Compared to the A-Level results fiasco, further education colleges have a much bigger challenge

Chronically underfunded and generally ignored by ministers, post-16 education will be expected to absorb the young people who are unable to work, writes Vince Cable

Apprenticeships are in short supply post-Covid (Getty)

It is better for governments to suffer the embarrassment of a U-turn than to drive ahead into a brick wall. But while a U-turn may avert a crash, it doesn’t solve the problems presented by alternative routes. That is the difficulty the government now finds itself in. Having temporarily pacified angry students who failed to secure expected A-level grades and university places, they have created a new set of problems around university admission, and students who may, now and in future, be angry for other reasons of perceived unfairness.

There was bound to be a serious problem around grading once the decision had been made to scrap public exams this year. It is being conveniently forgotten that, even with exams, there is an uproar every year with allegations of unfairness and biases (against disadvantaged communities and individuals; in favour of independent and grammar schools). This year, the obvious alternative was to rely on schools’ predicted grades based on mock exams and teacher assessments. The reasons for trying to override these assessments by an “objective” algorithm stem in part from a lack of trust in the professionalism of teachers. Ministers assume that they will try to boost their own classes and schools by inflating predictions. And any inflation of grades causes an over-supply of qualified students.

In the event, a U-turn was inevitable for several reasons, over and above the political damage being inflicted on the government by the sight of angry and anxious middle-class young people and their parents on the News at Ten. The most fundamental was the failure to understand the underlying grievance that in a society which claims to reward hard work and achievement, life chances were being manipulated by an algorithm based on impersonal averaging rather than individual merit.

The credibility of the algorithm was then destroyed by revelations of systematic bias and error. The advice of the Royal Statistical Society had been ignored (allegedly because of the insistence on “gagging” clauses in advisers’ contracts). Once the Scots had carried out a U-turn, and the Welsh and Northern Irish devolved authorities had threatened to do the same, the government position in relation to England became untenable.

So, we are back to the teachers’ assessments. Although there are numerous variations by subject, grade level and type of school, the big picture is that the teachers were “right” about 80 per cent of the time but collectively inflated outcomes. Top grades were achieved by 25 per cent of students last year while teachers predicted them for 37 per cent.

The practical consequence is that if university “offers” are to be made on the basis of teacher-assessed grades, many more places will have to be found and many of those allocated in the last few days will have to be reallocated. Students who previously didn’t qualify for their first choice now will. Universities are being left to sort out the mess.

I know from five years as the secretary of state responsible, working with my coalition colleague David Willetts, the then universities minister, that universities can be very precious. They are particularly sensitive about their independence from government, though they could not function at all without income from the government’s student fee loan system; the public financing of research; public funding of high-cost subjects; and support for “access” schemes for the disadvantaged.

My party, in particular, suffered a grievous political injury for boosting the universities’ tuition fee income which – along with overseas students, paying full fees – has kept the sector afloat financially. But in return, the universities were freed from a Soviet-style system of “planning” admissions under which they were penalised for recruiting “excess” students, above an approved “cap”, and punished for under-recruiting if it led to loss of income.

This year, the Treasury won its ongoing battle to reverse this reform which had weakened its financial control. Now, faced with an unexpected influx of students, the renewed cap has had to be lifted again. But the financial implications are unclear. The better-endowed institutions will, no doubt, follow the public-spirited example of Worcester College, Oxford, in making it clear that all conditional offers will now be honoured if students have the necessary predicted grades. But many universities will want to see the colour of the government’s money, particularly in financing more places in medicine, engineering and science where fees do not cover costs.

Financial pressures could not have come at a worse time, since many universities are already in dire straits. Some are facing bankruptcy. The fee income settlement of 10 years ago has been eroded by rising costs, and universities have also become dangerously dependent on takings from overseas students. Because of Covid-19, many of them may not turn up this September. Most will be quarantined in any event.

Chinese students may additionally feel that the government’s new, ill-judged, hostility towards China renders the UK a less friendly place to study. Because of Brexit, European students will not come since they will face full commercial fees. There’s also the fact that, in my view, universities can be their own worse enemies, with extravagant spending on administration and a reluctance to reform traditional teaching systems and course design. Nonetheless, even the best and most flexible will struggle.

The problems will not end once the students have been allocated and arrive. Many students who were so desperate for places will quickly realise that university life is not a bed of roses. They will be taking out loans for maintenance and tuition even though universities are not able to offer a full student experience. Lectures and, perhaps more pressingly, much social activity will be curtailed as long as the pandemic continues. And there is growing evidence that students on poor quality courses were not getting “value for money”, even pre-Covid.

Those angry young people demanding university places may soon be irate students demanding a rebate on fees which universities will not be able to concede because they are necessary for the survival of these institutions. One way of meeting the students’ concerns is for the government to agree to slash the severe, and frankly extortionate, interest rate on loans. The current formula (RPI plus 3 per cent) was insisted on by the Treasury 10 years ago when it mistakenly imagined that the era of low market interest rates was only temporary. The loan interest now artificially prolongs the period for which graduates have to pay, even if they go on to earn good salaries. But reducing the rate would require Rishi Sunak unselfishly sharing some of his pile of political capital with his colleagues.

Ministers will be living in hope that, after the U-turn, the government can relax, knowing that there will not be a similar storm over GCSEs. Yet it is worth remembering that half of young people do not go to university. The prospects for those joining the labour market now are utterly dire. Those who have failed to get C grades in GCSE maths and English will not be able to embark on apprenticeships (which are, in any event, in short supply post-Covid). There will be large numbers of young people unable to work and unable to progress in vocational training.

The further education colleges, which are chronically underfunded and generally ignored by ministers, will be expected to absorb the young people who are left behind, give them remedial education and some hope. This challenge for post-16 education is far more acute than the fall-out from the A-Level U-turn, but it affects many of the worst off young people and remains too often hidden from view.

Sir Vince Cable is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and served as secretary of state for business, innovation and skills from 2010 to 2015