadvantaged pupils currently being taught in under-performing local authority schools

29. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—Free Schools 4 . Possible Criticisms It is claimed that they will be set up disproportionately in affluent neighbourhoods and that they may attract "better" teachers from local authority schools They may be set up in areas where local authority schools are already undersubscribed thus wasting resources They may attract the better performing pupils from local authority schools thereby undermining them The combined effects of points 1-3 may be that they lead gradually to the development of a two-tier There is a danger that although Free School Education Providers are not currently allowed to make a profit this condition could be relaxed in the future leading to the indirect privatisation of parts of the education system. Free Schools do not need to employ qualified teachers [which to some extent negates the second part of point 1. above. They may give too much freedom to faith based schools or fundamentalist agendas although the UK Government point out that safeguards ensure that  such schools must teach a broad and balanced curriculum and that creationism must not be taught as a valid scientific theory

30. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010–15 Vocational Education 1 UK Governments have long recognised that the nature and quality of the education system could affect significantly the productivity of labour and hence the competitiveness of the UK economy and this has been a major motivation for government attempts to improve overall educational standards and to emphasise that educational curricula should as far as possible reflect the needs of industry and commerce for an appropriately skilled workforce. The Coalition Government has introduced a range of education policies which it believes can improve overall education standards and has focused also on what it sees as the need for reform of the provision of vocational education. The Secretary of State for Education  Michael Gove outlined his general approach in September 2010 when he announced the setting up of a review of vocational education for 14-19 year olds to be led by Professor Alison Wolf.

31. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 2 • Mr Gove believed that it was especially important for future employability that all pupils attained a good level of general education especially in English, Mathematics and Science. • He believed that unless pupils had good levels of general education actual vocational qualifications themselves would be seen as inadequate by employers. • He thought that many schools had encouraged their students to take composite vocational courses deemed equivalent in some cases to 4 GCSEs instead of orthodox GCSE subjects such as Modern Languages, History and Geography • He thus believed that some schools had “gamed “ the system in an attempt to attain higher league table at the expense of their own pupils’ future employability.

32. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 3 • Professor Wolf’s Review claimed that there were many Level 1 and 2 NVQ courses which had been deemed equivalent to GCSEs but which actually did not improve pupils’ future employment prospects. • Consequently the Coalition Government removed several thousand vocational courses from the School League Table with effect from 2014. • Partly for this reason national GCSE pass rates fell slightly in 2013-14 and in some schools they fell very significantly. • This could be seen as a well-meaning reform but critics argued that many students had enjoyed these courses ; that they might enhance employment prospects at least to some extent; and that it was not appropriate to reduce the extent of vocational education when youth unemployment rates remained high.

33. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010– Vocational Education 4 • The Coalition Government also decided that pupils who had failed at age 16 to attain GCSE Grade C grades in Mathematics and /or English should continue to study Mathematics /English at age 16-19 either at GCSE Level or in more functional skills based courses. • The implementation of this schemed has presented some problems since in many schools and colleges there were insufficient fully trained English and /or Mathematics teachers to teach resitting students and pass rates of those resitting GCSE at age 17 have, predictably, been rather low. • However it is the intention of the new Conservative Government elected in May 2015 to continue with this policy.

34. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 5 • The Coalition Government also set up several University Technical Colleges which are academies geared to the technically oriented education of 14-18 year olds. 39 UTCs were open by September 2015. • These colleges seek to provide a high status technical education combining academic education [often involving all EBacc subjects] and practical skills. • They are sponsored by local universities and their curricula are influenced by national and local businesses which alsogurantee to provide pupils with work experience all of which should, in principle, improve pupils’ employment prospects. • Teachers’ unions have criticised the fact that pupils will have to decided at age 13 whether to attend such colleges and that this will increase the academic-vocational divide.

35. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 6 • However supporters of University Technical Colleges argue that they are in fact providing an effective combination of academic education [e.g. in EBacc subjects] and vocational education so that this criticism is unjustified. • Also a new range of Advanced Level standard “Tech Level” qualification was unveiled in December 2013 for first teaching in September 2014 and this may well be a useful initiative attractive to those pupils aiming for a high level technical education.

36. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 7 • Vocational education is provided also by means of Apprenticeships which may involve a combination of on the job training and college attendance leading to a recognised qualification. • Apprenticeships were for many years associated primarily with the skilled manual trades such as plumbing, engineering and building but nowadays the main sectors providing apprenticeships are Business, Administration and Law, Engineering and Manufacture, Health Public Services and Care and Retail and Commercial Enterprises. • Consequently there are now more female than male apprentices and there are significant gender differences in the choice of apprenticeships in different sectors.

37. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 8 • Over 2.4 million apprenticeships were created between 2010/11 and 2014/15 and the current Conservative Government is aiming to create 3 million new apprenticeships between 2010 and 2015. • Apprenticeships may currently be undertaken at 3 levels: Intermediate, Advanced and Higher equivalent to GCSE Level , Advanced Level and Post-Advanced level standards. • The vast majority of apprenticeship schemes are at Intermediate and advanced Levels and in 2014/15 only 4% of apprenticeships were at the Higher Level. However this percentage is increasing albeit from a low level. • There are many good schemes which should ensure career progression but considerable concern has been expressed as to the quality of some Intermediate Level apprenticeships especially in Care and in Retail

38. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 9 • Particularly scathing criticisms come from an OFSTED Report published in October 2015. Respondents to the survey variously stated that they felt they were being used a cheap labour to be replaced once their apprenticeships ended and that their apprenticeships offered no real training. Indeed some respondents were actually unaware that they were on an apprenticeship scheme. • The OFSTED Report uncovered schemes where participants completed their apprenticeships with only low level skills such as serving or cleaning floors. • Thus the Report claimed, “As well as stifling the career opportunities of these apprentices, the low quality process undermines the status of apprenticeships and devalues the brand.”

39. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010-15 Vocational Education 10 • One is reminded here of some of the criticisms which were made of YTS schemes as early as the 1980s . • However the expansion of better schemes at all levels is to be welcomed and Government Ministers state that they are very keen to eliminate deficiencies where they occur.

40. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010– Abolition of the EMA 1 Education Maintenance Allowances were first piloted in 1999 and introduced throughout the UK in 2004 in order to encourage young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to remain in education By 2011 -12 about 650,000 students were receiving EMAs of between £10 and £30 per week. It was estimated that around a half of all 16 year olds were eligible for EMAs of at least £10 or more per week. The Conservatives had denied during the 2010 General Election Campaign that they would abolish the EMA However following the formation of the Coalition Government George Osborne announced in the 2010 Public Spending Review that the EMA would in fact be replaced by "more targeted support The Government claimed that at £560 Million p.a. the scheme was expensive The Government stated that it was also wasteful because , according to research from the NFER 90% of students would continue their courses without payment

41. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—Abolition of the EMA 2 In March 2011 the Government announced that the EMA scheme [est. cost £ 560M p.a.] would be replaced by a new fund for students from low income families[ est. cost £160M p. a.]. £ 15M of the £160 M would be used to provide 12,000 of the most disadvantaged 16-19 year old with grants of £12000 p.a. while the rest of the funds would be added to the existing learner support fund {£26M p.a.] which is given to schools and colleges to allocate to students at their discretion. Critics have argued that the Government has misinterpreted some of the results of the above mentioned NFER study , a criticism supported by the author of the study. They have argued that the new scheme is less generous than the EMA scheme and as such that it will therefore discourage disadvantaged from remaining in education. They have argued also that reliance on school and college discretion in the allocation of funds generates uncertainty and may create a “postcode lottery” in the allocation of funds. Consequently there have been widespread calls for the reintroduction of the EMA or something similar to it.

42. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—The Pupil Premium 1 While still in opposition David Cameron criticised Labour’s failure to reduce poverty significantly and claimed that if elected a Conservative Government would introduce more effective poverty reduction policies. The Liberal Democrats claimed that they would alleviate poverty via the gradual raising of the income tax threshold and that they would also introduce a range of policies designed to increase social mobility. The Pupil Premium which results in increase funding for individual schools based upon their proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals represents an attempt to provide additional educational resources targeted on economically disadvantaged pupils. In the financial year 2014-15 Schools receive£1300p.a and £935 p.a. respectively for primary and secondary school pupils registered as eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years and £1900 p.a. for each looked after pupil.

43. Coalition Government Education Policies 2010—The Pupil Premium 2 Critics of the Pupil Premium have claimed that any increase in overall school finances provided via the Pupil Premium would to some extent be offset by the effects of reductions in funding elsewhere in school budgets. It has also been suggested that although many schools are using the monies provided via the Pupil premium to target additional resources on disadvantaged pupils a sizeable percentage of schools are not doing so. However it has also been pointed out that Coalition Ministers are very keen to improve the overall effectiveness of the Pupil Premium. Nevertheless there remain very significant differences in educational attainment between pupils eligible and ineligible for free school meals and many sociologists would argue that such differences can be reduced only via fundamental reductions in social and economic inequality. Thus in relation to the compensatory education programmes of the 1960s and 1970s Basil Bernstein had argued that “Education cannot compensate for society.” Critics would argue that similar arguments may be made in relation to the Pupil Premium even if it is a step in the right direction.

44. Higher Education Tuition Fees 1 • Higher Education tuition fees were introduced by the Labour Government in 1998 at the rate of £1000p.a and increased to a maximum of £3,000 pa. in 2004. • However as a result of devolution legislation there developed substantial differences in the regulations governing tuition fees as between England, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland differences legislation. • In 2010 the Coalition Government announced that with effect from 2012 Tuition fees at English Higher Education Institutions would rise to a maximum of £9,000 p.a • However again there is variation throughout the UK. Scottish students aged 18-25 pay no HE tuition fees; N Irish HEIs charge a maximum of about of about £3,800 p.a; Welsh HEIs charge a maximum of £9,000 p.a but Welsh students are eligible for significant grants and /or loans to meet the costs of their tuition fees. 88

45. Higher Education Tuition Fees 2 • English students pay tuition fees wherever they study in the UK[including Scotland] and N. Irish , Scottish and Welsh students studying at English HEIs pay tuition fees at the English HEI rates. • Students would receive loans to cover their tuitions fees. They would also receive a combination of maintenance grants and loans to contribute to their maintenance costs where the relative size of the grant and loan elements would depend upon parental income. • HEIs were to offer a mixture of fee waivers and bursaries to help reduce the financial hardships of the most disadvantaged students. • They were also to promote access to university from disadvantaged pupils and to introduce schemes to retain students who otherwise might be at risk of “dropping out.”

46. Higher Education Tuition Fees 3 • It was recognised, however, that combined maintenance grants and loans would almost certainly be insufficient to cover all maintenance costs so that students might well be forced to take paid employment to supplement their incomes and/or to take out additional private loans. • Consequently assuming tuition fees of £ 9,000 p.a. and maintenance loans of up to £5,500 students could well leave university with debts to the government of up to £40,000 with interest charged on the loan until fully paid off. • Graduated students would begin to repay these loans once they were earning above £21,000 per year by contributing 9% of any income above £ 21,000 to loan repayment so that , for example a former student now earning £25,000 per year would repay about £7 per week.

47. Higher Education Tuition Fees 4 • There are even more complexities to the system which I shall not cover here but there were concerns that if students focused on the level of their debts rather than the likely annual rate of repayment there would be a significant decline in applications for Higher Education • Thus in the rest of this section of the presentation I present some summary data taken from UCAS Reports of 2014 and 2015 in an attempt to outline the possible effects of higher HEI tuition fees on access to Higher Education . • However the UCAS data are detailed and difficult to summarise . Some further information can be found in my longer document on Coalition Education policies. • UCAS Data refer primarily to access to Higher Education of 18 year old fulltime students. • 1. In the UK the number of applicants to HE rose between 2010 and 2011 as students rejected gap years in order to avoid one year of higher fees but fell in 2012 and did not surpass its 2101 level until 2015.

48. Higher Education Tuition Fees 5 • 2. In the UK the number of accepted applicants rose in 2011 and fell in 2012 but surpassed its 2010 level in 2013 and rose again in 2014 and 2015. • 3. Overall UK trends are much influenced by English trends and in England the number of English applicants in 2015 had not returned to its 2010 level but the number of accepted applicants surpassed its 2010 level in 2013 and rose further in 2014 and 2015. • 4.Thus the number of accepted applications in both the UK and England has now surpassed its 2010 [may have been faster although HEIs may not have been able to accept more applicants due to government restrictions. pre-fees increase] levels although this is not the case in relation to English applications. • However it may nevertheless be the case that if fees had not been increased the growth of applications may have been even faster although HEIs may not have been able to take additional applicants due to government restrictions.

49. Higher Education Tuition Fees 6 • The UCAS Reports t provide comparative information on access to He for full time 18 year olds according to gender, ethnicity and social disadvantage. • As expected females are more likely than males to enter HE and Chinese students are the ethnic group most likely to enter HE. • With regard to FSM eligibility comparisons are made between English 18 year old pupils eligible and ineligible for Free School Meals at age 15. • Between 2006 and 2015 between 12% and 15% of pupils were eligible for Free School Meals. • In 2015 among 18 year olds eligible for free school meals at age 15 16.4% entered HE whereas among 18 year olds ineligible for free school meals at age 15 31.3% entered HE.

50. Higher Education Tuition Fees 7 • The FSM ineligibility –FSM eligibility ratio in access to HE fell from 2.7 in 2006 to 1.9 in 2015. That is: NFSM pupils were 2.7 times more likely than FSM pupils to gain access to HE in 2006 but 1.9 times more likely to do so in 2015. • However the UCAS Reports also distinguish between high, medium and low tariff HEIs. • In 2015 the NFSM –FSM ratios in access to HE were 3.8 for high tariff HEIs, 2.3 for medium tariff HEIs and 1.3 for low tariff HEIS. • Finally remember that the UCAS data refer only to applications and accepted applications of full-time students and mainly those aged 18. • Other data indicate that applications from part-time students have fallen very significantly which can be seen as representing a serious waste of academic talent.