Students’ realities don’t fit into the white paper

At the end of one training session where I’d just finished the day with a briefing on the state of the sector (with a few jokes to keep the mood up), an officer asked me how on earth I stayed optimistic.

Back in summer, there was still the excitement of a white paper on the horizon and officers would tell me they already had a date in the diary to speak to their MP, or had already lobbied them. They were going to speak to them about things like student maintenance, the proposed levy on international fees, the graduate route changes, the long hours students are working, how students live in two places but can’t register for two GPs or the need to bring the cost of travel down for commuting students.

Like all of us I was chomping at the bit last Monday for the white paper – it was like being in a Ticketmaster queue for Oasis tickets. And whilst I was pleased to see a great deal of HE “stuff,” much like getting to the front of the ticketmaster queue and getting booted out, I was disappointed that students were barely mentioned.

Was this ever going to be a student heavy white paper? No, of course not.

Nobody expected it to envision a more sustainable student experience and solve all the problems of the student maintenance system or set up student mental health hubs or fix student housing – not least because they’re not portfolios in the departments that front this paper. But, it does graze some of this stuff and it’s not unfair for students and student officers who have spent months, and if we include past student leaders, decades of time lobbying for better, to be rightfully disappointed.

And in thinking about the future of the sector, it’s imperative to think about students too.

It’s not long since maintenance grants were announced to return but the devil was very much in the detail, of which it was lacking. They’re to be targeted at students from low income backgrounds and for students studying courses aligned with the government’s industrial strategy.

Alarm bells start to ring about the reduction in choice for students. With targeted grants students might make strategic, finance-driven decisions about going to university and end up studying the subject they’re sort-of interested in because they’ll be able to afford that one, but not the one they would’ve excelled in.

My colleague Jim made this point on our subscriber Policy Radar webinar that where students are mentioned in the white paper, they’re framed as “future workers,” a body to fulfil the needs of the industrial strategy, not to learn for learning’s sake. What the white paper makes very clear is that HE is a strategic asset to meet broader skills and economic-based goals. There’s no vision for HE here, and certainly not one for students.

The paper argues too many providers are teaching the same thing to the same students and should therefore specialise – my “choice” alarm bell is ringing again.

The paper then discusses sustainability, that fees and maintenance will rise with inflation for the next two years (and then legislate to make it automatic). So despite Secretary of State Bridgett Philipson writing that graduates will not pay more under Labour in 2023, the white paper evidently tells a different story.

Every time I tell student officers that the household threshold for the maximum student maintenance is £25,000 and has been since 2007, they look at me in disbelief. If we imagined for a second that all students were ecstatic about studying industrial strategy related courses, most are still going to need to work 20+ hours to get through the degree.

Whilst the sector reflects on the white paper and how its limited vision for HE shapes up against the government’s strategy for growth, I’m stuck thinking about how none of this changes the immediate reality that the student experience is being shaved off, one bit at a time.

At institutions where they’re experiencing acute financial pressures, this looks like staff cuts, shorter library hours, reduced module choice, less support staff, longer mental health waiting times and closed courses. And now national policy suggests none of this will be tackled anytime soon, and pushes institutions to specialise more with limited (but influential) policy levers, which will only serve to limit student choice.

I’ve often been struck by the Department for Education’s focus on appearances. They’ll announce an increase in fees but it’s accompanied by a rise in maintenance loans (by mismatched inflation figures) that is positioned as solving students’ cost of living pressures. They kick the can down the road and move on – this was the case last year and seems to be the same now.

And despite widening access being a government priority, it seems paradoxical that the white paper’s direction of travel is one that encourages provider specialisation, ignores the scenario of market exit, suggests mergers and efficiency without student protection and does not adequately address the maintenance system. This will only limit choice, worsen access and lead to students struggling to survive just as much as universities are.

It’s either the case that the government does not prioritise students’ realities right now or that it simply does not understand them. I have to think it’s a bit of both.

So back in summer when I was asked what keeps me optimistic, my strongest reflection was that watching the work officers do, whether it’s changing policy and processes at their university or lobbying the government, is what ultimately keeps me rooted and motivated.

And faced with more policy that sidelines students, this year’s student leaders and arguably the sector will need to keep the pressure on and ensure the government is listening if the sector is able to continue to survive, and students with it.

Join Mack and Team Wonkhe at the Festival of Higher Education on 11-12 November for more on this discussion, as well as plenty of other thought-provoking sessions. Take a look at the programme and grab your ticket before they’re all gone.