From Hardship to a Helping Hand - guest essay

From Hardship to a Helping Hand: it is time for Universities to rethink Student Money Support

Introduction

 “Yours Sincerely, Oliver Twist!”

This is how a student signed an email to me in my role as manager of a Higher Education (HE) Money Support Service. No doubt, his was tongue firmly in his cheek but he was letting me know how he felt about coming to me for a handout.

At that time, I was facilitating a steering group, leading the Personal Finance strand of the University Wellbeing Strategy. Meetings took place in a building once occupied by Emmeline Pankhurst circa 1894 in her role as a Manchester Poor Law Guardian(Worthington, 2002). What would she make, of hardship handouts, not in the street of Victorian England, but in seats of world-class tertiary education in 2018?

“Hardship“ has become embedded in the parlance of the HE sector. The affordability issue grew over the years, as government attempted to shift the opportunity of tertiary education from the privileged few into the reach a third of 18 year olds (UCAS, 2017).

However, “hardship” need not be an inevitable consequence of wider participation. HE institutions should shake Dickensian undertones and move away from providing support under the banners of Hardship, Crisis and Emergency. Instead, they should focus on raising money confidence of students. They should promote money knowledge, resourcefulness but, more importantly, self-awareness into personal attitudes to money. HE institutions should consider incentivising engagement with money support services and, instead of topping up incomes, use funds to help students build up assets.

Historical Context and Time to change

In 2004, the government introduced the Access to Learning Fund (ALF) replacing pre-existing hardship Loans and grants. This change was prompted by the Higher Education Act 2004, which introduced variable higher tuition fees (UK Government, 2004). The aim of the ALF was to provide “simpler and more transparent arrangements for students in financial difficulty (Department for Education and Skills, 2003).

 For 2013-14 alone, a £37 million budget was allocated to the ALF nationally. Multiplied by the ten years it ran, this was quite an investment in hardship. Over those ten years, institutions reported back annually with head count data. In 2014, funding was withdrawn, leaving institutions to their own devices. Most have continued to provide hardship schemes administered using a version of the former ALF guidance.

If the ALF was introduced in response to concerns that fee increases may deter those from low income backgrounds from entering HE, then time has proven the worry unfounded. The Department of BIS 2014 report “National Strategy for Access and Student Success in Higher Education” stated

“UCAS data shows that, between 2012 and 2013, application rates for 18-year-olds to fulltime undergraduate courses have increased by one percentage point to 35 per cent. It also reports the highest recorded rates of applications from people from disadvantaged groups – continuing a pattern of substantial increases over the past 10 cycles.” (Department Business for Innovation and Skills, 2014)

In those 10 cycles, no attempt was made by government to explore the difference ALF made to the millions of funds recipients. Emmeline Pankhurst, writing in her memoirs of the Poor Law Guardians, could almost have been describing the ALF accounting process when she wrote:

“I found that the law was being very harshly administered. The old board had been made up of the kind of men who are known as rate-savers. They were guardians, not of the poor but of the rates”. (Pankhurst, 1914) .

The government has arguably changed their stance as they now call for “a robust approach to evaluation,” so the sector understands “which of their activities have the greatest impact on access, student success and progression”(Department Business for Innovation and Skills, 2014). With little historic data to steer them, it must hard for HE institutions to decide whether it is strategically wise to continue to invest in money support.

However they do now need to decide their own strategy on money support; devise their own rationale and priorities and, more importantly, evaluate outcomes and impact. Instead of being “rate savers” focusing on good hardship fund accounting, attention should be on meaningful interventions that benefit students and fulfill strategic aims of retention, progression and success.

Financial Capability – whose job is it anyway?

One might object here about whether responsibility lays with universities to deliver money support. The government provide the statutory funding and plenty of supporting guidance. Help is available via independent agencies too, for example, the consumer guru Martin Lewis takes a lead in championing student finance matters. It could be reasoned, that resources such as these should suffice in providing money guidance.  Surely if the issue is that statutory funding is not enough, then this is a matter for the central governments of the UK and not the universities role to provide a money top up.

Universities offering money support and Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) may in fact be failing in that responsibility. The National Union of Students Poverty Commission in their report “Class dismissed: Getting in and getting on in further and higher education” were scathing about HE providers, stating:

“there is a market in poverty: the tertiary education environment has either knowingly or unknowingly commodified class. It has generated specific income streams by monetising inequality and risk. This ‘poverty premium’ is endemic and is present throughout the various educational transactions, services and consequences relating to people from working class backgrounds.”

And that:

“Student loans are recycled into extraordinary profits for landlords and bus companies while students experience poverty.”(NUS Poverty Commission, 2018)

Universities of course are landlords, providing accommodation and charging rents which the NUS say are “exceeding what is affordable”. 

The assertions by the NUS suggest that HEIs are neither sufficiently independent nor impartial to deliver money guidance. The alternative of leaving money guidance to NUS affiliated advisers or third sector leaders such as Citizens Advice, would perhaps be better for students.

How could the provision of on campus money IAG be better for students? Well, a review of research on what matters to young people in terms of advice provision states:

“Young people want their advisers to specialise in working with young people […] Due to a strong sense of belonging and identity, young people tend to be far more comfortable getting advice from advisers who are focused solely on their age group rather than on the public as a whole. […]

They need a ‘powerful friend’ to advocate for them and “value the ability of their advisers to get things sorted out” (Kenrick, 2009).

Compared to non-student specific agencies, expertise could be claimed by HEI money support staff, who are members of the National Association of Student Money Advisers, which claims to be:

“… the UK’s leading experts regarding student finance and student money issues.” (NASMA, 2018)

Indeed, in spite of their criticism, the NUS poverty commission doesn’t ask for HEI to stop providing guidance but to simply “ensure information, advice and guidance meets the needs of learners not providers” (NUS Poverty Commission, 2018).

Students experience better outcomes when they have a sense of “belonging” and feel “supported and encouraged” in their day to day encounters with university staff (ARC Network, 2015). So the delivery of high quality money IAG within the HE institutions should arguably lead to better outcomes than if this help were provided off campus.

The government wants to “develop a more joined-up approach to the provision of effective information, advice and guidance through the schools and further education sectors and into and beyond higher education”. Rather than “static” IAG they want more personalised programmes of support, embracing the needs of the students and also their “parents, carers and other key influencers” (Department Business for Innovation and Skills, 2014).

If now is the time for HEIs to review their support fund provision; they would be wise to also look at their IAG model and the competencies of those tasked to deliver it.

Given the lack of ALF data, the HE sector could look instead towards the wealth of research carried out by the Money Advice Service (MAS) to inform its money IAG strategy.

 MAS have identified that young adults have a preference for receiving guidance from family, peers or near peers (Harrison, Marchant and Ansell, 2016). MAS have also identified money tips that young people respond well to. They guide that young people need IAG to be achievable, include calls to action, not be over simplified and that it also should be empowering rather than reprimanding(Malton and Clarkson, 2017).

Such research finding could help a university establish schemes such as peer money mentoring or guidance to help parents of students.

Of course not all HE students are 18 to 24 years old but MAS research embraces all segments of the population so their resources should serve as a useful toolkit whatever the age of the student.

Aligning to the national strategy of financial capability may help students see their money issues as part of a bigger picture and knowledge of the strategy provide a continuum for beyond graduation

What is Financial Capability?

If a University decides to deliver money IAG to improve financial capability, what does this actually mean? There does not seem to be a single universally accepted definition. Currently the MAS states that improving financial capability and wellbeing means “addressing all the factors that influence people’s behaviour around money: skills and knowledge, our attitudes towards money, motivation to take action, and the accessibility of financial services”. (The Money Advice Story, 2016)

Orton described a financially capable person as someone who “has the skills and confidence to be aware of financial opportunities, to know where to go for help, to make informed choice and to take effective action to improve their financial well-being”  and an “enabling environment” is one which “promotes the acquisition” of these skills (Orton, 2007). Perhaps financial capability requires “the use of pedagogical methods that enable people to practice and gain competency” (Johnson, E. and Sherraden, M. (2007). So, perhaps Financial Capability ought to be a taught option supplementing a student’s subject of choice. Then again, why should a university take on responsibility for teaching anything other than the courses their customers are paying for?

In reality, responsibilities like budgeting guidance are more likely to fall to university support staff than academics. Birkenmaier cautions that it is important such staff are “first financially literate themselves”(Birkenmaier, J. and Curley, 2009). “The Case for Financial Literacy” cautions against the real risks of delivering financial literacy badly(Robson, 2012). Appropriate competencies should be part of the job descriptions and training of any staff delivering money support initiatives.

 Universities need to decide exactly what money support services they wish to deliver, resource them appropriately and have robust signposting and referral strategies to other IAG providers for matters that fall outside their remit.

The Hardship Brand

It may be time to move away from hardship, crisis and emergency branding. Though conceivably, these terms add gravitas to the circumstances being addressed by the interventions and in turn add kudos to the support fund provider. Like any form of branding the product or service name brings with it some level of emotional connectivity, positive, negative or even ambivalent associations (Schmalz and Orth, 2012).

It could be that terms like a “Helping Hand” with money would convey a better message than “Hardship Funds”. Language that normalises money issues would arguably help fund applicants recognise how the money is actually meeting their need. Extreme terminology may infer an undue sense of seriousness, making a student feel disempowered and believe that without intervention by the university the money problem could not otherwise be resolved.

In their report Borrowed Years the Money Advice Trust provided evidence that 18-24 year olds are likely to worry about money matters, but there was  “clear evidence that a majority of young people are trying to budget and actively manage their personal finances”(Money Advice Trust, 2016).  Given that “managing money well, is important to young adults – ranking above having a job they enjoy, keeping healthy and buying a home..”(Malton and Clarkson, 2017), how likely is it that they would identify with being in hardship or crisis when they need some help? The language of hardship may play to a young person’s tendency to worry rather than encourage their positive attempts to manage money well.

Nudges, short cuts and self knowing

If it is true that there is little evidence that financial education actually alters behaviours (West, 2012), what other proven methods might work better?

The Financial Service Authority’s review of behavioural economics literature concluded that financial decision-making has stronger links to psychology than money knowledge (de Meza, Irlenbusch and Reyniers, 2008). Behavioural economics could be used to nudge students towards improved money management choices.

The government Behavioural Insights Team developed the MINDSPACE acronym. This guides that in order to influence behaviour one must consider the impact of: messenger, incentives, norms, default, salience, priming, affect, commitment and ego of those they wish to nudge.  Arguably, MINDSPACE methodology could be too complex an approach for small money support services. A simpler model called EAST, guiding that interventions be made Easy, Attractive, Social and Timely - could be more achievable. (Service et al., 2014). 

Work done by the MAS and Ogilvy Change (a specialist behavioural interventions agency) is outlined in their report “How to use behavioural science to increase the uptake of debt advice” (Heather, Eleanor Tatam, Sam Kinloch, Colin Chu, 2017). They suggest 10 top tips to nudge clients into better service engagement that any small money team could follow.

Alternatively, the answer may lie in heuristics, “rules of thumb” or mental short cuts to help solve complex issues. Some useful tips outlined in “Young Adults and Money Management: behaviours attitudes and useful rules of thumb” could easily be followed by student money support services (Malton and Clarkson, 2017).

Other research suggests that support services should incorporate “stress coping skills, and measures to address agency, or self-efficacy into the advice and support” as they may be important factors effecting money management behaviours especially when people are under pressure (McNair et al., 2016).

So it seems a little self awareness could go a long way. As stated in the article by David de Meza et al.: 

“Financial capability involves knowledge and skills, but attempts to improve these may not lead to better outcomes. What people choose to know and what they do with their knowledge may primarily depend on their intrinsic psychological attributes” (de Meza, Irlenbusch and Reyniers, 2008).

Is it actually worth the effort though, if the recipients own intrinsic make-up has a more significant influence on the outcomes than education? The answer seems to be yes, as having low financial capability has a detrimental impact on mental health. So attempts to promote financial capability could have “beneficial spill-overs on psychological health in addition to the expected benefits associated with reducing problem debt and welfare dependency and increasing savings and general skills”(Taylor, Jenkins and Sacker, 2011).

The government are calling for universities to “dramatically improve their mental health offering for students” (Department for Education 2018). So it should be worth attempting to improve financial capability for the knock-on mental health benefits at least.

What works?

The government wants evidence based evaluation in order to understand which interventions have the “greatest impact on student access, success and progression”(Department Business for Innovation and Skills, 2014). So how can this be measured?

Toynbee Hall (a leader in the fight against poverty since Victorian times) developed a resource known as the MAP tool to help evaluate impact. Agencies use the tool to monitor the financial wellbeing of the people they help. It is quite a detailed resource, so a less complicated tool might be better for small money teams. Citizens Advice developed a simple questionnaire, where clients score their own financial capability against set measures at the start of an intervention and then later, to monitor progress. (Grewal, 2017).

Gathering feedback would help with qualitative issues though this is a short term perspective and alone could make services appear to deliver a “sticking plaster remedy with no transformative effect”(Meakin, 2013). 

Monitoring retention and academic outcomes of students, who receive money support, could highlight the value of such interventions.

Tapping into the expertise and resources of agencies such as Toynbee Hall, Citizens Advice and the Money Advice Service would make it much easier for small university teams to have confidence that they were using well-researched methods and are in step with current money sector practice.

Incentivising asset building

The ALF was based upon the model used to calculate means-tested welfare benefits such as Income Support. Michael Sheridan argued that this minimum income approach to hardship represents a passive form of social policy that should be rejected as “social entitlement without [...] greater emphasis on personal responsibility” (Sheridan, Michael 1991). Instead of linking income levels to well-being, Sheridan advocated an assets based social policy, focused on "increasing the capacity of people to attain what they have reason to value". Such recommendations influenced the UK government which shifted toward asset based social policy, through the introduction of for example incentivised saving programmes to encourage financial goal setting.

The Money Advice Trust recommended that “Government should consider how to create opportunities for young people to save regularly and to be incentivised to do so “ (Money Advice Trust, 2016). Research suggests that financial worry and anxiety is decreased with increased savings levels (Lemos, 2013) and for positive outcome to occur the assets acquired don’t need to be large  (Brynner, J. and W. Paxton 2001).

The young Dreamers, Drifters and Planners identified by the MAS (Young Adults’ Financial Capability) do set money goals but they lack confidence. They focus on short term planning. They tend to want to keep things simple leading to a “(potentially false) sense of financial confidence in the present, but coupled with longer-term fears for financial security”(Harrison, Marchant and Ansell, 2016).

Young people have “save to spend” attitudes, along with a sense of the “future being a long way off” and “passive acquiescence” that things won’t happen to them. With respect to the personal responsibility that Sheridan advocates, many students “tended to defer personal responsibility to the future” (Harrison, Marchant and Ansell, 2016).

So with all this in mind, university money support should perhaps move away from the income support model of ALF. Instead they could incentivise engagement with IAG, support asset building habits, promote income maximisation, encourage saving for short term goals and longer term financial sustainability.

Conclusion

Universities must review their money support services and deliver in environments where students are likely to engage. The focus should be on building money confidence and knowledge about trusted agencies. Guidance should be provided not only to students, but also those who influence them such as their families. Near peer mentoring schemes should be considered and static information resources avoided. Attempts should be made to promote self knowing and increase insight into how one’s own intrinsic nature can impact money management choices.

The HE sector must shift from providing handouts or incomes top ups and instead promote asset building to help develop the future focus students. Most importantly, Universities need to build a body of evidence as to what intervention works and to begin to make up for the failings of the ALF era.

References

Adam, T. (2014) ‘Nudge economics: has push come to shove for a fashionable theory? | Science | The Guardian’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/01/nudge-economics-freakonomics-daniel-kahneman-debunked (Accessed: 5 April 2018).

ARC Network (2015) ‘Causes of differences in student outcomes’.

Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2018) ‘Behavioral Economics and Marketing in Aid of Decision Making Among the Poor’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. doi: 10.1509/jppm.25.1.8.

Birkenmaier, J., and Curley, J. (2009) ‘Financial credit: Social work’s role in empowering low-income families. Journal of Community Practice, 17(3), 251-268.’

Brynner, J. and W. Paxton (2001) The Asset-Effect, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

Clarke, C. (2003) ‘Grant Letter: Higher Education Funding and Delivery 2005 to 2006’.

Department Business for Innovation and Skills (2014) ‘National strategy for access and student success in higher education’, (April), p. 115. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

Department for Education and Skills (2003) ‘The future of higher education’.

Department for Education (2018) 'New package of measures announced on student mental health' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-package-of-measures-announced-on-student-mental-health

Grewal, S. (2017) ‘Measuring Financial capability’, pp. 1–25.

Harrison, T., Marchant, C. and Ansell, J. (2016) ‘Young Adults’ Financial Capability’, pp. 1–42.

Heather, Eleanor Tatam, Sam Kinloch, Colin Chu, L. (2017) ‘How to use behavioural science to increase the uptake of debt advice’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/01/nudge-economics-freakonomics-daniel-kahneman-debunked.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (2017) Regulatory building blocks, Technical Article. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/of/buildblock/#section4 (Accessed: 11 August 2018).

Institute for Fiscal Studies (no date) Your household’s income : Where do you fit in? Available at: https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in.

Johnson, E. and Sherraden, M. (2007). From financial literacy to financial capability among youth. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,

Kenrick, J. (2009) ‘Young people’s access to advice – the evidence’, (October).

Lemos, G. and (2013) ‘BAD WEATHER / / GOOD / / HABITS / /’.

Malton, C. and Clarkson, T. (2017) ‘Young Adults and Money Management : attitudes and useful rules of thumb Foreword’.

McNair, S. et al. (2016) ‘Individual-level factors predicting consumer financial behavior at a time of high pressure’, Personality and Individual Differences. Elsevier Ltd, 99, pp. 211–216. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.034.

Meakin, S. I. of M. A. (2013) Message from the Chair.

de Meza, D., Irlenbusch, B. and Reyniers, D. (2008) ‘Consumer research: Financial Capability: A Behavioural Economics Perspective’, London School of Economics, (July).

Money Advice Service - Impact Principles (2018). Available at: https://www.fincap.org.uk/impact-principles (Accessed: 10 August 2018).

Money Advice Trust (2016) ‘Borrowed Years’.

NASMA (2018) Our Values. Available at: http://www.nasma.org.uk/About-us/Our-Values/ (Accessed: 10 August 2018).

NUS Poverty Commission (2018) ‘Class dismissed : Getting in and getting on in further and higher education’, Report of the NUS Poverty Commission.

Office for Students (2018) Office for Students: new code on senior pay ‘a positive step. Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/news-and-blog/office-for-students-new-code-on-senior-pay-a-positive-step/ (Accessed: 11 August 2018).

Orton, L. (2007) Financial Literacy : Lessons from International Experience Financial Literacy : Lessons from.

Pankhurst, E. (1914) My Own Story.

Robson, J. (2012) ‘The Case for Financial Literacy’.

Schmalz, S. and Orth, U. R. (2012) ‘Brand Attachment and Consumer Emotional Response to Unethical Firm Behavior’, Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), pp. 869–884. doi: 10.1002/mar.20570.

Service, O. et al. (2014) ‘EAST Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights’, Nesta, p. 53. doi: http://behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/east-four-simple-ways-apply-behavioural-insights.

Sheridan, Michael (1991) Assets and the Poor: New American Welfare Policy: A New American Welfare Policy

Taylor, M., Jenkins, S. and Sacker, A. (2011) ‘Financial capability , income and psychological wellbeing’.

The Money Advice Story (2016) ‘Financial Capability of Children , Young People and their Parents in the UK’.

Toynbee Hall Our History (no date). Available at: http://www.toynbeehall.org.uk/our-history. (Accessed: 10 August 2018).

UCAS (2017) ‘End of Cycle Report 2017 : Patterns by applicant characteristics UCAS Analysis and Research ( Publication date — 14 December Confidential pre-publication draft Further revisions to text will occur’, (December).

UK Government (2004) ‘Higher Education Act 2004’.

Universities UK (2016) ‘WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP : ENABLING SOCIAL MOBILITY The final report of the Social Mobility Advisory Group’.

West, J. (2012) ‘Financial Literacy Education and Behaviour Unhinged : Combating Bias and Poor Product Design Financial Literacy Education and Behaviour Unhinged : Combating Bias and Poor’.

Worthington, B. (2002) Discovering Manchester: A Walking Guide to Manchester and Salford - Plus Suburban Strolls and Visits to Surrounding Attractions

Levitate Student - Postgraduate Pre-registration NHS Students

Postgraduate Pre-registration NHS students were added to Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 by an amendment made back in February - this made it appear that they would be funded going forward in a similar way to Postgraduate Certificate in Education students in the form of loans and grants rather than NHS bursary. 

There was a bit of jiggery pokery when the regulation were revoked so the shift in funding could be debated in parliament but then the amendments to the regulations were reinstated.

So it's loans and grants for these students going forward. 

We wondered if the maximum fee should be £9,250 in line the other courses which fall under the Education (Student Support)Regulations 2011 .

A scan of university websites showed that there seemed to be some still advertising much higher fees for these courses. 

We have clarified this with Office for Students and Dept for Education the former replied thus.....

The distinction between students’ eligibility for student support (including tuition fee loans) and whether or not students are subject to regulated tuition fee caps is correct.

On fee caps, for 2018-19, we are still operating under the system that applied under the Higher Education Act 2004 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/8/contents).

Compliance with fee limits is a condition of grant, under Section 24, which makes provision for this condition to apply in relation to qualifying courses and qualifying persons etc. The reason postgraduate pre-registration courses are not covered is a consequence of Section 41(1), which begins:

41 Interpretation of Part 3

(1)In this Part—

This does not change from 2019-20. Enforcement of regulated tuition fees will be a condition of registration under Section 10 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents/enacted). Section 10(9) begins:

(9)In this section—

• “higher education course” does not include any postgraduate course other than a course of initial teacher training;

  

Department for Education said this... 

Higher Education and Research Act 2017

Part 1 of HERA 2017 covers the Office for Students and includes the mandatory registration conditions:

Section 10 covers mandatory fee limit conditions for certain providers (those in the Approved (Fee Cap) category).

Section 10(3) of HERA stipulates the following: ‘“Regulated course fees” are fees payable to the provider by a qualifying person—

(a) in connection with his or her undertaking a qualifying course, and

(b) in respect of an academic year applicable to that course which begins at the same time as, or while, the provider is registered in the register.’

Section 10(6) of HERA stipulates the following: ‘A “qualifying course” means a higher education course of a prescribed description.’

Section 10(9) of HERA stipulates the following:  ‘In this section—

.

“higher education course” does not include any postgraduate course other than a course of initial teacher training;

“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.’

It follows therefore that postgraduate healthcare courses are not subject to fee caps under HERA 2017 for 2019/20.

So student loans are available to replace NHS Bursaries but courses are not subject to the fee cap of £9,250. This means that a student could apply for the maximum fee loan of £9,250 while the institution could charge them more if they wanted. That said this document from the Office for Students indicates a financial compensation given to the universities per head of post-graduate pre-registration NHS student on a course. However given the fees usually charged for these courses are in the region of £13,000 the amount of compensation per head seems to fall short of what the universities might argue they need.

Levitate Student - Amending the rules - Whats going on?

The government seem unclear about what its doing with student finance at the moment...here are three big concerns we have just now

1) Part-timers can apply for maintenance loan for courses that start in autumn 2018 - what we don't know is how this income will count against means-tested welfare benefits or what will happen if part-time students change study intensity during the academic year. 
Also it seems that the loan may be paid after the full-timers -a few weeks into the term, if this is true then it is not ideal.

2) Distance Learners chapters were removed from the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 by an amendment made back in February 18 - are they going to be put back in to the regulations? Would be good to know what to tell students about what funding they might be entitled to receive. Not clear what is happening here.

3) Postgraduate Pre-registration NHS students were added to Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 by an amendment made back in February - this made it appear that they would be funded going forward in a similar way to Postgraduate Certificate in Education students in the form of loans and grants rather than NHS bursary. That was until the government revoked this amendment at the end of March 2018 - so what is it to be? Bursary or loans and grants??? Give us a clue.
This is now reinstated so it's loans and grants for these students. However we would think that the maximum fee should be £9,250 if the courses fall under the Education (Student Support)Regulations 2011 but looking at university websites there seems to be some still advertising much higher fees for these courses........that doesn't seem right. 
We have clarified this with Office for Students and Dept for Ed so will write an updated post this week.....so visit again soon for the update.

National Student Money Week #NSMW18

This is the week the members of the National Association of Student Money Advisers like to lift their heads from their casework and hardship fund administration to raise awareness of Student Money Matters.

Up and down the country in Higher and Further Education institutions will be getting involved in some way with the week long initiative. In fact it tends to spill over a bit into other weeks as the initiative often clashes with other events or reading weeks depending on the institution etc.

Anyway look out for events in your place of study - there will no doubt be fun and giveaways alongside the money information.

The theme this year is "Where I Live" - wonder what that means to you?

Listen here to two students talk about there experience as freshers living in their first students home.

In the news the Liberal Democrats have been recently looking at Homelessness in 18-24 year olds. They also asked Universities to tell them about how many sstudents living in university accommodation are threatened with eviction due to rent arrears . Their Freedom of Information request highlighted a 16% increase in rent arrears in students in halls of residence.

For Information and Guidance visit your institutions Students Union web pages or the Housing Charity Shelter

Read what Shelter has to say about your rights when facing rent arrears and the threat of eviction from Halls of Residence

Increasing numbers of students are struggling to find a place to live over the summer vacations. Care Leavers and students Estranged from their families find this a specific challenge when many of their peers head home to live with family in the long vacation.

If you fall into either of these groups then ask your place of study if they have any initiatives to help support you? Many institutions have bursaries specifically for helping students in these groups. Some institutions work with the accommodation providers such as Unite to offer accommodation scholarships which provide 52 week accommodation to the recipients.  The charity Standalone works with the Higher education sector championing the cause of Estranged Students. Students who are Care experienced should seek support from their Local Authority and organisations who help them know their rights for example the National Network for the Education of Care Leavers .

Students who rent privately too often struggle with their tenancies - whether its is the high rents, not understanding their rights, disrepair, agency administration fees, problems with the deposits etc etc.

Always seek advice when you have a housing problem - it can be very stressful so speaking to an expert can really help prevent problems escalating.

For the lovely commuter on the train today, here is a quick link to..... 

Bank-rupt of Mum & Dad 

.......nice to natter and best wishes to your daughter as she starts her exciting journey into Higher Education 

Levitate Student: Exceptions that prove the rule

The exception that proves the rule.......

Whatever the often disputed meaning of the phrase the “exception that proves the rule” there are many money rules to which some students find themselves frustratingly excepted. Here are just a few examples.

When can the repayment terms on a loan change after you have signed the agreement?

When you are a student of course!

Back in the crazy coalition days, (when let’s be honest much politicking was shrouded in an illusion of compromise) the Government increased the higher education tuition fees in England to £9,000 for the 2012 cohort of higher education students.

Keen eyed Student Money Advisers led in a taskforce by Martin Lewis spotted new caveats added to the student support regulations about the government being able to change the funding rules at any time. Worries began to creep in about the reassurances those supporting the taskforce were offering new students regarding affordability and repayments of student loans

Vince Cable the then Secretary for Department of Business Innovation and Skill announced a new higher loan repayment threshold, increased from a post study income of £15,000 to £21,000 per year for the 2012 cohort. This meant a student under the 2012 system could earn more before having to start repaying their loan.

‘As announced on 3 November, that income threshold will be £21,000 as from 2016, compared with the current threshold of £15,000. Our modelling to date has assumed that that threshold should be uprated every five years in line with earnings. In order to give better protection for those on lower incomes, we now propose that the uprating should instead be made every year. Around a quarter of graduates will be better off in this new, more progressive regime than under the current regime.’

Similarly from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills document FAQs regarding the 2012 student finance changes published in 2011:

Q I’m worried that I’m going to be saddled with a lifetime of debt as a result of the changes

A You don’t have to pay anything back until you are earning more than £21,000 a year. The £21,000 earnings threshold will be increased

Sounded great. Yet worries were voiced that the return on the new system of funding might not bring enough monies back into the public purse to be cost effective. These worries were dismissed by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

Fast forward to Chancellor Mr George Osborne’s Autumn Statement 2015. Buried in the text he had this to say regarding a Freeze to the Student Loan Repayment Threshold:

2.76 To reduce government debt, the student loan repayment threshold for Plan 2 borrowers will be frozen until April 2021. The discount rate applied to student loans will be revised to 0.7% above RPI, to bring it into line with the government’s long-term cost of borrowing. Taken together, this will reduce the government’s estimate of the long-term student loans subsidy to around 30%

This was unprecedented, changing the repayment terms once a student has already signed up to the system!

The government consulted on the “Freezing the student loan repayment threshold” and only 5% of the respondents were "for" the proposal of   “Keeping the threshold of £21,000 the same for all post-2012 borrowers until April 2021”, yet the Chancellor still implemented the freeze.

Martin Lewis was not happy - writing an open letter to the Prime Minister and promising to fund some students to take the matter to judicial review . Alex True, an affected student, successfully petitioned for the matter to be debated in parliament. All, in the end, to no avail.

Substantive changes had historically only affected new cohorts of students, so at least the prospective students had opportunity to make an informed choice before signing up to the system. Given the student loans have a 30 year repayment term, the potential for future changes to the loan T&C’s are rather worrying.

What commercial lender could get away with such practices?
Video

When is paying rent just an illusion?

When you are a student of course......

Most full-time Higher Education students are not entitled to claim housing benefit. This may seem strange when for many students their income is certainly low enough to render them eligible. 

The law gets around the problem by defining who is regarded as “liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling” for the purposes of housing benefit entitlement – and guess what? - Full-time students are not regarded as eligible to pay rent.....even though of course they mostly all do. There are some exceptions, but for the vast majority of single students without children or disability, paying rent is just an illusion.

When doesn’t every child matter?

When you have an ambition to move on to higher education but you don’t satisfy the residency requirements.

The residency rules are complex and it’s common for young people to get caught up in their complexities.

There are young people who have live in the UK for nearly all their lives, may pass through the entire UK schooling system but at 18, when they are excited at the prospect of university, are prevented from doing so by the robust residency requirements. Often they have never had their expectations managed that this might happen to them.

I have supported a number of academically brilliant young people in this situation. It is not uncommon for the young person to be unaware of the full story of how they arrived in the UK. For example a student who had been illegally trafficked into the UK at the age of 8, spent time in local authority care and yet succeeded against the odds to do well at school. Ten years on, by aged 18, their immigration status was not settled by the Home Office. They failed to satisfy the required residency requirements that would allow them to be funded at university.

A welcome tweak to the relevant regulations was eventually applied in June 2016, acknowledging this as a concerning issue, by introducing a funding eligibility category based on long residence. While it isn’t a catch all, it does help.

“Long Residence 13.—(1) A person who on the first day of the first academic year of the course— 

(a)       is either— 

(i) under the age of 18 and has lived in the United Kingdom throughout the seven-year period preceding the first day of the first academic year of the course; or 

(ii) aged 18 years old or above and, preceding the first day of the first academic year of the course, has lived in the United Kingdom throughout either— (aa) half their life; or (bb) a period of twenty-years; 

Extract from The Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

When your parents are British Citizens, work for the UK government and pay tax in UK? You can get funding right?

Wrong.......

Imagine this scenario – you are 18, your parents are British Citizens who work as civil servants for the British Forces in, for example, Cyprus. They have worked all your life outside the UK supporting the armed forces personnel overseas. They are employed by the UK government and pay their taxes to the UK. You have always lived with them at residencies with British Forces Post Office addresses. You apply for funding to go to university in your parents hometown, in the UK, where your Grandma lives, you would be eligible right?

Unfortunately, it aint necessarily so. If the student themselves was born outside of the UK and the number of years the family has spent outside the UK is not deemed as a temporary absence, then funding could be refused.

Serving forces personnel and their children are exempted from this but not so their Civil Service colleagues including teachers working in British Forces schools. This means the children of these teachers, studying in schools for forces personnel, could be ineligible for funding to attend a UK university while their classmate, the child of a soldier, would be eligible.

When is your partner not your partner?

When you are a student under the age of 25 years......

Imagine you are 20 years old and you have been living with your partner since you were both 16 years old. When you apply for welfare benefits you are regarded as a couple. 

When you become a full-time student the DWP and the benefit agencies take into account some of your student income which impacts the means-tested benefit you and your partner are entitled to. Fair enough.

You apply to Student Finance England for the Adult Dependent Grant but are told for the purpose of this grant that as you are under 25 years of age, your partner is not your partner. Even though they are your partner when it comes to Job Seekers Allowance or Universal Credit entitlement. Even though they would be considered your partner by Student Finance England if you were over 25.

As a couple you will lose out on Adult Dependant Grant income simply by virtue of your age. The non-student partner will lose access to means-tested welfare benefit income for themselves.  

When is your financially dependent partner not “an adult who financially depends upon” you?

When they are also a student who is also awarded statutory student finance.

Which may seem fair enough until you consider a scenario like this.

Imagine you are a full-time higher education student aged over 25 years. Prior to starting your course you and your wife claimed Job Seekers allowance as a couple. When you start your course you are entitled to student loan for your fees and living costs, and adult dependent’s grant as your wife has now lost access to Job Seekers allowance - due to your student income.

Your wife decides to take a further education course to improve her chances of finding work. She accesses the Advance Learner Loan to help pay for her tuition fees. She isn’t entitled to any living cost help. Imagine your surprise then when Student Finance England advise that you are no longer entitled to the Adult Dependants Grant, which is stopped.

If your wife were only to stay at home watching TV then the grant would be safe. The wife has lost all income into the household for herself because she and her hubby are trying to improve their education.   

Caring for someone over 35 hrs/week - eligible for Carers Allowance?

You guessed it? Not if you are a full-time student.

The problem with all these exceptions is that there is little to no information about them on www.gov.uk or the student finance web pages. It may surprise some that the government can change the student loan lending rules even after the loan is taken out. Students are unlikely to be aware of the devil in the detail of the relevant statutory instruments. So unless students access specialist money advice before they start their course, the news that they are the “exception that proves the rule” comes as an unwelcome, unexpected surprise.