News

The key points are:

• The government has sent a statutory guidance letter to the Office for Students (OfS) directing OfS to cut funding by 50% to high-cost courses not on the Department for Education’s priority list. Performing and creative arts courses are not on the priority list.
• In response OfS are proposing to:
  • cut funding in the academic year 2021-22 from £36 million to £19 million for arts courses, a 49% cut (the courses affected are performing arts; creative arts; media studies; archaeology)
  • increase funding for specialist providers (some of which are specialist arts providers) by £10 million in ‘exceptional funding’ from £43 to £53 million

OfS are consulting on their proposals, although they are clear that the Department for Education will not be compelled to implement any recommendations from this consultation.

‘Consultees should be aware that the Secretary of State is not bound to reach the same decisions as the OfS. This means that, if directions are given (or other statutory powers are exercised) by the Secretary of State, there could be a delay in the decision-making process for the OfS and this may ultimately lead to changes being made to OfS decisions on funding.’

Why are the cuts happening?

There are several reasons given for the requirement to redistribute the funding for Higher Education (HE) courses. As a result of the re-grading of A-levels and other Level 3 qualifications in summer 2020 there were unexpected increases in student numbers in 2020-2021, which has resulted in a reduction to the average funding provided per full-time equivalent student. The Department for Education (DfE) is also taking forward actions they set out in their response to the Augar Review.

The DfE are requiring changes in how the OfS distributes their recurrent grant, which OfS summarises as an increase in:

‘the funding distributed through the main high-cost subject funding method for subjects identified as supporting the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects and/or specific labour market needs’

and a

‘reduction by half to high-cost subject funding for other price group C1 subjects – that is, for courses in performing and creative arts, media studies and archaeology’.

The implication in the statutory guidance letter from Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education is that these cuts will continue past 2021-22 and will increase:

‘We recognise the importance of a phased transition; the OfS should therefore reduce funding by 50% for high-cost subjects that do not support these priorities. We would then potentially seek further reductions in future years …’

What is high-cost subject funding?

Some university courses receive more funding per student in recognition of the high cost of delivering the course. These include performing and creative arts and media studies, as well as STEM subjects, and are known as ‘high-cost subject funding’ and classified as C1 subjects by OfS; for the purposes of the consultation arts subjects have been designated C1.2 subjects.

Huge concerns – will arts courses close?

We have huge concerns about the impact of these cuts on existing inequalities, the cultural and creative sector talent pipeline, on the ability of our creative industries to remain world-leading in future years, and the message they send about the value of arts subjects.

If the 49% cuts go ahead colleagues tell us many arts courses will have to close, and if – as implied in Williamson’s letter – all funding is removed in subsequent years, the impact could be devasting across UK universities, as universities may no longer be able to balance the books to deliver arts courses.

The £10 million in exceptional funding for specialist providers will not plug the gap in funding, and will not benefit the many arts courses run in universities other than the 11 specialist providers.

HE courses are an essential part of the Creative Industries talent pipeline

The UK’s world-leading creative industries are essential for the future growth of our economy. They contribute £115.9bn a year to the UK GVA, accounting for 5.9% of UK GVA and are growing at four times the rate of the UK economy as a whole (43.6% between 2010 and 2019 in real terms). The creative industries employ 2.1 million people, and the number of jobs in the Creative Industries increased by 34.5% from 2011 to 2019, more than three times the growth rate of employment in the UK overall (11.4%).

The arts and cultural sectors need qualifications that enable wide jobs pathways and progression to a range of creative disciplines. The courses we stand to lose are an essential part of the creative industries talent pipeline eco-system. Degree courses are particularly important to the creative industries as they have a higher proportion of degree holders than other sectors, in part because there are strong links between HEIs and the creative industries; graduates are employable because their practical training matches sector need.

Widen existing inequalities

We are concerned that the current proposals will widen existing inequalities, rather than expand opportunity for all. These reforms, if they lead to cuts in arts courses, are likely to have a damaging impact on the economic diversity of the cohorts and the number of students with disabilities progressing to university. Arts courses have a higher than average number of students with reported disabilities and those from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 – something OfS has acknowledged in the consultation:

‘We believe that courses in the performing arts, creative arts, media studies and archaeology are very important, bringing huge benefit to society and our culture, as well as to the individuals who take them. They make a particularly important contribution to access and participation.’

The likely reduction in courses offered, and the loss of the London weighting for funding, will negatively affect the number of ethnically diverse people and those with Asian, African and Caribbean heritage entering the workforce as London based courses have a higher proportion of ethnically diverse students.

We need to ensure that those who are shaping the UK’s cultural life represent all the communities in the UK. Improving representation within arts courses’ HE cohorts is particularly important for improving the creative industries’ representation because, as already mentioned, they have a higher proportion of degree holders than other sectors.

Limiting the creative industries

This narrowing of the talent pipeline will limit the ability of our world-class creative industries to evolve, continue to grow, and to meet the challenges of post-Brexit Britain. As the consultation notes:

‘Graduates in the proposed price group C1.2 subjects also play an important role in supporting important parts of the UK employment sectors, economy and cultural life. Many of the subjects in the proposed price group C1.2 are relevant to professions in the government’s shortage occupation list.’

Download the consultation documents and respond to the consultation. You can also read the Culture Health and Wellbeing Alliance response to the consultation. 

CLA Consultation responses

Below we have summarised our response to the OfS consultation, where we have not listed a question we selected ‘Don’t know / prefer not to say’ as our response on the consultation form.

Question 1: To what extent do you agree with the proposal to distribute a greater proportion of OfS recurrent grant through the main high-cost subject funding method? (See paragraphs 15 to 36)

Strongly disagree

Please provide an explanation for your answer. If you believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

We have huge concerns about the impact of the proposed distribution and resulting cuts to arts courses on existing inequalities, the cultural and creative sector talent pipeline, the ability of our creative industries to remain world-leading in future years, and the message they send about the value of arts subjects.

If the 49% cuts go ahead colleagues in HEIs tell us many arts courses will have to close. The arts and cultural sectors need qualifications that enable wide jobs pathways and progression to a range of creative disciplines. The courses we stand to lose are an essential part of the creative industries talent pipeline eco-system. Degree courses are particularly important to the creative industries as they have a higher proportion of degree holders than other sectors.

The £10 million in exceptional funding for specialist providers will not plug the gap in funding, and will not benefit the many arts courses run in universities other than the 11 specialist providers.

We endorse the SCUDD and Theatre and Performance Research Association response to this question.

Question 2: To what extent do you agree with the proposal to split price group C1 in order to implement a reduction of 50 per cent to the high-cost subject funding allocated to subjects in the performing arts; creative arts; media studies and archaeology? (See paragraphs 15 to 26)

Strongly disagree

Please provide an explanation for your answer. If you believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

We are concerned that the current proposals, which we believe will result in fewer arts courses being offered, will limit rather than expand opportunity for all, widen existing inequalities and decrease participation rates in higher education by students with disabilities and those from lower socio-economic groups. Fewer arts courses will also limit the supply of high-quality arts teachers at a time when every year for the last five, barring 2020, recruitment targets have not been met for Art & Design, Drama and Music teacher training.

Limiting the study of arts at HEI level will have a detrimental effect on our world leading creative industries that according to DCMS figures contribute £115.9bn a year to the UK GVA. The creative industries accounted for 5.9% of UK GVA in 2019 (the last year of figures) and are growing at four times the rate of the UK economy as a whole (43.6% between 2010 and 2019 in real terms). The Creative Industries employ 2.1 million people, and the number of jobs in the Creative Industries increased by 34.5% from 2011to 2019, more than three times the growth rate of employment in the UK overall (11.4%).

Given the role of the creative industries in our economy, the requirements from the Department for Education to cut funding to arts courses seem to work counter to the governments stated ambitions of levelling up the country and their own Industrial Strategy. The proposal undermines the government’s own commitment to supporting the future of the arts industry and its importance to the UK: most recently, additional funding was provided by the government to support the arts during lockdown via the £1.57 billon Culture Recovery Fund, in an acknowledgement of the significant and unique contribution the arts make to the UK’s cultural diversity, social inclusion, social care, mental health and wellbeing. This is in addition to the recognition of the important impact the arts have on the buoyancy and growth of the economy, making them a key industry for the recovery of the economy, post Covid.

Additionally, the Department for Education published the New Music Curriculum on the 26 March which included a recommendation for 1 hour of high-quality music education a week throughout Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. There is already a shortage of teachers to deliver this music education – in four of the last five years the targets for trainee teacher recruitment have not been met (from 2016 to 2020 the overall recruitment target was 1,978 teachers and only 1,747 were recruited, or 88% of the target number), cutting HE Music courses will further constrict the supply of high quality music teachers to deliver the Department for Education’s stated goal for music education.

We endorse the Culture, Health and Wellbeing Alliance, SCUDD and Theatre and Performance Research Association responses to this question.

Question 3: Notwithstanding your answer to question 2, if we were to split price group C1 as proposed, to what extent do you agree with our approach to implementing this? (See paragraphs 27 to 28 and Annex B)

Strongly disagree

Please provide an explanation for your answer. If you believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

We echo the concerns of the Culture, Health and Wellbeing Alliance. Splitting arts courses from STEM subjects reinforces the artificial divide between the arts and sciences. Colleagues in STEM subjects are vocal in their support of the arts and the value to innovation of working across STEAM subjects.

Question 13: Do you have any comments about any unintended consequences of these proposals, for example, for particular types of provider or for particular types of student?

The arts and cultural sectors need qualifications that enable wide jobs pathways and progression to a range of creative disciplines. The courses we stand to lose are an essential part of the creative industries talent pipeline eco-system. Degree courses are particularly important to the creative industries as they have a higher proportion of degree holders than other sectors.

We are concerned that the current proposals will widen existing inequalities, rather than expand opportunity for all. These reforms, if they lead to cuts in arts courses, are likely to have a damaging impact on the economic diversity of the cohorts and the number of students with disabilities progressing to university. Arts courses have a higher than average number of students with reported disabilities and those from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 – something OfS has acknowledged in the consultation:

‘We believe that courses in the performing arts, creative arts, media studies and archaeology are very important, bringing huge benefit to society and our culture, as well as to the individuals who take them. They make a particularly important contribution to access and participation.’

The likely reduction in courses offered, and the loss of the London weighting for funding, will negatively affect the number of ethnically diverse people and those with Asian, African and Caribbean heritage entering the workforce as London based courses have a higher proportion of ethnically diverse students.

We need to ensure that those who are shaping the UK’s cultural life represent all the communities in the UK. Improving representation within arts courses’ HE cohorts is particularly important for improving the creative industries’ representation, as already mentioned they have a higher proportion of degree holders than other sectors.

This narrowing of the talent pipeline will limit the ability of our world-class creative industries to evolve, continue to grow, and to meet the challenges of post-Brexit Britain.

Question 14: Do you have any comments about the potential impact of these proposals on individuals on the basis of their protected characteristics?

The likely reduction in courses offered will negatively impact on the number of people with Asian, African and Caribbean heritage and ethnically diverse people entering the workforce. As noted by OfS students studying in London are more ethnically diverse and the removal of London weighting for funding will also have an impact on the range of arts courses offered in London and potentially therefore the number of students from ethnically diverse backgrounds studying arts courses.  

We would like to know what Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment has been undertaken for these plans and the outcomes.

We need to ensure that those who are shaping the UK’s cultural life represent all the communities in the UK. Improving representation within arts course HE cohorts is particularly important for improving the creative industries representation as they have a higher proportion of degree holders that other sectors.