Universities in England will be able to charge tuition fees of up to £9000 a year as the government confirms proposals from the recent Browne Review.

Subject to approval by Parliament, these changes will come into force from 2012 and could mean an almost threefold increase for some students with fees rising from £3,290 per year.

Here are the key changes:

• Fees will be allowed to rise to between £6,000 and £9,000 if universities can provide evidence they are widening access for students from economically poorer backgrounds (the criteria for this is still to be revealed).
• Graduates earning less than £21,000 p.a. will not pay any real interest on loans, but interest will rise to 3% (higher than Lord Browne proposed) on a scale for graduates earning between £21,000 and £41,000 p.a.
• Maintenance grants for the poorest students, with household incomes below £25,000, will be increased from £2,900 to £3,250 a year.
• Those with a family income of up to £42,000 will be allowed a partial grant, and students in London will continue to receive a higher maintenance grant.
• The Government estimates that ¼ of graduates will pay less overall than they do at present under the new proposals.

Large cuts in state funding, as announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in October, means that some courses will be funded almost entirely by student fees in future. This is particularly true for arts and humanities courses.

What are people saying?

There has been a mixed response to the announcement.

Some think it is a vital move after the cuts to state funding, which will ensure that universities can continue to offer the highest standards of higher education.

The Russell Group said it is “a life-saving cash transfusion” which would be the “only way for the UK to remain a serious global player in higher education”.

Conversely, others think that the policy is unsustainable, because universities will have to charge the highest fees in order to survive, but this in turn will risk putting many students off entering higher education in future.

The Million+ Group said “Unless universities charge £9,000 there is a big risk that they will be worse and not better-off because of the swingeing cuts to teaching funding. The fear then must be that the outcome of such high fees will be to damage participation and social mobility.”

There is also some speculation that it will re-create a two-tier university system, with ‘top universities’ charging the highest fees, and other universities charging less. Some commentators believe that, as students do not pay tuition fees in Scotland, and fees are currently capped at £3,290 in Wales and Northern Ireland, many English students will head to institutions in those countries instead.

Aaron Porter of the National Union of Students described the near threefold increase in fees as ‘an outrage’.

Speaking ahead of the announcement, the Liberal Democrats’ youth group rejected the proposals.

“The current burden of debt is already weighing heavily on many students, and putting many others off going to university altogether,” said Liberal Youth chairman Martin Shapland.

Labour’s university spokesman, Gareth Thomas, warned that “students will be forced to choose the cheapest courses, not the one that suits them best”.

The changes in tuition fees will apply to universities in England only.

Have your say

What do you think about the proposals? Will they give higher education a future or put it out of reach for many? Tell us what you think on our forum

Join the discussion on our Facebook pages or via Twitter @bewellworkwell

You might find these online resources useful:

• University funding – making sense of the cuts
• Comprehensive Spending Review
• Stress
• Tips for managing change

Find out what people are saying about the Comprehensive Spending review.

Allegra Stratton, Political Correspondent, the Guardian: “Forty thousand teachers across England will lose their jobs as a result of today’s spending settlement, a confidential internal projection made by civil servants at the Department for Education predicts.”

Julian Stanley, Chief Executive of Recourse says: “It is easy to assume that as teachers and lecturers have good conditions of service, that they are somehow immune to the effects of economic turbulence and budget reductions. This is not the case.

We know from the marked rise in money related use of our support services between May and September this year compared to the same period last year that those working in post 16 education are already concerned about their financial situation. We know from the grants that we give young teachers and lecturers and families, who have lost income through redundancy and incapacity to pay priority bills like council tax, that the current situation poses real risks to teachers’ sense of security, wellbeing and efficacy.

It is vital that deficit-reductions don’t damage the next generation. Too many teachers and lecturers have already been hindered by money worries in recent years, and this can threaten the quality of education students receive.

As the only charity providing support to teachers and lecturers, we are uniquely placed to offer help to those in need, but we urge schools, local authorities and national governments to help us ensure that everyone working in post 16 education is given the resources and support they need to delivery the best possible
education to our future workforce.”

Sally Hunt, General Secretary of University College Union (UCU) says:“It is hard to see the rationale behind slashing college and university budgets when they generate massive economic growth for the country and when the alternative is more people on the dole and the state losing out on millions in tax revenues.

“We are appalled to learn that education maintenance allowances are at risk and funding for people who do not speak English is being abolished. The simple message here seems to be ‘don’t be poor’.

“It was interesting that George Osborne chose to start his CSR by saying that he did not wish to saddle our children with debts the government was not willing to pay. He clearly has not read last week’s Browne review of university funding.

“It’s no good the chancellor describing universities as the jewel in our economic crown and then following those warm words up with massive cuts. Every MP with a college or university in or near their constituency should be clear that the cuts will put those institutions at risk.”

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) says : The cuts announced in the Government’s spending review are a retrograde step and will have a devastating impact on vital public services, including education.

The Government may talk about protecting schools, but schools are not protected and nor are local authorities. Attacks are already being made on additional education funding outside of the core schools budget, with vital frontline services to schools already under threat. There will be a total real reduction in the education department’s spending of 3% by 2014 -15.

Teachers are faced with a pay freeze and cuts to pensions which mean they have to work longer for less. Teachers will see this as a long way short of the ‘gold standard’ George Osborne describes.

The Chancellor’s speech today leaves a lot of key questions unanswered. It is still not clear whether the student premium is new money, or if the funding for Sure Start is protected in real terms. Even in relation to school funding, to say that per student funding will be maintained in ‘cash terms’ points towards a per student cut in funding in real terms. The Chancellor will need to reassure parents and teachers on this point.

There are alternatives to the cuts outlined by the Chancellor which would not damage the country’s existing social fabric and future well being. Education spending, like all public sector spending, is an investment in our future.”

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Schools said: “Some schools … will find … they can carry on doing a brilliant job because the money is there to fund everything. There’ll be other schools where the money will be tighter and where efficiencies will be demanded and … some people may move on and their jobs will not be replaced.”

To have your say, join our discussion forum here.

If you are concerned about how the Comprehensive Spending Review will affect you or your school, try our new factsheet:

• Comprehensive Spending Review – Teacher Support Network