(Image: Damian Shields)
A citizens’ jury has called for more investment in higher education and a short-term shift in funding toward vocational and technical courses, while backing free higher education for everyone living in Scotland.
Convened by the Carnegie Education Fund and supported by Ipsos, the 19-person Scottish citizens’ jury called for prioritising public funding towards skills Scotland needs for the economy and public services.
It said that, in the short term, vocational and technical courses need more funding than academic degrees “that are less directly careers-based” until skills shortages are addressed.
However, the jury also noted that decisions about redirecting funding should be made “carefully” so they do not undermine access or sustainability for other pathways.
The jury agreed to seven principles for future higher education funding in Scotland:
- Prioritise skills needs
- Retain free access
- Protect fair access for disadvantaged students across all education pathways
- “Urgently” invest in colleges
- Reform university delivery rather than increase public investment
- Improve living-cost support with a sliding scale and more means-testing
- Encourage employer investment
Overall, the jury strongly supported keeping higher education free at the point of access for people living in Scotland, regardless of age, mode of study or income.
However, views were more divided on how to make the funding model more sustainable without jeopardising this key principle.
Boost college investment, but how?
According to the report, some jurors were “shocked” by the extent of the financial challenges colleges are facing.
The report said jurors were told colleges receive around £2,500 less in public funding per student than universities, and that funding shortfalls could threaten long-term sustainability.
In response, jurors expressed views that the current balance of funding appeared to “favour universities and that this was unfair towards other pathways”.
Some said universities should be less of a priority, suggesting Scotland has an “oversaturation of university graduates” alongside skills shortages that vocational education could fill.
Jurors were unanimous in their support for more investment in college-based higher education, while most of the jury (15) agreed that increased investment in colleges should come from a “reprioritisation of the Scottish Government budget and/or taxation.”
Jurors said they believed college education pathways contribute to key employment, access and mobility outcomes, and said that the current college financial situation makes the need for investment “urgent”.
Read more
- ‘No red lines, nothing off the table’ in university transformation talks
- I can't name the 27 colleges and universities forecasting deficits – here is why
- Union says university solutions should not 'exploit' or 'undervalue' staff
- Vocational education gains ground as universities face funding pressure
- Sir Anton Muscatelli: Universities have ‘run out of runway’ on funding
One participant called the situation a “Catch-22”, however, saying that public budgets are already stretched, colleges have “little or no capacity to resolve these issues independently”, but worried about the potential negative consequences of diverting funding away from other services, such as the NHS or police.
The group also called for more to incentivise employers and industry partners to invest in higher education, although it did not set out a clear model for how this might work.
University delivery vs funding reform
On university funding and reform, the jurors expressed clear priorities for retaining free tuition but were cautious about how the sector can become more sustainable.
The core principle of reducing delivery costs rather than increasing public investment received only marginal support before jurors added several specific actions.
These included shortening some full-time degrees from four years to three; delivering more learning online; and reducing the number of courses offered.
Still, members expressed concerns about the possible ramifications of how universities might change their delivery.
As one participant said, “It could be good, but it could be terrible.”
“For example, if the universities were going to reduce the amount of courses they offer, I actually think that could be a good thing.
“But if they just cut down the places and teach those courses badly, that would obviously be another disaster. So, I think we need to know more details.”
The strongest support was for universities to deliver more online learning (16 in favour, one opposed, two undecided).
Suggestions for shortening degrees included limiting this to certain programmes, with SHAPE (social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and economy) courses proposed at three years, while STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and vocational degrees would remain at four.
The jury said course reductions would need careful handling.
Some participants felt this could be acceptable if they protected courses they felt directly linked to careers and skills, although others warned that reducing courses could weaken universities’ overall appeal and reduce international student fee income.
This aspect of the principle received mixed support, with only 11 in favour.
Not all considerations were popular
In addition to the agreed principles, there were some proposals raised during the discussions that the jury ultimately rejected.
Jurors rejected reducing the number of government-funded university places, institutional mergers, and graduate contributions as a potential fallback funding supplement.
Hannah Garrow, Chief Executive Officer of the Carnegie Education Fund, said the jury was meant to be "broadly representative" of the population.
"Decisions about higher education funding affect everyone, yet the public’s voice has too often been missing from the debate.
“Involving the public in major policy debates is essential to building trust in government.
“The jury provided an important counterbalance to a policy debate which often features the same voices.
“What emerged was not a defence of the status quo. The jury understood the need for government to make difficult choices and prioritise when it comes to funding.
“They strongly supported free higher education but recognised that it is only the starting point when it comes to an equitable and effective post-school system. Living costs and personal circumstances still shape who can participate and succeed.
"Their message was that free access may get people through the door, but true equity is what happens next.
“Carnegie Education Fund was established 125 years ago to support participation in and improvement of higher education in Scotland. As an independent foundation, we want to see reform of Scotland’s post-school system that is built around clear outcomes and supports all learners, regardless of background, to find the right path to achieve their ambitions.”
A spokesperson for Colleges Scotland welcomed the jury report.
“Increasingly, there is broad consensus that vocational and technical education deserves greater prominence within the Scottish and UK education systems.
"Employers consistently tell us they need people with practical, technical and professional skills. Learners want flexible routes that allow them to earn, learn and progress throughout their working lives.
“Recent research by YouGov found that two-thirds (67%) of people living in Scotland back the prioritisation of technical and vocational qualifications – providing hands-on, job-specific training.
“Scotland’s colleges are the cornerstone of our vocational education system and valuable community anchors, empowering people of all ages and backgrounds to learn and secure good jobs and rewarding careers.”
In the report, the Carnegie Education Fund stressed that the findings are values-based conclusions from informed citizens, and are “not intended as technical recommendations”.
Two stakeholder-led projects are currently exploring potential reforms in both the university and college sectors, which include more detailed investigations of some of the themes discussed by the citizens' jury.
Professor Dame Sally Mapstone, a medievalist and Principal of the University of St Andrews, has been named to lead the next phase, Pillar 2, of the Future Framework for the Sustainability and Success of Scotland’s Universities.
Prof Mapstone recently told The Herald that there are "no red lines" and "nothing is off the table" in the planned discussions, which will investigate how the sector can transform in the face of a £200 million funding gap.
At the same time, the College Sector of the Future workstream is entering into its second phase, following an initial fact-finding period that synthesised existing data, including recent Audit Scotland and Scottish Funding Council (SFC) reports on the financial challenges colleges face.
A spokesperson for Universities Scotland said:
“Having a frank and genuine discussion on how to fund Scotland’s higher education sector has been a key priority for the Future Framework for the Sustainability and Success of Scotland’s Universities (Future Framework).
"This final Citizens Jury report from Carnegie Education Fund, from a small sample of the population, is an addition to that discussion and shows there is not a straight-forward or clear answer to the complex topic of university funding.
"The Future Framework continues to engage with a range of perspectives including students, prospective students, employers and businesses.
"Those voices will shape the future direction of the sector, ensuring it responds to meet diverse needs.”