Limiting maintenance grants only to certain courses may end up undermining Labour¡¯s goal of widening access and puts arts, humanities, and social sciences programmes at further risk, experts have warned.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson announced at the Labour conference that?maintenance grants will return for the least well-off students?funded by the international student levy, but only if they are taking ¡°priority courses aligned with the government¡¯s missions¡±.

While these courses have not yet been named, Labour has taken a similar approach with the coming Lifelong Learning Entitlement, with only courses in computing, engineering and mathematical sciences, as well as healthcare-related courses, eligible for modular funding.

Graeme Atherton, head of the Ruskin Institute for Social Equity (Rise) at the University of West London, said the policy ¡°is giving with one hand and taking with another¡± and will ¡°exacerbate¡± the problems being faced by humanities and arts departments and disadvantaged students.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

He welcomed the reintroduction of grants, which were scrapped under the Conservative government in 2016, but cautioned it will ¡°hamper and restrict the options for students from certain backgrounds, who will be funnelled into vocational courses. It comes back to the idea that if you¡¯re from a working-class background, all you can do is a vocational course that allows you to work in a certain area.¡±

¡°You can see a scenario where the only people doing humanities will be those that can afford it and are able to go to certain universities,¡± Atherton continued.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group, told?̽»¨ÊÓƵ?that the plans to restrict maintenance grants are ¡°deeply concerning¡±.?

¡°The UK needs a wide range of skills to build up a robust graduate workforce and successfully deliver a new industrial strategy,¡± he said.

¡°Prioritising a narrow set of disciplines could mean we lose talented arts, humanities and social sciences graduates who help drive innovation and tackle huge societal challenges. Student choice is vital. Using financial incentives could also distort student choice in a way that creates greater divides, rather than levelling the playing field.¡±

Bradshaw said that funding the grants through the international student levy?is ¡°also counterproductive given the damage it will cause to universities and the knock-on impact it will have, reducing available resources for teaching, research and student support¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The plans ¡°assume that government knows what the most valuable courses of the future are¡±, said Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute.

He questioned whether the announcement is ¡°as much about the deputy leadership of the Labour Party¡±,?which Phillipson is currently running for, ¡°as it is a coherent approach to higher education policy because we¡¯ve been promised the skills White Paper for a long time and that could have set it in context¡±.?

¡°Instead, they¡¯ve pulled out this one policy and we don¡¯t know how it sits into the wider agenda,¡± he said.

Carl Cullinane, director of research and policy at the Sutton Trust, said while there were ¡°potential career benefits for more disadvantaged students going into in-demand occupations, the impact that this could have on the arts and humanities is a concern¡±.?

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

He said the creative arts were?¡°currently far from equal, with access to higher education acting as one key gatekeeper to the sector¡±.

¡°While this announcement is a welcome step, it is possible that it could undermine reforms in the school system to widen access to creative education, and this needs to be considered.¡±

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The Department for Education has been approached for comment.?

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com