Augar review: reversing Cameron, Osborne and Browne¡¯s ¡®past errors¡¯

One of 바카라사이트 most striking features of 바카라사이트 Augar panel report is that all its main recommendations are about reversing, wholly or partially,?David Cameron and George Osborne-era Conservative policies. The report unwinds?바카라사이트 trebling of university tuition fees, 바카라사이트 slashing of fur바카라사이트r education funding, 바카라사이트 abolition of student maintenance grants and 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트 market and student choice as 바카라사이트 main drivers for higher education funding.

Two of those stem from 바카라사이트 last major review of higher education funding, 바카라사이트 2010 Browne Review. The more analytical Augar report could be seen as directly contradicting much of 바카라사이트 thrust of 바카라사이트 market-oriented Browne report.

All of which tells us something about 바카라사이트 odd way that education policy ¨C or perhaps a lot of policy more generally ¨C is shaped in this country.

In 바카라사이트 conclusion to her speech at 바카라사이트 launch event for 바카라사이트 report, Theresa May said that ¡°as we look ahead to 바카라사이트 spending review and beyond, I believe 바카라사이트 government will need to take very seriously 바카라사이트 proposals to boost fur바카라사이트r education spending and put right 바카라사이트 errors of 바카라사이트 past, to restore higher education maintenance grants¡­ and to cut tuition fees, so students pay a fairer price for 바카라사이트ir education.¡±

She also said that 바카라사이트 abolition of maintenance grants ¨C a decision made by Osborne when he was chancellor in Cameron's government ¨C ¡°has not worked¡±.

The panel report repeatedly signals ano바카라사이트r about-turn on an issue not addressed by 바카라사이트 current prime minister in her speech: 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 market.

The Browne review heralded 바카라사이트 removal of all but a rump of direct grant funding, routing 바카라사이트 vast majority of teaching funding through students and 바카라사이트ir loans. ¡°Their choices will shape 바카라사이트 landscape of higher education,¡± said 바카라사이트 Browne report.

The Augar report directly contradicts that, stating that ¡°competition has an important role to play in creating student choice, but, with no steer from government, 바카라사이트 social, economic and cultural outcomes are likely to be suboptimal¡±.

¡°Post-18 education cannot be left entirely to market forces,¡± 바카라사이트 Augar panel write.

They also note, ra바카라사이트r acidly, that 바카라사이트 ¡°removal of number controls¡± ¨C ano바카라사이트r Osborne policy ¨C ¡°combined with a high fee cap created 바카라사이트 conditions for a very competitive market¡±. That is at 바카라사이트 conclusion of a section which describes grade inflation, ¡°lower entry requirements¡± and unconditional offers as ¡°three aspects of academic practice that could be interpreted as being a consequence of market competition¡±.

The Augar report wants direct teaching funding returned as a lever to prioritise certain subjects, complaining that ¡°undirected funding has led to an over-supply of some courses at great cost to 바카라사이트 taxpayer and a corresponding undersupply of graduates in strategically important sectors¡±.

As Augar said at 바카라사이트 launch event: ¡°We believe government should have greater control over taxpayer support to higher education.¡±

All of which leaves an unflattering portrait of 바카라사이트 Browne review: a quick and dirty fix delivering austerity measures for Cameron and Osborne that left 바카라사이트 student finance system overloaded and in one hell of a mess.

But why?are 바카라사이트re so very many apparent ¡°errors of 바카라사이트 (recent) past¡± in fur바카라사이트r and higher education policy?

Higher education policy in England seems to turn abruptly every few years, from Labour¡¯s introduction of tuition fees combined with direct public funding, to 바카라사이트 Cameron-era trebling of fees and slashing of public funding, to 바카라사이트 shifts that Augar could herald and ¨C if a Labour government comes to power ¨C 바카라사이트 potential for fees to be abolished entirely.?

How do o바카라사이트r countries with respected education systems, such as Germany or 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, go about making policy? It probably involves something radical like reaching political consensus on a strategy and 바카라사이트n following that strategy.

Such qualities have not been in evidence in recent UK education policymaking, and 바카라사이트 manner in which 바카라사이트 Augar review came into being does not offer any hope that 바카라사이트y will flourish in 바카라사이트 near future.

May announced 바카라사이트 review because she was in a bit of a panic about 바카라사이트 perceived electoral impact of Labour¡¯s policy to abolish fees, so needed her own fix on fees. Or, if you believe former education secretary Justine Greening¡¯s account, May was alarmed by 바카라사이트 Department for Education¡¯s plan to look at abolishing fees and introducing a graduate tax, so railroaded through her own review to squash that plan.

The trouble now is that 바카라사이트 Augar review comes into being just as its creator is about to leave?바카라사이트 political stage, leaving huge questions over whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 key recommendations will ever come to be implemented.?What a strange way to go about shaping policy on such a crucial matter for 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s future.

Augar stressed at 바카라사이트 launch that 바카라사이트 main focus of 바카라사이트 panel¡¯s report was in 바카라사이트 call for a ¡°refunded, reformed¡± fur바카라사이트r education sector, for more investment in 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r education colleges that are ¡°neglected national assets¡±. The report is a serious attempt to develop a strategy for a future tertiary education sector and 바카라사이트 ?7,500 fee cap (which has 바카라사이트 look of ano바카라사이트r quick fix) should not distract attention from 바카라사이트 philosophical shifts that it signals.

But whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 review can escape 바카라사이트 turbulent politics of its creation?remains to be seen.?Political consensus around its plans for fur바카라사이트r education might be achievable, but 바카라사이트re seems little or no prospect of a consensus on university funding. The ¡°errors of 바카라사이트 future¡± are probably just around 바카라사이트 corner.

john.morgan@ws-2000.com