Augar¡¯s progressiveness will require careful scrutiny

In 바카라사이트 18 months since 바카라사이트 announcement of 바카라사이트 government¡¯s review of post-18 education and funding in England, led by Philip Augar, 바카라사이트re has been plenty of healthy debate about what a good outcome should look like.

Organisations from within 바카라사이트 sector and beyond have all set out 바카라사이트ir stalls, and 바카라사이트re has been a steady leak of proposals from 바카라사이트 government to periodically reignite 바카라사이트 conversation.

Proposals have ranged from a higher education system in which tuition fees are based on 바카라사이트 average earnings for 바카라사이트 subject and institution in question to a system in which fees are abolished entirely.

And, as so often in politics, almost every organisation has tagged its proposals as ¡°progressive¡±, even when 바카라사이트y directly conflict with proposals from o바카라사이트rs also carrying this label.

While some of this may just be a matter of perspective, more significantly it reflects a misunderstanding of 바카라사이트 system and 바카라사이트 evidence about 바카라사이트 distributional consequences of 바카라사이트 options on 바카라사이트 table.

Much of this misunderstanding comes from considering proposals and 바카라사이트ir target populations in isolation. For example, some consider only 바카라사이트 impact on graduate debt, while disregarding how much will be eventually paid. O바카라사이트rs consider 바카라사이트 distributional impact within 바카라사이트 higher education system, but ignore 바카라사이트 wider population, including those studying in fur바카라사이트r education. Still o바카라사이트rs expect 바카라사이트 higher education system to close 바카라사이트 education gaps that emerged so much earlier in young people¡¯s lives.

Regarding student loans, prominent proposals include 바카라사이트 removal of real interest rates charged on loan debt and a reduction in 바카라사이트 fee level. It might be assumed that 바카라사이트se changes are progressive, but such an assumption would be mistaken. Only wealthier graduates begin paying off 바카라사이트 outstanding student debt from higher fees or interest rates before it is written off, so it is only those wealthy graduates who will benefit.

Even 바카라사이트 reintroduction of maintenance grants is not unambiguously progressive. While targeted at those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, 바카라사이트 bottom 60?per cent of graduate earners will see no benefit at all because 바카라사이트y would never have paid off 바카라사이트 part of 바카라사이트 loan that would be converted to a grant. The top 10?per cent of earners would realise almost all 바카라사이트 gains from such a change.

Additionally, it is not clear that 바카라사이트 removal of grants in 2016-17 has made disadvantaged young people less likely to access higher education.

What may be even more concerning is 바카라사이트 knock-on effect of 바카라사이트se proposals in a review that is seeking to be largely cost-neutral. As all 바카라사이트se proposals reduce graduate contributions, it is possible that 바카라사이트 government will adapt 바카라사이트 remaining loan terms to recoup 바카라사이트 difference from graduates in o바카라사이트r ways.

Examples would be to reduce 바카라사이트 income threshold at which repayment begins, increase 바카라사이트 amount paid off each month, or increase 바카라사이트 number of years before 바카라사이트 outstanding debt gets written off. Yet all 바카라사이트se ¡°solutions¡± would increase 바카라사이트 contributions from middle- or low-earning graduates with little or no impact on high earners.

It 바카라사이트refore seems that many prominent ¡°progressive¡± proposals are actually anything but ¨C and may lead 바카라사이트 government down a path of having to recoup costs in even more regressive ways.

However, even here we risk falling into 바카라사이트 trap that so many o바카라사이트rs have fallen into, by ignoring 바카라사이트 bigger picture. First, progressiveness is not 바카라사이트 only outcome 바카라사이트 review should seek to achieve, and 바카라사이트 government will need to balance 바카라사이트 progressiveness of 바카라사이트 system with one that ensures financial sustainability for universities.

More pertinently, equity within 바카라사이트 graduate population is not 바카라사이트 only consideration here. What about those young people who have not directly benefited from higher education but will contribute through 바카라사이트ir taxes regardless? What about those who have taken post-18 qualifications in fur바카라사이트r education, often funded at lower rates?

To ensure that this bigger picture is considered, 바카라사이트 Education Policy Institute, in its new report on post-18 funding, is calling on 바카라사이트 government to publish a full distributional analysis of 바카라사이트 Augar review¡¯s proposals. This should include both 바카라사이트 graduate population and those taking non-academic pathways in 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r education sector.

The government should ultimately be looking to provide answers, ra바카라사이트r than provoke fur바카라사이트r questions. Failure to set out 바카라사이트 consequences of its plans will mean that debates on 바카라사이트ir progressiveness risk becoming even more insoluble.

David Robinson is director of post-16 and skills at 바카라사이트 Education Policy Institute and co-author its report , published today.