Augar Review

Augar Review
Name	Augar Review
Date	2019–2019
Author	Independent Panel on Technical Education and Further Education (led by Philip Augar)
Jurisdiction	United Kingdom
Subject	Further education funding, higher education policy, tuition fees

Augar Review

The Augar Review was an independent panel report commissioned by the United Kingdom Cabinet Office and published in 2019 assessing post‑18 education and funding in England. Chaired by Philip Augar, the report examined links between higher education funding, further education funding, and skills gaps affecting sectors such as manufacturing, construction, healthcare, information technology, and finance. It proposed wide‑ranging reforms to tuition fees, student support, and vocational pathways intended to influence policy in the Treasury, Department for Education, and across parties including the Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), and Liberal Democrats.

Background and purpose

The Review was established amid debates triggered by the 2010–2017 reforms to higher education in the United Kingdom and the 2012 introduction of higher tuition fees affecting institutions like University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University College London, and the Russell Group. It responded to analyses from bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Higher Education Statistics Agency, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that highlighted issues in skills provision for employers such as Rolls-Royce, BT Group, NHS, and Barclays. The panel drew on evidence from stakeholders including the Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union Congress, Association of Colleges, and institutions such as City and Guilds, Open University, University of Manchester, Imperial College London, and Goldsmiths, University of London to advise ministers in Number 10, HM Treasury, and the Department for Education.

Key recommendations

The Review recommended cutting the headline tuition fee cap that affected universities like University of Edinburgh and University of Glasgow and replacing the prevailing student loan repayment structure overseen by Student Loans Company with a new real‑terms repayment threshold tied to average earnings data from Office for National Statistics. It proposed increasing maintenance support for students attending colleges such as South Thames College, reducing funding disparities between institutions like King's College London and further education providers like Leicester College, and expanding apprenticeships similar to models used by Siemens and Jaguar Land Rover. The Review advocated for a shift of public funding towards "high value" courses in fields including nursing, teacher training, engineering, computer science, and accounting, and called for strengthened routes via T‑levels developed by Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and vocational awards like those from City and Guilds.

Financial and funding implications

The proposals implied significant fiscal adjustments for the Treasury and affected public borrowing metrics tracked by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Cuts in fee caps and changes to loan terms would alter income streams for higher education institutions such as Durham University and University of Warwick and modify the balance of block grants administered by Education and Skills Funding Agency. Increased maintenance grants and bespoke funding for further education colleges would shift allocations across agencies including Student Loans Company and Skills Funding Agency, and interact with national programmes like Apprenticeship Levy and Advanced Learner Loans.

Reactions and responses

Responses spanned political and institutional actors: leaders in the Conservative Party (UK) gave cautious endorsements while figures in the Labour Party (UK) and Scottish National Party debated devolutionary implications affecting Scottish Government and Welsh Government responsibilities. University bodies such as the Universities UK and college groups including the Association of Colleges issued detailed briefings; trade unions like University and College Union and Unison reacted over staff pay and workload. Employers represented by the Confederation of British Industry and Federation of Small Businesses commented on skills supply, while think tanks like the Resolution Foundation, Institute for Fiscal Studies, and IPPR published economic appraisals.

Implementation and impact

Implementation depended on policy choices by successive administrations in Westminster and required legislative and budgetary action involving the Treasury and House of Commons votes. Some recommendations influenced adjustments to fee setting and funding allocations for further education colleges such as New City College and projects piloted alongside T‑levels rollout. The Review's proposals affected discussions on student support for overseas‑facing institutions like London School of Economics and regional campuses including University of Southampton and University of Leeds. Measured impacts on enrolment patterns, graduate earnings tracked by Longitudinal Education Outcomes, and employer training uptake were assessed in follow‑on analyses by organisations like the Higher Education Funding Council for England and Office for Students.

Criticism and legacy

Critics from sectors including the University and College Union, National Union of Students, and academic commentators argued the Review undervalued humanities courses at universities such as University of York and University of Exeter, risked destabilising smaller providers like Birkbeck, University of London, and relied on contested fiscal assumptions debated with bodies like the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Office for Budget Responsibility. Proponents highlighted potential rebalancing toward technical skills benefiting employers such as GSK and AstraZeneca. The Review's legacy lies in reframing debates on post‑18 education policy affecting institutions across the UK, influencing party manifestos, parliamentary inquiries, and subsequent policy work by agencies such as the Department for Education and Office for Students.

Category:Reports about education in the United Kingdom