[ Report of the Assistant Director for Schools and Learning. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council.]
This paper considers recent existing university bursary schemes and how they work (what they offer, eligibility criteria, etc) and sets out a proposed offer for Haringey young people with an associated budget.
Minutes:
The Leader was pleased to introduce the report which sought agreement to fund a Local Authority university bursary scheme for young people from low income families (under £30k PA total income) from the academic year 2021. The scheme was intended to support an increase in the percentage of those students from low income families who can go on to university at the end of year 13 and graduate.
The scheme would, among other things, support a monthly (Sept to June) bursary of £300 for the duration of the degree course, mentoring from year 13 (or before) through to graduation, the cost of the UCAS application and visits to two university open days during year 12/13.
It was proposed that the scheme run year on year, supporting up to 10 students through university at an eventual annual cost to the Council of £120k. The scheme would also make available a period of work experience within the Local Authority or one of its partners, aimed at the summer recess in the second year and based on two days a week for a period of eight weeks at London Living Wage.
The Leader spoke about education being unequal and opportunities at school or university skewed by where you come from. Children from the most deprived families tended to do less well at school and were less likely to go on to university, or any other form of higher education. Among those that do go to university, the most deprived students were more likely to drop-out and less likely to secure a top class degree.
The Leader described that inequality persists beyond graduation day. The most advantaged graduates were more likely to be in a high-skilled job after graduating, and BAME Russell Group university graduates are more likely to be unemployed than their white peers.
It was noted that no single injustice is responsible for the gap. Income and financial security were a major factor, but there were wider and subtler causes behind the gap too . The Leader outlined that ethnicity, class, health and household dynamics were just some them.
The Leader expressed that a lot of the inequalities that distort educational opportunity were deep-set and would take wide-ranging interventions to overcome. The Council could not reverse the government’s 2016 decision to abolish maintenance grants for low-income students for example. However, the leader felt that there was a clear role, indeed a leading role, that a local Council could play to improve opportunities and outcomes for the most deprived residents in its borough.
The scheme was central to that ambition and set out a slate of interventions to support children from some of the most deprived families in Haringey.
Following questions from Cllr Cawley- Harrison and Cllr das Neves, the following information was noted.
RESOLVED
Reasons for decision
Haringey is committed to creating greater equality, including in education and opportunities for access to higher education. Our borough has a stark socioeconomic gap between communities and, as the Borough Plan makes clear, the Council has a pivotal role to play in narrowing it. That ambition requires interventions on several fronts – of which higher education is just one.
The interventions in the university bursary scheme are designed in the context of wider inequalities. They aim not just to support young people who are weighing up the affordability of university or another form of higher education, but also to support them as they complete their university studies and with their entry to the job market afterwards through the provision of mentoring and work experience within the Local
Authority or partner organisation during the summer recess in the second year.
Using a fund of £120k per year and based on an assumed bursary of £3k grant per annum for each student, based on ten students, the following is proposed:
Year 1: 10 students = £30k
Year 2: 20 students = £60k
Year 3: 30 students = £90k
This would provide a monthly sum (Sept to June inclusive) of £300 per month for each of the ten students. Other costs relating to mentoring and application support, together with administrative costs bring the total for the scheme up an eventual
£120k per annum (see Appendix 4 of the report).
This report sets out details of the current education attainment gap for low income families and how the annual fund of £120k can support our young people from lower income families to access and achieve at higher education on a level that is closer to their higher income peers.
Alternative options considered
A number of alternative options were considered, including:
- A Southwark Scholarship Scheme approach
- A university grant: restricted to academic courses
- A Haringey Student Loan
Southwark Council’s Scholarship Scheme covers the full cost of tuition fees for students (£9,000 per year). However, the bursary scheme as proposed by this report is favoured because it supports the young person’s month to month living expenses by providing direct grant funding to give lower income students financial security that replicates some of the additional support middle income students often receive from their parents. Grants of this nature, which are smaller, can be distributed to more students – broadening the reach of the scheme.
A university grant that is restricted to academic courses was rejected on the basis that it would only support residents applying to university courses. Further, offering a cash grant for a certain type of course could create a perverse incentive, pushing individuals to choose an academic degree over another preferred form of higher education and to which they are more suited. The perceived hard line between academic and vocational courses is somewhat misleading. Some university courses are very clearly tied to a specific job or career. Some university courses include placements or internships, while some vocational courses include on-campus tuition. Creating a fund based on an unclear distinction could needlessly exclude some residents from support.
A Haringey Student Loan has been rejected because it would not reduce debt for students – and this is already a perceived barrier. The impact of reduced debt interest on a young person’s decision to pursue university is likely to be minimal.
Further, a loan scheme would create a large upfront cost for the Council and a great deal of financial uncertainty. It is very hard to project how many students will go on to earn salaries above £21,000 (the threshold at which repayments to the Student Loan
Company start to be made) and how consistently they will be earning.
A loan scheme would also require enforcement and collection. Staff resources would need to be allocated to this, potentially at a significant level of cost.
The Springboard Scholarship scheme as proposed, provides a broader ‘opportunity fund’ to give any eligible young person a route into post-18 educations – and the opportunities that come with it.
Supporting documents: