Last week, tuition fees were finally lifted in line with inflation. Only this year of course – there’s still a huge real term cut from when they were set. And it will all be absorbed by national insurance rises.
If this feels like a relief, it is only because of the expectation game the DfE and the Treasury expertly and consistently play (not least because research was not subject to the level of “tucking under” many feared in the budget). It’s rob Peter to pay, well, Peter.
Alongside the non-increase in overall money, Bridget Phillipson was explicit she wants universities to do more. Universities must do and be seen to do more to grow the economy; their contributions to local communities must strengthen; opportunities for disadvantaged students must be increased. Teaching quality must improve, and there must be a renewed drive for efficiency.
In short – Labour wants universities to work harder and on specific priorities.
I agree with all these aims, but it’s a lot. Particularly because I don’t see the fiscal situation improving much for universities. Labour is projecting almost no growth (what happened to growth being the main priority? God I hope that’s coming). Other parts of the system will remain further towards the front of the queue for money. And the political situation for the government is going to be very, very challenging.
In other words, even if universities are going to be a priority for reform, they are not going to be a priority for investment.
Not even top five
Why won’t they be a priority? Three reasons: the public don’t care about them as much as the NHS or schools; the students who use them are unconvinced they need more money (they think £9k+ a year is loads, and so do their parents); and their impact on the wider economy and society feels abstract.
This last really matters and is the only one universities can really control. If you do not come up with concrete ways to make yourselves more interesting and important, no one else will do it for you and you will lose, badly, in the coming years.
Let me give a small, but important, example. Universities rarely explain their impact in a way politicians or people can easily understand. Abstract gross value added (GVA) numbers are just that: abstract. They’re also not, usually, very large: politicians are submerged in reports from big industries and companies with billions thrown about left, right, and centre. They usually can’t remember any of these numbers, but if they do, universities are not going to cut through.
What politicians remember – just like people – are real-world impacts: waiting lists down; vaccines created; careers created; famous companies formed.
Universities must tell that story, and they will have to be alive to the way the government sees the next five years.
The red flag
Here, the Budget and Phillipson’s focus tells us a lot. It was class conscious in a way we haven’t seen for some time – probably even pre-Blair. It is self-consciously on the side of the workers, not the employers, and will only grudgingly accept that taxes on the latter hit the former. It thinks a huge priority for schools, in relatively tough financial circumstances, is those with SEN. It may well want reforms to the NHS and public services, but not enough to demand it as a quid pro quo for funding.
In other words, it is interested in working people; in those who have a tough time in life; in the public sector; and in hearts as much as minds. It reallocates as much as it seeks to grow. In time, it is also going to become very sensitive to small business – as accusations that Labour is not on their side after the budget grow.
It is in that context that universities are going to have to talk. What do you do for your own workers, the wider supply chain, and as opportunities for people across your area? How exactly does being a trainer of nurses, teachers and doctors support public services in your area? Why is your approach leading to more companies and more jobs? Big numbers won’t cut it – but numbers that describe, compellingly, the impact of your decisions will.
This is not just a comms strategy. It should have implications for the actual strategy universities pursue, as well as how they describe its impact. That is extremely hard in a tough financial climate, but I don’t see another way to reverse what now feels like an inexorable decline in support from government here and, indeed, in many other comparator countries. The alternative is to make the same arguments, in the same way, to the same officials. And as we can see, it’s just not working.
I’m broadly supportive of most of the above. However, in my experience, one of the biggest barriers to resolution concerns a messaging dynamic whereby funding pressures are minimised at the local level. There is a German idiom which tells us that no fishmonger shouts “rotten fish”. In the same way (and given the competitive circumstances in which intuitions exist), very few are going to ‘fess’ to the existence of deficits, let alone issues of liquidity. I recognise that different institutions are in different positions. That said, in common with making a positive business case, the sector needs to find a way to publicly articulate the parameters of the crisis which many of its parts confront. The alternative is to accept a Panglossian non-settlement which can only accelerate the process of merger, consolidation and decline. Is it really pragmatic to seem to accept that which cannot be sustained? As for fees, we know that our kids will be working longer, harder and paying more tax to sustain an older and sicker cohort of retirees, etc. Again, are we really saying that the only way in which we can fund the sector is by sending them out into the labour market under conditions of near indenturement?
This does get to the nub of the problem that the sector needs to face up to, and start to address. HE will be low down the list of priorities for government, now and in the future of whatever political colour. The sector leadership has to get away from simply saying we need more money, when there is much that is clearly wrong and where the regulator is failing to regulate effectively. Clampdowns on executive pay and perks, poor quality provision particularly in the area of franchised and partner provision, wasteful and ever increasing spend on non student facing activity would be a start. Whether the sector’s leadership is capable of that is something that I rather doubt.
An excellent article which tells it like it is. Universities are not a priority for investment or expenditure and they will need to do more to improve access, promote economic growth, tackle local skills issues, improve efficiency and maintain the quality of the student experience. A tough remit, but not impossible, many in the sector are quietly doing it already. To deal with these things there will need to be changes and this will be painful in terms of staffing numbers and courses offered. It is good idea to plan those changes now and to implement them soon.
Public First famously claimed that raising tuition fees was less popular with voters than reintroducing national service. As Starmer now has a lower approval than Sunak did, perhaps they were right. Phillipson dislikes schools that charge fees and has rushed through VAT. Yet she has enabled Universities to increase their fees. Perhaps VAT will follow. Who knows. She says raising fees brought her “no joy”. On the other hand, she has lowered fees for classroom-based foundation years. Perhaps this made up her joy deficit. Who knows. Apparently a long term plan is coming to bring ‘major reform’ to the sector. Rachael Wolf seems to know what will be in the plan: Universities will be expected to grow the economy and fix social injustice for no extra investment. The NUS are saying that Labour’s big plan is to get students to foot the bill for keeping the lights on. How do politicians keep a straight face these days? Who knows.