Augar reviewed, reviewed

The unexpectedly early election threw a lot of plans into disarray.

As Rishi Sunak took his ultimately doomed gamble on an early July polling day, the EDSK think-tank were preparing a detailed and thoughtful examination of the legacy of the Augar report.

The report is out – it is great – but it would perhaps have hit harder, and been more influential, pre-election.

Augar had many strands, but one key theme was a desire for what we might call “tidiness” in tertiary education. England’s post-compulsory system is messy, is difficult to navigate, and is filled with seemingly arbitrary differences in funding and regulation. The conclusions of the Augar report primarily seek to address the funding differentials – while EDSK’s report looks beyond this to the wiring of regulation.

A lot of work underpins the recommendations, but I will quickly outline them as follows:

• England’s tertiary education system should encompass all learning – at all levels – beyond the age of 18
• A new regulator and funder, the National Tertiary Education Council (NTEC) will have oversight over the whole system – replacing the Office for Students (OfS), Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), and Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). A throwaway comment sees it (for some reason) working alongside Skills England.
• Classroom based tertiary education will have a fee limit of £6,000 a year. Fees will be covered by loans constructed more like a graduate tax – with stepped repayments, and real interest rates for high earners.
• Maintenance support would be unified across the tertiary sector. More funding would be available, and the earnings threshold would rise.
• A new employer levy (0.4 per cent of payroll via NI) would top up existing OfS funding to a £5bn “Teaching Support Fund” to provide additional teaching funding (based on cost) to the whole tertiary system. Likewise, there would be a single capital funding pot.
• This would be on top of the existing apprenticeship levy, which would be used to support apprenticeships and skills development
• Adult education and level three funding would be devolved, within a local tertiary education plan at Combined Authority level. These plans would attract funding via the above streams, and allocated to providers on a three year funding cycle. CAs would also “licence” providers, while provision would be “accredited” by the NTEC.
• A single set of sub-degree qualifications would be available via HE and FE.

The urge for funding equality and regulatory simplicity is a noble one – both students and providers struggle with the current mess of overlapping systems and there is clearly, for the want of a better term, scope for tidying things up a little.

What we don’t get into, as much, is why we need to bring everything together into a single system. The central idea of a unified system is taken rather as read – as a way to focus more spending and attention on the “skills” end. Scanning the education media over the last six years it feels like the case for FE is made on a regular basis, yet the movement in funding many have hoped for has not happened.

The argument for “parity” is a weak point in all such arguments. While an FE college training new electricians and a medical school training new doctors are both important parts of post-compulsory education, it does strike me that each one requires a different set of competencies – and thus (potentially) a different funding and regulatory regime.

There’s a lot to like – the parallel funding and steering role for employers is a particular highlight. However, EDSK notes that:

“As a result, those universities, colleges and apprenticeship providers helping learners of all ages progress by offering the right opportunities and pathways will not only be largely unaffected by the proposed changes, but they would almost certainly see their funding increase over time. Conversely, those tertiary education providers that prioritise their institutional self-interest are likely to see their funding dwindle.

Founding the tertiary system entirely on immediate needs would probably be a mistake. A decade ago, artificial intelligence was seen largely as an intellectual exercise with few real world benefits. Currently it is flavour of the month, with employers clamouring for these skills. Ten years on it could have died off to be replaced by a new technological fad – it could be anything. We didn’t know that AI would be a big deal in 2024, but we taught those skills anyway. What skills that we will need in ten years would be seen as “institutional self interest”?

And the much heralded Lifelong Learning Entitlement, which would allow undergraduate-style loans for a wider range of short courses, is seen as a model. Though, again, the animating idea is noble there is very little evidence of demand for this kind of loan-backed support.

Despite my mild reservations, this is a report well worth engaging with. But it appears that this report will be a swansong for EDSK – Director Tom Richmond has announced plans to wind up operations. Truly, you don’t choose the wonk life, the wonk life chooses you – and as such I look forward to seeing someone as capable, knowledgeable, and insightful as Tom in a great policy role in future. EDSK will be missed – in a world of hot takes and knee-jerk thinkpieces it was refreshing to see an organisation so committed to actually doing the reading.