It has been interesting to watch the current debate about higher education, and the level of debt incurred by students studying for a degree. Throughout the recent debate, I don’t think I have seen any reference to the 2019 Auger Committee report Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding set up by Theresa May when she was Prime Minster. Interestingly, I wrote a blog about the report after it was published, and you can read it here. Lower Fees: a threat to teacher education? | John Howson

My major concern at the time, back in 2019, was the Committee’s recommendation to reduce tuition fees to a maximum of £7,500 per year, and what that reduction might do to the funding of teacher preparation courses.

The recent debate about higher education funding has been around repayment levels and student debt, and Auger had a great deal to say about both that issue and the balance between the needs of the individual and the funding of higher education by the State. Suffice to say, the Committee ducked the issue of RPI versus CPI – leaving the decision to the Treasury. Had they had a crystal ball about the future direction of inflation, one wonders whether they might have been more assertive for a change?

However, their recommendation that interest not be calculated during a period of study, although the principal amount of the loan should still be increased in real terms, in order to reflect inflation, would have helped reduce repayments.

The recommendation of a cap on repayments would also have been useful in making clear how much the State would recover. However, the Committee did recognise that the system favoured well-paid graduates, as the sooner the loan was paid off, the lower the interest charges incurred.

As the Committee noted on page 174 of their Report.

“In the words of the Treasury Select Committee Report into student loans: “…the civil servant, the teacher and the accountant pay broadly similar amounts for their loan, but a graduate joining a “magic circle” law firm pays less, owing to rapid pay growth in the early stages of their career.”  House of Commons Treasury Committee (2018) Student Loans: Seventh Report of Session 2017-19, p15.

Regular readers will know that I have always maintained that making many, but not all, trainee teachers incur a fourth year of student debt, not required of other public servants has been a mistake, and a drag on recruitment into teaching and thus a damper on the economy of the country, as too many pupils fail to fulfil their full potential when taught by less than fully qualified teachers in certain subjects.

For several months now, I have been advocating the return of a bursary for trainee music teachers, to help stem the falling recruitment in that subject.

Realistically, I believe all teacher preparation courses should be debt-free. I also endorse Auguer’s recommendation that student debt should not carry interest payments while a person is studying an approved course.

The present debate about student funding will have alerted many would-be teachers to the fact that they will be paying interest on their loans while training to be a teacher, and also paying interest on the student loans for their teacher preparation courses. With starting salaries for teachers above the threshold for repayments, teaching doesn’t look like a worthwhile investment, and many are still not signing up to become teachers.

I would urge the government to look into the current funding model for trainee teachers, and to make it a level playing field for all, with no new debt, and no additional interest on undergraduate loans while studying to be a teacher.