The Turing Scheme - Erasmus Rejuvenated?
By Jan Ole Faust
Teased over the preceding months and unveiled last Wednesday, the Turing Scheme was interpreted as marking a sharp departure from the education sector’s state-facilitated relationship with the EU. In advancing “Global Britain”, the alteration ostensibly sever European connections. While there are showy overtures to increased representation of the disadvantaged and a more global net of educational opportunities, these are fraught with uncertainties. Meanwhile, unrealistic expectations and the removal of broadly popular, functional provisions may bring about ramifications, such as reduced networking opportunities for students and weaker teaching at colleges.
The movement toward sending students to a much wider set of countries - the government ostentatiously notes every single country in the world is free to take part - is a lofty aim, with some grounding in reality. It is planned that the British Council, which annually works in over 100 countries around the world, could, in vague terms, help in establishing connections with institutions across countries. However, the nature of this assistance is not outlined within the Scheme’s website.
Without a supranational organisation governing the relations between educational bodies, none of these new connections will come with the fully formed organisational structure. Britain’s education sector may therefore face a considerable administrative burden, alongside nascent pressures to find partners globally. On that front, one Spanish university has already reached agreements with all but one of its previous British partner universities, albeit supported by a combination of leftover Erasmus+ money and a new fund. Existing partnerships could be bolstered by the Turing Scheme, but whether colleges and universities unconnected to any others would find it easy to make them is uncertain.
Novel funding policies unquestionably leave Britain spending less. In 2018, the government paid just short of £137 million towards Erasmus’ budget, yet considerably fewer British students studied abroad than EU students studied in Britain, funded by that budget overall. For 35,000 British students to undertake placements abroad, twice as many as before, only £105 million will be paid. Although a difference of £32 million seems minuscule in the heady days of the 2020 and 2021 budgets, the stated reason behind leaving Erasmus+ was the associated expense, and its replacement demonstrably reduced the costs. If the questionable assumption that Britain does not benefit from short-term international students is accepted, with the networking benefits being declared negligible, this could be viewed as a positive development.
Mathematically, those figures may equate to the British government paying more money per student enrolled, yet this will not necessarily be felt by those students. The maximum cost of living support is reduced by £140 per month, whereas travel cost support is entirely gone for anyone not from a disadvantaged background. While those in further education placements receive more generous assistance, their placements are also generally shorter.
The new processes aim to benefit those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in an effort to redress the imbalance of educational mobility. With requirements imposed on institutions to inform the government on how social access will be widened, a far greater focus applies on this than under Erasmus+. The shortest placements will only last four weeks, allowing better access for those with other commitments, who are likely to be less well off. An incidental benefit is a new option of studying in English-speaking countries, as people from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to know a second language, or be enrolled in a language course. Finally, travel support is offered exclusively to those from a disadvantaged background, the farthest distances resulting in a grant greater than the maximum previously offered. Travel costs act as eliminating criteria when opportunities are given to people of different backgrounds, and this measure would tackle that issue decisively.
However, weaknesses lie in the less immersive nature of the Turing Scheme as it relates to universities. Under Erasmus+, British students abroad could access foreign state benefits for students, such as rent coverage. If they sought to undertake a qualification, they would be charged domestic prices for any examinations or courses, and miscellaneous benefits such as local travel rates are now also lost. To replace this, much more limited cost of living support is granted. The complete lack of an infrastructure within the Scheme that guides relations with countries leaves unanswered questions and unreplicated benefits.
Instead of guaranteed free tuition, the Turing Scheme’s website notes that the government “expects” tuition fees to be waived by host universities. Why this expectation is held is not outlined anywhere on the website. Not even for those from a disadvantaged demographic are any fees to be paid for, which puts the social altruism of the Scheme into question. Potentially astronomical fees abroad are something few would manage to pay; and a student loan system is not in place for this, either. Scattered benefits for the least well off would accomplish little in rebalancing educational mobility if sky-high prices await anyplace other than Britain.
Further education colleges, the status of which the government intends to improve drastically, are likely to get few benefits from the Scheme. Only students are covered by the financial measures outlined here, meaning the staff placements over three-quarters of colleges utilised are gone without an equivalent replacement. These were done within programmes that specifically aimed to tackle skills gaps, something the recent Skills for Jobs White Paper alleges is a government priority. Further on that, funding for partnerships between colleges and collaborative projects is entirely lacking, too. Many of these partnerships had been arranged with countries where further education is held up as a reputable alternative to university, something the UK government aims to replicate, as outlined in the aforementioned White Paper. Therefore, further education providers will find strides towards improvement impeded upon, in direct contradiction to the government’s ambitions.
Ironically, the EU intends to expand its vocational education offering to countries outside of Europe soon, including staff placements and collaboration between technical colleges. Whether further education colleges will benefit from the Turing Scheme at all is dubious.
The Turing Scheme outlines grand visions, with every country in the world a potential destination, so long as the learner is able to pay. Overall, the plans leave British students with some wider possibilities as well as much greater uncertainties. Taxpayers are left marginally better off in exchange for a system where colleges would cease to benefit from sought-after programmes and wildly unpredictable fees may be imposed.