University VC - Scrapping maintenance grants 'a risk to social mobility that the Government ought urgently to reconsider'

When the Labour government of which I was a member scrapped student maintenance grants in 1999 we were quick to realise we had made an error. As Minister for Higher Education from 2005-2008 I was proud to see grants for the poorest students reinstated and subsequently extended. Now, as Vice Chancellor at the University of Bedfordshire, an institution with one of the best records of widening participation in the country, I see at first hand the real value of maintenance grants in supporting the most disadvantaged students into university and in keeping them there.

I became a Vice Chancellor in 2012, the same year the new undergraduate tuition fee regime took effect. Like many working in the higher education sector at the time I was concerned about the impact on access to university and committed to communicating the truth about the system. Yes, the price tag could be up to £9,000 a year, but the repayment schedule was reasonable and meant that those earning the most would ultimately pay more. Meanwhile, maintenance grants, which had been frozen for the past two years, were increased – sending a message to poorer entrants that those in power were prepared to invest in their social mobility.

The proposed conversion of student maintenance grants to loans announced in the 2015 Budget was devolved to a Delegated Legislation Committee, denying Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the impact of the change. Let’s be clear: this decision is far more than an accounting technicality. In an increasingly hollowed-out labour market, access to higher education is a key determinant of an individual’s life chances. Between 2004-2011 England saw an increase of higher education participation in higher education among students from the most disadvantaged areas of 43%, compared to an increase in students from the most advantaged of only 9%. Putting this progress at risk by scrapping maintenance grants constitutes a significant shift in how we as a society act on our responsibility to ensure that people can access the educational opportunities they need to pursue their ambitions. A proper debate is the least our students deserve.

If the student maintenance proposals are implemented students from the lowest-income households could see their projected repayments on graduation increase by up to £13,500. Whether these increased repayments act as a deterrent to entering higher education will depend on the level of tolerance individuals have for ever-increasing levels of repayment. We cannot know what the long-term impact will be, but the government’s own equality impact assessment suggests that students with caring responsibilities, and on ethnic minority students may be disproportionately affected – students who already face practical and cultural barriers to university access.

Not all students expect to enter a high-paying job. For many, simply achieving a higher education qualification represents a huge leap from what they had previously thought themselves capable of. Many of my students aspire to work in the creative arts, the public sector or therapeutic professions. And most do not have access to the contacts of advisers and supporters that students from wealthy families take for granted. While universities work hard to redress those disadvantages, we have to accept that whether through the ongoing effects of social injustice or through simple personal preference, many graduates will not earn top salaries. To saddle those graduates with increased long-term repayments is a risk to social mobility that the government ought urgently to reconsider.