Education urged to clarify "ambiguous" grants system

Monday 11 September 2017

Jersey's university funding system has been labelled “unclear and ambiguous” by the States Complaints Board.

The parents of Mr A – who has not been named to protect his identity – appeared before Board in July, arguing that the Education Department had not given their son a high enough grant.

Mr A, who has now graduated, was awarded £6,009 by the States of Jersey to undertake a BSc Paramedic course in 2013.

As part of the course, he was required to complete placements of up to six weeks at a time. Those placements often took place far away from the university campus and could end as late as 02:00.

His parents argued that it would be impossible to use public transport as a result, and that Mr A had therefore been forced to buy a car, incurring costs of £3,000 a year.

Pictured: Education Chief Justin Donovan said that it would be too much work for the Department to process grant requests differently.

They challenged the Education Department over this, claiming that he should qualify to receive £8,819 – a level of funding reserved for a medicine or dentistry course – because at least half of his course involved nearly as much practical work.

His funding was subsequently increased, but not to the level his parents’ had hoped – Mr A was instead given an extra £678. 

Mr A’s parents also complained that the level of funding had been calculated including the family’s Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) as a source of income.

The States Complaints Board said that they could not uphold the complaint – not because the parents were at fault, but because failings in the current ‘band’ system led to ambiguity.

The Education Department maintained that each funding bracket was clear, but Mr A’s parents identified poor signposting as to where this information is held and claimed that the categories were too general. Chief Education Officer Justin Donovan argued, however, that calculating grants by exact course length would be too time-consuming a task, with some 1,500 island students in receipt of them each year.

It also emerged during the hearing that the department had told the parents in a letter that they “cannot assist with any travel or parking expenses” despite having a ‘field trip allowance’ policy, which may have covered Mr A's costs.

Mr Donovan argued that if they were to have interpreted that policy in that way, they would be inundated with requests for funding in future.

Pictured: The critical Complaints Board has ordered that the Department state how - if at all - they have improved things by the end of September.

While the Board found that the Education Department had operated “fairly and even-handedly”, they criticised what they branded an “unclear and unambiguous” system.

They stated that the public must be made better aware of exactly what entitlements they are due, and suggested a re-examination of the current funding goalposts.

Furthermore, they recommended the Education officials liaise with the Social Security and Income Tax Departments to resolve the LTIA issue.

In its final judgement, the Board urged the Education Department to provide an update by the end of September regarding what steps, if any, they have taken in light of the conclusions.

This latest judgement will put further pressure on the Education Department and Chief Minister, who have pledged on numerous occasions to tackle the issue of student finance, but are still yet to put forward a solution.