"How can we make sure this young lady gets what she worked so hard for?"

Friday 20 July 2018

A young dancer is waiting backstage to hear if the Education Department will agree to help fund her dance course following the introduction of a new higher education funding system - which left her worse off than the previous one.

Mrs X appealed to the States Complaint Board after the Student Finance department changed the amount of money her "very talented daughter" would be entitled to, leaving her with an extra £3,000 to fund per year of her course.

Summing up Mrs X's complaint at a meeting yesterday, Geoffrey Crill, Chairman of the Complaints Panel, explained that Mrs X sought out what financial support her daughter would get before undertaking the auditioning process for dance schools. In October 2017, she received confirmation her daughter would be entitled to a full grant in respect of the admission fees, and the maintenance grant, leaving Mrs X to fund £1,500.

Mrs X explained that on 3 November, the last communication she had with the department before her daughter's audition, a bursary was being offered to top up additional costs. It wasn't until 12 February, when her daughter's application to the school had been approved that she was told she would no longer receive the bursary under the new higher education funding system, leaving a £4,500 gap to plug per year over a three-year course. "People knew my daughter was seeking this funding. I was given no heads up." 

Mrs X explained she never assumed anything in terms of what her daughter was entitled to. "I did my own research before. I did my utmost to secure funding before doing the auditions, it costs £500 for each audition. I wanted to know that funding was in place before. To then encourage her to audition and support her through it and all of sudden to have that taken away, long after A-levels were a possibility..." she explained.

In addition, Mrs X felt that her appeal was simply shelved and not dealt with as it should have been.

Pictured: Mrs X was informed of a change in the funding available to her daughter only after she had been accepted into her school.

Christine Walwyn, Chief Operations Officer at the Education Department and Gary Thebault-Tobin, Student Finance Officer, assured the Complaints Panel that the Department's offer matches what would have been offered under the old scheme. Mrs X however maintains that she has to fund £3,000 which she wouldn't have had to under what was proposed in October 2017. This was caused by the removal of a bursary, used as a pot for additional funding to meet tuition costs.

Mr Crill noted that the bursary acted as a safety net for students whose tuition fees on approved courses were above the maximum of the grant. He then asked the officers where was the safety net now that the bursary had been taken away, to which they replied there is none, but that grants are more generous. He therefore concluded that the new system penalises 'worse off' students enrolled on courses where the tuition cost is over the maximum grant amount.

John Moulin, one of the Panel's members, said: "We have moved from a situation where we support people at the very bottom to in effect supporting people at the top. People with a very high income are now able to access student finance while people at the very bottom, who were caught by the safety net that no longer exists, can't. There no provision for that small minority."

Deputy Jeremy Maçon, the Assistant Minister for Education, said the new scheme had been rushed, having come last minute, and was only going to be an interim scheme.

Pictured: Deputy Jeremy Maçon, the Assistant Minister for Education.

Mr Crill added: "What I find surprising is that there are no provision for transitional arrangements that might suddenly find their position has changed between the old scheme and the new scheme. Is that normal, when you have people going through a strict progression line that there is no anticipation?" Deputy Maçon replied that it unfortunately came down to political decisions.

Gavin Fraser, the third member of the Panel added: "You would have thought we would all be sitting here now saying, 'She applied early she has been treated as a bursary student she will receive the same amount.' That to me seems to be fair," he said, adding, "In our discretion somewhere we can find the solution to fund the money."

When asked if her daughter would be able to go in September under the current offer from the department, Mrs X replied she didn't know. Mr Fraser continued: "If you are aware a family can’t send their child to university where do you expect the family to find the money?" Mr Thebault-Tobin replied the department will try to offer as much advice as we can. 

Mr Moulin said: "What worries me is that we appear to have a system of funding for people of high income, almost it seems at the expense of people on low income. Children are the future and if we don’t support them at this end how can we expect families to? How can we make sure she goes in September, how can we make sure this young lady gets what she worked so hard for?"

Ms Walwyn and Mr Thebault-Tobin agreed that a discretionary allocation could be made with a new recalculation being done every year between the old scheme and the new scheme to give Mrs X's daughter the biggest amount. This will however have to be approved by the Education Minister, Senator Tracey Vallois.

The Complaints Panel will now review the Department's decision and make findings as to whether it was fair or not. They will then send a report to the Education Minister who can decide to follow their recommendations or not. "We are very conscious of the urgency," said Mr Crill at the end of the hearing.