In the latest flagship IFS ‘Annual Report on Education Spending
in England’, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, researchers look
at the challenges posed by COVID-19 for the education
sector.
They find that:
- Student numbers in further education colleges and sixth forms
are likely to increase this year due to rising numbers of young
people combined with unusually high GCSE results and significant
reductions in training and employment opportunities.
- Colleges and sixth forms will benefit from an extra £400
million in funding this year. However, because of the way the
funding system works, exceptional rises in student
numbers could still generate a real-terms fall in funding per
student. This would come on the back of a decade of
large real-terms falls in funding per student.
- Universities also face significant financial risks. While
student numbers appear to have held up for now, universities
might still lose income if large numbers of students drop out
before completing their degrees.
-
By far the largest source of financial
risk for universities is pension
costs. New figures suggest the
additional cost to universities of meeting existing pension
promises may well be as high as £8 billion, or double our
previous estimate of around £4 billion. Absent favourable
movements in financial markets, universities could only reduce
this by taking on more risk, making further reductions in the
pensions provided by the scheme, big rises in employees’
contributions which would eat into their take-home pay, or some
combination of these measures.
Imran Tahir, Research Economist at IFS and a co-author,
said: ‘The government has made transforming further
education a big priority. At the 2019 Spending Review, it pledged
an extra £400 million in funding for this year, which could
represent the first real-terms increase in spending per student
for about a decade. However, student numbers could have risen
dramatically more than expected due to a reduction in training,
apprenticeship and employment opportunities, on top of population
growth. If there is no additional funding forthcoming, planned
real-terms increases in spending per student could be mostly – if
not entirely – eroded.’
Ben Waltmann, Research Economist at IFS
and a co-author, said: ‘In the summer, the scale of
financial uncertainty facing universities as a result of the
pandemic led many – including ourselves – to speculate about the
potential need for a bailout. In the end, student numbers have
held up better than expected, but universities still face
financial risks from no-shows or higher-than-usual dropout, as
well as reductions in other income streams. By far the biggest
source of risk now appears to be the large deficit on the main
university pension scheme, which has increased from £3.6 billion
in March 2018 to a monumental £21.5 billion in August 2020
according to the latest preliminary estimate. With contributions
already at more than 30% of earnings, it is hard to see how a
deficit on this scale, if confirmed, could be evened out without
further cuts in the generosity of the scheme.’
Tim Gardam, Chief Executive of the Nuffield Foundation,
said: ‘This report shines a powerful light onto
education funding in England and the new challenges posed by the
impact of COVID-19. There are additional financial pressures
across all stages of the education system and educational
inequalities are at risk of widening even further. The IFS
analysis demonstrates why it is important to target funding at
children and young people most at risk of losing out on
educational opportunities, such as pupils attending schools in
deprived areas, and young people attending further education
colleges.’
Taking each stage of education in turn, from early years through
to higher education, the research also finds:
Early years
-
Government spending on funded early education and
childcare places for 3- and 4-year-olds was equivalent to
£3,800 per child accessing a place in 2019–20, down
almost £100 from its high point the previous year.
-
Spending per hour has been falling in real terms since
2017–18; in 2019–20 it stood at the same level as in
2016–17, meaning that the boost to hourly spending alongside
the introduction of the extended entitlement in 2017 has been
eroded.
- As detailed in a previous IFS report, providers focused on
delivering free entitlement hours were financially well protected
during lockdown by the government’s commitment to continue to
fund those hours based on pre-pandemic take-up. But since most
providers offer a mix of publicly and privately funded hours,
they are exposed to financial risk from a potentially steep drop
in childcare demand.
Schools (this schools analysis was pre-released in
September 2020)
-
School spending per pupil in England fell by 9% in real
terms between 2009–10 and 2019–20.
This represents the largest cut in over 40 years, though these
cuts come on the back of a significant increase in spending per
pupil of over 60% during the 2000s. Recent cuts have mainly
been driven by cuts to school sixth-form funding and big
reductions in the spending role of local authorities.
- The government has allocated an extra £7.1 billion for
schools in England through to 2022–23. This will increase
spending per pupil by 9% in real terms between 2019–20 and
2022–23 and near enough reverse the cuts of the 2010s. However,
school spending per pupil in 2022–23 is set to be no
higher in real terms than in 2009–10.
-
There is a strong case for greater funding targeted at
more deprived schools and areas. Schools in deprived
areas have seen faster falls in school spending per pupil over
the last decade and are due to receive slower increases under
the new National Funding Formula for schools in England.
Evidence suggests educational inequalities will have widened
during lockdown and schools in deprived areas are likely to
face faster growth in costs associated with higher teacher
starting salaries, given they are more likely to employ new
teachers.
Further education and sixth forms
-
Further education colleges and sixth forms have seen
the largest falls in funding of any sector of the education
system since 2010–11. Funding per student in further
education and sixth-form colleges fell by 12% in real terms
between 2010–11 and 2019–20, while funding per student in
school sixth forms fell by 23%.
-
There could be a sharp increase in student numbers in
colleges and sixth forms in 2020. Population
projections imply a 3% growth in the number of 16- and
17-year-olds in 2020 and growth of 13% between 2019 and 2023.
As in previous recessions, the economic downturn could lead to
an increase in participation in full-time education,
particularly with large reductions in apprenticeship and
training opportunities.
-
Responding to these changes in participation will be
challenging given that providers’ funding is based on previous
student numbers. The government has already provided
an extra £400 million for 16–18 education in 2020–21. This
allows for a real-terms growth in spending per pupil of about
2% based on population forecasts. However, exceptional growth
in student numbers could erode much, if not all, of this
planned real-terms increase in spending per student.
-
Spending on adult education is nearly two-thirds lower
in real terms than in 2003–04 and about 50% lower than
in 2009–10. This fall was mainly driven by the removal of
public funding from some courses and a resultant drop in
learner numbers. Responding to proposals in last year’s Augar
Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, the government plans
to restore public funding for adults taking their first Level 3
course from April 2021.
Higher education
-
Long-run government spending on higher education is set
to be significantly higher this year, mostly due to
the COVID-19 crisis reducing graduates’ long-term earnings. For
this year’s new students, we estimate the government
contribution to higher education could increase by around 20% –
£1.6 billion – under the Office for Budget Responsibility’s
(OBR’s) pessimistic scenario for future labour market
conditions.
- The long-run costs are much higher when we also factor in the
effects of COVID-19 on previous university students, as their
current and future student loan repayments are likely to be lower
too. In total, we expect a fall in future repayments of
as much as £12 billion for university entrants up to the
2020 intake under the OBR’s pessimistic forecasts, and around £5
billion under its central scenario.
-
Universities face several sources of financial risk and
uncertainty. While student numbers
appear to have held up for now, universities might still lose
income if large numbers of students drop out before completing
their degrees.
-
The largest source of financial risk is
pensions. Reduced interest rates and
depressed rates of return have significantly increased the
expected cost of pension promises, further increasing the
already large deficit on the main university pension scheme.
New figures suggest the additional cost to universities of
meeting existing pension promises may well be as high as £8
billion, or double our previous estimate of around £4 billion.
Absent favourable movements in financial markets, universities
could only reduce this by taking on more risk, making further
reductions in the pensions provided by the scheme, big rises in
employees’ contributions which would eat into their take-home
pay, or some combination of these measures.
ENDS
Notes to editors
1. The IFS ‘2020 Annual Report on Education Spending in
England’, by Jack Britton, Christine Farquharson, Luke Sibieta,
Imran Tahir and Ben Waltmann, will be published on the IFS website
at 00.01 Tuesday 03 November www.ifs.org.uk
2. Unless otherwise stated, all amounts are in 2020–21 prices, all
changes are in real terms and all figures relate to day-to-day or
current spending in England.
3. This analysis is new and is part of a flagship annual
education spending report, currently produced each year with
funding from the Nuffield Foundation. However one specific
chapter of the report - on schools - was pre-released in
September and findings are included in this press release for
completeness. You can find that chapter already published here:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15025
4. This research has been funded by the Nuffield Foundation
(grant number EDO/43355), with co-funding from the ESRC Institute
for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy (grant number
ES/T014334/1) at IFS.