探花视频

Manifestos duck tough choices on English sector funding, says IFS

Failure to raise fees or increase direct funding will see resources per domestic student fall to their lowest level since 2005, report warns

Published on
June 22, 2024
Last updated
June 22, 2024
Houses of Parliament
Source: iStock

Tuition fees will need to rise in England or teaching grants increased to deliver a 鈥渄rastic overhaul鈥 to university funding, as one in five universities report a budget deficit, a聽聽by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned.聽

The current cap on domestic tuition fees 鈥 frozen at 拢9,250 a year since 2017 鈥 is 鈥渄estabilising higher education finances鈥, and should rise in line with inflation when the freeze is lifted for the 2025-26 academic year, the influential thinktank suggests.

According to latest official inflation forecasts, this would see the 2025-26 fee cap rise to 拢9,450, reaching 拢10,500 by 2029-30. The IFS says this would avoid a further real-terms cut in funding of around 拢270 million in 2025-26, and an expected 拢1.8 billion by the end of the decade.

Raising tuition fees would be 鈥渇airly cheap鈥 for the taxpayer, it argues, while the impact on students would only be felt 鈥渕any years鈥 after graduating. It says that less than a third of students starting three-year courses in 2025 would be expected to see any difference in their loan repayments before they reached the age of 40.聽

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

Kate Ogden, senior research economist at IFS, said聽universities 鈥渉ave had a string of good luck鈥 in recent years due to聽鈥渂allooning鈥 numbers of international students, but said 鈥渢his luck may be running out鈥.聽

鈥淭he reality of frozen fees for domestic undergraduates is now starting to bite, just as tighter restrictions on dependent visas for international students and uncertainty about the direction of immigration policy are hampering international student recruitment,鈥 she said.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

The IFS also suggests that the next government should increase teaching grants as an 鈥渁lternative or a complement鈥 to raising tuition fees.聽

However, 鈥渋ncreasing grants would be four times as expensive for the taxpayer as delivering the same increase in teaching resources through higher loans, as the whole cost would be borne by the taxpayer鈥, it says.

This would require the incoming government to oversee a reduction in undergraduate numbers to meet the fiscal mandate committed to by both the Labour and Conservative parties, which requires forecasted debt to fall as a share of national income, it cautions.

The increasing reliance on international students to make up for shortfalls created by the freeze on domestic student fees 鈥渘ow appears to be coming up against the limits of political acceptability鈥, the report says. The IFS says that if no action on fees and teaching grants is taken, resources per domestic student will be a quarter lower by 2029 than in 2012, and at their lowest level since 2005.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

Josh Hillman, director of education at the Nuffield Foundation, suggested that Labour and the Conservatives聽have avoided university funding in their manifestos聽for the forthcoming general election due to concerns over political fallout.聽

鈥淭he incoming government faces an unpalatable legacy that parties have not confronted in their manifestos. Higher education funding needs a drastic overhaul, it is just a question of who pays for it 鈥 graduates or taxpayers. It seems this unpopular message is one that no one wants to deliver ahead of a general election,鈥 Mr Hillman said.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (2)

Labour's pledge to add VAT to private education fees is in dire contrast to capping the price of the product HE workers produce, namely tuition fees.
Dearing had more or less the right compromise: the tripartite stakeholders: individual, state, and business. Since then, business has escaped from its participation in several ways: 1 Brown appointed Browne who wrecked the system (with the assistance of VCs); 2 corporation tax has been reduced; 3 the tax allowance on dividends and capital gains has not increased. Why not attempt to make business pay for the highly-educated workforce from which it benefits?

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT