Tag Archives: education

Disability and education in Suffolk – the costs and hidden costs

The first tranche of Suffolk’s  review of its special educational provision – the consultation  -finished last Sunday. I responded jointly as councillor and as parent as the form allowed.

We were told that the review was  focusing on the following three types of current specialist educational provision:
1) Specialist Support Centres (SSCs) (I am in favour, indeed I would like Suffolk to establish another one in the north west of the county); 2) Residential provision in Moderate Learning Disability (MLD) Special Schools (I felt this  needed  discussion with parents as best placed to define wants) and
3) 
Alternative Provision (AP). Alternative Provision was used in the consultation as a catch-all for  ‘any provision that provides education that is not a mainstream school or academy’. It includes all provision for young people with specialist health issues, for example autism, and epilepsy which is  often provided out of county at great expense (and now to age 25 because of recent legislation). AP was also used to include  PRUs (Pupil Referral Units): facilities offering a part time or full time education for pupils who exhibit challenging behaviour. Typically pupils spend 2 terms in a PRU before being reintegrated back into school.

We were told

Currently the county council is experiencing considerable pressures with the number of learners with additional needs (236 currently) needing to be educated in non – Suffolk settings, with learners requiring access to Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) provision accounting for 151 of the 236 learners

However, in the consultation, despite these remarks on the cost of out-of-county placements in general the AP question  focused entirely on PRUs (see below)!

The third question - on Alternative Provision (that is, ) only mentioned PRUs!)
The third question of three- on Alternative Provision – only mentioned Pupil Referral Units!)

Now, as regards PRUs, I would not throw the baby away with the bathwater and would definitely ensure that  excellent provision in Suffolk is not lost in any rationalisation we undertake, and I was happy to respond saying as much.

HOWEVER, I concentrated most of my response on the hidden question  of what Suffolk is doing, or rather not doing, for students – like my own child – who was fortunate enough eventually to be sent out of Suffolk because Suffolk SEND education so completely failed to provide an education for them (despite costly but unstructured, unquantified and unthought-out  ‘interventions’ ).

This is not because of my personal interest but because of my understanding of the cost involved on the one hand, and the reasons for the cost on the  other.

SEND covers a hugely wide range of conditions; individual schools  seem to provide pretty much what education they choose to these (clearly second-class) pupils and SCC, the statutory authority for education and social care, often has to pick up the costly pieces of their cherry-picking failure. Why should this be the case?

Looking at this SEND consultation it seems that there may be a tendency to view the cost of premises and salaries as where cost-savings and rationalisation could be made.  I therefore urged SCC to look at the often inappropriate delivery of SEND education itself.

For a start , why should (as ever) the needs of young people with social and behavioural problems be asked to conflict with those with health issues and cognitive deficits?

As  example, my own child with a physical disability  was educated away from her peers  in a unit along with those with anger issues and other behavioural problems. Why?  You tell me.  Seemingly for the same reason as her current education establishment  (a specialist college outside Suffolk dedicated to her medical  condition)  is conflated with PRUs  in the reply box for this consultation.

(And even then, PRUs who educate short-term those who can be reintegrated into mainstream school are given the whole of Box 3 in a 3 box consultation document supposedly dealing globally with educational provision for Special Educational Needs and Disability. The disabled once again become second-rate citizens?  You couldn’t make it up). It is neither fair or reasonable to either group.

So, redressing the balance and talking specifically about educating specifically disabled young people – Suffolk’s  continuing failure  in  the field of SEND teaching and  curriculum delivery is expensive and an essential part of our problem. It is an area that this consultation document seemed reluctant to address.

Let us not beat about the bush – I’ve heard stories of parents who treat SEND provision as if it were ‘childcare’ but I would contend that there is a lot of Suffolk SEND provision that is arguably little better than childcare: with ‘educators’  seeing little responsibility for the future of their students; setting challenges that do not challenge and awarding gold stars and pats on the head instead of a  robust and rigorously constructed syllabus looking realistically towards their future after education.

SEND education – if it is NOT to be childcare – should be looking at the longterm future of the pupil. If it is to be effective and cost-effective , it should explore possibilities of independence, expect  the possibility of paid employment, work for realistic integration with employers’ needs , not be dismissive and patronising of pupils’ potential,  skills, capacities. ( Here, the  education, employment and discrimination sections of this blog post (click for link) although epilepsy-specific, have universal relevence.   Suffolk produced a strategy document 2015-18  last October. But non-specific optimism  is no good without teeth and this was toothless. Just like Suffolk’s current  Inclusion and Equalities strategy which completely excludes having to contemplate the situation of all the disabled people in Suffolk  and their inability to find work because they have not received adequate or even appropriate training or education  (see link). Disabled people and their problems seem remarkably invisible to the policymakers of Suffolk).

Yet not educating, or mis-educating these young people  is at the short- and long-term expense of the taxpayer as well as the young person.  And failure to address the need  of provision in-county has greater ramifications now we have a statutory duty to provide to age 25. We have an absolute need to question and query and qualitatively analyse the outcome  of what is taught to young people with disabilities in the same way as we assess and monitor mainstream provision.

Will Suffolk now improve the SEND offer so that disabled young people can expect the same quality and monitoring of  education  as their able-bodied peers get by right?  Not, you might say, a very big ask.  And a damn sight cheaper ask then sending them out of county, like nineteenth century black sheep to the colonies.

We wait for the next stage of the consultation to see whether these issues have been taken on board.

Specialist Education Provision in Suffolk – help shape the future

Suffolk County Council are currently consulting widely and with a completely open mind about the future of specialist education provision in Suffolk.

Opposition councillors were naturally sceptical that this was cover for money-saving, but  very clear and open answers to our questions from  officers have reassured us that this is not a cost-cutting exercise (the money is ring-fenced) but about spending it to best advantage and with better outcomes.

At the moment, Suffolk has 256 young people sent out of county at the cost of £11m a year for educational provision that Suffolk has not been able or willing to provide in county; some of our PRUs ‘require improvement’ (one is in special measures) and are more expensive and produce worse outcomes than Norfolk’s (which are rated outstanding), and all the SSCs (specialist support centres)  are located in one quadrant of the county because historically they were only sited in schools that declared themselves willing to house them. This means there is no provision in the north and west of the county and some children are making two 75-minute journeys a day to reach them.

Suffolk is is now wanting your input to find the best way to address these issues and others.

From  11 January – 7 February 2016  people have the opportunity to give your views on a range of options Suffolk are looking at, and you can also suggest other ideas for Suffolk to consider. (We have been assured that nothing has been predetermined or decided. This is genuinely a consultation )

After this, 14 March – 24 April 2016 there will be a formal consultation on the proposed changes:  a 6 week formal consultation period where you can make representations to the Council – both expressions of support or objections to the proposals.

So, whether you are concerned or worried, or simply want to add your voice to the debate –  please respond and add your views! They will be valued  You can find the documents here

What happened in Suffolk 2012-13

Another year has passed, and yet many local government themes remain the same.  Local Government funding is decreasing; Councils have to choose what their priorities are, and find innovative ways of continuing to provide frontline services if they are not to abandon them altogether. However there is always a question of priorities, and I would strongly disagree with many of the priorities of the last Conservative administration.

This report mentions the year’s plummet of Suffolk Schools down the national league table, the loss of bus services, the Conservatives’ covert concession that they had messed up big time in abolishing Suffolk’s Youth Travel card – though they were never big enough to apologise to the young people – the creation of the Libraries IPS and various other things before it finished with the grand finale of the loss of much of Conservative dominance due in part to unexpected UKIP gains in the recent election. This is where I am going to start

County Council Election 2013    On May 2nd Suffolk went to the polls, changing the political profile of Suffolk considerably.  I retained my seat with  an increased share of the vote.  Thank you very much! Across the county  the major changes were as follows: the Conservatives lost 16 seats – including that of one Cabinet member – reducing their majority from a complacency-inducing 35 to a very much more nervous  and hopefully less arrogant 3.  Labour picked up 11 seats (admittedly from the rock-bottom level of 4 they were reduced to after the 2009 election), and the LibDems lost 4 seats – although not a single sitting candidate! The gainers were the UKIP – eight extra seats all gained from the Conservatives.

Our Woodbridge UKIP candidate seemed wholly invisible, and the only UKIP leaflets I saw were generic,  published in Newton Abbott, and scattered on the path outside the Kyson polling station on the day of the election. These said (I quote verbatim ) “Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians to come to the UK”  (this figure being more than the total population of Romania and Bulgaria and the issue being wholly outside the remit of the County Council).   

327 Woodbridge residents were bird-witted enough to vote for this compelling local agenda. Presumably they have no views whatsoever  on things the county council actually does need todeal with, such as improving the dire  Suffolk Schools results, fixing the roads, caring for the elderly,  and trying to prevent the last rural buses from disappearing.

If only I could be certain that these very same voters didn’t come running to me to complain about  roads, schools, care and public transport. That would seem very much like having your cake and eating it!

SCC Budget 2013-4  There was a further reduction in Government grants to the County Council this year.  In total, the Council had to save £24.9m, as part of a two year programme to reduce the budget by just over £50m.   As was the case in 2012, the budget focused on making efficiencies rather than specific service cuts.  This is concerning as there is no way to measure how much these reductions affect the frontline services.

The vast majority of the savings came from two directorates.  The first,  Adult and Community Services will save £7m as part of an in-depth review, and the second being Children and Young People’s Services who must save £2.5 million. An excellent choice when there are so many concerns about elderly care and poorly attaining schools!.  In addition to these listed savings, there are further efficiencies taken from across the County Council which total £9.7m (including further money from ACS and CYP).

At the Full Council meeting where the budget is discussed, an amendment was submitted by the Liberal Democrat Group suggesting:

  • Increasing the funding for school improvement services by employing more advisers, and increasing the support to schools.
  • Attracting more foster carers to a pioneering scheme for the most vulnerable children in Suffolk.
  • Reinstating the Speed limits team at Suffolk County Council to allow communities to apply for 20 mph schemes once again.

This amendment, which would have been fully funded by the contingency reserve, and would have helped increase attainment and look after the most vulnerable in Suffolk, was defeated by the Conservative majority.

Education in Suffolk plummets  This past year has been quite a shocking one for education in Suffolk. Although our excellent Woodbridge schools have mercifully bucked the trend, Suffolk schools have slipped inexorably down the attainment rankings – having ranked  30th out of of 151 in in 2001-4, they have fallen the current position of 148th of 151 at primary level and  141/151 at secondary level. SCC has announced a Raising the Bar initiative in order to reverse this dreadful state of affairs.

Previously this year Matthew Taylor the CEO of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce (RSA) and former prime ministerial advisor, has been tasked with improving educational attainment in Suffolk.  The work will and has involved spending time working with employers in Suffolk and head teachers.  It is expected that the commission will report back in May 2013. This was was as a result of Suffolk GCSE results lagging four percentage points below the national average.

After all our lobbying, the return of a Suffolk Youth travel card   At the beginning of 2013, Suffolk County Council Cabinet announced that it was going to start to look into re-introducing a youth travel card –  having cut the Explore card in the 2011budget, as part of the Conservatives’ New Strategic Direction.  We predicted that the decision to remove it would cause significant hardship for many aged between 16-19, and it did: increasing the costs of not only travelling to college, but also work and social activities.  Petitions and campaigns were launched for its return, with myself as Lib Dem spokesman for Transport and the Lib Dem Group being at the forefront of this – along withg the young people of Suffolk (and especially Woodbridge).

It gives me no satisfaction whatsoever to have once again played Cassandra to the Conservatives’  frivolous gaming with the futures of our young people.

This proposed new card will go some way to reduce this impact, with discussions still on-going with bus companies to provide a universal discount of approximately 20-25%.  There are concerns that this card won’t be available on all buses in Suffolk, which could hugely disadvantage students in rural parts of the County.

Better Broadband for Suffolk In 2012 Suffolk County Council together with other public sector organisations from the County submitted a bid to the Government to seek matched funding to help improve broadband in the County.

At first, the County submitted a bid which was rejected due to underestimating the amount of public funds required.  Subsequently, the County Council contribution was increased and accepted and so discussions with private companies to do the work began. Faster Broadband for Suffolk is  therefore an issue  that has been agreed already,  with the contracts  being signed just prior to Christmas.  BT Openreach are now surveying the locations around the County for implementing the agreed faster broadband speeds, with some properties possibly receiving this in the autumn.  So pleased were the Conservatives with this that they actually made it a pledge in their election manifesto although Faster Broadband has been arranged  already.  This is the easy way to ensure you meet your pledges.

 Suffolk County Care Homes to be divested   In October the administration, at Cabinet, voted to divest the Council of its care homes.  This means that the County Council has passed over its 16 care homes and 8 wellbeing centres to Care UK or its funding partner as part of a 25 year contract to provide care.

The decision also includes an estate development plan, which commits Care UK to provide 10 new purpose built care homes and 10 community wellbeing centres, many of which will be in different locations to the current homes, with the old sites being handed back to the County.
This is a great concern for care homes like  Lehman House which are well-situated in the centre of a community within easy reach of transport and shops. The proposed replacements are not situated so conveniently.

Police and Crime Commissioner  This last year was the year the  Suffolk Police Authority was abolished.   On the 15th of November Suffolk elected Conservative candidate Tim Passmore as their PCC.  The Liberal Democrats refused to field a local candidate on the grounds that policing should not be a  party-political issue.  Woodbridge had, I believe, a high rate of spoiled papers.

For  more information on the Panel, including membership, meeting dates across the year:- http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/your-council/decision-making/committees/police-and-crime-panel-joint-committee/

Libraries – Industrial and Provident Society On the 1st of August Suffolk’s  new Library service was launched with the Industrial and Provident Society taking over responsibility from the County Council.  The IPS now runs all of the 44 Libraries in Suffolk, as well as the mobile library, school, and prison services.

According to the SCC administration, this move is a way to ensure all libraries continue remain open with paid staff. It is better than the previous situation when 28 libraries were under threat of closure. However there have been a number of claims about the level of savings that are required across the Library service, most recently there were claims that £100,000 had to be saved from as yet unspecified areas.   Originally the County Council claimed that in setting up an IPS there could be an 80% saving on business rates, and then made a request of a 5% saving per Library.

It is concerning that the funding for the Library service will only be protected for a total of two years.

No Fairer Bus Fares for the Disabled and Elderly Over the past year the Lib Dem Group fought long and hard to get the Concessionary Bus pass system in Suffolk much fairer.  Back in 2011, the Lib Dems submitted a successful motion to Full Council to get the Concessionary fares scheme looked at once again, which finally occurred in July 2012.  Whilst this initial attempt was unsuccessful, the group requested that this issue be looked at again by the Scrutiny Committee.  This resulted in Cabinet finally looking at the issue in December 2012.

Our campaign aimed to reverse the decision that the county only provided the statutory minimum free travel with a bus pass.  This meant that on weekdays pass holders were limited to travel between 0930 and 2300, the Lib Dems wanted to extend this to 24 hour free travel for disabled users and from 9am for elderly users.

In the case of the December Cabinet meeting, the portfolio holders refused to change the Counties policy, and wouldn’t even let opposition councillors ask questions.  (Usually opposition Councillors have an opportunity to question Cabinet’s potential decision, and raise important points. On this one occasion this was refused, even though the report contained new information.   The new information included results from the small scale survey the Council carried out, and a letter from the Equality Human Rights Commission which stated that the processes undertaken by Cabinet in the original decision needed ‘considerable improvements’.)

Unfortunately, there are currently no further methods to change this decision through the Council’s constitution,  only through a different composition of the County Council decision makers! However, the Conservative majority now hangs on a knife edge. I predict a much more regular attendance and less snoozing in the Tory back benches!

Woodbridge County Councillor Locality budget 2012-13  This funded the following:

  • Woodbridge Cycling Festival: *Materials, first aid cover etc
  • St Mary’s Woodbridge: Repairs  to *Tower and to *South side of the church wall
  • Deben Swimming Club: *Poolside kit for competitions
  • Woodbridge RUFC: *Indoor activity area improvements
  • Woodbridge Town FC Under 8 Team: *Waterproof jackets
  • Deben Players: *Costume store
  • Woodbridge Youth Centre: *Generator
  • Wickham Market & District Family Carers Support Group: *Training for respite care volunteers
  • Just 42: *Hardstanding for Peterhouse  Green
  • The Princes Trust: *Flowers/ pots for exterior of Woodbridge Youth Club
  • YP@ Woodbridge: *Cooking equipment, TV/DVD & Disco/Karaoke unit
  • Woodbridge Library: *Blackout Blinds; *Reading challenge – balloon modeller, & prizes
  • WoodbridgeTown: *Grit bins; *Thoroughfare Bike racks ; *repairs to ElmhurstPark wall/shed; *Funding for Jubilee Pavilion; *Bench at Hasketon/Grundisburgh road junction

Woodbridge County Councillor Quality of Life budget 2012-13  The County Councillor’s Quality of Life Budget has funded:

  • new signs to prevent HGVs trying to get to the town centre via Angel Lane.
  • signage slowing traffic on Cemetery Lane
  • calming scheme in Sandy Lane.
  • New cycle racks in ther Thoroughfare; the old (expensive to be matched) ones moved to Market Square.

Because of  electoral purdah however, some of these schemes had been abandoned mid-stream to be restarted after the election.

What the LibDems want for Suffolk

Over the last eight years the Conservatives at Suffolk County Council have made massive increases to care charges, whilst cutting many services. Schools, care homes, public transport and libraries have all suffered.  Costs have still increased and efficiency has stagnated. 

At the same time they have built up the County’s reserves to a massive £150m – a THIRD of their annual budget –  stashing our cash despite historically low interest rates and falling confidence in the banking sector.

The Lib Dems say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH – Suffolk deserves better! We want to:

1.       Bring back Quality Education    Eight years ago, Suffolk had an enviable education system.  After eight years of Tory mismanagement the County is almost bottom of the English league table.

2.       Offer appropriate Care provision  for all who need it  ‘Care’ has been the Cinderella service of this Tory council

3.       Recognise transport  as a human right  Neither Labour nor Tory party has demonstrated  active support for the public transport network – particularly in rural areas.  Yet reliable travel  is essential for work, health, socialising and education.

4.       More and better-focused environmental action ‘Greenest County?  What a lot of Greenwash! The Tories have Talked the Talk – but don’t Walk the Walk. (And they are only seen near a cycle if its a photo-opportunity)

5.       Safety for all our Library service   Under the Tories the situation of Suffolk Libraries has been perilous.

6.       Create a thriving local economy More and more local businesses are feeling the crunch – or even closing.  Our high streets  are becoming less vibrant. The Tories have failed to drive economic development and oppose much of the green economy

7.       More streamlined services Under the Tories services have been “externalised” and service efficiency has stagnated – yet contract management has been woefully inadequate

So, not a big ask, surely? But the Tories haven’t managed it!

Details of what we intend are can be found on my Suffolk Liberal Democrat County Council policy page or on the Suffolk County Council Lib Dem site

Tuition Fees and Maintenance Loans – 10 Myths debunked

“It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world.”  Dr Johnson

Lots of  people are being frightened by scary estimations of student debt and their impact on the future life of graduates. 

Many of these claims are simply not true.The people who promulgate these myths seem to be doing so either from genuine ignorance – or deliberately, to serve party-political aims.  The full picture is much more complex and less frightening.

There is much to argue that the current system is an equitable way of ensuring that the larger proportion of UK young people are able to get to  university  on merit rather than parental wealth. This will be for the first time!

I was a university graduate under the old system where 10% of the population were given a pretty easy ride through a university system funded by the other  90% of the population.

Since then, I have just seen one family member through a university education under the ‘old system’ of tuition fees and loans and parental support  that the last Labour government introduced. I am just about to see another through the ‘new’ (Coalition) system of tuition fees and loans.

Although I was deeply sceptical as to this new system having any merits – I’ve discovered there are many positive benefits for the students and their families. These are being overlooked in a lot of party-political in-fighting between pople who are neither students nor families of students.

MYTH 1: ‘Upfront’ payments mean that only the rich can afford to think of university

Untrue. No upfront money is required from anyone. As long as you register for a loan, the Student Loan Company automatically pays the tuition fees and gives you a maintenance loan to help with living costs.

MYTH 2: Tuition fees leave all students with a debt of £50,000

Untrue.  Firstly, these estimations always conflate tuition fee loans and  maintenance loans. Maintenance loans are optional but a very good way of preventing this cost falling in the shoulders of poorer parents –  as in the past. It also stops poorer students having to take on casual jobs to support themselves while in education, as again was often the case.  Secondly, these estimations are based n the highest possible tuition fees charged.

MYTH 3 : .An inevitable debt  of  £50,000 and more is a terrifying burden and disincentive for poorer students and leaves education in the hands of the rich.

Untrue. For a start, that estimation of a £50,000  debt are based on 3x the highest amount borrowed – All students with a family income below £46,000 are entitled to unrepayable grants for some part of the loans, plus additional bursaries etc depending on how much less than £46,000 the family income is.   Grants and bursaries, unlike loans, do not get repaid, so the poorer the student/student’s family are, the less of a loan they will have to repay. The most generous grants, bursaries and other incentives are directed at students from families with incomes of £26,000 and under – particularly helpful to the students who come from the UK’s 2m single parent families (more likely to be earning the £24,000 median income for a single person)

MYTH 4 : Tuition fees supported by longterm loans are a completely retrograde  way of providing higher education

Untrue.   Firstly, the new system opens up financial support to part-time students for the first time. These, often forgotten in political grandstanding, make up 40% of all undergraduates and had to pay fees upfront, being not entitled to student loans. Many were unable to study or had to give up their studies midway.  These will now be eligible for tuition fee loans on exactly the same basis as full-time students.

Secondly, Courses will need to be worth the cost – and lets be honest this has not always been the case in recent years.  This system will encourage universities to be  responsible to the students for the quality of education provided.

Thirdly, these solid systems of financial support for poorer students constitutes a reasoned attempt to reverse literally generations of educational inequality. Quality higher education needs to be available for all who will benefit! The UK has had a very poor record in educating  our poor and smart young people.

 MYTH 5: Repayment, particularly of the largest sums will be a millstone of debt around the necks of the newly qualified

Untrue. If two friends graduate and earn £23,000 they will both have to pay back the same amount each month, even if one friend has a bigger student loan. And You don’t repay it until you’re actually earning.  The maths of this makes very good sense. If you are doing a degree ‘for love’ and don’t expect to earn much you’llrepay little or nothing.

 MYTH 6:  Everyone always had free higher education in  Britain

Untrue.  For 50 years we were relying on paying for an ‘upper 10%’ who got a university education via the taxpayer,  90% of whom didn’t get a university education. This was deeply divisive. But if we, the people of Britain, want more people to go to university (and we want 50%),  we need to find some way of paying for this. This is why the last Labour government first instituted tuition fees and then tripled them, at a time when the country was supposedly prosperous. It is preposterous that they now forget this.

We need also to look at our priorities. How about pitting the cost of tuition fees against, for example, the cheapest cost for a car, petrol, tax, insurance for a student-aged young person?

 MYTH 7 : People never forget a party who breaks a pledge over tuition fees.

Untrue.  How many readers remember how often Labour broke pledges on tuition fees during the last government? 

Personally I think any breaking of pledges is disgraceful, but it’s not something where other parties have any right to be sanctimonious. Tuition fees were introduced by Labour after pledging they wouldn’t – and at a time of supposed economic prosperity. These fees were more than tripled by Labour during the course of the administration, even though they pledged they wouldn’t.

When the financial situation got bad and Labour realised current levels of support for university education were unsustainable they commissioned  the Browne report  but cynically put off making its findings public and so having to act on it  till after last (2010) election so as not to get their electoral chances tarnished by: the need to raise tuition fees.

MYTH 8 :  Increased tuition fees will result in higher monthly repayments of loans for graduates

Untrue.The repayments  don’t start until the graduate earns over £21,000 (as opposed to £15,000 under Labour), and will at that point be £515 a year lower than they were under Labour:

Monthly payment for graduate from salary after they get work

Graduate Salary

Graduate annual repayment

up to 2012

Graduate monthly pay packet reduction it’s equivalent to

Graduate annual repayment

2012 on

Graduate monthly pay packet reduction it’s equivalent to

£15,000

Nothing

Nothing

Nothing

Nothing

£16,000

£18

£1.50

Nothing

Nothing

£21,000

£470

£39

Nothing

Nothing

£22,000

£560

£46.50

£90

£7.50

£30,000

£1,280

£106.50

£810

£67.50

£40,000

£2,180

£181.50

£1,710

£142.50

£50,000

£3,080

£256.50

£2,610

£217.50

MYTH 9 : Tuition fees will leave the poorer student jugglimng jobs to survive

Untrue – The new tuition fee/student loan system comes with automatic large grants for poorer students which are non-repayable.  All full time students from families with an income (this year at) under £42,600  get maintenance GRANTS which never need repaying. As the total cost of student loans includes the full living expenses for the student for all but those from very affluent families. This means that students can devote all their time to study rather than having to work to support themselves, and that their parents do not have to  worry and scrape together money they cannot really afford  to contribute to their children’s support.Universities also offer bursaries and fee waivers to poorer students

MYTH 10:  Student loans for tuition fees/maintenance will leave this generation of students with unmanageable debt

Untrue. The independent Money Saving Expert says “No, student finance is like a graduate tax, not a loan”

  • It’s repaid through the income tax system
  • You only repay it if you earn over a certain amount
  • The amount repaid increases with earnings
  • It does not go on credit files
  • Debt collectors will not chase for it
  • Bigger borrowing doesn’t increase repayments
  • Many people will continue to repay  in small amounts for the majority of their working life.

This is in return for getting an education which will fit you for a more highly paid future.

You can get more interesting unbiased info without spin from the Money Saving Expert