by Harry de Barr

Changes to the current landscape

For close followers of the Labour Party over the past year, it is clear where Bridget Phillipson’s priorities lie. If she successfully takes control of the levers of power at the Department for Education on July 5th, skills shortages and apprenticeships are of primary concern, while transforming Higher Education will have to take a backseat.

In comparison to the Conservative’s bold proposal to get rid of ‘low-quality’ courses, Labour takes a different stance, pledging to lower university repayments and forge a more collaborative relationship between universities and central government to improve student outcomes.

If the Government does change, some of the current pressures on the Higher Education sector will be lessened. The Department for Education will no longer ‘encourage’ universities to abandon degrees with less academic rigour. A Labour government will want to avoid being seen to limit university options, particularly after promising to ‘continue to support the aspiration of every person who…wants to go to university’ in their manifesto.

Nevertheless, debates around the quality of education provision and the value for money of a university education will remain as students face ever-increasing debt burdens. Recent calls to limit the numbers of foreign students will also disappear, and Labour will seek to strike a more welcoming tone. It’s likely that universities will win this argument on the basis that international tuition fees subsidise the places of British students and help to fund vital research projects.

Promises of a new government

Beyond this, Labour under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have drifted from the promises of a party that pledged to abolish tuition fees in 2019. The manifesto, launched on 13 June, contained few specifics and plenty of fiscal caution, making the vague promise to ‘act to create a secure future’ for the sector.

Professor Howard Stevenson of the University of Nottingham predicts that serious reform is ‘unlikely.’ He foresees that ‘public universities will continue to mimic the commercial sector’ where ‘managerialism and performative metrics loom larger’ to the detriment of establishing more agile, specialist higher education institutions that cater to fast-changing labour markets.

Instead, we are likely to see a review established into fairer funding for Higher Education to delay any costly policy decisions for at least a year as well as a renewed focus on improving accessibility for those from under-represented groups and disadvantaged backgrounds. Labour have also promised to move away from short funding cycles for research institutions in favour of 10-year budgets designed to create lasting partnerships with industry.

Professor Rob Ford of the University of Manchester suggests that the lack of concrete plans for Higher Education in the manifesto indicates that Labour’s policy strategists might be ‘aware there is a problem and are keeping their options open.’

Will Labour be able to deliver on their bold plan for post-16 education?

Promising a ‘comprehensive strategy’ to bring Further and Higher Education closer together, Labour have vowed to create a brand-new body in Skills England, which will devolve funding for adult skills to Combined Authorities so that local leaders gain more power to fill skills shortages in their communities.

This new body will co-ordinate between local government, businesses, training providers and unions. It is Labour’s stated aim to guarantee that ‘all 18–21-year-olds are offered training, an apprenticeship, or help to find work’.

An incoming Labour government will face at least one major challenge in this sector: bridging the growing attainment gap. How does a government deliver greater university access to those from a disadvantaged background while simultaneously steering those who score lower UCAS tariff points, who come from that same demographic, towards vocational skills training courses?

This conflict will be difficult to manage, and in the future, Phillipson may find herself trying to explain to Parliament how British universities have become less diverse due to the success of Labour’s own skills agenda.

Looking Forward

We’re really interested in how a new government, whoever that may be, will deliver on their promises for a brighter future. Through our work with higher educational institutions including University College London, London South Bank University and King’s College London, 4OC has a vested interest, and like much of the population, are keen to see how this plays out. Sufficient funding, support and vision being given to organisations delivering, and to students receiving ,an academic or vocational education will be the key to addressing a number of issues the UK is facing right now.

Preparing for Change in Education

If you want to chat with our education team about the trickle-down effects your organisation might feel in the wake of the election, get in touch at hello@the4oc.com. Check out our previous work with King’s College University where we have delivered cost-effective, practical improvements to help improve student experience.

If you’d like to read more about what each party is proposing for education, here are links to their manifestos:

Labour’s plan for education

Conservatives’ plan for education

Liberal Democrats’ plan for education

Reform’s plan for education