Where did the spending review Axe fall as far as Education is concerned? All the spending review details published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies can be found at:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/346.
For Education specifically, here are the details:
Graduates and Universities:
Under proposals released today by the Browne Review of higher education funding and student finance, graduates would expect to pay on average at least £5,300 more for their degree, according to analysis by IFS researchers. However, the lowest-earning graduates would be protected from the burden of increased debt and would actually pay less than under the current system.
Despite the proposed increase in tuition fees to £6,000 or above, universities would not be likely to see any benefit: they would need to charge fees of £7,000 or more in order to recoup their losses from proposed cuts in public funding. The real winner of the proposed reforms is the Exchequer, which would save up to £6,000 on the cost of a degree for each student.
Download full version (PDF 428 KB)
A Progressive Graduate Tax?
Lord Browne’s recommendations for higher education funding have provoked controversy. The potential sharp increase in tuition fees has grabbed the headlines, but another proposed measure has also received considerable attention: increasing the interest rate on student loans to 2.2% above RPI inflation. There have also been criticisms of the review’s alleged lack of focus on the potential for a graduate tax. In this Observation, we explore both issues in some detail.
Full article at: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5307
Pupil Premium:
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg confirmed that the Government will introduce a ‘pupil premium’ in England. This will provide extra money to state schools for each pupil from a disadvantaged background.The Department for Education is currently consulting on the design of this pupil premium, and today IFS researchers publish their response to the consultation. Its two key conclusions are that:
- Overall, it would be broadly ‘progressive’ in the sense that the average percentage increase in funding would be greater for schools that are more deprived;
- But schools in more deprived areas would, under the proposed model, receive a smaller pupil premium than similarly-deprived schools in more affluent areas.
Luke Sibieta, a co-author of the report and a senior research economist at IFS, said:”The pupil premium proposed by the Government would be broadly progressive since more deprived schools have many more pupils who would attract additional funding. That the pupil premium should be higher in less deprived areas is hard to justify: it would widen inequalities in funding for deprived pupils, rather than reduce them. Attaching the same pupil premium to all disadvantaged pupils regardless of where they live would not only be simpler, it would also be more consistent with the Government’s stated objectives.”Download full version (PDF 824 KB)
Comments
cool