[page iii]

NOTE: The estimated cost of preparing and publishing this report is £4,114 2s. 1d., of which £1,235 0s. 0d. represents the estimated cost of printing and publication.

[page iv]

[page v]

[page vi]

[page vii]

[page viii]

APPENDICES

[page ix]

This list explains briefly the sense in which we have used some terms likely to cause difficulty to the general reader. Abbreviations are dealt with here as well as terms used technically. We have not included terms which are explained in the text of the report.

ALLOWANCE

A deduction made from income when assessing a parental or other contribution.

AWARD

A general word to cover scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other grants to students. Unless it is qualified (e.g. "university and college awards", "open awards") it is used in the report to mean "award from public funds". An award does not always carry with it any payment of money and may be honorary.

AWARD-HOLDERS

Students who hold awards from public funds for first degree courses at universities or comparable courses elsewhere.

AWARD-MAKING BODY

A general term to describe public authorities which make payments from public funds to undergraduates and comparable course students. The present award-making bodies, with which the report is concerned, are: in England and Wales, the Ministry of Education and the Local Education Authorities; in Scotland, the Scottish Education Department and the Education Authorities.

B.D.S.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery.

BURNHAM COMMITTEE REPORTS

The reports of the Burnham Committee on scales of salaries for teachers in England and Wales. Appendix V of the 1959 report for establishments of further education lists the qualifications entitling qualified teachers to graduate status for salary purposes.

BURSARY

The term generally used in Scotland to describe awards to students made from public or private funds.

CENTRAL DEPARTMENTS

The Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department.

CENTRAL INSTITUTIONS

Establishments of further education in Scotland, managed by independent governing bodies and receiving direct grant from the Scottish Education Department, providing advanced courses in science and technology, architecture, art, domestic science, music, etc.

CIVIC UNIVERSITIES

Universities in England and Wales other than Oxford, Cambridge and London.

[page x]

CONJOINT EXAMINATION

An examination taken by medical students to give them professional qualifications, L.R.C.P. and M.R.C.S., which enable them to practise.

CROWTHER REPORT

"15 to 18". A report of the Central Advisory Council for Education, England. Vol. I, H.M.S.O., 1959.

DIPLOMA IN TECHNOLOGY (DIP. TECH.)

Awarded by the National Council for Technological Awards, and equivalent in standard to an honours degree of a British university.

DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS

Schools not administered by local authorities, but receiving grant direct from one or other central department.

EDUCATION AUTHORITY

Local authority in Scotland responsible for providing and administering education in its area. There are 35 education authorities, covering 4 cities, 29 counties and 2 joint counties. Most of the functions of an education authority are delegated to an Education Committee.

"ELEVEN PLUS" (11+)

The term commonly used in England and Wales to cover the methods by which local education authorities select, for secondary education, pupils leaving primary schools at or about the age of 11.

FURTHER EDUCATION

Vocational and non-vocational education provided for young people who have left school. The official term does not include the universities.

GENERAL CERTIFICATE OF EDUCATION (G.C.E.)

A certificate awarded in England and Wales as a result of a national examination set by anyone of nine examining boards. The Ordinary level ("O" level) is customarily taken at the age of 16, and though it may be taken in one subject alone, grammar school pupils usually take from five to eight subjects. The Advanced level ("A" level) is most commonly taken at 18 or thereabouts, and usually in two to four closely related subjects. Those competing for state scholarships take Scholarship papers ("S" papers) as well as "A" level papers.

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Secondary schools in England and Wales providing an academic course from 11 upwards.

GREAT BRITAIN

England, Scotland and Wales.

HIGHER EDUCATION

Courses leading to a university degree or to qualifications of equivalent standard at non-university institutions.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Schools which do not receive money from public funds.

[page xi]

L.D.S.

Licentiate in Dental Surgery.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

In this report we have, for convenience, used this term to mean the local education authorities in England and Wales, and the education authorities in Scotland.

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY (L.E.A.)

Local authority in England and Wales responsible for providing and administering education in its area. There are 146 local education authorities, covering London, 63 counties and 82 county boroughs. The local education authority exercises its functions through an Education Committee.

MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

The largest category of schools in England and Wales. It includes all those schools for which the costs are wholly met by the local authority out of rates and Exchequer grants.

SANDWICH COURSES

Courses over a period of years consisting of alternate periods of full-time study in a technical college, usually for 5-6 months, and of supervised training in industry.

SCOTTISH LEAVING CERTIFICATE (S.L.C.)

A certificate awarded in Scotland as a result of a national examination conducted by the Scottish Education Department. Papers are set at two levels, lower and higher, and candidates may be presented in one or more subjects on the lower or higher level according to the school authorities' estimate of their abilities. All candidates must have followed a course of secondary education extending over five years.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES ENTRANCE BOARD

A statutory body, whose main duties are "to determine the requirements qualifying applicants to enter upon a course of study qualifying for graduation in a Scottish University and to issue Certificates attesting the educational fitness of applicants who have fulfilled these requirements." As part of these duties it conducts the Scottish Universities Preliminary Examination.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Schools providing full-time education starting at the age of 11 in England and Wales, or 12 in Scotland, and extending to 15 and upwards.

SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

In Scotland, schools offering an academic course from 12 to 17 or over.

SIXTH FORM

In England and Wales, the upper part of a grammar school entered ordinarily at 15 or 16 after some subjects at the "O" level of the G.C.E. examination have been taken. A full Sixth Form course lasts two or three years.

WORKING PARTY (1948)

The Working Party on University Awards appointed by the Minister of Education in April 1948: their report "University Awards", was published; H.M.S.O., 1948.

[page xii]

To

The Right Hon. Sir David Eccles, K.C.V.O., M.P., Minister of Education

The Right Hon. John S. Maclay, C.M.G., M.P., Secretary of State for Scotland

1. We were appointed in June 1958, with the following terms of reference:

"To consider the present system of awards from public funds to students attending first degree courses at universities and comparable courses at other institutions and to make recommendations."

3. We have held meetings on 42 days. These included 3 days in Edinburgh in May 1959, when we were able to hear oral evidence from Scottish organisations and individuals. A drafting sub-committee has also met on 6 days.

4. We received written memoranda of evidence from 88 organisations and associations, of which 30 also gave oral evidence. In addition, 16 individuals gave oral evidence and 6 individuals submitted written evidence. (Details are given in Appendix 1.) The Committee also received 121 letters dealing with particular aspects of the enquiry. We should like to express our sincere thanks to all those who gave us the benefit of their help in all these ways.

5. We now submit our report.

[page 1]

6. Before we attempt to discuss and define the general principles on which we think our own more detailed recommendations should rest, we want to set out the main features of the background. We must first take account of the general differences between the educational systems of England and Wales on the one hand and of Scotland on the other, with special reference to their awards systems. As far as we know, no committee of this kind dealing with education in recent years has had a remit covering all three countries.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ENGLISH AND WELSH AND THE SCOTTISH SYSTEMS

7. There are marked differences between the two educational systems. Perhaps the crucial difference, from our point of view, is that in England and Wales the G.C.E. "A" level examination is normally taken at about 18, whereas the Scottish Leaving Certificate examination is normally taken at about 17; so that boys and girls usually go from Scottish schools to the university or other higher education a year earlier than in England and Wales. But there are other significant differences. The universities of Scotland are all ancient foundations in or near the main centres of population, and no one of them attracts Scottish students more than the rest. This is quite unlike England and Wales, where the two ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge still have a greater attraction for many students than the modern universities. Again, higher education outside the universities has developed differently. Nevertheless we have found no reason why there should not be a very close assimilation of the public awards systems of the three countries, and many of our recommendations are simply for the general adoption throughout Great Britain of the features of one or other of the present systems which we consider to be preferable.

THE GROWTH OF THE UNIVERSITIES

8. One of the most striking post-war developments in education, which, like so many others, had its origin in the nation's wartime experience, has been the development of university education and the plans for extending it still further. Before the war, the number of full-time students in the universities of England, Wales and Scotland was about 50,000. In 1959-60, it is over 100,000. Firm plans to increase this number to about 135,000 are being put into effect and serious thought is being given to the possibility of a later increase of another 35,000 or 40,000 beyond that figure. Thus, on decisions already taken, the university population will, within the next five years, be roughly two and a half times as big as it was in 1939; and, if the further possibilities now being discussed come to finality, it will eventually be more than three times as large.

THE GROWTH OF HIGHER TECHNICAL EDUCATION

9. Increased importance is now also being given to all forms of technical education because it is recognised to be vital to the nation's prosperity. The

[page 2]

designation of major establishments of further education in England and Wales as colleges of advanced technology, parallel developments in Scotland, the recent introduction of a new qualification, the Diploma in Technology, equivalent in standard to an honours degree, and the growth of sandwich courses are all signs of this recognition. In higher technical education, as in the universities, large scale expansion is certain; but it is even more difficult to predict its ultimate scope.

THE GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF AWARDS

10. To be effective, all these improved educational facilities must be available to those who can profit from them. The importance of this was recognised by Sections 81 and 100 of the Education Act 1944 (for England and Wales) and Sections 43 and 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1946 (see Appendix 2), and by the regulations made under them.* As a result, the rapid rise in the number of students qualified for the various types of higher education has been accompanied by the development of extensive systems of awards from public funds, which are often studied with admiration by visitors from overseas. In England and Wales, the Ministry of Education has increased the number of ordinary state scholarships, awarded annually on the results of the examination for the General Certificate of Education, from 360 in 1939 to 1,850 in 1952, at which figure it has since remained, and the total of university and college scholarships supplemented from public funds has risen to about 1,600 a year. Although the number of holders of state scholarships in England and Wales has risen from about 3,000 in 1948-49 to about 12,000 in 1958-59, the great burden of the growing number of awards necessitated by university expansion during the last decade has fallen on the local authorities. In 1948-49 the number of local authority university awards held by English and Welsh students was about 11,000 and the number held by Scottish students was about 4,000. By 1958-59 the number for England and Wales had risen to about 47,000 and for Scotland to nearly 7,000. Details of the figures for the latter year are given in Appendix 3.

THE GROWTH IN THE SCOPE AND COST OF AWARDS

11. Another important development since 1946 has been the acceptance of the principle that, subject to need, award-holders should be paid the assessed cost of their maintenance and expenses at the university. This, added to the expansion in numbers, has inevitably led to a substantial rise in the national expenditure on awards. The total cost of university awards in Great Britain in 1951-52 was £7m.; in 1958-59 it was £16.8m. In Chapter 13, we give our estimates of the cost of our proposals. We are satisfied that the relatively modest increase in expenditure on awards which we are recommending is essential to enable the country to get full value from the costly expansion of the universities and of the improved facilities now in hand for higher technical education.

*The Regulations for Scholarships and Other Benefits, 1945 (S.R. & O. 1945, No. 666, as amended);
The State Scholarships Regulations, 1954 (S.I. 1954, No. 957, as amended);
The Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations, 1957 (S.I. 1957, No. 1059, as amended);
The Supplemental Allowances (Scottish Scholars at English Universities) Regulations, 1949 (S.I. 1949, No. 818, as amended); and
The Bursaries (Central Awards) (Scotland) Regulations, 1950 (S.I. 1950, No. 1014, as amended).

[page 3]

THE NATION'S NEEDS

12. The nation urgently needs the greatest possible number of highly educated men and women. It is true that greater public emphasis is at present laid on the shortage of particular categories such as mathematicians, engineers, scientists and teachers in these fields. But, while we would not attempt to dispute their importance, we would not agree that this should be allowed to distort the system of awards so as to favour one branch of learning above another. We are convinced that the nation should not depart from the ancient and sound tradition that young men and women go to the university to become all-round citizens and not merely to learn a special skill. It is this principle that we have tried to express in our proposals and which should be the foundation of any system of granting awards from public funds.

MEN AND WOMEN STUDENTS

13. For similar reasons we have, in writing our report and in framing our recommendations, drawn no distinction between men and women students. We believe the public interest is in the award-holder as a student and that it would be wrong to vary the amount or the conditions of an award according to the sex of its holder. At the same time, we know that some families are more ready to encourage or allow their sons than their daughters to go to a university or to take a comparable course, on the ground that, while a boy will probably gain lasting benefit from doing so, a girl may well marry in a few years and her time at university will consequently be "wasted". We take a broader view; in the national interest we want all potential talent to be given its chance to develop and this is the aim behind all our recommendations. Full-time paid employment is not the only means of enriching the national life; nor are the benefits that a university or comparable form of education can confer on the individual or the community measurable only in terms of later earning capacity. A sustained increase in the number of highly educated mothers, as well as fathers, would benefit the nation to an extent that is not yet generally appreciated.

THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR PROPOSALS

14. It is important that we should recognise and define the intended scope of our recommendations. It might be possible to use a system of awards, which makes its impact at the point of a student's transition from school to university, so as to influence or limit the freedom of both. Although our proposals can hardly avoid having some effect on both schools and universities, we have no such intention. On the contrary, we have taken full account of the views stated in Chapter 26 of the Crowther report, that in the present competition for university places there is no case for duplicate selection procedures which add to the complexities of administration and the strain on school pupils. But, by the mere fact of making recommendations to remove the difficulties which fall within our field, we cannot avoid isolating or bringing into relief those other difficulties which are not within our scope. The universities themselves, or the

[page 4]

individual colleges in them, remain responsible for their admission requirements and selection procedures; and in proposing that award-making bodies should accept certain university decisions more unreservedly than they have done hitherto in disbursing public money to students, we have in effect placed greater responsibility on the universities and colleges, which is where we think it should rest.

THE NEED FOR UNIFORMITY IN THE TREATMENT OF APPLICANTS

15. But although we recognise, and accept as right, these limitations on the influence we can or should try to exert, we have been greatly impressed by the opinion, expressed so generally by those we have consulted, that applications by prospective students for awards should be treated uniformly and in accordance with accepted principles. We ourselves share this view and have given much thought to how it can best be put into effect. The kind of uniformity we seek will not be achieved through a system based solely on a code of regulations. Our proposals will introduce a new element in the form of a Standing Advisory Committee, capable of dealing with the practical and human problems that will inevitably present themselves. Examples of the problems which we think such an advisory committee should deal with are mentioned in various chapters of the report (see para. 277).

THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERVIEWS

16. The recommendations we are making about selection for awards would not only attach to acceptance by a university or a comparable institution a greater importance than it has had hitherto; they would also dispel the anxiety which many students at present inevitably feel while waiting to hear whether they will get the grant without which they cannot take up the place they have been offered. In particular, for the great majority of applicants, our recommendations would remove the need for an interview by the award-making body designed to discover whether they were suitable for an award from public funds. But in saying this we do not want to suggest that, in the whole process of transition from school to university, there is no place for an interview of any kind. We hope that universities, in addition to making more uniform the present procedures and conditions of admission, will extend as far as possible the practice of interviewing candidates before acceptance. They will need to have as much information as possible to enable them to judge between the large number of candidates who will be competing for a limited number of places. School records and full reports are already of great help to them, and we are sure that schools will continue to give all the help of this kind they can. This should lead to a still closer relationship between schools and universities. For some students, their performance in the school-leaving examination and the reports of their schools will make an interview, as a means of determining their suitability, redundant. But, apart from the function of interviews in helping to determine the choice between one borderline candidate and another, we believe that the influence of a properly conducted interview upon the student himself is important. He will be in effect applying for a grant of a large sum of public money. A positive effort should be made, in an interview, to remind him that he is seeking the privilege of being backed by the community.*

*Candidates attending interviews at a number of widely separated universities may be put to considerable expense. This is not strictly within our terms of reference, but we think arrangements should be devised to relieve families on whom this is an unreasonable burden.

[page 5]

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

17. There are, at present, some restrictions in the public awards system which limit the freedom of students to attend the institution they choose. In England and Wales, local education authorities will generally give award-holders enough to enable them to attend the university of their choice, including Scottish universities, but students taking further education courses may not be given awards unless they attend one of the colleges of the award-making authority. In Scotland, the Bursaries Regulations allow an education authority to give an award for any university or other institution which the student wishes to attend, but to limit the amount of the grant to what would have been paid if the student had attended a nearby institution where the cost would be less; education authorities normally avail themselves of this clause where the student could have obtained admission to a local university or institution but prefers to go elsewhere.

18. These arrangements reflect different educational traditions. Because for centuries Oxford and Cambridge were the only universities in England and Wales, the idea of going a long way from home to attend a university became well established in these countries at an early date. The growing difficulty in recent years of securing a place at English and Welsh universities has had an important effect in consolidating this practice. In Scotland, on the other hand the universities were established in or near the country's four principal centres, and on the whole it has been the practice to attend the university serving the region in which one lives. This has advantages in establishing close contact between the universities and the schools which feed them. The number of places available is, proportionate to population, still substantially greater than in England and, until the last year or two, qualified students have had no great difficulty in securing a place at the nearest university. Comparatively few Scottish students have wished to attend Oxford or Cambridge; those who have gone there have generally done so after taking their first degree at a Scottish university. With this background, there is an understandable feeling that a student who wishes to go to any other than the nearest university should meet the additional expense himself.

19. The practice in the field of comparable courses in all three countries is analogous to that of Scottish university education. Colleges have been set up in the areas where they were needed to provide courses for local students, and the general custom has been for students to attend the nearest college providing the course desired. The local authorities have, therefore, often thought it unnecessary to give bigger grants to enable a student to take a similar course at some more distant college.

20. While recognising the reasons for these practices, we think it desirable, in the interest of students as a whole throughout Great Britain, that all those with whom we are concerned should have the same freedom of choice that the university student in England and Wales generally has at present. An additional practical reason for this view is that the difficulty in securing places in the Scottish universities, and in the technical colleges, is likely to become greater in the next few years, which will make it more difficult to judge whether the student seeking an award wishes to go to some distant institution as a matter of choice or because he has not been able to get a place at a local one. But the main reason for our view is that much of the value of higher education lies not only in the instruction the student receives but also in the contacts he makes and the

[page 6]

life he leads within the student community outside the lecture room and the laboratory. To get the full benefit, it is important that the student body at a university or other institution of higher education should not be drawn from too narrow a field; it will gain richness from a wider one. We recognise that this ideal is limited to a large extent by the availability of residential accommodation for students, but in principle we believe that the system of public awards should not hinder development in this direction, and we have, therefore, had the student's freedom of choice much in mind in making our recommendations. We do not think it likely that students will lightly move to far distant institutions; those who would benefit more from attending a local institution will still wish to do so.

GRANT FOR FULL PERIOD OF COURSE

21. It is important that students should be able to rely upon a grant for the full normal period of the course on which they have embarked. We consider, therefore, that all awards should be given - as most are at present - for the number of years required to complete the course, subject only to satisfactory progress and conduct. Students living in England and Wales sometimes have difficulties through the variations in length of university courses. Most degree courses at English and Welsh universities last for three years. Because of this, some local education authorities have refused, where a student wished to take an honours degree course lasting four years, to give him an award for the full course, on the ground that this would involve one year's grant more than would have been necessary if an equivalent qualification had been sought at another university. Similarly, difficulties have sometimes arisen over "intermediate" stages of courses from which many, but not all, students may have succeeded in obtaining exemption through examinations taken while still at school. Moreover, it should not be made difficult for able students who have specialised mainly upon the arts side at school to transfer to science by means of an intermediate year at the university. There are so many variations in the opportunities open to different students that we believe the only fair arrangement is to give an award for the full period of study required by the university or other institution concerned.

AWARDS FOR COMPARABLE COURSES

22. The term "comparable course" used in our terms of reference was not defined. When getting statistics from local authorities, we found it necessary to give some more precise indication of the field to be covered. We therefore asked local education authorities in England and Wales to give information about awards for courses leading to qualifications entitling their holders to graduate status under the Burnham Committee reports. The Ministry of Education's Circular 285 (May 1955) recommended that students over 18 following such courses should get grants at the appropriate university rate, though the circular also made it clear that the Minister did not wish to preclude authorities from giving grants at these rates for other types of further education courses, where they were satisfied that the standard of the course and the needs of the student justified it. In Scotland, the arrangements are more positive. The Bursaries Regulations require the same rates of grant to be given to all students over 17 taking university and further education courses other than certain elementary courses. For convenience, therefore, we asked education authorities in Scotland to give information about awards for courses at the central institutions. Thus

[page 7]

the statistics for non-university courses in the three countries are not exactly comparable.

23. Our terms of reference restrict us to students taking courses comparable with those for first degrees. Our recommendations are designed to apply to them, without any restriction as to age. But we did not consider it part of our remit to draw up a list of such courses. Although we recognise that the expenditure of a student taking an advanced course at a technical college will be much the same, whether or not the course leads to a qualification which carries graduate status for the purposes of the Burnham reports, the awards for some of these students fall outside our terms of reference. We have assumed, therefore, that, if our recommendations are accepted for the main groups of students whose courses are clearly comparable with first degree courses, the Government will decide whether, and in what way, they should apply to other students. Should the Government decide to make distinctions by types or levels of course, we think that the Standing Advisory Committee should be asked to advise on the precise classifications.

PRACTICE IN OTHER COUNTRIES: LOANS TO STUDENTS

24. We were anxious to study the practice of other countries and in the course of our enquiry we gathered evidence about the methods of helping university students from public funds in a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere, including Australia, France, the Federal German Republic, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. Though this material was of great interest, for the most part the educational systems differ so widely from our own that few comparisons of direct value for our purpose could be found. We were, however, struck by the official use of the system of loans to students in, among other countries, Norway and the United States and we felt it right to consider the merits of some such system; but, though we recognise that a loan may occasionally be a reasonable way of meeting a particular difficulty, we have had no hesitation in rejecting loans as an integral part of the national awards system. The principle of using loans as a standard means of financing students has now been abandoned by public authorities in Great Britain, and our evidence disclosed no wish to see it revived. The obligation to repay, no matter how easy the terms, must represent an untimely burden at the outset of a career. We far prefer the system of outright grants, with the safeguards against misuse, contained in our recommendations.

THE PATTERN OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

25. As our report makes clear, on one of the main issues that we were asked to consider (Chapter 7) we find ourselves unable to agree: for this and other reasons, we do not feel able to make a firm recommendation on another major question (Chapter 11). But within Part Two our proposals interlock and are designed to work as a whole.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

26. Certain of our recommendations will, if adopted, require legislation, though its scope cannot be accurately foreseen until decisions have been taken on some of the major issues. We refer at the relevant places to the matters on which legislation would in our view be necessary or desirable. Similarly the acceptance of certain of our recommendations would require the with-

[page 8]

drawal, the re-making or the amendment of some of the Statutory Regulations made under the Education Acts.

PUBLIC OPINION AS EXPRESSED TO US IN EVIDENCE

27. Finally, we want to say how strongly we have been struck by the contrast between the community of interest and purpose among our witnesses and the wide diversity of their answers to our carefully drawn-up list of key questions. We naturally supposed that representatives of student bodies would have a different point of view from representatives of local authorities upon certain topics, but it was surprising to find how wide a difference of opinion there was, even within some well-defined groups, about the steps which should be taken to improve the present system of awards. It is because we have not been able, except in one or two minor matters, to detect any consensus of professional or public opinion upon how to solve any of our main problems that, in coming to our own conclusions, we regretfully face the possibility of disagreement from some of those who have been good enough to spend time and thought in providing us with evidence.

[page 9]

28. We start by describing what happens now with the main body of present award-holders who are selected by local education authorities in England and Wales and education authorities in Scotland, and we deal later with the awards given through the central departments.

THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR AWARDS FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES

29. The Education Act 1944, is for the benefit of "the people of England and Wales". In relation to awards from public funds, this is at present interpreted to mean that persons not ordinarily resident in England and Wales are not eligible; but that persons not of British nationality who are ordinarily resident in England and Wales are eligible.

30. The Minister of Education does not consider that a student who comes to England or Wales from overseas specially for the purpose of obtaining full-time education, whether in a university or in a college of further education, has any justifiable claim for a maintenance allowance from a local education authority. This does not apply to students who would ordinarily reside in England and Wales but for the fact that their parents are employed for the time being outside England and Wales.

31. The Education (Scotland) Act 1946, is more specific. Education authorities are empowered to make grants to students who are ordinarily resident in their areas, subject to the proviso that a person who comes to live in any area wholly or mainly for the purpose of attending a university, theological college or further education establishment shall be deemed to belong not to that area but to his area of previous ordinary residence.

32. We do not recommend any change in these arrangements by which awards given as part of the British system of public education are confined to those regarded as ordinarily resident in Great Britain. At present, selected overseas students are assisted, out of funds voted by Parliament, under schemes which are quite separately administered. We have assumed that our terms of reference were not intended to include the review of any such schemes. Within the field with which we are concerned, the present arrangements, depending as they do on the expression "ordinarily resident", give rise to some difficulties. For example, where a Commonwealth citizen obtains entrance to a university after working in this country for a comparatively short period, it is not easy to decide whether or not he should be regarded as ordinarily resident in Britain and thus eligible for an award. We do not think, however, that we can suggest any better line of demarcation; each case needs to be considered on its merits. Difficulties also arise as between residence in England and Wales and residence in Scotland, and over a change of residence between local authority areas, and some change in the law may be necessary to enable them to be overcome.

[page 10]

SELECTION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

33. The present position is as follows:

(a) England and Wales

Local education authorities have no statutory duty to make awards to students but they are empowered to do so by the Scholarships and Other Benefits Regulations. Each authority is required by the regulations to submit particulars of its scheme of awards for the Minister's approval. After he has given it, the scheme may not be varied without his approval of any proposed changes. In choosing those who are to be given university awards, local education authorities conform generally to the recommendations made by the Minister in Circular 263, issued in March 1953. These are, that all candidates who have secured passes at advanced level in two subjects of the G.C.E. and can show evidence of general education should be considered; that performance in written examination should not be the only criterion but that other factors, such as personal qualities, should be taken into account; and that regard should be paid to headmasters' reports and, where practicable, to the findings of a suitably qualified interviewing panel. No similar general guidance has been given by the Minister on the principles to be followed by authorities in selecting students for awards tenable at non-university institutions.

(b) Scotland

Education authorities are empowered by the Education (Scotland) Act 1946, but not obliged, to award bursaries. The Advisory Council on Education in Scotland, in a report on education authority bursaries which was made to the Secretary of State in September 1944, recommended that no candidate who satisfies the entrance requirements of an institution, and is accepted for a course there, should be refused a bursary by the education authority merely on educational grounds. This recommendation is followed by education authorities not only for the universities but also for the central institutions and other recognised further education establishments. Its acceptance was probably eased by the fact that the four Scottish universities maintain, through the Scottish Universities Entrance Board, a common minimum entry standard for graduating courses.

34. We thought it important to try to find the extent to which awards are refused at present, and addressed an enquiry to all local education authorities in England and Wales and to education authorities in Scotland about applications for university awards made in the academic year 1958-59. Details of the results of this enquiry are set out in Appendix 4.

(a) England and Wales

The replies showed that local education authorities in England and Wales received a total of 19,088 firm applications for university awards from students with two or more passes at "A" level. The total number of applicants not given awards was 2,396 (12.5 per cent), of whom 407 were known to have been accepted by universities. Of these 407,331 were refused awards on academic grounds.

[page 11]

(b) Scotland

In Scotland, the education authorities received 2,200 firm applications for university bursaries. The number of applicants not given awards was 146 (6.6 per cent), of whom 77 were known to have been accepted by universities. None was rejected on academic grounds.

35. The enquiry confirmed that in Scotland the education authorities do not apply any second process of academic selection to those admitted to Scottish universities. Some of our witnesses from Scotland expressed concern about the number of failures at Scottish universities, but we found no support for the view that the education authorities should refuse bursaries on academic grounds to any of those admitted by the universities. On the other hand, our witnesses from England and Wales expressed divergent views. Some thought that all those admitted to universities should receive awards automatically: others were critical of the present system of local selection but thought that improvements could be effected within it: a few felt that there was little wrong with it at present. Almost all agreed that there had been an improvement over the past few years.

VARIATIONS OF PRACTICE BETWEEN LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

36. One of the main complaints about the present system in England and Wales is that standards of selection vary between different authorities and that place of residence can still make all the difference between receiving and being refused an award. This criticism is sometimes supported by appeal to the "Selected Statistics relating to Local Education Authorities in England and Wales"* published by the Ministry of Education, in which, inter alia, figures are given of the number of university awards made by each local education authority, and the ratio of this number to the estimated population of 17, 18 and 19 year olds. These ratios vary considerably from area to area and some critics have assumed that a low ratio is evidence of an ungenerous selection policy on the part of the local education authority concerned. We are satisfied that the figures cannot safely be used in this way. Many factors can affect them, including the character and traditions of the area and the proportion of pupils who stay on at school to the age of 17 or 18. Several local education authorities, whose returns to us showed that in 1958-59 they made university awards to all, or almost all, applicants admitted to universities, have low ratios in the "Selected Statistics". Examples are given in Appendix 5.

37. Nevertheless, standards of selection do vary, and the difference between the most and the least exacting authorities is considerable. So long as any element of judgment is left to each of the 146 authorities, variations of practice will be found. This is a natural consequence of the system and is the price to be paid for the advantages of local discretion. Complete uniformity of practice could be secured if the Ministry of Education were to prescribe a minimum standard for a university award, expressed in terms of marks obtained in the G.C.E. or other examination. But any rigid standard of this kind must either exclude from awards many who are fitted for a university education or must be set so low as to be meaningless. It is generally held - and, in our view, rightly -

*Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1959.

[page 12]

that other factors besides examination marks should be taken into account unless the marks obtained are so good as to leave no room for doubt about the academic ability of the candidates. We are satisfied that it would be highly undesirable for the Ministry of Education to lay down rigid standards of selection for local education authorities to follow.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST A SECOND PROCESS OF SELECTION

38. A more radical criticism than inequality of standards is that the present system involves a useless duplication of effort in imposing a second selection process on that through which the universities themselves choose candidates for admission. It is argued that the present selection by award-making bodies is largely a survival from the time when awards from public funds were available only for the most able pupils. This time is long past. In Circular 263 (March 1953), the Minister of Education made it clear that public awards were to be regarded not as a benefit or reward confined to those of high academic ability, but as a proper form of assistance for students of good all-round ability for whom a university education is in the public interest. The adoption of this policy means that the question which now has to be asked is whether a public award-making body will be more successful in choosing those who are likely to succeed at the university (or in rejecting those who will probably fail to graduate) than the university itself.

39. Those who argue in this way also call attention to the background against which this problem of university selection must be set, not merely now but within the foreseeable future. Already the competition for a university place is very severe. The estimates given in the Crowther report of the prospective growth of sixth forms in grammar schools show that, despite the programme of university expansion already announced, within a decade the number of applicants qualified for admission will have increased much faster than the number of additional places, so that the competition to get a place will be still keener. On the basis of this forecast, the quality of those admitted to universities is likely to be higher than it is now.

40. A second selection process is condemned in the following passage from the Crowther report (paragraph 444):-

"There is, however, one point directly affecting the education given to potential university students with which we are concerned. Our view is that in the present competitive position there is no case for duplicate selection procedures, which add still further to the strain on candidates."

[page 13]

award so near the beginning of the academic year that the university department which he had hoped to enter cannot fill the vacancy thus created. At a time when there is, and will increasingly be, heavy pressure on university places, this waste of scarce teaching power and expensive facilities is indefensible. The candidate and his parents will naturally feel aggrieved if, having secured admission to the university, he has to put away this long worked-for ambition because he has not been thought worthy of an award by his local education authority, whom he will naturally regard as less fitted to assess his chances of success than the university which is prepared to have him. Such cases are not so rare as to be negligible and are often made worse by the news that a school-fellow, known to be no better academically, has secured an award from another authority.

ARE UNIVERSITY FAILURE RATES AN ARGUMENT FOR A SECOND PROCESS OF SELECTION?

42. The main reason advanced for a second process of selection by award-making bodies is to safeguard public funds against expenditure on students who fail to graduate. In a wider context we do not think that it can necessarily be taken for granted that a student's time has been entirely wasted if he fails to obtain a degree: this would be to equate the value of a university education with the final qualification obtained at its conclusion. For our purposes, however, it is natural and right that the achievement of a degree or equivalent qualification should be used as the criterion of success, and we have been at pains to examine such figures as are available of failures both among the university population as a whole and among award-holders selected by the local education authorities. All these figures are inevitably subject to serious limitations; simple comparisons of "failure rates" are usually misleading. It may take as long as seven or eight years for a year's entry to a university to work itself out. Any complete analysis of the results must therefore be made so long after the students were admitted that it cannot be a fully reliable guide to the current position. Results at the end of the first year at the university must also be treated with caution. This year is notoriously one of re-adjustment from one way of life to another, and the severity of the tests imposed by universities at this stage varies considerably. We would ourselves regard the student who requires an extended period of study before he finally obtains his degree as a "disappointment" rather than a "failure". Even more clearly, a student forced to abandon his course because of ill health or some other reason beyond his control should not be counted as a "failure".

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE SECOND SELECTION PROCESS?

43. It is thus very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the second selection process carried out by local education authorities. For one thing, it can never be known whether those rejected for an award and consequently debarred from attending a university by financial reasons would have succeeded if they had got there. Nor do comparisons of the failure rates of award-holders with those of university students as a whole throw much light on the problem. No doubt an authority, by setting a very high standard of selection, could reduce the proportion of failures among its award-holders below that of the university population generally, but in doing so it would also certainly exclude many applicants who would succeed at the university. Since the exclusion from awards of any considerable number of potential graduates would be

[page 14]

contrary to the policy already laid down by the Minister, the problem which the local education authorities face in selecting award-holders is now essentially the same as that which the universities have to meet in selecting from candidates for admission. Many candidates select themselves: to choose from among the others is no less difficult for the local education authorities than it is for the universities, and neither can hope to be completely successful. The difficulties facing local education authorities are well illustrated by the experience of the Derbyshire Authority, which some years ago changed from a policy of making awards to all those admitted to universities to one of careful selection of applicants. We were kindly given access to reports and statistics compiled for the Authority. The difficulty of the Authority in forecasting which among its lowest, or borderline, category of applicants were likely to succeed at the university can be seen from the information which we have set out in Appendix 6. We believe this experience to be not untypical and with other evidence it suggests that no important public interest would be sacrificed if the fact of being admitted to a university degree course were, by and large, taken as sufficient in itself to justify an award from public funds.

OUR SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM

44. The following considerations appear to us to be decisive. First, we believe that the universities themselves are best fitted to select those who should receive a university education. Moreover, it is most strongly in their interest to choose the best students from among those who offer themselves for admission. We are confident that, as responsible institutions entrusted with the use of large sums of public and private money, they will seek ways of improving their selection procedures in order to ease both their own problems and those of the schools, to which Chapter 26 of the Crowther report has recently drawn urgent attention. Second, effective selection by local education authorities is for the most part confined to candidates near the borderline for university entrance. We think that the return, in terms of improved selection and of public money saved, for the efforts of local education authorities all over England and Wales, is small. Third, the present arrangements impose an undue burden on the schools and the pupils in them.

A SECOND PROCESS OF SELECTION UNNECESSARY

45. Our conclusion is that no second process of academic selection should be required for the main stream of entrants to first degree and comparable courses. In the four Scottish universities, there is a statutory minimum qualification for admission to a graduating course, but in the absence of any common entry standard to universities in England and Wales we think it desirable to lay down for those universities a minimum national qualifying standard for the automatic grant of an award. The award-making body should have discretion, subject to what we say later, to make or withhold an award to anyone admitted to a university or comparable course in England and Wales who is not so qualified.

DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS

46. In the following paragraphs we set out our recommendations, first, for universities and, later, for comparable courses, naming under each head the main types of case in which the award-making body should continue to have discretion to select on academic grounds. In Scotland, no change is proposed

[page 15]

in the present practice of not refusing bursaries on academic grounds to those admitted to comparable courses at central institutions. We end the chapter by discussing the power of the award-making body to withhold awards on other than academic grounds. The implications of the recommendations made in this chapter on the question of the finance and administration of awards are dealt with in Chapter 11.

AWARDS TO UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

47. We recommend that all those ordinarily resident in Great Britain admitted for the first time to first degree courses at universities in receipt of grant from the University Grants Committee should receive awards from public funds, provided, for universities in England and Wales, that they have 2 G.C.E. passes at "A" level or the equivalent. For Scottish universities, they should have the statutory minimum entry qualification, that is, the Attestation of Fitness of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board.

48. This recommendation applies equally to men and women and without restriction as to age.

49. We have considered whether the minimum qualifying standard in England and Wales should embody some requirement about general education, possibly to be expressed in terms of passes at "O" level in the G.C.E. examination. We came to the conclusion that it would be undesirable to make any combinations of subjects at this level a national requirement for the grant of an award from public funds.

Matters left to the discretion of the award-making body

50. We indicate below the main types of case in which we recommend that discretion to give or maintain an award should still remain with the award-making body and we offer some comments on the general line to be taken in each case.

(a) Students admitted to degree courses in England and Wales without 2 G.C.E. "A" passes or the equivalent

There will be very few admitted to degree courses who have not attained this standard, and indeed, normally speaking, there could be no expectation that they- would secure a university degree without having done so. There may, however, be a few students with an exceptional talent in one particular subject only, who have not attained the 2 "A" standard. We consider that favourable consideration should be given by the award-making body to such applications. There is, also, the small but important category of applicants who, after leaving school relatively early, have earned their living for a number of years and then seek to enter the university much later than most undergraduates, often after long attendance at adult education classes. They are frequently people of considerable ability and perseverance, and we should not like to feel that they were debarred from favourable consideration because they did not have the normal qualifications at G.C.E. "A" level or the equivalent.

(b) Degree and other courses at universities not in receipt of grant from the University Grants Committee (see also para. 119)

Commonwealth and foreign universities are so many and diverse that we do not feel able to make any positive recommendations about the treat-

[page 16]

ment of applications from students who wish to study in them. We do not feel that we can go further than to suggest that award-making bodies should consider on their merits any such applications. We wish, however, to make special reference to Queen's University, Belfast, and to recommend that those holding 2 G.C.E. "A" passes or the equivalent admitted to degree courses there should normally receive awards from public funds. Within Great Britain, St. David's College, Lampeter, has long enjoyed the right to confer its own first degrees in Arts and Theology and awards should continue to be given to students with 2 "A" level passes or the equivalent who wish to graduate there. The practice of making awards available at Trinity College, Dublin, to suitable students unable to obtain admission to universities in Great Britain appears to us to be justified.

(c) First degree courses entered by graduates ('second first degrees')

Public funds should clearly not be used to finance the "perpetual student", but some students who have already graduated may reasonably wish to undertake a further period of study for another first degree. There is good reason to maintain the long standing practice of able graduates of Scottish and Welsh universities reading for honours degrees at Oxford and Cambridge. Men and women of exceptional ability who have qualified either in medicine or in dentistry should not be denied the opportunity of obtaining the second qualification, in dentistry or medicine as the case may be. Another example quoted to us is an honours course in theology taken after graduation in another subject. Where the award-making body is satisfied of the intellectual ability of the student and the importance of the object for which he seeks the additional qualification, we recommend that awards from public funds should be available.

(d) Intercalated science courses for medical students

Exceptionally able medical students who are recommended to interrupt their medical courses in order to undertake a specialist course in a related scientific subject, such as bio-chemistry, should be enabled to do so.

(e) Change of course involving a longer period of grant

Public funds must be safeguarded against arbitrary changes of course by indifferent students. It is in the interest of universities to hold such tendencies in check and the main responsibility for doing so must be theirs. There will, however, be students changing their courses, particularly at the end of the first year, for whom it will be reasonable to allow an additional period of grant. Students may not discover their real interests or reveal special ability in a particular subject until they are already at the university, and pressure may have been put on a student to start a course for which he is not suited. Particular difficulty arises when a student wishes to change to medicine or dentistry, as these courses are longer than the ordinary university course and such a change may mean the making of a grant for five or six years in addition to, say, two years already spent on the original course. While changes of this kind should not be ruled out entirely, they require careful scrutiny of the award-making body in consultation with the university.

(f) Reversion from an honours degree course

Students who have started an honours degree course may not be allowed

[page 17]

by the university to continue or may be strongly advised by the university to change to an ordinary or pass degree course. A similar situation arises where a medical student reading for a degree changes to the conjoint examination, or where a dental student reading for the B.D.S. changes to a L.D.S. course. We do not consider that such changes should in themselves lead to termination of the award if they do not involve a longer period of study in total than was required for the original course and provided that the university recommends that the student should continue on the changed course. Discrimination will, however, be necessary if grant for a longer period is involved. We are aware, also, that cases such as these and the two following types at (g) and (h) may have a disciplinary aspect, but we deal with the general question of withholding awards on non-academic grounds in paragraph 58.

(g) Students required to repeat a year's work at the university

Close consultation between the award-making body and the university or college authorities will be necessary when an award-holder is required to repeat a year's work, since this will raise the question whether the award should be continued or suspended. Complacency towards a high rate of 'repeats' cannot be tolerated; the student who is allowed to remain at university after he should have been sent down is wasting the public money spent on his education and maintenance and may also be preventing a better student from obtaining admission. We suggest that the university should advise the award-making body of the grounds on which the student is being allowed to return to the university. If there are special reasons, such as illness, for his lack of success, we recommend that the award-making body should normally extend the award. Where no such reasons exist, we do not think that it is possible to lay down any general rules. Each case must be considered on its merits.

(h) Students changing to another university

Here again the award-making body, after consulting both universities and assuring itself that the decision of the second university to admit the student has been based on full knowledge of the events which have led to the course at the first university being abandoned, will have to consider the application on its merits.

51. The main implications for comparable awards of the recommendations made in paragraphs 47 and 48 for university awards are clear, but some special problems arise which we deal with in paragraph 53.

52. We recommend that all those ordinarily resident in Great Britain who are admitted for the first time to courses comparable to first degree courses at further education establishments which are maintained by local authorities or aided by Government grants, should receive awards, provided that those admitted to establishments in England and Wales have 2 G.C.E. passes at "A" level or the equivalent. We recommend also the continuance of the present arrangements in Scotland by which no candidate who is admitted for the first time to such a course at a central institution or other recognised institution is refused a bursary on educational grounds.

[page 18]

Matters left to the discretion of the award-making body

53. We sketch below some of the types of case in which discretion to make or maintain an award will remain with the award-making body.

(a) Students admitted to comparable courses in England and Wales without holding 2 G.C.E. "A" passes or the equivalent

The award-making body will have to take account of the nature of the course, the standards of the institution attended and the reasons why the applicant has not secured the minimum qualification we have laid down for an automatic award.

A special difficulty arises with courses leading to a high qualification in music, the fine arts, drama and dancing. It is clear that the highest standards in such subjects may be reached without pursuing academic studies to the level of 2 G.C.E. "A" passes. No doubt many of those destined to high achievement in these fields will take 2 G.C.E. "A" level passes in their stride, but it would be deplorable if lack of this qualification were to be an insuperable barrier to those with specialised gifts of a high order in a particular art. Where the institution concerned is of the highest standing, with a national or international reputation, it would not be unreasonable for the award-making body to rely on the assessment which the institution has itself made of the candidate and to accept as a valid basis for an award the fact that the institution has decided to admit the student. Sometimes, clearly, the award-making body may not feel able to place the same confidence in the reputation or judgment of the institution and may wish to make an independent assessment of the abilities of the candidate through its own specialist advisers.

(b) Private institutions

We confined our recommendation in paragraph 52 to further education establishments which are maintained by local authorities or aided by Government grants, as we consider that it would be opening the door too wide to include for automatic awards all those with the minimum qualifications who are admitted to private institutions. We recognise, however, that some such institutions are of the highest standing, and it seems to us that a candidate with the minimum academic qualifications we have laid down, admitted to such an institution for a comparable course, should be able to count on an award as readily as if he had been admitted to a maintained or aided establishment. We have failed to find a criterion to distinguish those private institutions where the award should be automatic from those where it is necessary for the award-making body to retain discretion. We recommend, therefore, that the Standing Advisory Committee should draw up a list of the private institutions and of those comparable courses they provide for which awards should be automatic. Awards for other courses and at other private institutions should be made only at the award-making body's discretion.

(c) Extended periods of grant

The principles applied to university students in paragraph 50 (c) to (h) apply also to students taking comparable courses. Such cases will have to be considered on their merits after consultation between the institution and the award-making body.

[page 19]

PART-TIME STUDENTS

54. Representations have been made to us by professional and other bodies about the present treatment of articled pupils. We must deal with the general issues of principle involved because, although it is possible that many of the qualifications at which such pupils are aiming fall outside our terms of reference, they do not all do so. We have also been struck by evidence we have had showing how hard a financial struggle it can be for some students seeking high professional qualifications by way of the existing methods of being articled.

55. Up to the present, the policy of the Ministry of Education and of the Scottish Education Department in this matter has been based on two principles. The first principle is that part-time students should not be eligible for maintenance grants from public funds, though they may receive aid in respect of expenses directly connected with their studies, such as lecture, class and correspondence course fees, books and stationery, and the cost of travelling to lectures and classes. The second is that students who are committed to service with an employer and whose courses are taken in brief spells, either in normal working hours under a "release" arrangement or in the evenings, must be regarded as part-time students. This applies even though the course taken is classed as full-time by the institution providing it.

56. We have considered carefully the issues involved and we endorse the two principles quoted. Any breach of them would be likely to have widespread repercussions and could not be prevented from becoming in some cases a subvention of wages by public funds. We wish, however, to stress that it is in the national interest that the award-making body should be generous in making grants towards the educational expenses of students studying part-time for high professional qualifications. This applies also to those who are studying part-time for London University external degrees without aiming at a professional qualification.

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

57. The guiding principle to be followed in making grants to theological students appears to us quite clear. Awards should be as readily available for theological as for other studies. The award-making body must necessarily take account both of the abilities of the student and of the standing of the institution at which he proposes to study. We are told that, at present, grants to follow university degree courses in theology are treated by local authorities on the same basis as applications for degree courses in other subjects. It seems, however, that greater variations of practice as between one local authority and another occur about courses at theological colleges than about other courses. In so far as "comparable" courses in theology may be available at non-university institutions we recommend that they should be treated for awards purposes on the same basis as "comparable" courses in other subjects.

WITHHOLDING OR WITHDRAWING AWARDS ON GROUNDS OF CHARACTER AND CONDUCT

58. At present, both the central departments and the local authorities reserve the right to reject candidates for awards on grounds of character and conduct. The same applies to continued tenure of an award already granted: the State Scholarships Regulations provide, for example, that the tenure of a state

[page 20]

scholarship is subject to satisfactory attendance and conduct. We consider it to be essential that a reserve power to refuse or to terminate an award on grounds of character and conduct should rest with any body which makes awards from public funds. Such a power, which must necessarily be expressed in very general terms, might be thought at first sight to constitute a serious curtailment of the generous charter for the grant of awards which we have sketched out in this chapter. In practice, we think that little difficulty is likely to be so caused. In this matter the interests of the university and of the award-making body coincide. The universities are concerned not to admit or to harbour students about whose character there is grave doubt: they, equally with the award-making body, will have access to school reports. Where the award-making body has relevant information not available to the university, it should get in touch with the university authorities and confer with them.

59. When an award-holder is guilty of serious misconduct during his course or is persistently idle, university authorities are the proper people to deal with him. They should act in the full knowledge that he is receiving an award from public funds and should inform the award-making body at once if the student is to be sent down. The university may often find it desirable to consult the award-making body before making their decision. We do not think circumstances will often arise where a student would be allowed to remain at the university but the award on which he is dependent would be discontinued or suspended. If he is to continue at all, he should continue under conditions as favourable to his success as possible. But we must emphasise that here, as throughout the chapter, our recommendations assume closer co-operation and consultation between the award-making body and the university or other educational establishment than can be claimed to exist universally at present: without this, the public awards system will not give as efficient a service to the community as modern conditions demand.

[page 21]

60. The state scholarships now offered by the Ministry of Education to residents in England and Wales are the subject of this chapter.

61. The only parallel scheme in Scotland is the supplementation by the Scottish Education Department of open awards at English universities won by Scottish residents, which amount to about 20 a year.

TYPES OF STATE SCHOLARSHIP FOR RESIDENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES

62. There are four kinds of state scholarship available for undergraduates:-

(a) Ordinary state scholarships. These scholarships date back to 1920, when 200 scholarships were offered on the results of the Higher School Certificate to pupils in grant-aided secondary schools. The scheme was "designed to strengthen the connection of those schools with the universities and to diffuse more widely the benefits of university education".* In the intervening years there have been changes, and since the end of the second world war, the number offered has been greatly increased. Since 1952, the arrangement has been that the number offered each year on the G.C.E. examination should be calculated to secure that 1,850 scholarships are taken up at the universities in the following October. As a considerable number of those winning ordinary state scholarships each year postpone taking up their awards for a year or longer, the effect of this arrangement has hitherto been that the number of scholarships offered each year has exceeded 1,850. In 1958 and 1959, the numbers offered were 2,015 and 2,372 respectively.

State scholarships are allocated by the Minister to the nine examining bodies which conduct the G.C.E. examination, on the basis of the number of candidates who have entered for two or more subjects at "A" level in the year in question. The examining bodies select, up to the allotted number, the best candidates from those taking their own examination. The requirements of the examining bodies vary considerably (details are given in Appendix 7) but fall within the minimum and maximum standards laid down in 1949 by the Secondary School Examinations Council.

The minimum standard required by the Council is two subjects at "A" level, one of which should be offered at "S" level also, together with evidence of general education; the maximum is three subjects at "A" level, two of which should be offered at "S" level also, together with evidence of general education, but "any examining body availing itself of this maximum should carefully and continuously examine its effect on the schools and should consider the effect of particular combinations of subjects".

[page 22]

(b) Supplemental state scholarships. This scheme was introduced in 1946 in recognition of the fact that some boys and girls who had won open scholarships or exhibitions at the universities had been unable to take them up unless they had succeeded in getting other awards or other financial help.† Closed scholarships or exhibitions awarded by universities, colleges of universities, or university colleges may also be supplemented if the field of competition for them or the conditions of award are such as to maintain a comparably high academic standard. The awarding authority is required to certify to the Minister that the attainments and promise of the holder of the award are substantially equivalent to those of an ordinary state scholar. To qualify for supplementation, the full value of the scholarship or exhibition (which in any case must not be less than £40 a year) must be assigned to the holder. Each year about 1,600 supplemental state scholarships are taken up, but the Ministry has always been willing to add to its list any further scholarships or exhibitions which satisfy the conditions.

The essence of the scheme is that public funds are used to make up the value of the university award to the amount which would be received in similar circumstances by a student who wins an ordinary state scholarship. The holder of a university award, therefore, derives no financial advantage from that award as compared with the ordinary state scholar. This parity of financial treatment has given rise to complaint on the ground that many university awards won in open competition enjoy a higher academic prestige than ordinary state scholarships, and that consequently those who win them deserve an additional financial benefit.

(c) Technical state scholarships. These also were introduced after the second world war, in 1947, and provide primarily for students who have been in part-time attendance at a further education establishment. At present, 225 are offered each year.

(d) Mature state scholarships. This scheme, which was also introduced in 1947, provides for candidates over the age of 25 who have been unable to take a university course at the normal age but have pursued some form of continued study since leaving school. At present, 30 are offered each year.

63. The regulations governing the award of state scholarships are complicated and no more than a brief summary of the conditions of tenure is given below:-

(a) Ordinary. These scholarships are normally tenable at a university or university college for a course leading to an honours degree, or at a technical college for a course leading to the Diploma in Technology. They are tenable for the duration of the approved course of study.

(b) Supplemental. Tenable for an approved course at the university or college at which the supplemented award has been won. The approved course must normally be one leading to an honours degree.

(c) Technical. Tenable at a university, a university college or a technical college. The course of study must be approved by the Minister and

[page 23]

must normally lead either to an internal honours degree of a university, or to the Diploma in Technology. All courses must be full-time or sandwich and of at least two years' duration.

(d) Mature. Tenable at a university or a university college for a course of study approved by the Minister. The course must normally be one leading to an honours degree and must fall within the field of liberal studies.

64. The 1948 Working Party advised that the main purpose of state scholarships should be to assist students of high academic promise, including those holding university open scholarships or exhibitions. These students were thought of as possessing qualifications of an academic kind which could be tested with reasonable accuracy by examination results and thus as being suitable for national awards which had, of necessity, to be given mainly on paper work. The estimates made by the Working Party of the number of candidates of this kind were based on the number of university students then thought likely to obtain first or good second class honours degrees. The number assumed to be capable of this was 4,500 a year, though not all of these were thought likely to be candidates for state awards.

65. The Working Party concluded that at least 4,000 state scholarships a year would be needed; they hoped that half this number would be provided by supplementation of university open awards and that the other half would be offered directly by the Ministry of Education. They forecast that the number of university awards to be made by the local education authorities would be of the order of 7,000 a year.

66. This recommendation presupposed an annual entry into universities and university colleges in England and Wales of the order of 18,000. In 1959 the entry was about 23,000 and by the mid-sixties it is expected to be about 30,000. The total number of ordinary state scholarships and supplemental state scholarships taken up each year has not as yet risen beyond 3,600 and it is the local education authorities who have stepped into the breach by raising the annual level of their awards, from the 7,000 contemplated by the Working Party, to over 16,000. In fact, had it not been for their generous attitude towards higher education and their willingness to shoulder a greatly increased financial burden, full advantage might not have been taken of the increase in the number of university places which has been brought about at such a cost to the State.

67. The main reason why the number of state scholarships has never reached the Working Party's figure of 4,000 a year has been that the number of university open awards eligible for supplementation has not risen to the figure of 2,000 a year for which the Working Party had hoped. We cannot count on the universities being able to spend out of their general income an increased amount on scholarships and, under the regulations as they are, there seems little likelihood that an increase will come about through private benefactions. It is clear that, if any attempt is to be made to retain the Working Party's proportion of 4,000 to 7,000 between central and local awards, when the annual entry to English and Welsh universities is 30,000 a year, the present number of ordinary state scholarships would have to be multiplied about four times.

[page 24]

UNIVERSITY RESULTS OF STATE SCHOLARS

68. In Appendix 8 we give some figures showing the relative performance of state scholars and local education authority award-holders in the academic years 1955-58.

69. So many factors influence these figures, including different arrangements for degree courses in the universities, that great care is needed in drawing general conclusions from them. In recent years about one-third of those offered supplemental state scholarships had previously won ordinary state scholarships. A number of state scholarships at universities other than Oxford and Cambridge is held in the faculty of medicine where the course leads to an ordinary degree. The figures show that state scholars do relatively better than holders of local education authority awards. In view of the way in which state scholarships are awarded, this is what one would expect, though it should be noticed that over a thousand local award-holders gained first class honours degrees in the three years 1955-58. The figures also show that at Oxford and Cambridge the holders of ordinary state scholarships do not do quite as well as the holders of supplemented awards; on the other hand, at other universities they do a little better. One cause of this is that, while scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge have retained their attraction for reasons other than financial, the competition for entrance scholarships at some other universities has fallen off because in recent years they have not brought any worthwhile financial advantage to their holders. (See paragraph 86.)

THE FUTURE OF STATE SCHOLARSHIPS

70. The recommendations which we have made in Chapter 3 make it unnecessary to maintain state scholarships as a means of enabling able young people to secure a university education. All who would have won state scholarships under the present system will, under these recommendations, obtain a public award, and nothing is gained from the university point of view by marking off a particular class of award-holders as state scholars.

71. Many important bodies which gave evidence to us thought that the state scholarship system should be continued and that the number of state scholarships should be increased. It was clear from our discussions with them that their advice was not given solely on educational grounds but that financial and administrative considerations bulked largely in their minds. The main arguments advanced by our witnesses in favour of retaining state scholarships. were:-

(a) the rates of grant and methods of assessment fixed by the Minister for state scholars set a standard for local education authorities to follow in their own schemes of awards;

(b) they constitute a method of dividing financial responsibility between central and local government;

(c) they are an established part of the present educational system and are regarded with respect by educational and public opinion; and

(d) they provide an incentive and reward for sixth form pupils, especially in the smaller schools.

[page 25]

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS AS A STANDARD FOR LOCAL AWARDS

72. The first argument is that the rates of grant and methods of assessment fixed by the Minister for state scholars set a standard for local education authorities to follow in their own schemes of awards.

73. In the immediate post-war period, state scholarships played a valuable part by providing a standard of emoluments at which local education authorities could aim with their own awards. This situation, however, began to change in 1952, when the Minister invited the co-operation of the local authority associations to secure uniformity in the main emoluments to be attached to awards to university students. In that year, and subsequently in 1955 and 1958, working parties, consisting of representatives of the local authority associations and of officers of the Ministry, reviewed rates of grant, and their recommendations were then considered both by the Minister and the associations. It was clearly understood that the rates fixed for state scholarships by the Minister in agreement with the associations should be recommended to local education authorities for use in their own awards. In effect, these periodical reviews were settling national rates and not merely state scholarship rates, and the consideration that rates for local awards were also in question cannot have failed to loom large in the minds of those who conducted them. The reviews have been useful in securing the present substantial uniformity in rates of grant and methods of assessment of university awards throughout England and Wales. There can be no question of going back on the degree of uniformity achieved; our concern is to extend it further. But the point which we wish to emphasise here is that, in future, such reviews could even better promote uniformity if they were directed to a single class of award from public funds, and not to two classes, i.e., state scholarships and local authority awards.

74. In short, the financial rewards attaching to state scholarships are no longer any better than those attaching to the general run of local awards and a case no longer exists for maintaining state scholarships as a means of setting a standard of emoluments; this function has been swallowed up in the development of the awards system as a whole.

DIVISION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

75. The second argument is that state scholarships constitute a method of dividing financial responsibility between central and local government.

76. The proper division of financial burdens between central and local government depends on an assessment of national and local interests; we deal with this matter in Chapter 11. This problem can be solved without any system of state scholarships. They need not be retained as a means of dividing the cost.

TRADITION AND PRESTIGE

77. We now turn to the third argument, which is that state scholarships are an established part of the present educational system and are regarded with respect by educational and public opinion.

78. State scholarships are part of the educational system in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. As we believe in the need for a unified system of awards for Great Britain, a change is, in any case, necessary. We think it essential that, at the present time, consideration of the future of the awards

[page 26]

system should not be unduly concerned with the pattern which has grown up over the course of the years, but that it must start from first principles.

79. It is difficult to assess the value of anything so vague as the degree of respect in which these awards are held.

THE INFLUENCE OF ORDINARY STATE SCHOLARSHIPS ON THE SCHOOLS

80. The fourth argument is that state scholarships provide an incentive and reward for sixth form pupils, especially in the smaller schools which are not geared to competing in the fierce struggle for Oxford and Cambridge scholarships. It is said that schools are proud to point to them as a mark of success and that the hope of winning one is a stimulus to their pupils.

81. This, if true, is the more remarkable in that they no longer carry the financial advantage over most local education authority awards which they did ten years ago. It may well be that the present degree of uniformity between state scholarships and most local education authority awards has been so recently achieved that its full effect in reducing the attraction of state scholarships has not yet had time to make itself felt.

82. In so far as state scholarships afford a stimulus to able pupils and to smaller schools, they may serve a useful purpose. But they have less desirable results. In particular, they tempt some pupils to embark on scholarship work for which they are not suited and so constitute an additional pressure on sixth forms. Some pupils in these forms pass the same "A" level subjects three or even four times. This is bad, and some of us believe it to be partly due to competition for state scholarships.

POSSIBLE REFORMS

83. We have considered the possibility of various changes in the present state scholarship system, such as altered methods of selection, reduction in number, and higher emoluments. We believe that ordinary state scholarships cannot maintain their attraction unless success in the competition carries with it a financial advantage. But we found a firm conviction in most of those who came before us to give evidence, that it would be wrong to make from public funds additional or "bonus" payments to a particular class of award-holder. We agree with this view; the maximum value of an award should be enough to cover a student's assessed needs but none should look to the taxpayer or ratepayer for the payment of sums above this maximum.

OUR CONCLUSION ABOUT ORDINARY STATE SCHOLARSHIPS

84. We have not so far mentioned the administrative issues, but the retention of state scholarships is inseparable from the disadvantages of a dual system. As we have already said in paragraph 70, our earlier recommendations make it unnecessary to maintain state scholarships as a means of enabling young people to secure a university education. We also consider, for the reasons given in paragraphs 72 to 83, that the arguments in favour of retaining state scholarships are not strong enough to justify their preservation.

85. This complex system has now become stranded, like some prehistoric creature, in a world for which its qualities are no longer fitted.

[page 27]

SUPPLEMENTAL STATE SCHOLARSHIPS

86. Our recommendations in Chapter 3 will ensure that the holders of university and college open awards will receive awards from public funds. The conditions under which these open awards are given by universities and colleges are not matters on which we can make recommendations. The part which they play in the educational system does, however, depend in some degree on the extent to which those who win them are allowed to benefit financially if they also hold an award from public funds. The financial aspects of this will be dealt with later in our report (see Chapter 9), but its importance from a purely educational point of view makes it necessary to anticipate part of our conclusions here. The present policy of deducting from the public grant the whole value of the college or university award is implicit in the term supplementation, which shows that no extra reward is intended beyond the sum provided by an ordinary state scholarship. This has had a deadening effect on many open scholarships, which have ceased to attract. We understand that one university is contemplating the withdrawal of its entrance scholarships because of lack of competition for them and that at least one other has been seriously concerned at the poor field attracted to its scholarships. This undesirable situation is likely to continue and even be intensified, so long as no financial advantage is attached to winning open awards. But if supplemental state scholarships are discontinued, this can be remedied.

87. Our recommendations in Chapter 9 will make it possible for the winners of most university open awards to retain their full value without any corresponding deduction from the public grant. We are confident that this change will bring a better field of competition for entrance scholarships and exhibitions at universities other than Oxford and Cambridge. It will also remove a deterrent to the endowment of scholarships at the newer universities.

TECHNICAL AND MATURE STATE SCHOLARSHIPS

88. We have considered whether there is any special case for continuing the small schemes of technical and mature state scholarships, but we are confident that the special classes of student catered for by those schemes should have no difficulty in securing ordinary awards, and that it is unnecessary to retain limited competitive schemes for them.

SUPPLEMENTATION BY THE SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

89. It will be apparent from what we say elsewhere in the report that we wish the awards system as a whole to be revised in such a way as to make possible a ready exchange of students from Scotland to England and Wales and vice versa and we see no need, if our recommendations are adopted, for the present supplementation scheme of the Scottish Education Department to be continued, valuable as has been the purpose which it has hitherto served.

OUR RECOMMENDATION

90. We therefore recommend that all types of state scholarship (ordinary, technical, mature and supplemental) should be discontinued.

[page 28]

PRESENT POSITION IN ENGLAND AND WALES

91. The maximum value, both of a state scholarship and of a university award made by a local education authority, consists of payment of approved fees and of a standard figure of maintenance together with vacation and other grants. At their maximum values there is now no financial advantage given by one over the other.

(a) Fees

Approved fees include tuition, registration, examination, graduation and other compulsory fees not assignable to maintenance. At Oxford and Cambridge colleges, half of college dues is treated as "fee". Caution money (which is a deposit returnable at the end of the course) and fees for examinations taken a second time are not included in approved fees.

(b) Standard figures of maintenance

These are fixed every three years on information received from the universities, and are calculated to cover board and residence during term-time and grants for books, clothes, travelling and incidental expenses. At present, they fall into three groups; Oxford and Cambridge form one group, London the second and the other universities the third. Within the groups there may be different rates for students living in college or hall of residence, in lodgings and at home. The present rates are set out in Appendix 9.

92. The arrangements in Scotland are of a more particular kind. The different educational expenses of each student are assessed separately. As Appendix 9 shows, a fixed sum is allowed for certain purposes; for the other expenditure, the education authorities are free to fix the grant.

STANDARD FIGURES v. ACTUAL COSTS

93. The two systems agree in the treatment of fees, but there are important differences between them in dealing with other expenses. For example, the charges made by different colleges or halls of residence within the same university often vary substantially. The policy of the Scottish Education Department is to base the grant on the actual charge made by the college or hall where the student lives; in England and Wales, on the other hand, the same standard sum is fixed for all the colleges and halls of residence in the university. Similarly, the practice in England and Wales is to fix a standard sum for books, instruments and materials whether the student's expenses on these items will be heavy or light; in Scotland, the education authority is expected to make an assessment of the amount required for the particular course that the student is taking, and to allow that amount.

94. This raises the important question of whether the grant should be based on the expenditure which each student is expected to incur, or whether standard

[page 29]

figures should be determined for all students whose circumstances are broadly similar. We prefer the latter method, which has obvious administrative advantages, and are not deterred by the objection that it must result in some students receiving a little less and others receiving a little more than they might be given on an individual assessment of their needs. Such needs are anyway so flexible as to make exact calculations very difficult. Our witnesses from England and Wales expressed no dissatisfaction with the method of standard figures of maintenance, though some criticised the way in which it had been applied. On the other hand, a number of Scottish witnesses asked for its introduction on the grounds that the present system in Scotland, depending as it does on the assessments of students' needs made by 35 different education authorities, not only produces undue variations in local practice but also results in Scottish grants being lower than those given to English and Welsh students. The system of standard figures has the advantage that parent and student can know the total sum for which the student will be eligible, even before he applies for admission to a university or other institution. It was obvious from the evidence we received that students, on the whole, would prefer a system of pre-determined sums to a system which depends on the judgment of the local authority. We consider, therefore, that the system of standard figures of maintenance should be extended to Scotland.

95. We recognise, however, that special provision is necessary where the student is required to study away from home beyond the term-time period for which the standard figures of maintenance have been calculated, and we deal with this in paragraphs 137-144.

APPROVED FEES

96. Tuition fees are the primary and basic expense of university education and raise different issues. The amount payable by each student can easily be ascertained from the university, and the amount and the need for the payment are not open to dispute.

RECOMMENDATION ON METHOD OF EX'PRESSING THE MAXIMUM GRANT

97. Our conclusion is that the method of expressing the maximum grant in terms of "payment of fees plus a standard sum for maintenance" should apply throughout Great Britain.

STUDENTS' UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS AND OTHER LIKE PAYMENTS

98. We think the present arrangements for distinguishing "fees" from "maintenance" are on the right lines, but three questions call for special mention.

(a) Club subscriptions

At present, in England and Wales, subscriptions to students' unions are treated as "fees" where the payment is compulsory on all students at the university or college concerned. To meet the rather different situation at Oxford and Cambridge, an amount is added to the standard figure of maintenance. The subscriptions to amalgamated clubs and junior common rooms at Oxford and Cambridge colleges are normally at a higher rate than students' union fees at other universities, since the colleges do not receive any subvention from the University Grants Committee. We see no reason why subscriptions to amalgamated clubs and junior common rooms at

[page 30]

Oxford and Cambridge colleges should not in future be treated as "fees", provided they are compulsory payments for all undergraduates at the college concerned or are certified by the college to be proper, and provided the award-making body retains the discretion not to meet the full amount in any particular case where the amounts are out of line with the general run of such charges. Consequently, no addition would be made to the standard figures of maintenance for this item.

Although at some universities subscriptions to the students' union and the athletic association are not compulsory, we recommend that they also should be treated as "fees" on certification by the university.

(b) Student houses

A similar question may arise in future about subscriptions to the "student houses" recommended, in default of halls of residence, by the Niblett Committee.* Here again the same principle should be applied and the subscription to student houses, if compulsory, or if certified by the university to be proper, should be treated as "fees".

(c) College dues at Oxford and Cambridge

The method of treating half the amount of the college dues at Oxford and Cambridge as a "fee payment" and leaving the other half to be met by the student from his maintenance grant is based on the fact that the buildings and services, which the dues help to maintain, not only provide amenities for the student but also minister to his need of tuition and instruction. The apportionment between the two elements in halves is necessarily rough and ready but has worked in practice, has given rise to no serious complaints and should be continued.

99. In paragraphs 100 to 107, we discuss questions of principle in the calculation of standard figures of maintenance but we have not considered it to be within our province to determine the way in which the universities might be grouped, or the actual figures. The figures received from the universities should continue, as hitherto, to be examined afresh at such times as may be decided and new groupings made as the current situation may demand.

BOOKS, CLOTHES AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES

100. Subject to what we say later about special expenses (see paragraphs 109-111), we recommend that the same amount for books, clothes and incidental expenses be included in each standard figure of maintenance.

(a) Books

The suggestion has been made that, to ensure that money intended for books will be spent on them, the grant for them should be in kind. This might be attempted by giving book tokens, by paying only against receipted bills or by similar devices, and we have given careful thought to these. We are satisfied that the present direct method is preferable. All the devices for tying the payment are open to abuse, and, anyway, students commonly buy many of their books second-hand. Our overriding reason is, however,

[page 31]

that the student should be treated as a responsible person and left free to spend the money given to him according to his own circumstances and his own judgment of his needs.

We think it important that the student and his university teachers should be aware how much he has been allowed in his grant for the purchase of books. We recommend, therefore, that the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department should publish the amount allowed for books within the total of the standard figure of maintenance. We are here assigning a special importance to books; we do not recommend that all the steps by which the departments and their advisers may determine the total of the standard figure of maintenance should be made public.

We consider that the amount allowed should not be reduced below the present figure of £25 per annum, fixed for England and Wales, which includes also stationery and a small sum for instruments.

(b) Clothes and incidental expenses

The figures allowed for these purposes should be determined from time to time in the light of returns from the university authorities about the requirements of students, checked against a survey of the general level of costs. The figure for incidental expenses should not be assessed only on the basis of unavoidable items of minor expenditure but should allow the student some freedom for spending on the amenities of life. The amount which it would be proper to allow for this purpose from public funds must, however, be strictly limited and may well fall short of what many students spend.

101. At present, in England and Wales, an element is included in the standard figures of maintenance to cover necessary travelling expenses to and from the university at the beginning and end of term and those incurred during term-time itself. The amount is published and applications for additional grant beyond it are considered individually. This seems to us a reasonable compromise between meeting all claims individually (the present practice in Scotland) and making a standard grant: the former would involve the student and the award-making body in the trouble of claims for small amounts, while the latter might involve hardship to those who are forced to incur heavy expenses, such as students attending a university a long way from home or who, while living within reach of the university, have a long daily journey.

102. We therefore recommend that, in England, Wales and Scotland, an amount should be allowed in the standard figure of maintenance for travelling expenses, subject to consideration of individual applications for grants to cover necessary expenditure above that figure.

BOARD AND LODGING DURING TERM-TIME

Students living in colleges and halls of residence

103. The charges made by different colleges or halls of residence within the same university often vary substantially. We believe, however, that universities would not welcome the use of different standard figures of maintenance for students attending the same university. Moreover, the use of different figures

[page 32]

would complicate the work of award-making bodies. We recommend that one standard figure of maintenance should apply to all colleges and halls of residence within the same university.

104. On the other hand, the variations between universities are even wider and we do not think it would be appropriate to have one standard figure of maintenance applicable to all students in Great Britain living in college or hall of residence. We recommend, therefore, that universities should continue to be grouped and that an amount for maintenance of students living in colleges or halls of residence should be determined and included in the standard figure of maintenance for each separate group.

Students living in lodgings

105. We know how difficult it is for universities to give figures showing the expenses of their students living in lodgings. Particularly for universities in large towns, it is not possible to operate a strict licensing system to ensure that standards are reasonably comparable. As a result, some students certainly live under conditions which are conducive neither to health nor to study. For this reason, we do not think that the authorities conducting the periodical reviews of rates of grant should necessarily adhere with strictness to actual figures based upon the cost of such accommodation. If in a particular university unduly austere standards of lodgings have had to be accepted, there may well be a case for raising the allowance above the figure which would be required on the basis of current examples of student expenditure on lodgings. Unless account is taken of this factor, with the increasing dependence of students on grants from public sources, their standards of living in some universities might never rise to a reasonable level. Such considerations have not been ignored in the past in fixing standard figures of maintenance in England and Wales, but we are anxious that the principle involved should be clearly seen and accepted everywhere.

106. Apart from Oxford and Cambridge, the present standard figure for students living in lodgings is less than that for students at the same university living in college or hall of residence. Many students feel that there should not be this difference, and this point should be taken into account in the next review, though we recognise that the decision will mainly depend on the actual figures of cost returned by the universities. We also think it important that the returns made by the universities should always show clearly the exact basis on which their figures have been put forward, which may well mean that the form of return should be particularised further. It is, for example, necessary to be sure how far the figure returned for cost of lodgings takes account of such items as laundry, meals and sufficient heating and lighting for the purpose of study. We recommend that universities should continue to be grouped and that an amount for maintenance of students living in lodgings should be determined and included in the standard figure of maintenance for each separate group.

Students living at home

107. We recommend that the maintenance grant for students living at home during term-time should cover "keep at home" plus a further element for the extra cost of meals taken away from home when attending at the university. The figure for "keep at home" should take account of the cost to the parents of providing the student with food, light, heat and laundry, but no allowance should be made for "rent" or " profit". In other words, the parents should not expect to receive, from a student son or daughter, the same sums as they

[page 33]

would from a lodger. We think it important that the student and his parents should be aware of the amount fixed to cover "keep at home". We recommend, therefore, that the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department should publish this figure.

SPECIAL PROBLEMS

Initial expenses

108. We have considered, and rejected, the proposal that a special lump sum should be paid to the award-holder before he starts his course, to meet the cost of clothes, luggage and other equipment before he goes up to the university. We see advantage in retaining the same standard figure of maintenance for each year of the course and think that an added complication of this kind is unnecessary. We recommend the extension to all award-holders of the present system by which state scholars are able, on application, to draw an advance payment of up to £30 before the start of their first term, repayable by deductions from the grants paid during the course of the year.

Special expenses

109. We have recommended that, in fixing the standard figure of maintenance, account be taken (para. 100) of the student's expenditure on the common tools of his calling such as stationery and inexpensive instruments. Some classes of students, notably dental students, have exceptional expenses of this kind. We were informed by the General Dental Council that the cost to the students of instruments, tools, books and anatomical specimens varies between £140 and £232 during the course, according to the requirements of individual dental schools and the facilities provided. Over a five-year course the lower of these figures is little in excess of the total of the five annual amounts of £25 for books and instruments which are already included in the English and Welsh standard figures of maintenance. The higher figure, however, would demand from the award-making body, if it were to be met, a special payment of some £100 to dental students at certain universities only. Award-making bodies vary markedly in their attitude towards approving all or part of such payments. We have called attention elsewhere to the insistent public demand for uniformity in the treatment of awards as between university students doing similar courses, and we know that special arrangements applicable to particular groups of students are extremely difficult to standardise. Generally speaking, expensive equipment required by students is provided by the teaching institution. An example is the laboratory apparatus used by science students, for which they are not required to pay separately. We understand, also, that a common arrangement now followed in medical schools is to allow students the use of microscopes, either free or with a hiring charge, subject to any damage arising through carelessness being met by the student. In our opinion a similar arrangement should be the aim of all faculties, so that neither the student nor the award-making body should be called upon to provide sums for books and instruments greatly in excess of the sums allowed within the standard figures of maintenance. We regard it as important for the improvement of the awards system that the standard figures of maintenance should not in future be subject to a number of claims for special additions.

110. We were, however, told by representatives of the General Dental Council that they did not favour the idea of instruments being provided wholly by the dental schools for the use of students, chiefly because students tended to be less

[page 34]

careful with instruments which were not their personal property. We recognise that, if there is a strong case on educational grounds for dental students to possess some instruments of their own, it may be necessary for award-making bodies to make some special provision for them. The main factors to be taken into account are the cost of the instruments which it is necessary for the student to purchase, the value of the instruments at the conclusion of the course, and the credit facilities available to students from the manufacturers. If award-making bodies are to be called upon to make special grants, we consider it to be essential that the dental schools in Great Britain should agree on the number and kind of the instruments which it is necessary for a student to purchase. When this has been done and full information is available about the other two factors, it should be possible for agreement to be reached on a standard figure to be allowed as extra grant by all award-making bodies in Great Britain. In fixing this figure, account would also have to be taken of the present Ministry of Health grant to dental students of £8 a year for a maximum of three years, for depreciation and replacement of expendable equipment during their period of clinical training.

111. We recommend as a general principle that no additions to the standard figures of maintenance should be made for the special expenses of particular classes of students for instruments and other equipment, unless a national figure can be laid down based on a standard practice in the universities.

National insurance

112. This question, unlike that dealt with in paras. 109-111, affects all the students with whom we are concerned. Below the age of 18, students have contributions to national insurance credited to them without payment. Over that age they continue, as students, to be exempt from any obligation to contribute, but no contributions are credited to them, though it is open to them to pay, within six years of finishing their course, the contributions necessary to establish their pension and other rights under the scheme. Hitherto, in England and Wales, the Ministry of Education has not thought it proper to pay a special grant to cover national insurance contributions for students over 18, on the grounds that the purpose of educational awards is to help students to meet the necessary expenses of a course of study. Provision for future contingencies such as insurance contributions has not been regarded as part of their purpose. Similarly no account is taken of national insurance contributions in assessing a student's estimated expenditure under the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations.

113. Elsewhere, we have alluded to the importance to the nation of a supply of highly trained men and women. It does not seem conducive to this aim that students qualifying for an award should be put at this disadvantage as a result of postponing their entry into the labour market until a later date than most of their contemporaries.

114. We recommend that award-holders should be covered for the payment of national insurance contributions. The methods by which this can best be done should be discussed between the government departments concerned.

Insurance against accidents and sickness abroad

115. Students attending approved courses abroad occasionally receive injuries, or fall ill, and are put to heavy expenses for medical treatment. It has been suggested that public award-making bodies should pay insurance premiums

[page 35]

against such contingencies for all students to whom they have made grants for study in countries where there is no national health service available to all residents. We are not in favour of this. Not only would it complicate unduly the functions of award-making to deal separately with small payments of this kind, but we return again to the principle that students should be treated as responsible adults. The amounts involved in taking out such insurances are small and it should not constitute any hardship to the students concerned to meet them from the total grant paid to them. The award-making body, when approving grants for courses abroad, should make it clear to students that it will not meet any bills for medical treatment incurred abroad and might well draw their attention to the insurance schemes available to cover this contingency.

RATE OF GRANT AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE

116. We have stressed in paragraph 20 that the awards system should not in any way restrict the freedom of the student to attend the university of his choice within Great Britain. It follows from the general principle which we have adopted that those students who elect to attend a university other than the one within daily travelling distance of their homes should receive the "college or hall" or the "lodgings" rate (as the case may be) fixed for the university which they have elected to attend.

117. The advantages of living in community with other students are so great that we urge that all students living in a university hall of residence or residential college should receive the "college or hall" rate even though their homes are within daily travelling distance of the university.

118. A move to lodgings by students whose homes are within daily travelling distance of their university raises more difficult issues. It is, however, clearly undesirable that students should travel long distances each day between the university and their place of residence. At its worst, this daily travel can undo much of the value of attendance at a university. The student has little chance to make a place for himself in the life of the student body and his time is too apt to be circumscribed by the travelling schedule to which his day must be tailored. Such a regime should not be forced upon a student solely because the award-making body is unwilling to pay the difference between the "home" rate and the "lodgings" rate. Even where the home is sufficiently near the university not to make travelling unduly burdensome, there may be other reasons which make it undesirable for the student to live at home, such as lack of privacy for study. Where such a student applies for the "lodgings" rate, therefore, we recommend that the award-making body should confer with the university authorities and should look favourably on any recommendations which they may make in the educational interests of the student.

APPLICATION OF STANDARD FIGURES OF MAINTENANCE TO UNIVERSITIES NOT IN RECEIPT OF GRANT FROM THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE

119. The standard figures of maintenance have hitherto been drawn up for universities in England and Wales in receipt of grant from the University Grants Committee on the basis of returns made by them to the Ministry of Education. It will follow from the recommendations which we have made above that universities in Scotland should be included in future. There remains the problem of the extent to which these rates can be applied to students wishing to study at universities outside Great Britain.

[page 36]

(a) Queen's University, Belfast

Some students resident in Great Britain are likely to continue to wish to graduate at Queen's University, Belfast, which stands in a special position in that it is situated within the United Kingdom and is generally recognised as comparable with universities in other parts of the kingdom. As we have said in paragraph 50(b), we consider that awards should be made to such persons provided they have attained the minimum academic requirement we have suggested. We doubt, however, whether there will be any need to calculate a special standard figure for this university: such students as go there should receive grants calculated on the standard figures of maintenance fixed for that group of universities deemed to be appropriate.

(b) Universities in commonwealth and foreign countries

In accordance with our recommendation in paragraph 50(b), some students admitted to universities in commonwealth and foreign countries may be considered for awards from public funds. We do not consider that those given such awards should be eligible for any higher rate of grant than they would have received if they had attended a university in Great Britain. We recommend, therefore, that the maximum amounts allowed for maintenance should not exceed the standard figures of maintenance for the appropriate group of universities. The maximum grant should also include payment of fees, provided they are not out of line with those normally paid at universities in Great Britain. No grant for travelling should be given above the sum included in the standard figure of maintenance. The standard vacation grant recommended in paragraph 136 should not be given unless the student has a certificate from his university that vacation study is required. We recognise, however, that as the expenses of attending some universities overseas might be greater, there should be provision for income from outside sources to be ignored up to a higher figure than that fixed for award-holders attending universities in Great Britain (see paragraph 249).

(c) Modern language students at universities in the United Kingdom required to study at foreign universities during term-time

Many universities in the United Kingdom have arrangements with foreign universities by which their students reading modern languages spend a term or longer at the foreign university. The general principle followed by award-making bodies in England and Wales is not to allow any higher rate of grant for this purpose than would be payable at a university in Great Britain, but there are variations in the way this principle is applied. The Ministry of Education and most local education authorities allow the "college or hall" rate for London University whether the student is at London or another university. (Oxford and Cambridge Universities have no regular arrangements of this kind for their modern language students.) Grants are given for the fees charged at the foreign university, and travelling expenses are allowed up to a maximum of £15. If the term at the foreign university is longer than the normal term of the student's university in Great Britain, additional grant is paid at the vacation course rate. In Scotland, the usual practice is to base the amount of the grant on the actual cost incurred by the student for fees, maintenance and travel.

[page 37]

We recommend that for modern language students studying abroad in term-time, by arrangement with their own university, the standard figure of maintenance for the appropriate group of universities in Great Britain should be used. The maximum grant should also include the payment of the fees, provided that they are not out of line with those normally paid at universities in Great Britain. Claims for reasonable travelling expenses above the sum included in the standard figures of maintenance should be admitted.

Some modern language students, by arrangement with their universities, spend a year during their degree course in "assistant" posts at foreign schools. Special arrangements apply to these posts, and during the year the grant from the award-making body should, as at present, be suspended.

Full-time courses

120. At present in England and Wales, the standard figures of maintenance applied to students following comparable courses elsewhere than in London are the same as for students attending "other universities" (see Appendix 9). In London, the rates are the same as for students at London University. In Scotland, the same arrangements apply to universities and non-university institutions.

121. We have received no complaints about the principle of aligning the rates for comparable courses with those for universities, and recommend that it should be maintained. There is, however, the problem that most of the institutions providing comparable courses have longer terms than universities. The difficulty cannot be met by a pro rata increase in the university standard figures of maintenance, including as they do, fixed sums for books, clothes and incidental expenses.

122. One solution is to call for returns of the expenses of their students from institutions offering comparable courses, and to construct special standard figures of maintenance based on the returns. The development of halls of residence attached to institutions offering comparable courses may, in any case, make it necessary to fix a special standard figure of maintenance. We have not, however, sufficient information about the problems which might be involved in fixing special figures for these institutions, and do not feel able to make a firm recommendation that this should be done.

123. Another solution lies in the new arrangements for vacation grants which we have recommended in Chapter 6. The excess of the "comparable course" term over the university term, on which the university standard figure of maintenance is based, could be treated as a vacation course. Thus, for each week of this excess period, the "comparable course" student would receive an addition to the standard vacation grant, at the "special course" rate if he was living away from home, or at the rate for "meals taken away from home" if he was living at home.

Sandwich courses

124. In April 1958, the Ministry of Education, after consulting the Federation of British Industries, the London County Council and the associations representing local authorities and education committees, gave advice to local educa-

[page 38]

tion authorities on the treatment of awards to sandwich course students who had been unable to get financial help from their firms to cover the periods spent in college.* The basis of the award was to be the appropriate university standard figure of maintenance adjusted to the number of weeks in the year during which the student would be in full-time attendance in the technical college. No vacation grants were to be paid, but any earnings by the student while working in industry were to be left out of account unless they were exceptional having regard to his age and circumstances.

125. We questioned our witnesses closely about the working of these arrangements and received no substantial criticism of them. We consider that the present principles should be retained and that only such adjustments of detail be made as may be necessary in the light of the general changes in the awards system which we have recommended and the decisions reached under paragraphs 120-123.

126. We recommend that the same principles should be applied in Scotland, where the present arrangements depend on the calculation of grants at weekly rates.

*Ministry of Education Administrative Memorandum No. 567, dated 28th April 1958.

[page 39]

STANDARD VACATION GRANTS

Present arrangements

127. In England and Wales, state scholars whose parents' scale incomes (see paragraph 146) do not exceed £1,200 receive a standard vacation grant of £30 per annum at Oxford and Cambridge and £25 per annum at other universities, the higher figure reflecting a longer vacation period. On higher incomes, the vacation grant is reduced progressively until it is extinguished at about £1,400 scale income. The grant is not meant to provide full maintenance but is regarded only as a contribution towards the expenses of maintenance in the vacation. For students with local awards, this system is also followed by about two-thirds of the 146 education authorities; the remaining authorities have varying and, on the whole, less generous arrangements which, incidentally, produce anomalous comparisons between one student and another.

128. On the recommendation of university or college authorities a "higher vacation grant" is payable, instead of the standard grant, to state scholars who are in special need owing to home circumstances or pressure of work. This higher grant is intended to provide enough for the maintenance of the scholar at home during the whole vacation. The total amount is now £54 per annum for Oxford and Cambridge and £44 per annum for all other universities (equivalent to £2 per week). This higher grant is not always available to students holding awards from local education authorities.

129. In Scotland, education authorities are required by the regulations of 1957 to include in the assessment of the student's expenditure a vacation grant at the rate of £2 a week (or a minimum of £3 10s. a week if he cannot live at home) for a minimum of one-half of the vacation period. Most authorities normally allow only the minimum, but one or two of them give the standard weekly rate to all students for the full vacation period. Here, again, anomalous situations are created.

130. In general, in England, Wales and Scotland, no account is taken of vacation earnings.

131. Unless the student does paid work, the present arrangements in England and Wales mean, in effect, that all parents are expected to contribute something towards maintenance in vacations and that parents above £1,400 scale income should contribute the whole cost of vacation maintenance. The ability to claim the higher vacation grant for state scholars in England and Wales provides a safeguard against undue financial pressure on poorer families. But this does not always apply to students given grants by local education authorities.

132. The Scottish system, except for the one or two authorities who pay the standard rate for the full vacation period, also involves vacation employment by the student or additional parental contributions towards vacation costs.

[page 40]

Our views

133. The main criticism of the present arrangements is that they fail to take account of the fact that study during vacations is an integral part of university education as understood in this country. Courses here are comparatively short and concentrated. University vacations are not the same as holidays: they are intended to give both teachers and students time in which to pursue their own studies and to consolidate their learning. On this view, opportunity to study during vacations must be allowed to be as important for students as opportunity to attend the university during term-time. This conception of university vacations was accepted by the 1948 Working Party, when they recommended that the grant for all vacation periods should be calculated at the same rate as that for "keep at home" during term-time. We favour this principle, but we do not think that vacation grants at this rate should be paid regardless of whether the award-holder has been in paid employment during his vacations or not. The award-holder should be required to declare, after each vacation, whether he has been in paid employment during that vacation, and if so, to state the time so spent. If the declaration shows that the award-holder has been in paid employment, the award-making body should then deduct from a subsequent payment of grant an amount equal to the vacation grant for the period of employment. We considered, but rejected, the suggestion that the student should declare his earnings. In this context the interest of the award-making body is in the number of weeks during which the student has abandoned study for paid work of some other sort.

Grant for the long vacation in the final year

134. In the final year the student will have taken his examination by June or July and there will be no obligation to study during the long vacation. We think, however, that it would be unduly harsh to cut out the vacation grant altogether in respect of the final long vacation. It is unreasonable to expect the student to take up employment immediately after the end of the summer term, and in most cases it will not be possible for him to do so. We therefore recommend that the standard vacation grant should be paid for the first four weeks following the end of the final summer term. This payment would not be subject to the declaration mentioned in paragraph 133.

135. The question whether any provision is needed for study during the long vacation preceding the start of a postgraduate course is outside our terms of reference.

Our recommendations for the payment of standard vacation grants

136. We are satisfied that there should be no insuperable administrative difficulties in paying standard vacation grants on the principles we have outlined, but we leave the details to be settled later by the Ministers on the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee. We confine ourselves to recommending the following principles:-

(a) all award-holders following first degree courses at universities or comparable courses elsewhere should receive standard grants for maintenance throughout the vacations, subject to deductions, if any, in accordance with Chapters 8 and 9;

(b) the standard grant for vacations should be calculated at the same rate as that for "keep at home" during term-time (see paragraph 107);

[page 41]

(c) the standard grants should be paid to the award-holder before the vacations for which they are given;

(d) deductions from subsequent grant payments should be made for any vacation periods in which the award-holder has been in paid employment;

(e) the standard vacation grant payable for the final long vacation should be calculated to cover four weeks only and should not be subject to any declaration about paid employment.

Approved course grants

137. Where the student has to live away from home during the vacation as part of the study required for his degree or equivalent course, it is necessary to provide for a larger grant than the standard rate dealt with in paragraph 136, which will be calculated to cover only the cost of "keep at home". In England and Wales, at present, a rate of £4 per week is paid to such students in addition to the standard vacation grant: this is the same for all universities and is paid without regard to the maintenance charges of the particular course. We recommend that this system should be continued in England and Wales and adopted in Scotland, but we must leave to later decision whether there should be one or more standard weekly rates. We also leave the determination of the actual rate, or rates; except to say that it will of course be necessary, if our recommendations in paragraph 136 are accepted, to take into account that the standard vacation grant will itself be higher than at present. Students living at home during a vacation but required to attend daily at the university, a course, or some approved institution, should be eligible to receive an additional allowance for meals taken away from home.

138. Both those living away from home and those living at home should be able to claim extra travelling expenses. The cost of travel for courses abroad is dealt with in paragraph 143.

Some applications of the approved course grant

139. University students required to stay up beyond the end of term for a week or more, for an approved purpose, such as taking an examination, should receive, in addition to the standard vacation grant, the appropriate vacation course rate for the period. This should also apply to medical and dental students during their clinical years.

140. We also regard it as important that the same treatment should be available for private study when there is a special recommendation from the university or comparable course authority. We have particularly in mind the student who is strongly advised to take advantage of library facilities not available to him while living at home, or whose home conditions are such that it will be impossible for him to do there the study which he is required to do. We would also include the student who has no home to go to. It will be seen that in this matter, as elsewhere in our report, we have thought it necessary to place additional responsibility on the universities and colleges, upon whose advice award-making bodies will inevitably have to rely in sanctioning these extra payments.

[page 42]

Vacation courses away from the university

141. We must now speak of field and other courses held during the vacations away from the university or other places of further education, whether in this country or abroad. We have been told that the number of such courses appears to have grown unduly since grants from public funds have been available to the students attending them. Local education authorities in particular have asked that it should be made quite clear to them, before the student starts a certain subject, what vacation courses are prescribed in connection with it; this, many of them think, should be clearly laid down as part of the curriculum in the university regulations themselves. There has undoubtedly been expansion in the number of vacation courses in recent years, but we cannot subscribe to the view that this has been wholly prompted by the availability of grants from public funds. On the other hand, we realise that the public should be assured that, where a vacation course grant is given, the course is necessary for the particular degree studies which the student is undertaking and that the predominant element has not been the attraction of spending two or three weeks in a particular locality. Another difficulty in this field has been to ensure that applications are treated alike by all the award-making bodies concerned.

142. We recommend that a list be drawn up by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department on the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee setting out the courses away from the university or other place of further education for which the special grants recommended in paragraphs 137-138 may be paid. The list should be drawn up on the basis of proposals from the British universities, or other establishments in Great Britain, certifying those courses which are integral to particular degree or comparable courses, and it should be subject to amendment each year.

Courses abroad

143. The list recommended in paragraph 142 may contain courses held outside Great Britain as well as within it. No additional maintenance grant should, however, be given beyond the approved course rate as fixed for courses in Great Britain. The amounts paid for tuition fees and travelling expenses should each be subject to a maximum limit, to be fixed later on the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee.

Modern language students

144. The present practice is to approve grants to modern language students to attend organised courses abroad in the main language of their study, but not to approve them for private study while the students are living with families abroad. Some of the organised courses abroad, for which approval has been given, have been criticised on the grounds that the standard is too elementary for degree students and that the courses, being attended by foreigners, do not give the same opportunity for practice in the language of the country as residence with a cultivated family, combined with private study, would afford. We are inclined to agree that the present rule may prevent the best use being made of the time spent abroad, and we recommend that it be revised in order to allow grant to be given for residence with "approved" families in the country of a main language which is being studied for an honours degree in

[page 43]

modern languages.* It will be for the university sponsoring the application to recommend to the award-making body that the family chosen is suitable for the purpose, and to prescribe the course of private study to be followed by the student while resident abroad.

*We do not mean to exclude the possibility that, when access to the country of his main language is impracticable, the student might be given a grant to stay elsewhere with a family speaking that language.

[page 44]

INTRODUCTORY

145. We now have to consider how far the maximum grants recommended in Chapters 5 and 6 should be subject to reduction in the light of private sources of income. We shall deal in Chapters 9 and 10 with the personal income of the student and with special questions applying to married students and to those with dependants. The subject of this chapter is the vexed question whether parents should be expected to contribute to the higher education of their sons and daughters in accordance with their own resources.

146. At present, parents are required to make each year to the award-making body a return of their gross income, from which various allowances (particulars of which are given in Chapter 8) are then deducted; the result, known in England and Wales as the "scale income" and in Scotland as the "balance of income", is the basis on which the amount of the parental contribution is assessed. This process is commonly known as the parental "means test". The distribution of the gross incomes and of the "scale incomes", or "balances of income", of the parents of students who held awards in 1958-59 is shown in Appendix 10; Appendix 11 gives the scales from which the contribution is calculated at present, according to the scale income or balance of income. The grant to the student is paid in full only if the contribution is assessed at nil. Otherwise, the contribution is set off against the grant for maintenance; if it exceeds that grant, the grant for approved fees is reduced by the balance, or extinguished if the balance is large enough.

THE EVIDENCE GIVEN TO US

147. None of the bodies which submitted memoranda to us or appeared before us was entirely satisfied with the present system, but the reforms which they suggested differed widely. Out of 70 organisations, 40 recommended that the contribution should be completely abolished, 15 recommended its abolition for approved fees while retaining it for maintenance, and the remainder suggested various modifications. It was evident that the recommendations made by many bodies, whether for abolition or retention, represented a majority view within the organisation and that a considerable number of constituents held the opposite view. A good example is the final paragraph of the memorandum submitted by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom:-

"The Committee has found that the universities are divided in their views as to whether the means test should be abolished. The main argument for abolition is that it is a necessary step towards attracting the highest possible proportion of the most able boys and girls into the universities. The universities are, however, unanimous in their view, which the Committee endorses, that, if the means test is to be retained, it should be substantially modified so as to effect a considerable reduction in the present rates of parental contribution."

[page 45]

The division of opinion among our witnesses did not follow normal political alignments nor, for the most part, any definite occupational pattern. Most of the teachers' associations and most of the professional bodies favoured complete abolition. The associations of local authorities were mainly in favour of abolishing parental contributions towards fees but not towards maintenance.

OUR ATTITUDE

148. The difference of opinion in the country generally was reflected amongst us and has persisted despite our careful enquiries and earnest discussions. We are agreed that none of the half-measures suggested to us affords a satisfactory solution and that a straight choice has to be made between relieving parents altogether or maintaining a system of assessment of parental income for awards purposes. This choice cannot be based solely on statistics, and those which we have studied have contributed little to resolving our differences. We all agree that the abolition of parental contributions would be a fundamental change and that an assessment of its probable effects is a matter of judgment. We differ in our assessment of these effects. Some of us are firmly convinced that they would be beneficial; others see a strong possibility of harm and do not consider the difficulties of the present system serious enough to warrant taking the risks which abolition involves. In paragraphs 166 to 190 we set out fully the considerations which have influenced us in reaching our separate conclusions.

149. Before embarking upon this disputation, we deal with matters on which we are agreed, including our rejection of proposals which may not unjustly be regarded as half-measures or as attempts to by-pass the main difficulty.

ASSIMILATION OF PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM

150. A plan which was canvassed a good deal by writers of letters to the Press before we were appointed, and which had some support from those submitting evidence, was that a full grant should be paid to the student, but the amount of it should be added to the parents' income for tax purposes. The parental contribution would thus be paid in the form of additional income tax and surtax. This would clearly have the great advantage of relieving parents and award-making bodies of the complications of the present second system of income assessment in addition to the familiar, thorough and comprehensive system operated by the Board of Inland Revenue. The objections to the proposal are, however, in our view overwhelming. They are, first, that the arrangement would be considerably less favourable than the present system to parents in the lower income groups. At present, for instance, a widow who has two sons, and earns £450 a year, pays no tax. If one son goes to Oxford or Cambridge, he will receive a grant from public funds, for fees and maintenance, of about £450. If this sum were added to his mother's income for tax purposes, she would be liable for at least £50 tax. Second, the proposal would impair the present rule that scholarship income is not taxable and might react unfavourably on the immunity from tax at present enjoyed by scholarships awarded from non-public funds. Third, if the proposal was made because the present rules about parental contributions were felt to be unduly severe, then the better course would be to reduce the parental contribution directly.

[page 46]

151. We have also considered the suggestion that the assessment of the parental contribution should be made by the Inland Revenue Department, which would pass on to the award-making body only the figure assessed as the appropriate contribution. This suggestion was made by those who object to providing details of their income to local authorities, because they fear that such information may become more widely known. What attracted us in the suggestion was, again, the possibility of saving parents from making a second income return and of relieving award-making bodies from the difficult and highly specialised task of assessing contributions. We decided, however, that a division of functions in award-making between the Inland Revenue Department and award-making bodies was undesirable because parents would have to deal with two official organisations, neither of which would have full knowledge of all the relevant circumstances.

PAYMENT OF TUITION FEES TO AWARD-HOLDERS WITHOUT REGARD TO PARENTAL INCOME

152. Some of our witnesses suggested that all awards from public funds should carry with them automatically the full payment of tuition fees, but that grants for maintenance should continue to be subject to deduction according to parental income. Among other reasons, this was put forward on the grounds that it would bring university education more closely into line with secondary school education; pupils attending maintained secondary schools pay no tuition fees, but grants for their maintenance are given only subject to a parental means test. We find this analogy unconvincing. Universities are not publicly controlled and public authorities do not determine their organisation or fix the fees which they charge. About two-thirds of the students at them live away from home, and the possibility of their obtaining a university education depends as much on their ability to meet the costs of residence as of tuition. Moreover, in the secondary school field itself, in England and Wales, Section 6(2)(b) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953, provides that, if a local education authority takes up a place for a pupil in an independent or direct grant school, and board and lodging are provided for him, they must, if suitable education cannot be provided for him except as a boarder, pay the whole of the boarding fee; it is only if this condition is not satisfied that the authority is empowered to require a contribution from the parent. Similarly, in Scotland, education authorities are required to provide maintenance, without any charge to the parents, if boarding is essential to enable a pupil to receive school education. It would appear, therefore, that if the secondary school analogy is valid - which we ourselves doubt - the inference to be drawn is the much more sweeping one that, if a student is unable to attend a university unless he lives away from home, he should receive full maintenance, as well as tuition, without charge to his parents.

153. The proposal to pay tuition fees without regard to parental income would afford no substantial relief to the typical parent who complains of hardship under the present system. The figures set out in Appendix 3 show that in Scotland more than 97 per cent of holders of university and comparable awards already have their tuition fees covered in full; in England and Wales, the corresponding proportion among those holding awards from local education authorities is over 94 per cent and the proportion for state scholars and local award-holders combined is over 93 per cent. The only parents of present award-holders who would benefit from this proposal would be a relatively small

[page 47]

proportion with higher incomes. The proposal would, of course, also benefit some parents with still higher incomes, who now do not think it worth while for their sons or daughters to apply for awards.

A "PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION"

154. We now turn to another suggestion, that there should be a "public contribution" to university students, in the form of payment of fees, or a fixed sum, or a fixed proportion of total expenses; but that a parental contribution should still be required towards the balance of the student's expenses. This proposal links up with the present arrangement in England and Wales by which state scholars may receive an honorarium of £50 per annum payable without regard to parental income. Our enquiry to local education authorities in England and Wales showed that 76 out of 146 authorities had adopted this arrangement for their award-holders. The honorarium as recommended by the 1948 Working Party was based on the view that "all students who qualify for a highly competitive award such as a state scholarship should in consequence derive some financial benefit". The payment by local education authorities of honoraria to all their award-holders goes beyond this conception, though we have no doubt that it has helped parents who were ineligible for benefit under existing and previous scales. As we have already recommended that state scholarships should be discontinued, the honorarium as originally conceived is no longer an issue for us.

155. A substantial public contribution to the cost of university education is already made in the form of grants received by universities from the University Grants Committee, and by most institutions offering comparable courses from other sources. A further "public contribution" made direct to students individually would add an unnecessary complication to an awards system in which parental contributions were also retained. We are all agreed that, if it is decided to retain the parental means test, there is no case for making a limited "public contribution" to the children of parents who are outside the range of an income scale which we would expect to be substantially more generous than the present one.

THE FIELD OF OUR DISCUSSION

156. Before we enter upon our disputation on the main argument - whether there should or should not be a parental contribution - it would be as well to define the field within which our disagreement occurs. Only thus can we avoid the danger that the degree of difference between us may appear to be wider than in fact it is. This may take us somewhat outside our terms of reference, if they are strictly interpreted, but we see no alternative if misunderstanding is to be avoided.

Need for "educated manpower"

157. We are agreed that the nation needs an increased number of men and women with a university or comparable education. Though the quality and extent of educational facilities, including the quality of school education, are of fundamental importance, the awards system also has an important part to play in satisfying this need. We also agree that the freedom of the universities, and in particular their right to select their own students, must be preserved. This does not mean that they should be immune from well-informed outside criticism of their selection policies.

[page 48]

Wastage resulting from the parental contribution requirement

158. We are agreed that the demand of a contribution from their parents must deter a certain number of well-qualified boys and girls from entering universities, although no accurate statistics showing the extent of this loss are available. A variety of considerations normally enters into decisions of choice of career and the effect of the means test on such decisions cannot be isolated on an objective basis. Moreover, many family decisions which effectively preclude a son or daughter from following a university or comparable course are taken when the child is 16 or even younger, and in these cases it is even more difficult to be precise about the effect that the expected cost to the parents has on the decision.

The burden of the parental contribution

159. We are agreed that the present system imposes too heavy a burden on many parents and students and that if parental contributions are retained they must be substantially reduced. We are also agreed that if the easements proposed in Chapter 8 are introduced, the deterrent effect of the parental contribution will be lessened.

Maintenance grants for school pupils

160. Both social justice and the national interest seem to us to demand a system of awards which will enable all children of suitable ability to aspire to university or comparable education and which will stimulate their parents to support and encourage them in this aim.

161. The report of the Central Advisory Council for England, "Early Leaving", 1954, produced evidence (admittedly based on a comparatively small sample) that the greatest waste of talent is in the maintained grammar schools. Here, leaving before the age of entry to the sixth-form, and still more before the age of entry to university, is most common among the children of unskilled workers, less common among those of semi-skilled workers, and steeply declines through the skilled, clerical, professional and managerial workers. While parental means are clearly important in this, the ability to keep a child at school and university is not the only criterion. The report suggests that traditions of early leaving, followed by earning wages, together with a lack of understanding among parents about the real purpose or advantages of higher education, may also contribute. While these traditions persist, and there is evidence that they are already declining, the effect of reforms in the system of awards to university students may well be first felt in a reduction in the wastage of talent among children of skilled workers and of clerical, professional and managerial workers. An improved system of school maintenance grants would help to reduce this wastage among the children of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

162. This is an important problem, but its solution is outside our terms of reference. We must make it plain that we would not think it right to postpone reforms in the awards system which we consider essential, until such time as it can be patently shown that all parents in all classes are equally willing to allow their children to obtain the benefits of such reforms. It seems to us that it is our duty within our terms of reference to recommend what we consider the most just, efficient and publicly advantageous system.

Repercussions on awards to other kinds of student

163. We have been much exercised to determine how far we should allow

[page 49]

considerations of the likely effect of our proposals in related fields to weigh with us, and we are aware that the question of repercussions arises not only over proposals for abolishing parental contributions altogether but also for easing the present scale. The awards which are our concern are not the only awards to students from public funds which are subject to parental contributions. Since 1955, the system of awards to students at teacher training colleges in England and Wales has been closely aligned with that for university students. Graduates training to be teachers at university departments of education have long been treated on the same lines as state scholars. In Scotland, the Bursaries Regulations apply equally to all students aged 17 and over. In the field of further education, the distinction between the courses which are within our terms of reference and certain other courses is very fine, as we have already indicated in Chapter 2. We have, therefore, not been unaware of the implications that our proposals may have for other parts of the educational system, but we have concluded that it is not open to us to allow our recommendations to be determined by anything except the questions of public interest which arise in the field which has been entrusted to us.

The cost and educational priorities

164. A somewhat similar difficulty arises over the cost to the public of proposals to abolish or reduce the parental contribution. If it had to be assumed that no more than a strictly limited amount of public money was available for education, most of us, as individuals, would have views about the most urgent tasks. It is, however, entirely beyond our competence as a committee to assess priorities of this kind. We must limit ourselves to recommending the courses of action which seem to us likely to be in the public interest within the area with which we have been asked to deal.

OUR TWO CASES

165. We have now come to the point where our paths diverge, to join again when we reach Chapter 8. Paragraphs 166 to 180 state the case of those who think abolition of parental contributions to be necessary. Paragraphs 181 to 190 state the arguments against complete abolition advanced by those who believe that parental contributions should be retained in a lightened form. It must not be thought that those who subscribe to one or the other statement would necessarily attach the same weight to all the considerations set out. Each one of us would have put the arguments somewhat differently if he, or she, had been the sole author. The statements do, however, reflect a consensus of opinion on one side or the other.

166. Those of us who wish to abolish the parental contribution are moved by a variety of arguments which appeal to us individually with differing force. Our difference from our colleagues who wish to retain it in a modified form is, to a large extent, one of degree. We agree, for example, that the level of contributions proposed in Chapter 8 would largely remove the hardship on the middle-income parent on whom the present scale bears most heavily; but, having gone so far, we think the process should be completed by abolishing the parental contribution altogether, a step from which we believe public opinion would not be averse and for which we believe the time has now come.

[page 50]

The public interest

167. The original purpose of awards from public funds was to enable poor boys and girls to go to the university; this was partly, no doubt, in order that their talents should not be lost to the nation, but partly in order to give, in the interests of justice, wider opportunities to those who could not otherwise afford them. It was therefore reasonable to ask parents to make some contribution to the cost if they could do so without suffering "hardship". Over the years the system of public awards has been extended widely, and now includes income groups which cannot be described as "poor". This extension of the field of awards, together with changes in general financial circumstances and in the incidence of taxation, have led to a progressive relaxation of the criterion of "hardship". Chapter 8 proposes a still further relaxation. In our view to retain such a vestigial relic of the old conception of hardship is neither reasonable nor worthwhile, and we therefore advocate complete abolition of the parental contribution.

168. One of the main motives in the process of relaxation has been the fear that talent would be lost to the nation. The Second World War demonstrated to the community at large the vital importance of a proper supply of highly qualified manpower, particularly in the pure and applied sciences, and it is now generally accepted that in the fiercely competitive world conditions of today this is a matter of equal importance in time of peace. The country is accordingly committed, with the active support of Parliament, to a large expansion of the places available both in universities and in other institutions of higher education, and it is the function of the awards system to ensure that those qualified to take advantage of these costly facilities are not deterred from so doing by financial difficulties. The existing system of awards, with its emphasis on the avoidance of "hardship" to students and parents, is in effect a projection into the field of governmental activity of those ideas which animated private charity in preceding centuries. But, as the Report of the Committee on Australian Universities* emphasised, a different approach is now inevitable:-

"In the past a democratic country in considering universities was largely concerned with the rights of its individual citizens; every young man or woman who wanted a university education and had the intellectual capacity to profit from it should have a fair chance of getting it. But in the circumstances of today, government and people have had to take a more positive attitude. High intellectual ability is in short supply and no country can afford to waste it; every boy or girl with the necessary brain power must in the national interest be encouraged to come forward for a university education and there must be a suitable place in a good university for everyone who does come forward."

*Government printer, Canberra, 1957.

†Examples are:
Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain. H.M.S.O., 1956;
Report of the Committee on Recruitment to the Dental Profession. H.M.S.O., 1956;
Report of H.M. Civil Service Commissioners (92nd Report). H.M.S.O., 1958;
The Supply of Teachers in the 1960s. H.M.S.O., 1958;
The Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for 1958-59. H.M.S.O., 1959;
Report of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland on Measures to improve the Supply of Teachers. H.M.S.O., 1959.

[page 51]

necessary numbers must to a considerable extent be recruited from families with no tradition of university or even of advanced school education. These negative factors, reinforced by fears of financial liabilities implied in the requirement that a parent should contribute according to his means towards the cost of the university education of his child, cannot fail to act as a deterrent and prevent a number of well-qualified persons from seeking to follow a university course.

170. While a number of individual cases were brought to our attention by various witnesses, unfortunately we cannot provide accurate statistics showing the extent of the loss of suitable university entrants caused by the parental contribution in its present form. We could find no factual basis for the commonly quoted figure of 2,000 a year. Nevertheless, some of our witnesses (and in particular teachers, to whose evidence in this matter we give special weight) had no hesitation in saying that, because of the means test, many children leave school before the age of eighteen who could with profit have taken a course of higher education. In many families the idea of sending a child to the university is dismissed relatively early in the child's life, because of financial difficulties; that is particularly true where girls, as contrasted with boys, are concerned. Sometimes the child himself may take the vital decision. In families where the tradition of early employment is strong, he may find it difficult to remain a financial liability to his parents, particularly when his brothers and sisters are already earning. In families with a different tradition, he may well feel that any contribution which his parents may be called on to make will lower their standard of living and impair their ability to make provision for their old age. If the child does decide to go to the university, then there are a few parents, as our evidence showed, who refuse to pay anything. There are more who, either through genuine financial difficulty or through misunderstanding, pay less than the assessed contribution, and this can all too easily lead to a variety of ill effects for the student and his studies. There is a complex of deterrents and difficulties here which, in our view, only abolition of the parental contribution can finally remove.

171. Moreover, an increasing number of awards - we have had quoted to us a figure of about 600 a year - which are made without regard to parental income and which cover the major costs of the selected course, is becoming available for university or comparable courses. These awards are provided by a variety of industrial bodies, including nationalised boards, both for employees and for school-leavers.* The latter may join the donor organisation on completion of their university or comparable course and sometimes they have to give an undertaking to do so. While we do not wish to discourage industrial or other organisations from providing funds for higher education, we question whether it is in the national interest that the natural pattern of recruitment should be distorted (as it well could be) by the diversion of an undue proportion of talent into certain professions and careers, leaving others, equally important, such as medicine and teaching, with less than their proper share. Nor do we think that these awards are merely playing on the universal desire to get something for nothing; they are themselves evidence of the deterrent effect of the parental contribution and of a wish for its abolition.

*We would also recall, in this context, that training for commissions in the armed forces is now free and that all three services now provide a free university education for selected candidates.

[page 52]

172. We find a further difficulty in the legal position. The established practice of looking to parents to pay the whole or part of the cost of maintaining their children while at the university rests on no basis of legal obligation; it can be enforced neither by the State nor by the child. If, as we recommend in paragraphs 275 and 276, award-making were to be imposed as a legal duty upon the award-making body, the parental contribution would still remain legally unenforceable, a distinction which, once made explicit, would be very likely to affect the attitude of parents. Indeed, it is possible that, at present, if the parents refuse their contribution, the child could claim to have his needs met from public funds. There may well, in fact, have been an element of bluff in the demand for a parental contribution. Parents care no less for their children today than they cared in the past; but they may well feel inclined to call that bluff in an age of heavy taxation and increasing provision of services by the State, particularly when even government departments and nationalised industries are offering awards subject to no parental means test. It would indeed be difficult to reproach a parent who argued that, having continued to maintain and educate his child to the age of 18, he had adequately discharged his moral obligations and that, if the national interest requires the young man or woman to be educated further, then the nation should pay. If it is said that the remedy is to extend the legal obligations of parents by new legislation, we would reply that we do not believe that there is the climate of opinion in which this would be acceptable.

173. A relaxation of the kind proposed in Chapter 8 would not only fail to remove all legitimate complaint of hardship; it would have two further consequences. In the first place, the higher the income below which no contribution is expected, the greater the number of families who get complete exemption, and the smaller the actual yield both absolutely and in proportion to the cost and administrative effort involved in collecting it. Secondly, the smaller the number of families who are still required to make a contribution, the less the exaction of that contribution can be justified on grounds of general equity and the greater its resemblance to a discriminatory tax on a limited section of the community. Thus, the level of contributions set out in Chapter 8 would mean that about 60 per cent of all the present university and comparable awards would not be subject to any parental contribution at all. It seems to us that it is not unfair to describe the burden on the remainder as a special discriminatory tax. It is the function of the general system of taxation to do what society regards as distributive justice between citizens of different degrees of wealth; a system of university awards which superimposes what is in effect a second taxation system on some parents has no justification.

174. The effects of the present child allowances in the taxation system are also directly relevant to any comparisons made between a modified parental contribution and abolition. In respect of each child aged over 16 who is receiving full-time education, the parents are allowed a deduction from their income of £150 in the computation of both income tax and surtax, so long as the child does not have personal income of more than £100. The implication is that the parents require to spend at least £150 on the maintenance of any such child. Our recommendations for term-time and vacation grants are based on the principle that the parents should not have to make any "hidden contribution" to a student son or daughter. The lowest level of gross income at which, under Chapter 8, a contribution of as much as £150 would be required would be £2,250; in most cases, because of the system of allowances proposed

[page 53]

in that chapter, the income on which a contribution of £150 would be required would be higher. If it should be argued that what is relevant is the cash benefit deriving from the tax allowance, rather than the amount of the allowance itself, then it may be pointed out that the lowest level of income at which the contribution set out in Chapter 8 could possibly be as great as the saving in tax, is £1,330. If the parents of an award-holder have to pay some £150 or more a year to support him, there can be no complaint if they, equally with parents whose children hold no award, receive the tax benefit of the child allowance. If, however, they pay less than this, or if they are not required to make any contribution at all, or if their assessed contribution is less than the saving in tax, they may be considered to be getting it both ways. Their child is being educated and maintained free or at a small cost, and yet they are getting a child allowance because of his supposed greater cost to them. We appreciate that the taxation system cannot take account of variations in the amounts which different parents spend on the maintenance of their children, so that the child allowance must either be given in full or not be given at all, and that the allowance must continue to be given to the parents of all award-holders so long as some of them have to make contributions. But the lack of any relation between the taxation and awards system leads to these anomalies; and, as the figures quoted above show, the anomalies will become the more glaring if rates of grant are improved as recommended in this report and parental contributions are merely reduced. On the other hand, the complete abolition of parental contributions would open the way to removing these anomalies by withdrawing the child allowance from the parents of award-holders. Representatives of the Inland Revenue Department gave us a full account of the operation of the child allowance and although some possible objections were explained to us, we are satisfied that there would be no insuperable difficulty to prevent the whole class of students who had public awards not subject to a means test from being made ineligible to be counted as dependent children for tax purposes, as children with incomes of more than £100 a year are already.

The family interest

175. We have already referred to the difficulties caused in families by the parental contribution. A more generous system would ease but not finally remove them. Our wish for the abolition of the parental contribution also rests on what the Crowther report (page 35) calls "the new family pattern". Most boys and girls now become financially independent of their parents at an earlier age than their predecessors; moreover, the full employment which this country has enjoyed for the past two decades has resulted in a remarkable increase in the wages which they can command when they enter employment. The starting salary for the average shorthand typist at the age of 18 is higher than the maintenance grant paid to a full-time university student. We think that, in these new circumstances, children should be able to look forward to a measure of financial independence when they leave school at the age of 17 or 18, either because they are earning or because they have secured a place at a university or comparable institution (and both ability and hard work are necessary to secure it) for a course which it is in the national interest they should pursue.

The university interest

176. We realise that the combined effect of abolishing the parental contribution and of our proposals about selection (see Chapter 3) would be to throw an

[page 54]

even greater responsibility on the universities. It is likely to increase the number of applicants for university places. But the universities will, in any event, be faced with an unprecedented volume of applications. We do not believe that the abolition of the parental contribution will impose so great an extra burden (particularly as compared with the extra burden of applications arising from the reliefs proposed by those who wish to retain it) that the universities will be unable or unwilling to carry it. Nor do we consider that this extra burden would force the universities to adopt unsound criteria for admission, such as undue reliance on precise marks obtained in the G.C.E. examination. To argue against abolition on these grounds is in effect to say that some good candidates who cannot find the necessary money must continue to be barred from the university because it is too much to hope that sound methods of selection can be applied to an increased number of candidates. We do not accept this view; and we regard the parallel with the 11+ examination (paragraph 188) as too lightly drawn.

177. We agree with our colleagues about the importance of maintaining the independence of the universities, but we do not think that the abolition of the parental contribution will in itself make any serious inroads on this principle (paragraph 189). Its cost, in comparison with the total cost of university education, is very small. From the returns published by the University Grants Committee* and the statistics which we obtained, it seems that the fees for United Kingdom undergraduate students which are not met from public funds at present cannot exceed 2 per cent of the universities' income. If the parental contribution was abolished, the receipt of this extra 2 per cent from public funds, through students' grants, would be hardly likely to upset the accepted balance of the relationship between the universities and the State which has been built up with such conspicuous success over the past forty years. In any case, the reduced contributions suggested in Chapter 8 would probably also result in this 2 per cent, or a very substantial part of it, being paid from public funds.

Administrative reasons

178. We do not wish to place undue stress on administrative difficulties, but abolition would obviate a number of problems which are referred to in Chapter 8 on the assumption that a parental contribution might be retained. Nor do we want to make too much of the complicated calculations involved in determining the parental contribution, which have to be carried out yearly. Far more important to our mind than the saving of administrative work is that abolition is the only way of finding a satisfactory answer to a number of complicated situations which the parental contribution creates. One such situation arises from the very long training course required for medicine or dentistry, compared with the normal first degree. Another concerns the total contribution required from the parent whose children attend the university successively compared with that required where they happen to attend concurrently. Yet another is the difficulty of distinguishing fairly between the obligation of a parent and that of a step-parent or guardian and of solving the difficulties that arise from broken homes. While we do not want to over-emphasise the importance of exceptional and difficult cases, we have directed much thought to attempts to devise means of dealing with them. We have failed to do so, and it is only after such failure that some of us have been led to

*We appreciate that these returns do not include college fees at Oxford and Cambridge.

[page 55]

support abolition of the parental contribution. While suggestions are made in Chapter 8 for dealing with a few of these problems, it is not easy to see, in relation to most of them, what would be the "special measures" referred to by those supporting the retention of the parental contribution (paragraphs 187 and 190).

179. More important than the particular difficulties referred to in paragraph 178 is the general administrative problem which they illustrate. It is difficult to make the assessment of the parental contribution fair without making it complicated; yet administrative complexity is itself undesirable. Justice must be seen to be done. And the smaller the group from which the parental contribution is required, the less justifiable do the administrative complexities become, and the stronger the case for the abolition of the contribution.

Conclusion

180. We believe that the abolition of the parental contribution would provide a great stimulus to higher education and be an important step forward in the nation's progress. Parents would, we believe, be willing to face the relatively smaller cost of maintaining their children through the later years of their school course if it was known from the outset that their higher education would not involve any parental contribution. Children would be able to approach the difficult problem of how best their abilities could be used, both for their own benefit and for that of the nation, without any misgivings about the financial burdens which their parents would be called upon to bear. Finally, the administrative complexities involved in the calculation of the parental contribution would be done away with, and there would be no question of the imposition on a small class of parents of a system whose financial return would be small and whose justice would be dubious.

181. The case for keeping some form of parental contribution rests, like that made by our colleagues for abolition, on a number of arguments not all of them supported with equal force by each of us who favour the case for retention in principle. We accept that in the future there may be such developments in the social pattern and in that of university and school education as to make abolition of the parental contribution seem natural and inevitable; but, for us, this time has not yet come. The structures of both university and school education are changing, but they are not yet adapted to absorb such a change as this with advantage. Some of us consider that the abolition of the parental contribution might be made as soon as some of the present differences in quality between the various forms of pre-university education can be removed. The prevention of the present loss of potential university talent from the maintained secondary schools would in their view be one such prerequisite before abolition would be acceptable. This loss takes place on the very border of our field of reference, but it certainly affects the quality of the students applying for awards. It is caused by the inability or unwillingness of parents to stand the cost of keeping a potential student at school for the years between the normal school-leaving age and the age for entering a university. Another prerequisite for some of us would be some clear evidence of the removal of those advantages that are held by many to be enjoyed by pupils from the larger and better-known independent and direct-grant schools in preparing for admission to certain universities and colleges, particularly at Oxford and Cambridge.

[page 56]

182. We must at the outset establish clearly the two alternatives on which we disagree with our colleagues; there is danger otherwise that the complete abolition supported by them may come to be balanced against the present awards system as the public now knows it. The comparison must be made between abolition and the retention of a drastically improved system, such as we are proposing. The improvements we support (as set out in Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9) are important and would, we believe, quite transform the situation of the middle-income class of parent from whom the opposition to the present scale of parental contributions has, understandably, come.

The public interest

183. A fundamental point in favour of retention (and it was very strongly put by some witnesses) is that free education for all who can gain acceptance by a university or its equivalent would not be to the national advantage at all, but would make cheap what should be held valuable. This is a concept not based on statistics, but on a point of view concerning the relationship of the citizen and the State. It regards the abolition of the parental contribution as having a softening tendency upon the public and therefore upon the nation; it holds that self-reliance and self-respect are precious and not lightly to be exchanged for yet one more dip into the public purse.

184. Another point of view is that too much importance is being given to university education as such (as though there were not other ways of learning to make the most of one's capacity); that some clever students, "lost" to the universities, may well do the nation more good by climbing some other ladder; and that a university training (as it is at present) is not by any means certainly the best lead-in to some of those positions in commerce or industry in which the nation must have brilliant but practical men and women. Nor is it necessarily the best preparation for a career in such socially valuable services as nursing, or primary and infant teaching, for which candidates of sound ability and good secondary education are admirably fitted. It would be extremely unfortunate if there were to be any further growth of the opinion, for which there is even at present too much support, that university education is a kind of national service to which all good students must aspire, and that the possession of a university degree is an automatic passport, and indeed the only passport, to a position of affluence and importance, which it is the duty of the State to provide. It would be equally unfortunate if the growth of such an opinion acted as a further deterrent to the entry of suitable candidates to the variety of practical yet fully responsible occupations, to which recruitment is already very difficult. These arguments combine to suggest that it would be imprudent to abolish the parental contribution, as this would seem to throw the whole weight of the State's approval and encouragement behind the particular educational opportunities provided through universities and comparable establishments. While accepting the implications of these arguments, we agree nevertheless that the national interest, at any rate, demands that there should equally be no discouraging element in the university awards system. On the other hand, we do not accept that this can be assured merely by liberalising the awards system to increase the numbers coming forward to the universities. They already have more applicants than can be taken. The figures also show that the present awards system seems to have done nothing to retard university expansion. It is, we believe, improved quality among the students that is needed, together with any improvements in the system to make it as simple and fair as it can reasonably be. Those who

[page 57]

support the abolition of the parental contribution argue, with logic, that its very nature must act as a discouragement to certain parents of possible students (paragraph 170). Logic proceeds to claim that among these students some will have been of high quality and that the way to bring them in will be to abolish the parental contribution altogether. We do not deny that this might be so; we only deny the importance of this supposed gain in better-quality students as against the dangers and disadvantages we foresee flowing from the abolition of the parental contribution. We believe the awards system can better be improved by less sweeping means.

The family interest

185. One of the reasons given (paragraph 172) for supporting abolition is that the present awards system has a flaw, in that parents (who already have no legal obligation for the education of their children after compulsory school age) will be forced, for financial reasons, increasingly to take advantage of this fact by putting obstacles in the way of their children taking up university places. It is known that under the present awards system some parents already do this. How many they are, and how many of them would do such a thing to a potentially brilliant student, no figures can be found to tell. It is also known that some parents do less than they should to support their children when these have reached the university. Such failings we put largely at the door of the excessive contributions required from parents and of the inadequacy of the vacation allowances current under the present awards system, and we believe that our proposals for improvements will largely prevent them. There will remain the group of parents who act as they do from a lack of understanding of what a university education can mean for the student's future. Time is fast educating this type of parent, and we regard him as a passing phenomenon. His shortcomings can certainly not be put down to some permanent falling-off in the instinctive ambition of parents for their children, which should be off-set by abolishing the parental contribution.

186. Another reason that has been given for abolition is that it would effectively prevent the family disagreements, the jealousies between one child and another, and the bad effects of these upon the ability of the student to work, caused by the existence of the parental contribution. Somewhat similarly, many students, now that personal independence is claimed at an increasingly early age, resent on principle a continued financial dependence upon their parents. All these tensions we can understand, but we do not agree that it is either wise or necessary to try to side-step them by making university and further education free. These tensions will always exist in one form or another, and we do not think that public opinion would yet agree that the State should have to deal with such problems, which are essentially family responsibilities. We distinguish between providing university education free for the limited number who can qualify for it and the provision for all citizens of free services that are really public and necessary for all. A university education is not open to all and, for those who are clever and hardworking enough to win it and make the most of it, it brings personal advantages.

187. Some of the arguments for abolition which refer to administrative difficulties (paragraphs 178 and 179) rely on exceptional cases, such as that based on the age at which medical students complete their university course. The argument implies that the system should be judged by exceptional cases and

[page 58]

not by the preponderant number of ordinary cases. If, for example, the hardship involved for the parents of medical students is in fact intolerable, this should be met by special measures, not by a drastic alteration of the whole system.

The university interest

188. We oppose abolition for some reasons to do with the universities themselves. We cannot claim that it would inevitably have the effects we predict and dislike; our case is rather that the positive arguments for abolition are not strong enough to justify the nation in risking these ill effects. Free provision of a much prized good thing creates public concern about the methods by which certain individuals are chosen from amongst their fellows to enjoy the good thing. The controversy that has raged these last ten years in England and Wales over selection at 11+ for grammar school education is an example in point. We believe it would be bad for the universities, and in the long run for the nation, if a similar wave of public uneasiness were to rise over selection at 18+. The danger we foresee is that, in the selection for university entrance, emphasis would increasingly have to be placed (as the number of applicants mounted) on examination marks only, claimed to be "objective", to the exclusion of personal judgments of character and other relevant factors by assessors well qualified to make them. This could come about all too easily through public pressure on university authorities to provide a convincing explanation of the reason for rejection of every unsuccessful candidate. It would be against the national interest, in our view, if selection for university or equivalent education came to be based solely on the number of marks gained in public examinations.

189. The proposed change also involves other dangers to university independence. If the parental contribution were to be abolished the fees of virtually all university students (except those with their own private incomes and those from overseas) would be paid from public funds. Administratively, abolition would also tend, in our opinion inevitably, towards centralisation of payments. For instance, if all students from Great Britain were entitled to receive the full standard grant it might be argued that it would be administratively cumbersome for these sums to be paid individually to each student and that one small office working with mechanical aids should calculate and send to each university both the appropriate grant to cover tuition fees for all its students and also the boarding fees for those of them living in college or halls of residence. We are not prepared to support an alteration that would seem so clearly to lead to a centralised bureaucratic control.

Administration

190. There is no over-riding reason why a scheme for assessing parental contributions should be more difficult to operate fairly, and therefore be more ripe for abolition, than any other of the manifold activities of modern administration. The present scheme can certainly be improved in many ways and more effort must be made to explain its more complex features; recommendations on these points are to be found in Chapters 8 and 12. We feel that too much weight is given in the abolitionist arguments to cases outside the normal (paragraphs 178 and 179). Troubles brought about for students through misunderstandings with parents or step-parents should be met and administered by special measures. They are not the examples upon which a balanced new system can be devised. Modern administration would break down if it were held that the existence of difficult borderline cases was in itself enough to put a policy out of

[page 59]

court. Among the many complaints against the present system made to us by our witnesses, the problem of step-parents or divorced parents hardly figures at all. Our witnesses were right: such considerations should play no part in reaching this important decision. We hold that no entitlement to a free university education should be created unless it can clearly be shown that the national interest demands it. The essence of our argument is that no such case can be made out.

RECOMMENDATIONS

191. We have all considered the arguments on each side and have decided as follows.

192. The undersigned recommend that parental contributions should be abolished and that parents of students receiving awards from public funds should not be eligible for the income tax or surtax child allowances for those students.

Colin S. Anderson.
Gladys Buxton.
Margaret A. M. Cooke.
W. McL. Dewar.
J. A. Evans.
N. G. Fisher.
J. W. F. Hill.
H. D. P. Lee.
D. W. Logan.
J. Topping.
E. M. Wright.

W. W. Finlay.
Ron Smith.
L. S. Sutherland.
A. H. Wilson.

[page 60]

194. The matters dealt with in this chapter will not arise if it is decided to abolish parental contributions. If parental contributions are retained, certain immediate changes in the methods of assessment, as described in this chapter, are essential.

THE ONUS TO CONTRIBUTE AND THE "HARDSHIP" PRINCIPLE

195. The present arrangement for assessing the parental contribution according to nationally-agreed scales is a practical application, which has been evolved over a period of years, of a principle set out in the Education Act 1944 (applying to England and Wales) and in the Education (Scotland) Act 1946 (see Appendix 2). The principle is that grants are to be given to enable students to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of educational facilities available to them. If parental contributions are to be retained, we think that a single system, as described later in this chapter, should apply throughout Great Britain. But for three reasons this might be regarded as not within the powers given by the Acts:-

(a) The present scales of contributions depend on a conception of hardship very far removed from reduction to subsistence level or lower. The recommended system would be still more generous to parents. It might perhaps, as a result, be regarded as legally irreconcilable with the hardship principle.

(b) The principle might be interpreted as giving award-making bodies power to refuse an award, where under the national arrangements the parental contribution would be less than the maximum grant, on the grounds that they had satisfied themselves by some independent test that, if the student received no financial assistance, he would still be able to take the course proposed without hardship to himself or his parents. In a few cases which have been drawn to our attention, local authorities have taken this view.

(c) On the other hand, the principle might be interpreted as meaning that if the parents refuse to make the assessed contribution and if the student himself is in danger of suffering hardship, the student must be relieved from public funds.

197. We have considered a proposal that capital resources as well as the income derived from them should be taken into account in assessing either the

[page 61]

parents' or the student's contribution, but we are satisfied that any attempt to do this would lead to anomalies and an unacceptable complexity of administration. We therefore recommend that no account be taken of capital resources, as distinct from the income derived from them.

THE METHOD OF ASSESSING THE PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION

Persons whose incomes are to be assessed

198. There has been difficulty, both in England and Wales and in Scotland, in deciding what persons should have their incomes assessed and be expected to contribute as "parents". Examples are:-

(a) where the parents are separated or divorced, especially where one of the parents cannot be traced or declines to assist the student;

(b) where the student's father has died and the student's mother has married again;

(c) where the student is an adopted child;

(d) where the student has been cared for by a guardian, foster-parent or friend; and

(e) where the student has left his parents and joined a religious order.

Assessment of income

199. At present, as explained in more detail in paragraph 146, the contribution is calculated from the "scale income" or "balance of income". We prefer the latter term and recommend its general adoption. Where there are two parents, the assessment is made on their joint income. We recommend that the present system should, in general principle, continue unchanged if parental contributions are retained.

200. There have been some doubts in the past about how the gross income should be determined, particularly where parents have emoluments in kind, such as free quarters or meals, or investment income which is taxed at source, or where charges incurred in earning the income are allowed as deductions from the income in computing tax. The latter is a cause of some complaint in relation to parental contributions, particularly where substantial deductions are allowed in respect of capital expenditure. We have, however, reached the conclusion that there is only one satisfactory procedure: to follow the practice of the income tax authorities. This may produce its own anomalies, but to depart from a system to which parents are used may create others even more serious. We

[page 62]

therefore recommend that the gross income taken as the starting point for the assessment of the parental contribution should in all cases be the income assessable to tax. This would mean that unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, disability pensions and, in most cases, the value of free quarters or meals, would not be included in gross income for awards purposes, as they are not assessable to tax; and that normally the same deductions for expenses and charges against income would be allowed as are allowed in the income tax assessment.

201. The normal practice is to assess the contribution on the income in the previous fiscal year, but when there is a sudden and substantial drop in the income the contribution is assessed on current income instead. We endorse this practice. We think that, in general, assessment on current income would be justified where the drop was of the order of 20 per cent, but that the award-making body should exercise discretion sympathetically, according to individual circumstances.

202. At present, the gross income is reduced by allowances which bear some resemblance to the reliefs given in the assessment of income tax. The system is elaborate and, wishing to simplify it, we considered a suggestion that the parental contribution should be assessed on gross income. It was argued that this would not lead to any unfairness if the contributions expected from parents were to be reduced substantially below the present level and that it would become easier for the parent to calculate his liability to contribute. We foresaw, however, the possibility of grave anomalies and concluded that some system of allowances is necessary in order to ensure reasonable parity of treatment between one parent and another.

ALLOWANCES AGAINST GROSS INCOME

203. We now turn to the principle on which a system of allowances should be based. While some of the present allowances are related to the reliefs given when calculating income tax, others are made against expenditure deemed to be socially desirable, such as payment of school fees. We consider that the only satisfactory general principle is to follow as closely as possible the reliefs given for tax purposes, though the amounts and the methods of calculation need not necessarily be the same.

204. We discuss the particular allowances in paragraphs 205 to 214, but before doing so there is one general point to be made. The parental contribution at any particular level of gross income is determined by the joint effect of the allowances deducted from gross income and of the scale showing the contributions required for different balances of income. These two features are closely interlocked. It is, therefore, necessary at this point to consider at what level of income no parental contribution should be required. We believe that the present level, which has remained substantially unchanged since 1946, is now far too low. We think that no contribution should be expected from a married couple with one child if their gross income is less than about £1,000.

Allowances for dependants

205. Allowances are at present given for dependent children other than the award-holder, and for dependent adults, but no deduction is made from gross income for the parents themselves. They are not overlooked, however: provision for them is made within the income scale itself, the assumption being that

[page 63]

every family consists of two adults and the student, as well as those for whom specific allowances are given. At present, no contribution is required in England and Wales where the scale income is £450 or less and in Scotland where the balance of income is £420 or less. But it is not clear to parents that account is taken in this way of their own living expenses, and we were informed that misunderstandings often occur. This is a weakness of the present system; it is also inconsistent with our principle that the awards system of allowances should correspond as far as possible with that used for tax purposes. We therefore recommend that a specific allowance be given for the parents' own expenses. In order to achieve the result outlined in the previous paragraph we recommend, on the assumption that charges on income which are allowed will average about 5 per cent, that the allowance should be £950 for two parents. Where only one parent has to be maintained out of the gross income, as for a widow or widower, the allowance should be £750.

206. The present allowance for each dependent child, other than any who hold awards, is £170. We recommend that the maximum allowance should be £200, but that it should be reduced by the amount of any income, other than scholarship income, which the child has in his own right.

207. At present, for each adult dependant other than the student's parents, the maximum allowance is £170. In England and Wales, but not in Scotland, the maximum is reduced by any income which the adult dependant may have. We recommend that the maximum value of this allowance should be raised to £200 but that it should be reduced by any income of the adult dependant.

Interest payments and rent

208. At present mortgage interest is allowed, but not rent; interest on bank overdrafts, and other interest payments, are allowed in England and Wales, and may be allowed in Scotland at the discretion of the education authority. We recommend that mortgage interest should continue to be allowed, together with all other interest payments that are allowed for tax purposes. We have considered whether rent should also be taken into account, but we have concluded that there is not sufficient reason to make an exception in this respect to the general principle stated in paragraph 203.

209. We have also considered the criticism that the benefit given to the owner-occupier, compared with the rent-payer, by allowing mortgage interest, cannot be regarded as offset by the fact that the "net annual value" of the house is counted as income, since "net annual values" are generally lower than rents. To take account of this fact it has been suggested to us in evidence that the amount to be included as income for the owner-occupier should be equal to twice the "net annual value" of the house. Apart from adding another complication, this would again conflict with the principle we have adopted that in general tax practice should be followed, and we do not recommend its adoption.

Superannuation contributions and life insurance premiums

210. Compulsory and voluntary contributions to superannuation funds, and life insurance premiums, are at present allowed up to a maximum of 10 per cent of earned income in England and Wales and of total income, both earned and unearned, in Scotland. We have considered whether the 10 per cent maximum is too restrictive, but we think it reasonable in itself and our enquiries indicate that there are few cases in which payments by parents substantially exceed it.

[page 64]

We have, also, considered whether life insurance premiums should be dealt with separately from superannuation contributions, as they are for tax purposes, but for awards purposes we prefer the simple formula covering both items. It makes an added complication in administration to distinguish for this purpose between earned and unearned income and, as the amount of public money involved is small, we prefer the Scottish practice to that followed in England and Wales. We therefore recommend that these expenses should be allowed up to a maximum of 10 per cent of total income, whether earned or unearned.

Allowance for domestic assistance

211. The amount allowed at present depends on the particular circumstances, but less is normally allowed to a widower than to a husband whose wife is either employed full-time or incapacitated. This is because of the provision made for two adults in the income scale (see paragraph 205). It follows from our recommendations that this differentiation should no longer be continued. We recommend that in such circumstances the actual cost of necessary domestic assistance be allowed as a deduction from the parents' gross income up to a maximum of £200.

Educational expenses for other dependent children

212. At present, in England and Wales, educational expenses and school fees are allowed up to a maximum of £180, and the cost of university education or professional training up to a maximum of £350, if the son or daughter concerned does not hold an award from public funds. In Scotland, all expenditure "reasonably incurred" may be allowed by the education authority. No allowance for such expense is given for tax purposes. These allowances have played a useful part in helping to reduce the onerous contributions that many parents with moderate incomes have been called upon to make towards university education or professional training, but, in view of the improvements which we recommend in this chapter, they are no longer needed for this purpose and we recommend that they be discontinued. The children concerned would, of course, be eligible for allowances under paragraph 206.

Payments made under covenant

213. Provided that they satisfy certain conditions, payments made under covenant, whether to charitable or other organisations or to individuals, are not regarded as part of the covenantor's total income and are not taxed. We recommend that, in general, these payments should similarly be allowed as a deduction from gross income for awards purposes. For two sorts of covenant, however, we must recommend different treatment. First, for covenants benefiting individuals other than the award-holder, we recommend that the maximum deduction to be allowed from gross income should be £200 in respect of each beneficiary, i.e., the maximum allowance we recommend for a dependant (paragraphs 206 and 207). Secondly, for covenanted payments by the parent to the award-holder himself, we recommend, in conjunction with our recommendation in paragraph 246, that no deduction should be allowed from the parent's gross income.

Exceptional allowances

214. The Minister of Education has pointed out to local education authorities in England and Wales that circumstances will occasionally be found where considerations of humanity or common sense require a modification of a scheme

[page 65]

of awards*. We would not wish the system of allowances to be inflexible, and we recommend that the award-making body should have discretion to make further allowances in exceptional circumstances.

Income tax and surtax

215. In the evidence submitted to us, there was much support for the view that allowances should be given for income tax and surtax payments. It was suggested that the present system amounted to "double taxation" of those with high incomes who, after paying large amounts of income tax and surtax, are also required to pay the whole, or the greater part, of the cost of their children's university education. It was also argued that, in fairness to all parents, contributions should be assessed on the income available after income tax and surtax have been paid.

216. We have not thought it necessary to go into the more theoretical aspects of the double taxation argument, but we are satisfied that, in assessing parental contributions, it would be impracticable to take into account the exact sums paid in taxes. There is a time lag in many cases before the amount of income tax, and still more of surtax, payable is determined. Provisional assessments of the parental contribution and subsequent re-assessments, some of which might take place after the student has completed his course, would be necessary. Overpayments of grant, and subsequent claims for repayment, would be inevitable. We therefore reject the proposal to take actual payments of income tax and surtax into account.

217. Alternatively, allowances could be given corresponding to the average tax liability of the parent at different levels of income; a table, such as that reproduced in Appendix 12, could be used for this purpose. But this would still further complicate the system. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the granting of other allowances on the income tax pattern. Under it, the parent with a large family, and therefore more allowances under the tax system, who now pays less tax than the parent with a smaller family, would be put at a disadvantage. This might be counterbalanced by giving larger allowances for children, but this would clearly be yet another added complication in a system which we are trying to simplify. We therefore reject this proposal also.

THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION

218. At present, there are minor differences between England and Wales and Scotland in the allowances given against income, including the allowance for the parents' living expenses which is taken account of in the income scale. The adoption of the foregoing recommendations would eliminate these differences. In all three countries the scale already rises at the same rate. Since 1958, the annual contribution has been £14 for each £100 by which the balance of income, after deducting all allowances, exceeds the minimum £450 (£420 in Scotland); in other words, it is 14 per cent of the true "balance of income". Granted a system of progressive taxation, the principle of a uniform rate of climb has many advantages, and we recommend that it be maintained. We consider that a reasonable contribution at different income levels would be secured if the annual contribution were 10 per cent of the balance of income, and we recommend accordingly.

219. The following table compares the contributions payable under our recommendations with those required at present. The figures relate to a family

*Ministry of Education Circular 339 (5th June 1958).

[page 66]

consisting of a father, mother and one son (or daughter) who is an award-holder. It is assumed that allowances under paragraphs 208 and 210 would amount to 5 per cent of gross income. In larger families, the contribution shown would be reduced by £20 for each other dependant for whom an allowance was given in full under paragraphs 206 and 207.

[page 69]

231. We deal here with the question of how far the personal income of the award-holder, as distinct from the income of his parents, should be taken into account in assessing the amount of grant to be given from public funds. We divide the sources of such income into three categories: awards from non-public funds, unearned income and earnings during term-time. (We deal with vacation earnings in Chapter 6.) The methods followed at present in Scotland differ from those in England and Wales, and involve distinctions in the way different sources of income are treated. Our general approach is that a uniform method should be followed in Great Britain and that complications should be avoided as far as possible. We start by setting out briefly the present practices: for England and Wales, we state the practice of the Ministry of Education for state scholarships though this is not followed by all local education authorities for their awards.

PRESENT PRACTICE

University and college awards "supplemented" by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department

232. As we explained in Chapter 4, the present system in England ann Wales of supplementing university and college awards to state scholarship level means in effect that the whole value of the award is deducted from the public grant. This applies also to awards at English universities supplemented by the Scottish Education Department.

Other awards from non-public funds

England and Wales

233. School-leaving scholarships, and grants from educational trusts and other such funds, may be retained without any corresponding reduction of the grant from public funds provided that the total sum received does not exceed £100 over the whole course. In addition, university or college prizes and awards of merit which are in the nature of single payments made after competition or in recognition of merit are allowed up to the amount of £100 in any one year.

Scotland

234. In Scotland, a distinction is made between awards won in open competition, and those in awarding which there is some restriction. Under the regulations of 1957, the holder of an education authority bursary is allowed to retain each year half the value or £60, whichever is the greater, of each open award, and the first £30 of each restricted award, but the education authority bursary is reduced by any excess over these limits.

Unearned income: income from investments

England and Wales

235. The first £50 is ignored and the balance is treated as follows:-

(a) if the parent's scale income is £450 or less, the whole balance is added to it before the parental contribution is assessed;

[page 70]

(b) if the parent's scale income is between £450 and £750, half the balance is added to it before the parental contribution is assessed: the other half is added to the contribution after it has been assessed;

(c) if the parent's scale income exceeds £750, the whole balance is added to the parental contribution after it has been assessed.

236. Until 1957, the whole income was required to be added to the parent's income before the contribution was assessed. Under the regulations of 1957, this practice was discontinued and education authorities were given discretion to require the student to contribute whatever sum they consider reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

Unearned income: income from covenants

England and Wales

237. A distinction is drawn between covenants made by the parent in favour of the award-holder and those made by others. A covenant made by the parent is regarded as a method of paying the parental contribution to the award-holder and is ignored, i.e., the amount of the covenant is neither allowed to the parent as a deduction from gross income for the purpose of calculating scale income, nor treated as personal income of the award-holder: for administrative convenience, this is applied whether the award-holder is under, or over, 21 years of age. Income under covenants made in favour of the award-holder by others is treated as his private income in accordance with paragraph 235.

Scotland

238. Both types of income are treated as in paragraph 236.

Earnings during term-time

England and Wales

239. We understand that earnings by undergraduates during term-time are not often reported and that no regular procedure for dealing with them has been established.

Scotland

240. Scottish education authorities have been advised* to require the student to contribute the amount of the earnings, less income tax and insurance contributions, or the amount allowed in the bursary for ordinary maintenance, clothing and incidental expenses (normally £4 10s. a week), whichever is the lesser.

AIMS IN MAKING IMPROVEMENTS

241. We gave considerable thought to the question whether, for the purpose of awards from public funds, different treatment should be given to these various sources of income. It soon became clear that preferences necessarily involve drawing fine distinctions which are difficult to administer and likely to cause misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. Also, difficulties arise if the award-holder enjoys income from different sources, each of which is subject to different treatment. The making of distinctions also conflicted with our desire to simplify the awards system so far as could be, while keeping it equitable. The primary

*Scottish Education Department Circular 362 of 27th June 1957.

[page 71]

issue for us is the reconciliation of the financial interest of the student with that of the public: the social utility of the sources of the student's income is not, we think, the direct concern of the award-making body.

A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

242. We recommend that in Great Britain no deduction should be made from the grant payable from public funds in any year in which the personal income of the award-holder is £100 or less but that, if the income is greater, the grant should be reduced by the amount of personal income in excess of £100. This recommendation applies whether the parental contribution is abolished, or retained on the basis recommended in Chapter 8: it applies to earnings in term-time, but not to those in vacation, which are to be dealt with in accordance with the recommendations we have made in Chapter 6.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE AWARDS

243. In Chapter 4, we mentioned that, at present, dissatisfaction was widespread because the holder of a university or college award accepted for supplementation derived no financial advantage from that award as compared with the ordinary holder of a university or comparable award from public funds. Our recommendation in Chapter 4 that supplementation as such should be discontinued, together with the recommendation made in paragraph 242, should remove this dissatisfaction.*

FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

Liability for income tax and national insurance

244. In so far as the personal income of the award-holder may come from income subject to income tax, the approximate net figure should be taken for the purpose of calculating the award: in so far as it is derived from term-time earnings, national insurance contributions should be allowed, as well as income tax.

Disability pensions and service bounties

245. The present practice in England and Wales of ignoring disability pensions should be continued and extended to Scotland. Bounties paid by the services to reservists should also be ignored.

Covenants

246. We recommend that, if the system of parental contributions is retained, the standard practice in Great Britain should be to ignore covenanted payments made by the parent to the award-holder. If parental contributions are abolished, income received by the award-holder under covenants, whether made by the parent or others, should be treated as his personal income.

AWARD-HOLDERS IN SPECIAL NEED

247. The arrangements made by the Ministry of Education now make it possible for university and college authorities to give up to £40 per annum to state scholars who are in special need, without any corresponding reduction of

*The Oxford and Cambridge college awards are subject, by statute, to reduction by the college authorities according to parental income. Some alterations in the statutes may be desirable as a result of our recommendations, but such questions are outside our terms of reference.

[page 72]

Ministry grant: this applies even though the scholar may already be benefiting from payments from awards and prizes in accordance with the arrangements set out at paragraph 233. A number of university and college authorities have funds for the benefit of students in special need and the concession has made it possible for these to be put to good use. The need for it will be less if our recommendation to allow £100 per annum from outside sources is accepted, but there are likely to be some cases where even the £100 allowance is insufficient. We recommend, therefore, that where university or college authorities represent to the award-making body that a student is in special need and state their readiness to help him from funds at their disposal, the award-making body should allow such payments, beyond the normal £100, without making any deduction from the grant from public funds.

PAYMENTS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH EDUCATION

248. It has been the general practice in Great Britain to ignore payments from charitable trusts and other such sources made for purposes connected with education which the grant from public funds is not designed to cover. The most common example is foreign travel during vacations. We realise that the case for continuing to ignore these will be less strong if our recommendations about vacation grants in Chapter 6, and those made in this chapter, are implemented and that there are dangers of abuse. Nevertheless, subject to the arrangement being carefully administered, we recommend that a payment over and above the normal £100 be allowed, without deduction from the public grant, if it has been earmarked by the donor for a specific purpose connected with education, such as foreign travel, which the grant from public funds is not designed to cover. The maximum amount to be allowed without deduction should be determined in each case in the light of the actual expenses to be incurred.

STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITIES OVERSEAS

249. We have recommended in paragraph 119(b) that students from Great Britain given awards for study at universities in commonwealth or foreign countries should not be eligible for higher grants than those fixed for the appropriate group of universities in Great Britain. In many cases, however, the cost of living abroad will be substantially higher, and it would then be unfair to reduce the grant by any income which the student may be receiving from other sources in excess of the normal £100 per annum. The amount above £100 which could be retained without deduction would again depend on the actual expenses of the university course abroad: those naturally vary greatly.

[page 73]

250. We now have to consider in what circumstances, and under what conditions, the income of a married student's spouse should be taken into account and grants given for dependants.

MARRIED AWARD-HOLDERS WHOSE GRANTS ARE SUBJECT TO PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION

251. In Chapter 8, we recommended that the marriage of a student should not be regarded as a reason for excusing his or her parents from the obligation to make the parental contribution. It would be unreasonable to require a contribution from the spouse, so long as the parent is still expected to contribute.

MARRIED AWARD-HOLDERS WHOSE GRANTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION

Present practice

England and Wales

252. Married students whose grants are not subject to parental contribution are assessed on the joint income of the husband and wife. The method of assessment is elaborate, and details of it are given in Appendix 13. The broad effect is that no contribution is normally expected for a married woman student where the joint income is less than £322, or for a married man student whose wife has earned or unearned income and where the joint income is less than £580.

Scotland

253. No distinction is at present drawn between a student whose parents are required to make a contribution and those for whom a parental contribution is waived. Where the student is married, the spouse's income is ignored.

Can a distinction be drawn between the obligation of a husband to contribute and that of a wife?

254. Traditionally a husband is expected to maintain his wife, but a wife is not expected to maintain her husband. We first considered whether it would be right to expect a husband to contribute to the expense of the university education of his wife, while not expecting a wife to contribute for her husband, and came to the conclusion that in the field with which we are concerned any such distinction would be unreal. At present, it is just as common for a wife to be earning while her husband is studying, as for a wife to be studying while her husband is earning. Such legal obligations as a husband has for maintaining his wife do not extend to providing her with a university education. The choice must be between making a joint assessment, whether it is the husband or wife who is earning, or else ignoring the spouse's income altogether.

Our recommendation

255. We are satisfied that, compared with the total cost to the public of the awards with which we are concerned, the savings to be effected by requiring

[page 74]

a joint assessment will be marginal. There may be a few cases where the spouse of the student has a considerable income and in which it might be argued that as a matter of principle the spouse should not be relieved of the obligation to contribute. On the other hand, the predominant pattern will be that of a student's husband or wife starting a career on the bottom rung of the ladder and earning a modest salary. We do not think that the benefit to public funds is large enough to make it worthwhile to call for and assess joint income returns. We recommend that the income of the spouse should be ignored, except in considering whether any special grant is to be given by the award-making body for the spouse's maintenance (see paragraph 261).

AWARD-HOLDERS WHO ARE MARRIED TO AWARD-HOLDERS

256. Whether parental contributions are retained or not, an award-holder should not be regarded as dependent on another award-holder. The award for each should be separately assessed, and any parental contribution normally payable should be required. Where the award-holders have established a home within working range of the university, each should be eligible to receive the "lodgings" standard figure of maintenance.

GRANTS FOR DEPENDANTS

257. We now turn to the question whether any grants for dependants should be given and, if so, under what conditions. Three classes of dependants may be distinguished - spouse, children, and other dependants. For this purpose, the spouse will almost invariably be a wife and any special provision for the wife of a student must clearly be closely linked with provision for children, since in these days unless the wife has a young child or children to look after she will most likely be earning and so not require any maintenance grant. Other dependants will normally be relatives who are prevented by age or infirmity from earning and supporting themselves.

Responsibility of other social agencies

258. It might be argued, particularly in relation to elderly relatives, that it is no part of an awards system to provide for a student's dependants, and that any help which they may need should be the business of other social agencies. We think that this is too rigid to meet every condition that may arise and that the older student, to whom an award-making body is prepared to give a grant for university first degree or comparable study, should be assured, as part of the same transaction, that anyone who was previously dependent on him, and whose dependence he has declared to the award-making body, will not suffer undue hardship. If the dependant is receiving other help such as an old age pension, widow's pension, or unemployment benefit, the matter can be simply adjusted by deducting from the grant payable under the awards system the amount of income received by the dependant from other sources.

Definition of award-holders eligible to receive grants for dependants

259. We come now to the question of which award-holders can be regarded as eligible to receive grants for their dependants. We are firmly of the opinion that grants for dependants should be strictly limited in scope. We do not think that anything should be added to the awards system which would provide a financial incentive for young students to marry before or during their courses. At present, in England and Wales, there are considerable variations in the

[page 75]

practice of local education authorities, and the present arrangements in Scotland also leave much discretion to the education authority. We attach great importance to uniformity in this matter, particularly in view of our recommendation in Chapter 4, that technical and mature state scholarships should not be continued. It is our intention that those who would previously have won these scholarships should not be worse off.

260. We recommend, therefore, that for Great Britain, whether or not the parental contribution is abolished, the award-holders eligible for grants for their dependants should be the same as those covered by our recommendations in paragraph 229, i.e.,

(a) award-holders who are aged 25 or over on 31st July of the year in which the award is offered; and

(b) award-holders who have regularly and substantially supported themselves out of their earnings for three years (towards which period, half of any period of national service should be counted) before 31st July of the year in which the award is offered.

Rates of grants for dependants

261. In accordance with the principle which we have already followed in dealing with standard figures of maintenance, we have not thought it incumbent on us to consider and recommend the maximum amounts to be given as grants to dependants. We can, however, see no case for variations in different parts of Great Britain and we therefore recommend that the same maxima should be fixed in England, Wales and Scotland. The maximum grant should in all cases be reduced, pound for pound, by any income of the dependant for whom the grant is given.

OTHER PROVISIONS FOR THE OLDER STUDENT

262. Other facets of the awards system may be as important to these older students as the provision of grants for dependants, and we wish to affirm here the importance of treating them generously in other respects also, whether they come from industry and aim to qualify as technologists or, like the present holders of mature state scholarships, give up their jobs in order to study for a degree in a "liberal" subject. In the past, some who have been given the opportunity of higher education at a mature age have made notable contributions to the national life, and despite the greater opportunities now given to the able boy or girl, there will still be older men and women who will benefit both the nation and themselves if they are given a fair chance of taking a university degree or similar course later in life. It would be foolish to spoil their chances by taking insufficient account of the special circumstances in which they may be placed.

263. They may well have established homes of their own when they were in employment and had no thought that they would ever come within reach of a university degree. If they own a house, they may well need special help

[page 76]

from the award-making body, e.g. towards meeting mortgage interest. A "two homes" allowance will be necessary as an addition to the ordinary standard figure of maintenance if the student continues to maintain a home for his wife and children away from the place where he is taking his degree or comparable course.

264. In dealing with special vacation grants in Chapter 6, we mentioned the possibility that the student who bas no home to go to during vacations might receive the weekly rate of grant applicable to an approved vacation course. "Home" in this context meant, of course, the parental home, and not the home established by the older student for his wife and family. The standard vacation grant calculated in the manner we have recommended in paragraph 136 is not designed to meet the needs of such a man, and we recommend that he should be eligible for the vacation course rate, subject to his not taking paid employment during the periods for which the grant is paid.

[page 77]

265. Up to this point we have referred to "award-making bodies" without seeking to define what these should be, for the views we have expressed have not depended on the type of body responsible for administration.

266. At present, the responsibility for assisting students is undertaken by no less than 181 local education authorities and two government departments. In England and Wales, the local education authorities make about 16,000 awards annually for university study and about 7,500 major awards for courses at further education establishments, while the Ministry of Education awards about 3,800 state scholarships a year, nearly all of them for study at universities. In Scotland, almost all grants are made by the education authorities, about 2,000 a year for study at universities and about 2,000 for courses at the central institutions and similar establishments. The Scottish Education Department itself makes only about 25 awards a year, mainly for study at English universities.

PAST PRACTICE OF THE VARIOUS AWARD-MAKING BODIES

Central awards

267. Although we have recommended in Chapter 4 that state scholarships on the present lines should be discontinued, we do not overlook the invaluable part they have played in England and Wales over a long formative period, during which the opportunity and habit of university attendance were being extended over the widest possible social range. They set standards which were welcomed by the local education authorities, and their administration gave the Government first-hand experience of the problems associated with grants to students. We should be sorry if some such direct contact between the central departments and the actual business of making awards were not retained.

Local awards

268. In evidence, we had criticisms of some of the methods of the local authorities in the making of awards. For England and Wales, the main complaint was that sometimes a student who would be assisted if he lived in one area is denied a grant if he lives in another. The chief criticism from our Scottish witnesses, on the other hand, was that in exactly comparable cases students living in some parts of Scotland get smaller grants than those living in other parts, while all get less than English award-holders.

Reasons for lack of uniform practice in making awards

269. These discrepancies - which we are satisfied occur nowadays less than they used to - are the inevitable result of the present system. Under it, students admitted to a university or college cannot be certain of receiving the financial assistance they need. The scholarships awarded by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department are limited in number and the students who do not win them have to look to the local authorities for financial assistance.

[page 78]

But the local authorities have virtually complete discretion whether to assist any particular student, and in fact do refuse assistance to a minority, including some who have previously been offered a place at a university or college.

(a) In England and Wales, as explained in paragraph 33, while the regulations made by the Minister of Education require the award-making powers of local education authorities to be exercised in accordance with schemes drawn up by the authorities and approved by the Minister, the schemes are so drawn that authorities may decline to make awards in particular cases. The policy of all local education authorities is to make an award only where they themselves are satisfied that the student is fitted to take the course proposed. It is not surprising that the standards and judgment used in the process of selection vary from area to area.

(b) In Scotland, the Education (Scotland) Act 1946 requires the power of education authorities to grant bursaries to be exercised in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, but the regulations do not fetter the education authority's discretion to make or refuse an award in any particular instance. The particular complaints which we have quoted in paragraph 268 as being so characteristic in England have not arisen in Scotland because the Scottish education authorities have been willing to take as the basis for making an award the offer of a place by the university or college to the student; they have not insisted on applying their own separate test of educational ability.

(a) In England and Wales, standard rates for term-time maintenance and the scale of parental contributions are determined centrally for state scholarships and are recommended to local education authorities for their university awards. All local education authorities have now adopted these recommendations, but there is still variation in the grants given for vacation maintenance and in some other features.

(b) In Scotland, some of the rates of grant and the scale of parental contributions are prescribed in the regulations, but these allow the education authorities latitude in the grants to be given for certain purposes.

272. The system cannot be considered satisfactory, however, so long as it is still possible for the intransigence, either witting or unwitting, of some local authorities to cause as much uneasiness as it still does in the student population, among parents and in the universities. Award-making bodies should not, in our view, continue to have the wide discretion that they have at present.

[page 79]

HIGHER EDUCATION: A NATIONAL RATHER THAN A LOCAL ISSUE

273. This opinion, in which most of our witnesses concurred, that the measure of assistance any student receives should no longer be allowed to depend largely on local judgment, is related to our view of the place of grants in the national educational system. It has to be recognised that, although the majority of boys and girls who stay at school until the age of 17 or 18 are educated in their home areas, mainly at schools conducted by local authorities, after this there is a major change. Many of those who go on to degree or comparable courses attend a university or other institution which is far away from their home and not under the control of their "home" authority. Most universities and some technical colleges now have only a minority of local students. Thus, his "home" local authority usually ceases at this stage to have any direct responsibility for the education of the student; at the same time the student is beginning to look outwards and to be concerned with his life's work, while the State is becoming more directly interested in him as a recruit to the national pool of educated manpower. After their formal education is completed, many young people take up work away from their home districts. In fact, after the age of 17 or 18, the national interest in the continued education of the student grows as the local interest lessens. In saying this, we do not mean to suggest that the local interest ceases altogether. The student still has ties with his home and his school, and the local community often still takes a "pastoral" interest in him, at least until he launches on his career. The local authorities, in spite of what has been said, have every reason to be proud of the part they have taken in building up the present systems of higher education. They helped to found the modern universities, and some cities are now in the process of founding others; many, entirely spontaneously, make generous grants to neighbouring universities and participate in their administration. Any measures which weakened these links between the local authorities and the universities would involve real loss. The question to be considered, therefore, is how to preserve these links and retain local concern for the student's welfare, while making such improvements as will remove the present grounds for criticism and acknowledge the "national" element in the awards system.

RECOMMENDED FUTURE POLICY

274. We have already recommended that, with certain limited exceptions, the offer of a place in a first degree or comparable course should confer on the student an entitlement to such financial help as he needs. But we do not think it feasible, or even desirable, to cover all possible circumstances by tightly-drawn rules. As indicated in Chapter 3, we consider that it is sometimes right that the award-making body should examine individually the merits of making or continuing an award, while in Chapters 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 we mention a number of situations in which the award-making body should consider special factors in order that the amount of the grant may be fixed with fairness.

Principles recommended for future legislation

275. Whatever the nature of the bodies dealing with the actual making of awards, it is essential in our view that the policy to be followed by them should be settled nationally. We recommend that any new legislation applying to our field should be based on the conception that awards to university and comparable students are au essential part of the nation's provision for the education of its young people. We think that award-making bodies should have a duty,

[page 80]

not merely a power, to assist students but, as the relevant sections of the present Acts do not apply only to students following the first degree and comparable courses which are our concern, we do not feel prepared to define the terms in which the duty should be expressed. We believe, however, that it would be unwise to attempt to write detailed obligations, such as a duty to give awards to all those who fulfil certain defined conditions, into an Act of Parliament. We feel certain that the details by which the general policy is given expression should be readily adjustable as circumstances change.

276. We therefore recommend that Parliament should place a general duty on award-making bodies to give awards to all students taking first degree or comparable courses who are judged to be capable of benefiting from such an education, and should make the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for settling the detailed requirements, which should include the determination of:-

(a) principles regarding the making of awards, e.g., the circumstances in which awards should be made automatically and those in which some further consideration should be given by the award-making body (Chapter 3);

(b) the rates of grant for various purposes and for different categories of students, and, as far as possible, the circumstances in which each rate should apply (Chapters 5 and 6);

(c) the rates and method of assessment of parental contributions, if retained, and the circumstances in which the contribution should be waived (Chapter 8);

(d) the treatment of other income of the award-holder (Chapter 9); and

(e) special arrangements for students with dependants (Chapter 10).

277. The rules on these matters must, as we have said, be adjustable as circumstances change; the many detailed questions involved cannot be answered once for all time. Under the present system, periodical reviews have taken place of the rates of grant and parental contributions, while guidance on particular points has been given to local authorities from time to time in various ways. In England and Wales, the need for consultation among those concerned has been acknowledged by the appointment of ad hoc working parties to undertake the periodical reviews (para. 73). Undoubtedly, some such consultation should precede any decisions by the Ministers on the matters referred to in paragraph 276 but, in view of their wide scope, we do not believe the method of occasional ad hoc consultation would be good enough. For these reasons we recommend that a Standing Advisory Committee be appointed to consider all details of policy which come under review and to advise the Ministers on the decisions to be taken on them. We do not envisage a huge omnium gatherum committee on which the attempt would be made to represent all conceivable interests. We look for a membership of, at the most, a dozen, chosen for their personal qualities and not for whatever district or calling they may represent. The committee should, of course, include members with experience of universities, technical colleges, secondary schools and central and local administration. The same committee should cover Scotland as well as England and Wales, with, if necessary, separate sub-committees for each country for certain purposes. We recommend that this committee should

[page 81]

also have the function of advising the Ministers on problems, arising in the day-to-day administration of the awards system, which they may refer to it. As central policy decisions clearly cannot cover every conceivable circumstance, it is to be expected that among the cases settled by award-making bodies there will be a few which throw up real difficulties. This is why we think it desirable that the Standing Advisory Committee should not only advise on policy but also be available for consultation on these problems of detail, which will sometimes disclose questions on which policy decisions are desirable.

THE DETAILED FUNCTIONS OF MAKING AWARDS

Two rejected proposals

278. We now turn to the question of the bodies which should be responsible for the detailed work of actually making the awards, that is, of carrying out the centrally-determined policy. First, we must mention two suggestions we received for forms of organisation quite different from that existing at present. The purpose of both proposals was stated as being to simplify the present system by the drastic method of removing the local authorities from the field and with them the complexities arising from their large number and their varying practices.

(a) Administration by universities and other institutions.

One suggestion was that grants to students should be administered by the universities, colleges and other institutions of higher education, as agents of the Government. This does not appeal to us. The universities and institutions are not equipped, even if they were willing to attempt it, to take on all the work connected with grants now done by 181 local authorities in Great Britain. There are, in any case, so many universities and other places of higher education that this change would reduce the number of award-making bodies only by about one-half, and the present differences of treatment between areas might simply be replaced by differences between institutions. Larger questions concerning the autonomy of the universities are also raised by this proposal. We reject the proposal, however, primarily on the grounds that it is less likely to achieve a satisfactory solution than other possible methods.

(b) Administration by a national grants board.

The other suggestion was that all grants should be awarded by an ad hoc national grants board, financed by public funds but enjoying a degree of autonomy and having whatever regional or local sub-offices and sub-committees were found necessary. Part of this proposition is met by our proposal that a committee should be appointed to advise on policy questions. and on difficulties arising from the exercise of discretionary powers. But we are clear that such a committee should be advisory only and that the main decisions about awards from public funds should be taken by the Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for the spending of the funds voted. As to the detailed work of award-making bodies, we consider that, if it is desirable for this work to be centralised, it would be better for it to be done by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, than by an ad hoc body not accountable to Parliament and the public.

[page 82]

With the rejection of these two possibilities, the issue narrows down to the question how much of the work, if any, should be delegated to local organisations.

Local authorities as award-making bodies

279. At present the great majority of grants to students - roughly seven out of every eight - are awarded and administered by the local authorities. A considerable amount of time is devoted to the work by authority members, but an even greater amount of time is given by their officials to the more or less routine tasks of receiving applications, assessing parents' contributions and students' grants, making payments and dealing with enquiries. The number of staff engaged in this work, over the whole country, must be quite large, though it is difficult to compute because most of them are not engaged solely on work connected with grants to students. Probably few of them would be released if the work were transferred elsewhere, so that, if any other body were to be responsible for the executive functions of awarding grants, new staff would have to be assembled for the purpose. The accumulated experience of the local authorities and the existence of their trained staff provide strong reasons why the local authorities should continue to take a part in the grants system.

280. There are advantages in applications for assistance being dealt with by the local authority. An award is normally made at the end of a school career, before the student has passed into his new and wider sphere. If the authority's area is relatively compact, he may be able to call at the office personally for information or advice. Occasionally, in borderline cases, it may be necessary to interview him, and possibly his parents, before deciding whether an award should be made, and this is best done near his home. If a system of parental contributions is retained, a local body will also be in the best position to judge whether the parent's statement of income is accurate and to make any enquiries that are necessary. We recognise, however, that there are contrary considerations. Some education areas are so large that sheer size prevents the authority from having all the advantages of local knowledge. Other authorities, for geographical reasons, find it extremely difficult to secure in local committees and panels the representation of institutions of higher education which is so important. As to parental contributions, some parents, particularly in the smaller areas where it is widely felt that any personal information one supplies may become known to acquaintances from whom one would prefer to withhold it, object to disclosing their financial affairs to a local body.

281. The chief objection to the local authorities having the whole executive function, however, is the difficulty, which has been referred to several times in this report, of securing equivalent treatment for all students. Uniformity of treatment among 181 award-making bodies could presumably be achieved by complete rigidity of central control; but uniformity alone cannot secure fair treatment for all. As we have already shown, we consider a flexibility of approach essential so that the special factors which affect many students can be taken into account. We think this can be achieved only if discretion is given to the award-making bodies on several important matters; and yet we know that, if things are left as they are, with a large number of award-making bodies, different decisions would inevitably be taken on precisely similar cases by different bodies. This has been amply proved in Scotland, where the present

[page 83]

system consists of a comparatively tightly drawn code with power left to the education authorities to use discretion, for the very reason of enabling them to deal with varying individual circumstances.

282. We can see only one way of meeting this very important disadvantage connected with the local administration of grants. This would be to give the students a right of appeal to the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State for Scotland against any discretionary decision taken by the local authority (that is, on all matters which were not prescribed precisely by the rules made by the Ministers). Appeals might arise on such matters as, for example, the refusal of an authority to make an award; the giving of an allowance to reside away from home or for a vacation course; the assessment of the parental contribution; or the treatment of a student's dependants. After such appeals, the local authority would be obliged to change its decision if the Minister found in favour of the student. It is difficult to judge what number of appeals would be made. Probably at first it would be relatively large, but if the Ministers' rulings were assembled and sent periodically to the local authorities by way of guidance, we believe it would later be reduced to quite insignificant proportions.

283. Various objections might be taken to this solution. It is a cardinal principle of educational administration that broad principles of policy are determined by Act of Parliament or statutory regulations, but that the local authorities are left with freedom to fill in the framework according to their judgment of the needs of the situation. The Local Government Act 1958, and the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act 1958, were designed to reinforce this principle. To impose on local authorities an awards system under which most of their actions were closely controlled by detailed rules, and the remainder were liable to revision on appeal to a Minister, might well be regarded as completely contrary to this principle. But, if the local authorities are to continue as award-making bodies, it would seem the only means of doing away with one of the most widely criticised features of the present arrangements.

Government departments as award-making bodies

284. We turn now to the principal alternative, which is to relieve the local authorities of some or all of the executive functions, and for the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department to pay all the grants to the students with whom we are concerned. Some of the more obvious advantages can be deduced from earlier paragraphs. The number of award-making bodies would be reduced from 181 to two (or three, if the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education handled awards in Wales), which would make it simple to achieve both equality of treatment in comparable cases and flexibility of approach, combined with consistency, in special cases. The unavoidably complicated regulations, the system of appeals and Ministerial directions, and the interference with the traditional pattern of local government which, it seems to us, would be necessary if the local authorities continued to be award-making bodies, would all be avoided. Another important, but perhaps less obvious, advantage of centralisation is that work processes could be streamlined and much greater use made of mechanisation. The central departments would admittedly need a substantial increase of their staff, but it should be possible to do the work with fewer staff than the total number employed on it by the local authorities and central departments at present. It would be a great practical advantage for universities and colleges to deal with at most three paying

[page 84]

authorities; on the other hand, some of them might prefer the greater inconvenience of dealing with many different award-making bodies, because getting students' fees from many sources might be felt to be a safeguard for their independence. Another advantage of central payment would be to stop the difficulties which arise from disagreements between local authorities as to which of them should accept the financial responsibility for awarding a grant to a particular student. Again, a common form of application for assistance would be used, thus removing a well-founded grievance on the part of headmasters of schools which draw pupils from several local authority areas. There would also be a common form of intimation of award, which would ensure that proper notification was made both of the amount of any contribution expected from the parents and of the amount included in the grant for specific purposes, such as books. The last two improvements could be secured in a system of wholly local administration, but not so simply.

285. The prime objection likely to be raised against handling the awards system wholly centrally is the claim that it would involve an unwelcome amount of bureaucratic remote control; or, put more specifically, that the functions of an award-making body, particularly those which are discretionary, could not be handled so satisfactorily from London, Edinburgh and Cardiff as from a number of local centres. Such difficulties might be overcome if the central departments had some system of local agents, in order to enable them to take account of local and personal circumstances. This could well be done by arranging for the local authorities to carry out certain functions; for example, they might be asked to conduct enquiries and interviews on behalf of the departments. It is, however, difficult to judge how satisfactory a centralised system, with or without local agents, would be. The only guidance can be obtained from the post-war Further Education and Training Scheme, which involved discretionary functions, and from the present state scholarship arrangements, but the handling of all university and comparable awards would not be a strictly equivalent task.

286. If centralised administration were to be adopted for the types of award which fall within our terms of reference, there would remain the awards for the further education courses which fall outside them, and which are at present a local authority responsibility. Many of these, especially for courses entered at the age of 15 or 16, demand a degree of local knowledge and judgment which, in our view, would require that they should remain a matter for the local authorities.

Financial considerations if grants are paid by local authorities

287. At present, the awards made by the two Government departments are financed wholly from the Exchequer, while the local authorities' expenditure on awards is met partly from Exchequer grants and partly from local rates. Originally there was an Exchequer grant specifically in aid of this local expenditure, but in 1959 this was merged in the new general grant to local authorities. We understand that about two-thirds of the total current cost of state and local awards for first degree and comparable courses may be regarded as falling on the Exchequer. No more precise indication can be given as to how the cost is shared, because of the way in which the general grant is assessed. The grant is in aid of a whole range of local services, of which education is the largest. The aggregate amount of the grant for each year is determined by the Government after considering estimates of the relevant expenditure prepared by the local

[page 85]

authorities. This aggregate amount is apportioned to individual authorities according to objective factors, such as population and rateable values. Thus, the amount any particular authority receives is not directly related to its expenditure.

288. A number of witnesses gave us their views about the effect of the general grant upon any assessment of the alternatives we are considering. The point was put to us in two different ways. Some of them said that the aid given through the general grant might be insufficient to enable the local authorities to meet the further responsibilities that would be placed upon them, both by any recommendations we made and by the growing numbers receiving higher education, without an unreasonable increase in the level of local rates. This might be found particularly by authorities with an above-average proportion of students getting higher education, since the apportionment of the general grant to such authorities would take no account of the relatively heavy financial burden falling on them. Others said they feared that, for these reasons, some authorities would try to keep down the expenditure from local rates by restricting the number or the value of awards, and that the students would suffer. It is difficult to judge how real these dangers are. The views expressed sprang from natural doubts arising from the absence of any experience of the new system of general grant, which had only just been introduced when we were taking evidence. But it is important that any such possibility should be averted. It is clear that the expansion of the system of higher education must increase the total cost of making grants to students, and acceptance of our recommendations will increase it still further. If the local authorities are to remain responsible for making awards, the general duty to do so and the close central control we have adumbrated would, we believe, remove the present grounds for uneasiness from students and their parents. But, from the authorities' viewpoint, if the general grant were merely increased by a proportion of the additional cost, the burden they had to bear might still seem a heavy one and they might well say that, as so much local discretion had been removed from them, and as the system of student grants was now conceived as a national one, the whole burden should be borne by the Exchequer.

289. With this thought in mind, we considered two suggested special arrangements for financing local authorities' expenditure. The first suggestion was that a percentage Government grant should be reintroduced in respect of expenditure on awards for higher education, but the arguments adduced did not seem to us to justify such a radical departure from the new general arrangements which came into force only a year ago. The other suggestion was that the cost of local authority awards for higher education should be "pooled". The pooling arrangement, which applies to expenditure on certain types of technical education and teacher training, is designed mainly as a means of spreading equitably, over all local authorities, expenditure on services which are provided by only a limited number of authorities for the benefit of the population generally. The expenditure on students' grants does not meet this criterion. We consider, therefore, that we must dismiss both these suggestions and that, if the local authorities incur expenditure on grants to students in the future, it should continue to be aided by the general grant. If, however, the central departments cease to give awards, and all are made a local responsibility, we think it essential that the amount included in the general grant in aid of the cost of awards should be at least equivalent to the two-thirds of the present cost which is borne by the Exchequer (paragraph 287), plus two-thirds of any additional cost; we

[page 86]

emphasise that this is a minimum and that in our view, having regard to the predominating "national" interest and the removal of so much local discretion, the proportion might well be greater.

Financial considerations if grants are paid by central departments

290. The foregoing financial difficulties would, of course, not arise if all grants were paid in future by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department. The whole cost would then be met from the Exchequer. As the local authorities would thus be relieved of about £16 millions of expenditure, a reduction of the amount of the general grant would no doubt be appropriate.

The case for some grants being paid centrally and some locally

291. Most of our witnesses naturally assumed that in the future, as in the past, some of the awards would be made by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department and some by the local authorities. As we have already recorded in paragraph 71, a number of bodies appeared to be anxious not only that this arrangement should be maintained, but that the number of state awards should be increased, so that a larger share of the financial burden of university and comparable education was borne by the Exchequer. We have considered whether it is either practicable or desirable to do this if state scholarships are discontinued. We can see that there would be an advantage, if the local authorities were to be the principal award-making bodies, in the two Government departments continuing to make a proportion of the awards, in order to give them practical experience of the problems which arise. The advantage would be much less if our recommendations, particularly for the appointment of a Standing Advisory Committee, are adopted. But we cannot in any case recommend such a division of responsibilities, because it is impossible to identify any clear group of students, as a representative cross-section of the whole, for whom the departments could be made responsible. Unless the group of students were fully representative, the departments would not get the all-round experience which would be the reason for such an arrangement. As a means of dividing the financial burden the division of award-making responsibility seems to us to be quite unnecessary; a proper division of cost can be simply achieved under the new financial system by an adjustment of the total of the general grant.

Conclusions on executive functions

292. While we have made positive recommendations in paragraphs 276 and 277 about the way in which considerations of policy should be determined, we feel less able to reach precise conclusions about how the more detailed functions of actually making awards and paying the grants should be handled. It is essential to find a system under which the new arrangements recommended in earlier chapters would work satisfactorily. We can envisage three possible systems, all of which we think could be made to operate satisfactorily, but none of which is entirely free from disadvantages -

(a) the entire responsibility for awards to the students with whom we are concerned might be assumed by the central education departments; or

(b) the central departments might be the award-making bodies, in the sense that they would make the final decisions about making awards to

[page 87]

individuals and would pay the grants, but the local authorities would act as their agents in performing some functions which can best be carried out locally (see paragraph 285); or

(c) all awards might be made and paid by the local authorities, under rules drawn up by the two Ministers, but the local authorities' decisions on any matters not determined by the rules would have to be amended if the Ministers so directed after considering appeals by the students; exceptionally, however, the central departments should make the awards to certain students, such as those whose parents are temporarily serving abroad, who cannot be regarded as the responsibility of any particular local authority.

[page 88]

294. We need not discuss in detail the machinery of award-making but there are some aspects of it which we consider to be important. Our aim here is not primarily to recommend innovations but to ensure that practices which are already common are adopted by all award-making bodies. Some of our points are relevant only if parental contributions continue to be required.

GENERAL INFORMATION

295. It is clearly important that when planning their future careers, young people - and their parents and teachers - should know the general conditions governing awards from public funds. At present, there is no single document readily available to the public which gives in simple language a conspectus of the awards system. The fact is that variations in practice between award-making bodies have hitherto made it impossible to draw up such a document which would be a reliable guide throughout the country. We hope that this difficulty will be removed if our proposals elsewhere in this report are carried out, and on that assumption we recommend that a pamphlet should be printed to provide a general guide to the awards system. Whether there should be one pamphlet covering Great Britain or separate pamphlets for Scotland, and for England and Wales, must be left for decision later.

296. The spending of public money on such an information service is, in our opinion, amply justified. Apart from other advantages, it would act as a safeguard against parents taking children away from school prematurely owing to ignorance of the scope of the awards available for university and other advanced education. If university and comparable awards remain the responsibility of local authorities (see Chapter 11), it will also be necessary to ensure that full information about the local arrangements is widely available in each area.

TREATMENT OF APPLICATIONS

297. All applications for awards should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Naturally, no definite offer of an award can be made until the relevant examination results are available and the student has received a firm offer of a place at university or college, but when those conditions are already fulfilled a firm offer of an award should normally be made immediately. In many other cases the award-making body should be able to make a conditional offer, for example, on condition that the candidate subsequently secures a place in the course he has chosen.

THE PARENTAL INCOME RETURN

298. When the parent is invited to submit a statement of his financial circumstances, it should be made clear, inter alia, that the information provided will be treated as strictly confidential and will be confined to those whose duty it is to assess the award; that any supporting documents asked for will be returned to him as soon as they have been noted; and that while the parent is under no legal

[page 89]

obligation to supply the information, no grant can be paid to the student until he has done so.

PEAK PERIOD

299. The last two weeks of August and all September will be a time of great pressure for award-making bodies if the new award-holders are to receive their grants at the beginning of the autumn term. We were disturbed to receive evidence that students sometimes do not receive their grants until some weeks after the beginning of term. We regard it as most important that they should receive their grants in time; this will not be possible without the fullest co-operation by parents in sending in their returns of income and by universities and colleges in considering and notifying admissions with swiftness. Special arrangements in the offices of award-making bodies may also be necessary. Time could be saved if a parent agreed to submit the necessary statement of his income before the award had been offered.

300. However efficient its arrangements may be, the award-making body will not be able to pay the student at the beginning of term if the parent has been dilatory in sending in the statement of his income. The same applies if the parental statement is incomplete, but such information as it gives may be enough to enable the award-making body to make a partial payment to the student on a provisional basis, leaving a firm assessment of grant to be made later when full information has been obtained. In the interests of the student, we consider that an award-making body should be ready to make a partial payment of this kind whenever sufficient information has been received to justify it.

NOTIFICATION OF THE GRANT

301. The student, at the same time as he is notified of the amount of his grant, should be told the conditions attaching to the award and given a statement of the way in which it will be administered; for example, what approved fees will be paid direct to the university or college by the award-making body, what he must do if he is unable to attend the university through illness, etc.

302. If parental contributions are retained, the parent should be notified both of the amount of the grant to the student and of the amount of the parental contribution. We do not think it necessary that parents should automatically be informed of the calculations made in fixing the grant - this would be a drag on essential work in the peak period - but it should be open to parents, if they ask for it, to receive a full statement later.

PAYMENTS OF MAINTENANCE GRANT TO BE MADE TO THE STUDENT

303. Though it should not need saying, we find it necessary to make the point that maintenance grants are for the student and not his parents, and that they must be paid to the student. When the student is living at home, any payment which he makes to his parents is for settlement between him and them and is not the concern of the award-making body. As we have said in paragraph 107, the amount allowed for "keep at home" should be published.

FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT

304. Some witnesses have claimed that it is unwise to pay to students large sums of money at the beginning of term and that payments should be made in smaller amounts at more frequent intervals. We have considered this problem

[page 90]

carefully and have concluded that the possible benefit to the student in having smaller and more frequent payments would not outweigh the complications which it would cause in the work of award-making bodies. After all, the term is the natural unit of the university year, and many colleges and halls of residence expect payment of charges for a whole term's board and lodging at the beginning of term. We realise, on the other hand, that the student who lives in lodgings may get into difficulties if he fails to take to heart that the apparently large sum he has received at the beginning of the term has to last him right through to its end; but this is something that has to be learned. Consideration should be given to paying the grant for the long vacation at the end of the summer term; this would make four payments each year instead of three.

PAYMENT OF TUITION AND OTHER FEES

305. At present, approved fees may be paid direct by the award-making body to the university or college authorities or the necessary money may be sent to the award-holder to enable him to pay them himself. The former method clearly has the advantage to the award-making body that a single payment can be substituted for separate payments made to all its award-holders individually to be passed on by them in turn to the university or college. Where the award-making body has any considerable number of students at one university or college, the advantage, both to the award-making body and to the university or college, of direct payment are clearly very great. We recommend, therefore, that in general, award-making bodies should arrange to pay tuition and other fees direct to the university or college authorities.

PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE GRANTS

Present practice

England and Wales

306. For state scholars, the Ministry of Education sends cheques in bulk to the university or college office just before the beginning of each term: the student calls at the office, receives his cheque and signs for it on a document which is returned to the Ministry of Education endorsed with the certificate of the university or college authorities that he is in attendance. Some local education authorities follow this practice. Others wait to receive from the student a certificate of attendance signed by the university or college authorities; when they receive this certificate they send a cheque direct to the student.

Scotland

307. The normal method in Scotland is to send the payment direct to the student. The first instalment is paid as soon as the authority is satisfied that the student is committed to taking the course. In some cases this is done on a letter of acceptance by the university, but more often on a more formal certificate by the university that the student has been enrolled.

Our recommendation

308. The procedure of withholding payments until a certificate of attendance has been obtained by the student from the university or college authorities, and sent by him to the award-making body, must at best mean that payment is not received by the student until a few days after the beginning of term and may at worst involve a delay of several weeks.

[page 91]

309. We recommend, therefore, that subject to the agreement of the university or college authorities, cheques for ordinary grant payments should be made available to award-holders through the university or college office, on the lines now followed by the Ministry of Education for state scholars. This does not affect the recommendation in paragraph 108 that all award-holders should be able, on application, to draw an advance payment of up to £30 before the start of their first term.

310. Arrangements should also be made for the declarations about vacation employment (see paragraph 133) to be returned to the award-making body through the university or college office.

[page 92]

AWARDS FOR UNIVERSITY FIRST DEGREE COURSES

311. In the academic year 1958-59, there were approximately 100,000 students in the universities of Great Britain, of whom about 79,000 were students from the United Kingdom following first degree courses (the remainder were postgraduate students or came from overseas). The number of first degree students who held awards from public funds was 65,422, about 83 per cent of the 79,000. We estimate that if our proposals, including the more generous income scale suggested in Chapter 8, had been in operation in that year, the percentage of award-holders would have risen to about 90 per cent of the 79,000. This estimate is based on the most reasonable assumptions that we can make from the information available to us but it must necessarily be a speculative one. For convenience we have assumed that, if parental contributions had been entirely abolished, all the 79,000 first degree students from the United Kingdom would have held awards. We have not taken into account any possible increase in the expenditure of award-making bodies as a result of our recommendation in paragraph 114 that award-holders should be covered for national insurance contributions.

The increased cost

312. Following is a comparison of the actual expenditure in 1958-59 with our estimate of what the expenditure would have been if our proposals had been adopted.

[page 95]

318. For convenience we give below a list of our main recommendations.

319. CHAPTER 2. SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES

(a) All award-holders covered by our report should have the same freedom of choice that the university student in England and Wales generally has at present (para. 20).

(b) All awards should be given for the full normal period of the course, subject only to satisfactory progress and conduct (para. 21).

(c) If the Government decide to make distinctions between awards by types or levels of course, the Standing Advisory Committee should be asked to advise on the precise classifications (paras. 23 and 277).

(d) We prefer a system of outright grants to students, to one of loans, though loans may occasionally be a reasonable way of meeting a particular difficulty (para. 24).

320. CHAPTER 3. SELECTION FOR AWARDS

(a) For most students admitted to first degree and comparable courses, selection on academic grounds by the award-making body should be discontinued (para. 45).

(b) All those ordinarily resident in Great Britain admitted for the first time to first degree courses at universities in receipt of grant from the University Grants Committee should receive awards from public funds, provided, for universities in England and Wales, that they have 2 G.C.E. passes at "A" level or the equivalent. For Scottish universities, they should have the statutory minimum entry qualification, that is, the Attestation of Fitness of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board. This applies equally to men and women and without restriction as to age (paras. 47 and 48).

(c) Favourable consideration should be given by award-making bodies to students admitted to first degree courses at universities in England and Wales who have not attained the 2" A" standard but who -

(i) have an exceptional talent in one particular subject; or
(ii) are over the normal undergraduate age (para. 50(a)).

(e) Applications from students who wish to study at universities not in receipt of grant from the University Grants Committee, should be considered on their merits (para. 50 (b)).

(f) Public funds should not be used to finance the "perpetual student", but graduates proposing to take a "second first degree" should be given awards if the award-making body is satisfied about their intellectual ability and the

[page 96]

importance of the object for which they seek the additional qualification (para. 50(c)).

(g) Awards should be available for exceptionally able medical students recommended to take an intercalated science course (para. 50(d)).

(h) Any proposal to change a course for one involving a longer period of grant should be carefully scrutinised by the award-making body in consultation with the university (para. 50(e)).

(i) Changes to courses of a lower standard should not in themselves lead to the termination of an award if they do not involve a longer period of study in total than was required for the original course, and if the university recommends the change (para. 50(f)).

(j) An award-holder required to repeat a year's work should have his case treated on its merits by the award-making body in consultation with the university authorities (para. 50(g)).

(k) An application from a student wishing to change to another university should be considered on its merits by the award-making body in consultation with both universities (para. 50(h)).

(l) All those ordinarily resident in Great Britain who are admitted for the first time to courses comparable to first degree courses at further education establishments which are maintained by local authorities or aided by Government grants should receive awards, provided that those admitted to establishments in England and Wales have 2 G.C.E. passes at "A" level or the equivalent. The present arrangements in Scotland, by which no candidate who is admitted for the first time to a comparable course at a central institution of other recognised institution is refused a bursary on educational grounds, should be continued (para. 52).

(m) Award-making bodies should use their discretion in considering applications from students admitted to comparable courses in England and Wales without holding 2 G.C.E. "A" passes or the equivalent (para. 53(a)).

(n) An applicant with 2 G.C.E. "A" passes admitted to a comparable course at a private institution of high standing should be able to count on an award as readily as if he had been admitted to a maintained or aided establishment of further education. The Standing Advisory Committee should draw up a list showing the private institutions and the comparable courses they provide for which awards should be automatic (para. 53(b)).

(o) The principles suggested at (f) to (k) above for university students should also be applied to comparable course students in parallel circumstances (para. 53(c)).

(p) Part-time students, including articled pupils, should not be eligible for maintenance grants, but award-making bodies should be generous in making grants towards their educational expenses (para. 56).

(q) Comparable courses in theology should be treated for awards purposes on the same basis as comparable courses in other subjects (para. 57).

(r) A reserve power to refuse or to terminate an award on grounds of character and conduct should rest with the award-making body (para. 58).

[page 97]

321. CHAPTER 4. STATE SCHOLARSHIPS

We recommend that all types of state scholarship (ordinary, technical, mature and supplemental) should be discontinued (para. 90).*

322. CHAPTER 5. COMPOSITION OF TERM-TIME GRANTS

(a) The method of expressing the maximum grant in terms of "payment of fees plus a standard sum for maintenance" should apply throughout Great Britain (para. 97).

(b) We endorse the present arrangements for distinguishing "fees" from "maintenance" but call attention to three special matters connected with them (para. 98).

(c) Each standard figure of maintenance should include the same amount for books, clothes and incidental expenses (para. 100). No additions should be made for the special expenses of particular classes of students for instruments and other equipment unless a national figure can be laid down based on a standard practice in the universities (para. 111).

(d) The amount for books included in the standard figure of maintenance should be made public (para. 100(a)).

(e) A fixed sum for travelling expenses should be included in the standard figure of maintenance. Claims for necessary travelling expenses above this figure should be met on application (para. 102).

(J) We endorse the principle of grouping universities and of including in the standard figure of maintenance for each separate group an amount for maintenance of students living in colleges or halls of residence (para. 104).

(g) We endorse the principle of grouping universities and of including in the standard figure of maintenance for each separate group an amount for maintenance of students living in lodgings (para. 106).

(h) The maintenance grant for students living at home during term-time should cover "keep at home" plus a further element for the extra cost of meals taken away from home when attending at the university (para. 107).

(i) The figure fixed to cover "keep at home" should be made public (para. 107).

(j) Award-holders should be covered for the payment of national insurance contributions (para. 114).

(k) All students living in a university hall of residence or residential college should receive the "college or hall" rate even though their homes are within daily travelling distance of the university (para. 117).

(l) It is undesirable that students should travel long distances each day between the university and their place of residence, and this should not be forced upon them solely because the award-making body is unwilling to pay the difference between the "home" rate and the "lodgings" rate (para. 118).

(m) Where a student whose home is reasonably near the university puts forward reasons showing that it is undesirable for him to live at home, e.g., because of lack of privacy for study, the award-making body should confer with the university authorities and should look favourably on any recommendations which they may make (para. 118).

*A note of reservation by Professor Thomas is on pages 104-105.

[page 98]

(n) Students from Great Britain who attend Queen's University, Belfast, should receive grants calculated on standard figures of maintenance fixed for that group of universities in Great Britain deemed to be appropriate (para. 119(a)).

(o) We make recommendations on the grants to be given to award-holders attending universities overseas (para. 119 (b) and (c)).

(p) Grants for comparable course students should continue to be aligned with those for university students. Longer terms at institutions providing comparable courses should be dealt with either by fixing special standard figures of maintenance or by giving the vacation course rate for the excess period (paras. 121 and 123).

(q) The principles applied at present to awards for sandwich course students in England and Wales should be extended to Scotland (para. 126).

323. CHAPTER 6. GRANTS FOR VACATIONS AND VACATION COURSES

(a) We recommend the following principles (para. 136):-

(i) all award-holders following first degree courses at universities or comparable courses elsewhere should receive standard grants for maintenance throughout the vacations subject to deductions, if any, in accordance with Chapters 8 and 9;

(ii) the standard grant for vacations should be calculated at the same rate as that for "keep at home" during term-time;

(iii) the standard grants should be paid to the award-holder before the vacations for which they are given;

(iv) deductions from subsequent grant payments should be made for any vacation periods in which the award-holder has been in paid employment;

(v) the standard vacation grant payable for the final long vacation should be calculated to cover four weeks only and should not be subject to any declaration about paid employment.

(c) Award-holders living at home during a vacation but required to attend daily at the university, or a course, or at some approved institution, should be eligible to receive an additional allowance for meals taken away from home (para. 137).

(d) Award-holders referred to in (b) and (c) above should be able to claim extra travelling expenses (para. 138).

(e) A list should be drawn up setting out the courses away from the university or other place of further education for which approved course grants may be paid (para. 142).

(f) Maintenance grant in respect of approved courses held outside Great Britain should not exceed that applicable within Great Britain, and the amounts for fees and travelling expenses should each be subject to a maximum limit (para. 143).

(g) The present arrangements should be amended to enable an award-holder

[page 99]

to be given a grant for the purpose of residing with a family in the country of the main language which he is studying for an honours degree in modern languages. These arrangements should be recommended by the university (para. 144).

324. CHAPTER 7. THE PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION

(a) A majority of the Committee recommend that parental contributions should be abolished and that parents of students receiving awards from public funds should not be eligible for income tax or surtax child allowances for those students (para. 192).

(b) A minority of the Committee recommend that parental contributions in a modified form should be required (para. 193).*

325. CHAPTER 8. ASSESSMENT OF THE PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION

(a) The matters dealt with in this chapter will not arise if it is decided to abolish parental contributions (para. 194).

(b) The terms of the statutory provisions about the parental contribution should be amended. The guiding conception should be that the parents should contribute a reasonable sum, determined according to rules made by the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland (para. 196).

(c) No account should be taken of capital resources, as distinct from the income derived from them (para. 197).

(d) We give examples where the interpretation of the term "parent" causes difficulty. The meaning to be attached to the term should be clarified, some discretion being left to award-making bodies (para. 198).

(e) The practice of assessing a "balance of income" by deducting certain allowances from the total gross income of the student's parents, and of determining the contribution according to this balance of income, should continue. As at present, a contribution should be expected for each year in which the parent has a child who is an award-holder (paras. 199, 202, 220 and 221).

(f) The gross income taken as the starting point for the assessment of the parental contribution should be the income assessable to tax (para. 200).

(g) The assessment should be made on the income of the previous fiscal year, but when there is a sudden and substantial drop in the family income it should be made on current income instead (para. 201).

(h) No contribution should be expected from a married couple with one child if their gross income is less than about £1,000 (para. 204).

(i) Recommendations are made about the system of allowances deductible from the parents' gross income. These include £950 for two parents, £750 for one parent, up to £200 for other dependants, up to 10 per cent of gross income for superannuation and life insurance and up to £200 for necessary domestic assistance (paras. 205 to 217).

(j) The parental contribution should be 10 per cent of the balance of income (para. 218).

(k) Parental contributions should be waived

(i) for award-holders who are aged 25 or over on 31st July of the year in which the award is offered; and

[page 100]

(ii) for award-holders who have regularly and substantially supported themselves out of their earnings for three years (towards which period half of any period of national service should be counted) before 31st July of the year in which the award is offered.

(l) If the system of parental contributions is retained, contributions should not be expected from the parents of members of religious orders, but grants to these members should be confined to fees, books and travelling expenses (para. 230).

326. CHAPTER 9. SCHOLARSHIPS AND OTHER PERSONAL INCOME OF THE AWARD-HOLDER

(a) No deduction should be made from the grant payable from public funds in any year in which the personal income of the award-holder is £100 or less, but if the income is greater, the grant should be reduced by the amount of personal income in excess of £100. Earnings in term-time, but not vacation earnings, should be included in personal income (para. 242).

(b) We make some further recommendations about the treatment of personal income in special circumstances (paras. 244 to 246).

(c) Where university or college authorities represent to the award-making body that a student is in special need and state their readiness to help him from funds at their disposal, the award-making body should allow such payments, beyond the normal £100, without making any deduction from the grant from public funds (para. 247).

(d) A payment over and above the normal £100 should be allowed without deduction from the public grant, if it has been earmarked by the donor for a specific purpose connected with education, such as foreign travel, which the grant from public funds is not designed to cover. The maximum amount to be allowed without deduction should be determined in each case in the light of the actual expenses to be incurred (para. 248).

(e) Circumstances might arise in which students studying at universities abroad should be allowed to retain without deduction more than the normal £100 per annum (para. 249).

327. CHAPTER 10. MARRIED STUDENTS AND OTHER STUDENTS WITH DEPENDANTS

(a) The income of the spouse should be ignored except in considering whether any special grant is to be given by the award-making body for the spouse's maintenance (paras. 251 and 255).

(b) An award-holder should not be regarded as dependent on another award-holder (para. 256).

(c) The award-holders eligible for grants for their dependants should be:

(i) award-holders who are aged 25 or over on 31st July of the year in which the award is offered;

(ii) award-holders who have regularly and substantially supported themselves out of their earnings for three years (towards which period, half of any period of national service should be counted) before 31st July of the year in which the award is offered.

[page 101]

No other award-holders should be eligible for grants for their dependants unless the circumstances are exceptional (para. 260).

(d) Grants for a wife or for children should normally be given only if the award-holder was married before the offer of the award. Grants for other adult dependants should normally be given only for those who were dependent upon the award-holder before the offer of the award (para. 260).

(e) There is no case for variations in the rates of grants for dependants. The same maxima should apply throughout Great Britain (para. 261).

(f) The maximum grant should in all cases be reduced, pound for pound, by any income of the dependant for whom the grant is given (para. 261).

(g) Special consideration should be given to the needs of students over the normal undergraduate age (paras. 262 to 264).

328. CHAPTER 11. ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS

(a) Whatever the nature of the bodies dealing with the actual making of awards, the policy to be followed by them should be settled nationally (para. 275).

(b) Award-making bodies should have a general duty to give awards to all students taking first degree or comparable courses who are judged to be capable of benefiting from such an education and the details of the policy to be followed by them should be drawn up by the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland (para. 276).

(c) A Standing Advisory Committee should advise the Ministers on decisions of policy and on problems arising in the day-to-day administration of the awards system (para. 277).

(d) The detailed executive functions of award-making should be assumed:-

(i) entirely by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department; or

(ii) by the two departments, but with the local authorities acting as their agents in performing some functions which can best be carried out locally; or

(iii) by the local authorities, under rules drawn up by the two Ministers, subject to the students having a right of appeal to one or other of the Ministers; exceptionally, the central departments should make the awards to certain students who cannot be regarded as the responsibility of any particular local authority.

329. CHAPTER 12. MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE TO STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS

(a) A pamphlet should be printed to provide a general guide to the awards system. If university and comparable awards remain the responsibility of local authorities, it will also be necessary to ensure that full information about the local arrangements is widely available in each area (paras. 295 and 296).

(b) All applications for awards should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

[page 102]

Where the required conditions are fulfilled a firm offer of an award should be made immediately; in other cases a conditional award should be made if possible (para. 297).

(c) The student, at the same time as he is notified of the amount of his grant, should be told the conditions attaching to the award and given a statement of the way in which it will be administered (para. 301).

(d) If parental contributions are retained, the parent should be notified both of the amount of the grant to the student and of the amount of the parental contribution (para. 302).

(e) Consideration should be given to paying the grant for the long vacation at the end of the summer term; this would make four payments each year instead of three (para. 304).

(f) In general, award-making bodies should arrange to pay tuition and other fees direct to the university or college authorities (para. 305).

(g) Subject to the agreement of the university or college authorities, cheques for ordinary grant payments should be made available to award-holders through the university or college office, on the lines now followed by the Ministry of Education for state scholars (para. 309).

(h) All award-holders should be able, on application, to draw an advance payment of up to £30 before the start of their first term (paras. 108 and 309).

330. In Appendix 1 we give lists of the chief institutions and private people who have helped us with evidence. We take this opportunity of thanking not only them but all those others who have added in one way or another to our knowledge. Mr. D. S. S. Hutton, the Chief Statistician of the Ministry, has put us in his debt through his valuable advice, some of it given in what would in certain other walks of life have been double overtime hours. We owe thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his staff at Dover House, Whitehall, not only for making it possible for our weekday meetings to take place in those dignified surroundings, but also for allowing us to take our frugal repasts there, which saved us much time. Our thanks are also due to the clerical and typing staff of the two Departments, particularly Miss S. W. Allen of the Ministry, who did so much extra work on our behalf.

331. We are very grateful, too, to the Principal and staff at The Vache, Chalfont St. Giles, the Staff College of the National Coal Board, who enabled us, through their efficiency and unvaried helpfulness, to work there intensively over long weekends in an atmosphere far more conducive to our purpose than we could have expected to find elsewhere.

[page 103]

332. To our Secretariat we also express more than formal thanks. This has not been at all a simple report to prepare and we have nothing but praise for Mr. D. Neylan, with Mr. G. A. T. Hanks and Mr. D. M. Basey, for the knowledge of detail and the judgment they have put at our disposal so readily and for the calm with which they have met our suggestions, however iconoclastic or demanding. They have also organised our manifold comings and goings in the smoothest possible way.

333. Finally, in our two assessors, Mr. A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop for England and Wales, and Mr. R. A. Dingwall-Smith for Scotland, we have enjoyed exactly the support and wise guidance we have needed in having the larger issues, both educational and international, presented to us in perspective.

(Signed)

Colin S. Anderson (Chairman).
Gladys Buxton.
Margaret A. M. Cooke.
W. McL. Dewar.
J. A. Evans.
W. W. Finlay.
N. G. Fisher.
J. W. F. Hill.
H. D. P. Lee.
D. W. Logan.
Ron Smith.
L. S. Sutherland.
Brinley Thomas.*
J. Topping.
A. H. Wilson.
E. M. Wright.

(Secretaries)

D. Neylan.
G. A. T. Hanks.
D. M. Basey.

26th April 1960.

*Professor Brinley Thomas was abroad from the beginning of the year and was unable to take part in our final deliberations. Following are two notes of reservation sent by him.

[page 104]

NOTES OF RESERVATION SENT BY PROFESSOR BRINLEY THOMAS

1. STATE SCHOLARSHIPS (CHAPTER 4)

The abolition of state scholarships will make university and college scholarships the sole peaks of prestige surrounded by a flat plain of local authority awards. The winners of university awards will be able to enjoy a financial advantage of up to £100 a year; even the winner of a closed scholarship will derive academic prestige and a monetary reward, whereas the ablest of today's state scholars (G.C.E.), as the recipient of a local authority award, will get neither recognition nor extra money. Chapter 4 expresses the hope that this discrimination in favour of the winners of university awards will remove a deterrent to the endowment of scholarships at the newer universities (paragraph 87). No public money can be devoted to this purpose, and there is no solid reason to expect any material change in the distribution of privately financed awards in favour of universities which are not well endowed.

Chapter 4 does less than justice to the role of the state scholarship in our educational system. Appendix 8 shows that the record of state scholars (G.C.E.) at the universities compares favourably with the results of those selected for awards by the universities and colleges themselves. State scholarships won on the G.C.E. examination still carry with them considerable prestige; schools are proud to point to them as a mark of success and the hope of winning one is a stimulus to their pupils. This element of incentive is most valuable in the smaller schools which are not equipped to compete in the struggle for Oxford and Cambridge college scholarships. I cannot agree with the statement in paragraph 79 which implies that the degree of respect in which state scholar ships are held is something so vague that it ought to be ignored.

It is true that, under the new regime proposed in Chapter 3, the universities will not need the state scholarship as a criterion of admission. But we are here concerned with something more than mere machinery. If state scholars (G.C.E.) are as able as the winners of open awards, why should recognition of merit be confined to the latter? It cannot be held that the prestige of the state scholarship is now about to suffer an eclipse because 2,000 have been offered in recent years as compared with 900 in 1950. What we need to consider is not the absolute total but the number of state scholarships offered in relation to the number of pupils sitting the G.C.E. Advanced Level. In recent years, whereas the number of pupils sitting the Advanced Level has steadily increased, the number of state scholarships offered has remained more or less the same. Far from becoming a drug [drag?] on the market, they have become relatively more scarce. As the field of competition expands with the growth of numbers in the sixth forms, and the number of state scholarships offered is kept at 2,000 a year, their prestige must rise.

Another line of argument seeks to show that "... ordinary state scholarships cannot maintain their attraction unless success in the competition carries with it a financial advantage" (paragraph 83). But the sole reason why the state scholarship will not in future carry a financial advantage lies in the recommendation that the winners of university awards shall be allowed to retain up to £100 of the award.

[page 105]

If the recommendation in Chapter 4 is accepted, outstanding talent will be rewarded only if a boy or girl has competed for a university or college award, and the prestige attaching to scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge will be greater than ever. The field of competition for these awards is dominated by the public schools; much of the talent in the maintained grammar schools is excluded from the competition. Since there is inequality of access to these awards, it is unjust that the winners of them should be given a monetary prize (especially if it is a closed award) whereas equally gifted state scholars (G.C.E.) should be debarred from all recognition, academic or financial. The independent and direct grant schools will receive the full benefit of the new incentives and rewards, while the majority of the maintained grammar schools will lose the element of incentive and stimulus which is now provided by the state scholarship. This will be particularly felt, for example, in Wales where the grammar school tradition is strong and the sixth forms in many of the schools are too small to prepare pupils effectively for the competition for major university awards. It is probable that the abolition of the state scholarship would have the unfortunate effect of intensifying the disparity between the private and public sectors in our educational system.

There should be scope for incentive and prizes for all pupils and not only for those who are in a position to compete for university awards. The highest quality among local authority awards should receive recognition. To this end the state scholarship should be retained in a new form, with possibly a new name; the number offered could even be slightly increased, and they should carry a financial advantage comparable to what is being proposed for the winners of university awards.

The old function of the state scholarship as a means of enabling able young people to obtain a university degree has, it is true, been swallowed up in the awards system; a new function now awaits it as a means of securing a wide diffusion of incentive throughout our schools.

2. THE PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION (CHAPTER 7)

Unlike my colleagues who wish to retain the parental contribution, I am in favour of the proposed modification of the means test on condition that at the same time substantial sixth form bursaries are introduced in the maintained schools. These bursaries should be such as to ensure that all boys and girls aged 15 who are deemed suitable for advanced courses should be able to stay at school until they are 18 without hardship to their parents. Such a measure is essential if the field of recruitment for universities and comparable institutions is to be a fair representation of the best talent available in the 17-19 age group.

Statistical evidence of a considerable leakage of able boys and girls from the maintained grammar schools is to be found in the Report on an inquiry into Applications for Admission to Universities by Mr. R. K. Kelsall, commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (1957), and the Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) on Early Leaving (H.M.S.O., 1954).

The Report on Early Leaving found that 66 per cent of the top intelligence group of boys aged 10-11 in the maintained grammar schools of England in September 1946, were the sons of manual workers. At the end of the grammar school period (1953) boys with manual working fathers formed only 47 per cent of the group with the best examination qualifications. At the point of university

[page 106]

entry the proportion of the boys from maintained grammar schools admitted to universities whose fathers were manual workers was down to 36 per cent (1955-6); and the proportion of boys from all schools admitted to universities whose fathers were manual workers was 26 per cent (1955-6).

Commenting on these figures Mr. Kelsall writes:-

"Differing environmental influences and aspirations, our second and third group of possible factors, have clearly been mainly responsible for the fall from 66 per cent at the point of entry to the same type of non-fee-paying grammar school to 36 per cent at the point of university entry; the combined effect of these two is obviously of much greater importance than any hereditary influence on the distribution of intelligence in producing the disproportionately small number of working-class children among university entrants." (p. 10.)

(a) In English grammar schools in 1953 about 10,000 boys and 7,000 girls completed advanced courses; about 5,000 more boys and 5,000 more girls could very well have done so if they had stayed longer at school. There was enough academic ability to justify an increase in the number of boys and girls following advanced courses by about a half and two-thirds respectively.

(b) In view of the national shortage of scientists, it is noteworthy that 2,900 boys and 1,300 girls who could have taken advanced courses in mathematics and science were not doing so.

(c) Among the leavers who were thought suitable for advanced courses but did not take them the proportion of boys who went on to some form of further education was only 12.6 per cent; and the proportion who managed to get into a university was a mere 3.2 per cent. ("Early Leaving", Table 12, p. 85.)

Of the total number of boys aged 17 in England and Wales (277,000), 10.9 per cent were still at school.

Of the 30,230 boys aged 17 still at school, 24.5 per cent were in independent schools regarded as efficient and 11.4 per cent in direct grant schools.

Of the total number of girls aged 17 in England and Wales (269,000), 8.5 per cent were still at school.

Of the 23,021 girls aged 17 still at school, 15.1 per cent were in independent schools regarded as efficient and 12.8 per cent in direct grant schools.

[page 107]

Cambridge steeplechase their entries are usually favourites. This is shown by the following Table taken from the Cambridge University Sociological Society's Study of Academic Careers of Entry of 1955 (Tripos Results June 1956-June 1958*) (published 1959 as a stencilled typescript document). Although this analysis is based on figures for a single year, the results are nevertheless illuminating.

[page 109]

A. BODIES WHO SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TO THE COMMlITEE. THOSE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ALSO GAVE ORAL EVIDENCE

Association of Art Institutions

Association of British Chambers of Commerce

*Association of Chief Education Officers
Mr. F. J. Birkbeck, Director of Education, Lincs-Lindsey.
Dr. B. E. Lawrence, C.B.E., Chief Education Officer, Essex.
Mr. G. Taylor, Chief Education Officer, Leeds.

Association of Children's Officers

*Association of County Councils in Scotland
Mr. J. C. Dougall, C.B.E., Chairman of Perth and Kinross Education Committee, Chairman of the Association's Education Committee.
Mr. J. Crawford, O.B.E., Director of Education, Renfrewshire.
Mr. M. C. Grassie, Deputy Director of Education, Fife.
Mr. F. Inglis, Secretary of the Association.

*Association of Directors of Education in Scotland
Mr. J. D. Collins, Director of Education, Dundee, President.
Mr. J. R. Clark, Director of Education, Aberdeen, Convener of the Association's Committee on Bursaries.
Mr. J. B. Frizell, C.B.E., Director of Education, Edinburgh, General Secretary.
Mr. J. McNaught, Director of Education, Banffshire.
Mr. J. M. Urquhart, Director of Education, Selkirkshire,

*Association of Education Committees
Alderman R. S. Butterfield, C.B.E., M.C., Chairman of North Riding Education Committee, President.
Mr. B. S. Braithwaite, Chief Education Officer, Sussex East.
Mr. S. Hirst, Director of Education, Middlesbrough.
Mr. J. L. Longland, Director of Education, Derbyshire.
Alderman A. Moss, Deputy Chairman, Manchester Education Committee.
Dr. W. P. Alexander, Secretary.

*Association of Education Officers
Mr. W. G. Stone, Director of Education, Brighton, President.
Dr. L. F. White, Divisional Education Officer, Gosport, Vice-President.
Mr. H. S. Magnay, Chief Education Officer, Liverpool, Secretary.

*Association of Headmistresses (Scottish Branch)
Miss H. Fleming, George Watson's Ladies' College, Edinburgh.
Miss J. S. A. Macaulay, St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews.
Miss M. D. Steel, James Gillespie's High School for Girls, Edinburgh.

*Association of Municipal Corporations
Alderman Mrs. E. V. Smith, J.P., Birmingham, Chairman of the Association's Education Committee.
Alderman T. J. Brennan, Baling, Vice-Chairman.
Alderman F. Garstang, J.P., Birkenhead.
Mr. H. Oldman, Chief Education Officer, York.
Mr. C. H. Pollard, C.B.E., City Treasurer, Kingston upon Hull.
Mr. K. P. Poole, Assistant Secretary.

[page 110]

*Association of Principals of Technical Institutions, and Association of Technical Institutions
Mr. E. G. Barnard, Chief Education Officer, Portsmouth.
Dr. J. E. Richardson, Principal, Regent Street Polytechnic.
Dr. G. E. Watts, Principal, Brighton Technical College.

Association of Scientific Workers

Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education

Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions

*Association of University Teachers
Dr. K. Urwin, University of Cardiff, President.
Dr. T. G. Halsall, University of Oxford, Convener of Committee on Selection and Maintenance of Students.
Mr. A. L. Binns, University of Hull.
Professor F. T. H. Fletcher, University of Liverpool.
Dr. J. Highet, University of Glasgow.
Mr. D. W. Reece, University of Aberdeen, Secretary of the Scottish Section of the Association.

Bolton Grammar Schools Parent/Teachers Associations

British Association for the Advancement of Science

British Dental Association

British Dental Students Association

British Federation of Business and Professional Women

British Federation of University Women

British Medical Association

British Medical Students Association

Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland

Catholic Education Council

Central Advisory Council of Training for the Ministry

Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute

Chartered Land Agents' Society

Christopher Tancred's Foundation

Civil Service Union

*Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom
Dr. R. S. Aitken, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, Chairman.
Mr. J. S. Fulton, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wales.
Sir Philip Morris, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bristol.
Mr. R. M. Rattenbury, Registrary of the University of Cambridge.
Sir Folliott Sandford, Registrar of the University of Oxford.

Communist Party, the National Student Committee of

*County Councils Association
Capt. Sir Offley Wakeman, Bt., C.B.E., Chairman of Salop C.C., Chairman of the Association's Education Committee.
Mr. A. E. Pye, East Suffolk C.C.
Mr. R. Beloe, Chief Education Officer, Surrey.
Dr. F. Lincoln Ralphs, Chief Education Officer, Norfolk.
Mr. L. W. K. Brown, Deputy Secretary for Education.

Croydon County Borough Education Committee

*Educational Institute of Scotland
Mr. R. Britton, Hamilton Academy, President.
Mr. J. W. Scholes, M.B.E., St. Michael Street School, Dumfries.
Mr. R. J. Walker, Broughton Senior Secondary School, Edinburgh.
Mr. W. Campbell, C.B.E., Secretary.

[page 111]

*Federation of British Industries
Mr. A. G. Grant, Chairman of the Federation's Education Committee.
Mr. L. S. Newton, Chairman of the Federation's Panel on Grants to Students.
Mr. F. H. Perkins.
Mr. P. J. C. Perry, Education Section, Technical Department.

Federation of University Conservative and Unionist Associations

*General Dental Council
Professor M. A. Rushton, Chairman of the Special Purposes Committee of the Council.
Miss F. Rees.
Professor A. D. Hitchin.
Professor A. B. MacGregor.
Mr. D. Hindley-Smith, Registrar.
Mr. L. J. Antelme.

*Headmasters' Association of Scotland Mr. J. D. Cairns, Ayr Academy.
Mr. R. M. Adam, Kirkcaldy High School.
Mr. A. Anderson, Dumfries Academy.
Mr. D. W. Erskine, Dundee High School.

*Headmasters' Conference
Mr. H. D. P. Lee, Winchester College, Chairman.
Mr. K. D. Robinson, Birkenhead School.
Mr. C. P. C. Smith, Haileybury College.
Mr. A. E. Nichols, C.B.E., Secretary.

Industrial Management Research Association

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants

Institute of Physics

Institution of Civil Engineers

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Institution of Professional Civil Servants

Institution of Electrical Engineers

*Joint Committee of the Four Secondary Associations
Mr. W. E. Hecker, St. Dunstan's College, Catford, Chairman.
Association of Headmasters
    Dr. C. F. Jones, Sutton High School, Plymouth.
    Mr. A. G. Russell, Holt High School, Liverpool.
Association of Head Mistresses
    Miss M. J. Bishop, Godolphin and Latymer School, Hammersmith.
    Miss A. F. Bull, Wallington County School, Carshalton.
Association of Assistant Masters
    Mr. A. H. Dummett, Bishop Vasey's Grammar School, Sutton Coldfield.
    Mr. A. W. S. Hutchings, Secretary.
Association of Assistant Mistresses
    Miss E. R. Walker, Cambridgeshire High School for Girls, Cambridge.
    Miss O. M. Hastings, Secretary.

Law Society

Law Society of Scotland Library Association

[page 112]

*London County Council
Mr. H. C. Shearman, Chairman of the Education Committee.
Mrs. M. Cole, Chairman of the Further Education Sub-Committee.
Mr. R. McKinnon Wood, O.B.E., Vice-Chairman of the Further Education Sub-Committee.
Mr. W. F. Houghton, Education Officer.

London School of Economics and Political Science

*Lord Kitchener National Memorial Fund
Mr. C. G. Broom, Secretary of the Fund.

Manchester University

National Association for Education for Commerce

National Association of Divisional Executives for Education

National Association of Labour Teachers

National Association of Youth Employment Officers

National Council of Women of Great Britain

National Federation of Professional Workers

National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, Women's National Advisory Committee

*National Union of Students of the Universities and Colleges of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Mr. D. J. Grennan, President.
Mr. F. A. Rhodes, Deputy President.
Mr. J. F. Corbett, Vice-President.
Mr. T. D. White, Vice-President.
Miss S. M. Draycott, Assistant Secretary, Grants and Welfare.

*National Union of Teachers
Miss M. A. Stewart, Chairman of the Education Committee, Headmistress, Girls County Modern School, Shiremoor, Northumberland.
Mr. E. L. Briton, Headmaster, County Secondary School, Warlingharn, Surrey.
Mr. H. E. Davies, Headmaster, Cathays High School for Boys, Cardiff.
Mr. D. G. Gilbert, Headmaster, Underhill County Primary School, Wolverhampton.
Mr. W. Hatton, College of Building, Liverpool.
Mr. B. F. Hobby, Yardley Grammar School, Birmingham.
Mr. R. G. R. Hickman, Assistant Secretary, Education Department.

Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board

Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board

Oxford Local Examinations Delegacy

Post Office Engineering Union

Royal College of Art

Royal Institute of British Architects

Royal Institute of Chemistry

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

St. Andrews University

*Scottish Counties of Cities Association
Dr. T. E. Faulkner, Chairman of Dundee Education Committee.
Mr. J. D. Collins, Director of Education, Dundee.
Mr. J. F. Stewart, Chairman of Edinburgh Education Committee.
Mr. R. B. Forbes, Depute Director of Education, Edinburgh.
Mr. J. Mains, Chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Sub-Committee of Glasgow Education Committee.
Mr. A. G. Phemister, Depute Director of Education, Glasgow.

[page 113]

*Scottish Secondary Teachers Association
Dr. J. N. C. Clark, Peterhead Academy, President.
Mr. A. D. Brown, George Watson's Boys' College, Edinburgh.
Mr. H. M. McArdle, Trinity Academy, Edinburgh.
Mr. A. G. Campbell, George Heriot's School, Edinburgh, Secretary.

*Scottish Union of Students
Mr. W. MacFarlane, President.
Mr. J. Ross Harper.
Mr. N. Laird.
Mr. Kirk.

*Scottish Universities
Professor C. J. Fordyce, Professor of Humanity and Clerk of Senate, University of Glasgow.
Professor J. W. L. Adams, Professor of Education, Queen's College, Dundee (University of St. Andrews).
Professor R. C. Cross, Professor of Logic, University of Aberdeen.

Society of County Treasurers

Society of Technical Civil Servants

*Trades Union Congress
Mr. W. B. Beard, Chairman of the Education Committee.
Mr. A. Hallworth.
Mr. J. O'Hagan.
Mr. D. Winnard, Secretary of the Education Committee.

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate

University of London Entrance and Schools Examination Council

*Welsh Joint Education Committee
Alderman H. R. Thomas, Chairman.
Alderman L. Heycock, Vice-Chairman,
Alderman W. Evans, Chairman of the Committee's Administrative Sub-Committee.
Mr. D. Williams, Chief Education Officer, Breconshire.
Mr. H. Wyn Jones, Secretary.

Women's Group on Public Welfare

*Workers' Educational Association
Mr. H. C. Shearman, Vice-President of the Association and Chairman of the Education Advisory Committee.
Alderman J. H. Matthews, Member of the Education Advisory Committee.
Mr. H. Nutt, General Secretary.
Miss M. Marsh, Education Officer.

Welsh National School of Medicine

B. INDIVIDUALS WHO GAVE ORAL EVIDENCE

Mr. E. V. Adams, Inland Revenue.
Dr. E. R. Boland, Dean of Guy's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Mr. J. L. Brereton, General Secretary of the Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Hon. Lord Cameron, D.S.C., Chairman of the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.
Sir David Campbell, M.C., Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Aberdeen.
Mr. H. D. Hughes, Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford.
Mr. J. A. Johnstone, Inland Revenue.
Mr. A. E. E. McKenzie, Secretary of the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board.
Sir Keith Murray, Chairman of the University Grants Committee.
Mr. T. A. F. Noble, M.B.E., Secretary and Treasurer of the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.
Mr. W. D. Pattinson, Inland Revenue.
Dr. J. A. Petch, Secretary of the Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board.
Mr. D. A. Smith, Inland Revenue.

[page 114]

Mr. C. W. Stokes, Secretary of the Oxford Local Examinations Delegacy.
Sir Cecil Syers, K.C.M.G., C.V.O., Secretary of the University Grants Committee.
Sir Arthur Thomson, Dean of the Birmingham Medical School.

C. INDIVIDUALS WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Mr. D. V. Dennison, Reader in Social Administration, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Professor R. W. Ditchburn, Physics Department, University of Reading.
Dr. A. S. Henderson, Medical Officer, Student Health Service, University of Glasgow.
Mr. D. Mayer, Student Liaison Officer, Government of Cyprus.
Mr. L. S. Pressnell, Lecturer in Political Economy, University College, London.
Professor R. N. Titmus, Professor of Social Administration, London School of Economics and Political Science.

D. REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS WHO GAVE INFORMATION ON THE AWARDS SYSTEMS IN THEIR COUNTRIES

Australia: Official Secretary, Australia House, London.
France: Cultural Attache, French Embassy, London.
Federal German Republic: German Academic Exchange Service, London Branch.
Northern Ireland: Ministry of Education, Belfast.
United States of America: Cultural Affairs Officer, United States Embassy, London.

E. OTHER EVIDENCE

121 letters dealing with various aspects of the enquiry.

[page 115]

1. POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

(a) England and Wales (Section 81 of the Act of 1944)

81. Regulations shall be made by the Minister empowering local education authorities, for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them:-

(c) to grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries, and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers:-

(b) Scotland (Section 43 of the Act of 1946)

43. (1) For the purpose of enabling persons belonging to their area to take advantage, without financial hardship to themselves or their parents, of any educational facilities available to them, an education authority shall have power:-

(c) to grant scholarships, bursaries and other allowances to persons over school age.

(3) The said regulations may include a provision requiring the education authority to leave out of account, in assessing the needs of the applicants, the whole or such part of any scholarship, bursary, prize or other award won in open competition as may be prescribed and any award made by the Carnegie Trustees for the Universities of Scotland. The expression "open competition" means a competition with regard to which the education authority are satisfied that there are no restrictions upon entry which unduly limit the field from which candidates may be drawn.

(3A) The said regulations shall include a provision requiring an education authority, in assessing the amount of any scholarship, bursary or other allowance granted under subsection (1) of this section to a person over school age, to include a sum for the maintenance of dependants of any such person.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a pupil attending school shall be deemed to belong to the area in which his parent is ordinarily resident and any other person shall be deemed to belong to the area in which he himself is ordinarily resident:

Provided that -

(i) any such other person who becomes ordinarily resident in any area wholly or mainly for the purpose of attending a university or theological college or an educational establishment providing further education, shall be deemed to belong not to that area but to any area to which he was deemed to belong immediately before he became so resident; and

(ii) where any such pupil or other person to whom an award for a definite period has been made under this section ceases before the expiry of that period to belong to the area of the education authority by whom the award was made, he shall be deemed to continue to belong to that area until the expiry of the said period.

[page 116]

(5) Where the education authorities concerned are unable to agree as to the education area to which a person is to be deemed to belong for the purposes of this section, the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

2. POWERS OF MINISTERS

(a) England and Wales (Section 100 of the Act of 1944)

100. (1) The Minister shall by regulations make provision:-

(c) for the payment by him, for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them, of the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable in respect of children attending schools at which fees are payable, and of sums by way of scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers.

70. The Secretary of State may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, apply such sums as he thinks necessary to the following purposes, that is to say:-

(10) To making payment of sums by way of scholarships, bursaries and other allowances for the purpose of enabling persons to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them and to maintain any persons dependent on them while so doing.

[page 117]

ENGLAND AND WALES

(i) University and comparable (2) awards made by local education authorities

[page 119]

A (i) ENGLAND AND WALES

Number of firm applications for university awards for first degree courses considered in 1958 by the local education authorities from students having two or more passes at "A" level

19,088

Number of these applicants to whom awards were not made (see table below)

2,396

[page 122]

[page 123]

Extracts from a report, dated 22nd December 1959, made by Mr. J. L. Longland, Director of Education, to the Finance and General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Education Committee.

3. PROGRESS OF STUDENTS WHOSE RESULTS IN THE ADVANCED LEVEL EXAMINATIONS WERE BORDERLINE

The Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board classify candidates for awards in four grades. Students in the first grade have been granted county major scholarships (most of them obtain state scholarships); those in the second grade have been granted county exhibitions and in the third grade county university awards. This paragraph of the report concerns the remaining students who have obtained at least two passes in the Advanced level examinations, together with a small number of students who were not recommended for an award at the time of their interview.

(a) Borderline candidates for awards in 1954 (126 candidates)

Sixty-one of these candidates have now obtained degrees or diplomas including six first class honours and twenty-two second class honours. Only eight candidates have abandoned their degree course before its successful conclusion: one of them has successfully completed a two-year teacher training course. Six students refused awards in 1954 and who started their course at their parents' expense, obtained their degrees. Three students refused an award in 1954 obtained National Coal Board scholarships, one in 1955 and two in 1956. One student refused an award later obtained a state scholarship. Many students refused awards took up worthwhile occupations including banking, accountancy, librarianship, student apprenticeships and the Civil Service.

Early in 1954 the Committee adopted their present policy in deciding not to grant awards solely on the grounds that a student had obtained a university place. Since that time every candidate for an award has been interviewed by a panel containing my officers, representatives of schools and the Committee. Account has also been taken of heads' reports and the results in the G.C.E. examinations at Advanced level. Representatives of universities (Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool and Birmingham) have served on assessing panels set up by the Committee to consider borderline candidates. Despite the care taken by the Committee in devising their arrangements, the detailed reports of heads and the classifications of the examining boards, there can clearly be no assurance that boys and girls refused awards would not have had a highly successful result at the end of a university course. Furthermore, the proportion of students who have abandoned their course (i.e. failed and decided not to continue with their degree studies or refused re-admission by the university authorities) is very small when account is taken of their borderline performance in the advanced level examinations. Equally there can be no assurance that a boy or girl who does well in the advanced level examinations at school, does equally well at university: this year three county exhibitioners and one county major scholar have failed their degree course. Although the information we now have confirms the Committee's proposal which may lead to the abandonment of interviews for university awards, it also emphasises the need for an advisory service to students who have started their course. This is primarily a responsibility of the universities themselves but heads of their former schools and your officers are always willing to give advice to students in in difficulty with their studies or with domestic problems.

The small number of 'failures' suggest that the Committee should continue to consider each case of failure on its merits rather than to refuse to continue awards

[page 124]

solely on account of failure. In this respect the present arrangements appear to be working satisfactorily and universities report in detail on any student who is not maintaining his earlier promise.

(b) Borderline candidates for awards in 1955 and 1956

The data below would appear to confirm the conclusions reached above:-

Applications considered by assessing panels in 1955

Progress of 94 borderline candidates

I. Students offered awards in 1955

34 students obtained degrees including four first class honours and 13 second class honours.
5 students are continuing their course.
6 students have failed their course.
3 students-no information about final result.
48 Total.

1 student started course at own expense and has obtained a second class honours degree.
23 students have now been granted awards.
13 obtained degrees (4 with first class honours).
10 are continuing their course (3 after suspension of award following failure)
5 students have failed their course.
6 students - no information.
4 students have taken a course at a teachers' training college.
3 students have taken up other occupations.
4 students have been granted awards by other authorities including one N.C.B. scholarship and one Calico Printers' Association scholarship.
46 Total.

Progress of 118 borderline candidates

I. Students offered awards in 1956

14 students obtained degrees, including 7 second class honours.
10 students are continuing their course.
8 students failed their course.
2 students obtained industrial scholarships.
1 student withdrew from course on account of illness.
35 Total.

6 students obtained degrees (first year at own expense) including 1 second class honours, 1 first class honours general degree.
3 students started course in 1956 but failed their course.
22 students were granted awards in 1957 (5 failed their course).
7 students were granted awards in 1958.
16 students started teacher training courses (7 have completed course satisfactorily).
15 students withdrew application (10 employed in industry, 2 banking, 1 librarianship).
8 No information.
6 Miscellaneous (marriage, N.C.B. scholarship, etc.).
83 Total.

[page 125]

4. FAILURE OF STUDENTS ASSISTED BY THE COMMITTEE SINCE 1954

The Committee will wish to consider the interpretation of failure statistics with some reserve. A student who fails may be unlucky (i.e. he may just come down in a subsidiary subject not previously studied at school) or be a thoroughly unworthy student. Students in the former category may well re-sit their examinations and finish with a brilliant result. Those in the latter category may be sent down by the university authorities. So there is some danger even in adding one 'failure' to another. Of the twenty-seven 'failures' this year only nine have abandoned their course. Five of them were first year students. Also, in any one year students who fail will have reached various stages of their course and their failure may reflect policy changes such as the requirements for admission to a university course, a tightening-up of standards required for the satisfactory completion of a course and so on. Difficulties of staffing in schools and the arrangements made to help pupils to adjust themselves to the new conditions of study in the atmosphere of a university may also affect a student's progress. Many factors which give rise to failure (or success) may off-set the effect of changes in administrative arrangements.

[page 126]

REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXAMINING BODIES

In 1949, the Secondary School Examinations Council informed the secretaries of the approved examining bodies that they would have latitude to devise their own schemes for the award of state scholarships within the following limits:-

(a) the minimum requirements should be two subjects at "A" level, one of which should be offered at "S" level also, together with evidence of general education;

(b) the maximum requirements should be three subjects at "A" level, two of which should be offered at "S" level also, together with evidence of general education, but any examining body availing itself of this maximum should carefully and continuously examine its effect on the school and should consider the effect on particular combinations of subjects.

Associated Examining Board

Candidates for state scholarships were normally expected to offer 3 "A" level subjects, of which at least one had to include the "S" paper. The Board were prepared to make recommendations in other appropriate cases (e.g. when a candidate had offered two subjects at "A" level, both with "S" papers).

Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate

At "S" level, candidates had to take the papers required for a pass in a subject at "A" level, together with certain "S" tests set for the subject. They were required to enter at one and the same examination for the following:-

A. General paper;

B. Use of English paper;

C. One of the following options:-

(i) two subjects at "S" level;
(ii) one subject at "S" level and two subjects at "A" level;
(iii) two subjects at "S" level and one subject at "A" level;
(iv) History and one other subject both at "S" level and a third "A" level paper in History;
(v) Mathematics and one other subject both at "S" level and one of the "A" level papers in Further Mathematics.

Durham University

An applicant for a state scholarship was required to offer at one and the same examination three subjects at "A" level, and should have offered "S" papers in two of these three.

He was not debarred from offering more, but for the purpose of making a recommendation for the award of a state scholarship only performance in two subjects in which "S" papers had been offered and the best "A" level work in a third subject were taken into consideration.

London University

Candidates who were applicants for state scholarships were required to offer at

[page 127]

one and the same examination two, and not more than two, subjects at "S" level. Candidates offering subjects at "S" level must have taken "A" level as well as the "S" level papers in those subjects.

Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board

To be considered for the award of a state scholarship a candidate was required at one and the same sitting of the Board's examination, to offer three subjects at "A" level and also attempt the "S" papers either in two or in one of these same three subjects. The candidate who attempted the "S" papers in two subjects was not excluded from consideration solely on the grounds that he had not reached a high level of attainment in the "A" level subject in which "S" papers were not attempted. "S" papers could not be offered unless the corresponding "A" papers were also offered at the same sitting.

Oxford Local Examinations Delegacy

Candidates were required to offer, as a minimum, either two subjects at "S" level or one at "S" level and one at "A" level. The Delegacy looked for work of outstanding quality in one or two subjects. A candidate did not necessarily have a better chance of recommendation by offering two subjects at "S" level. Not more than two subjects could be taken into consideration at "S" level but supporting subjects in addition to the minimum specified could be taken into consideration at "A" level.

Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board

A candidate for a state scholarship offering Classical Studies must have taken Latin and Greek at "S" level and Ancient History at "A" level.

In Modern Studies a candidate was normally expected to offer two subjects at "S" level, which might be supported by a third subject at "A" level. An exception was History with Foreign Texts which was accepted as a complete "S" entry, but might be supported by an additional subject at "A" or "S" level.

In Mathematics and Higher Mathematics a candidate was required to offer papers (I) to (VII), which might be supported by Physics at "A" or "S" level.

In Natural Science a candidate was required to offer two subjects at "S" level and one at "A" level. Papers (I) to (IV) of Mathematics and Higher Mathematics were counted for this purpose as one "S" subject.

The General Paper could be offered in addition to any of the above. A good performance in this paper would have materially advanced the claims of a candidate for consideration.

Southern Universities Joint Board

Candidates for state scholarships were assessed on their performance in the same examination in two "A" level subjects, in the "S" paper of one of them, and in the General paper. Candidates who entered for "S" papers in any subjects were required to enter also at "A" level for these subjects.

Welsh Joint Education Committee

Candidates for state scholarships were required to offer at one and the same examination three subjects, of which one, and not more than one, had to be offered at "S" level and two at "A" level. Candidates offering a subject at "S" level were required to take the written examination and the practical or oral examination (if any) at the "A" level, as well as the "S" paper in that subject.

[page 128]

Academic years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 together

[page 129]

ENGLAND AND WALES

All these rates include an element for necessary travelling expenses, whether incurred in term-time or in travelling to and from university at the beginning and end of term. For all resident students, and for day students in London, the amount included is £10; for day students at other universities, £5. Applications for additional grant are considered from those award-holders who can show that they have incurred necessary travelling expenses in excess of these figures.

SCOTLAND

In calculating the amount allowed for term-time maintenance, the education authority is required to include:-

(1) for keep, 50s. a week if the student lives at home, and not less than 80s. a week if he lives away from home;

(2) £60 a year for clothes and incidental expenses; and

(3) the education authority's own estimate of the sums required for:

(a) books, instruments, tools, materials and special clothing,
(b) membership of students' unions, clubs or societies, and
(c) travelling expenses.

[page 130]

(i) Gross incomes

[page 132]

ENGLAND AND WALES

[page 134]

[page 135]

The contribution is assessed on the income available during the academic year of the course: both the husband's and wife's income are regarded as so available.

(a) The net income is calculated by deduction from the gross earned and unearned income of:-

(i) allowances on the same basis as those given in respect of parental income (see paras. 205 to 213), in so far as they are applicable;
(ii) the first £100 of the wife's income (where the student is the husband);
(iii) £300 for the student's husband or wife;
(iv) up to £2 a week for the stated cost of care of children during term-time (where the wife is the student);
(v) £24 for students at Oxford and Cambridge Universities and £19 for those at other universities.

(b) The remainder is then divided by three.

(c) Where the student is the husband the following amounts are then deducted:-

	Oxford and Cambridge Universities £	Other universities £
No children	52	54
1 child	50	52
2 children	29	30
3 children	2	4
4 or more children	no deduction	no deduction

(d) Where the result of the above calculations is a positive quantity, no dependant's grant is payable and the relevant amount is deducted from the student's own grant as a contribution.

(e) Where the result is a minus quantity, an equal but positive sum is to be awarded as a dependant's grant up to a maximum of £160 for a wife, £215 for a wife and child, £250 for a wife and 2 children, £280 for wife and 3 children and so on.