Report on the Student Financial Crisis and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent analysis of the student financial situation reveals a deepening crisis that poses a significant threat to the achievement of several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While academic outcomes remain stable, the increasing financial burden on students is compromising the quality of education, exacerbating poverty and inequality, and negatively impacting student health and well-being. This report outlines the core issues and presents policy recommendations aimed at aligning the higher education funding system with national commitments to sustainable development.

Analysis of Key Challenges to Sustainable Development

SDG 4: Quality Education

The current financial pressures on students are directly undermining the principles of Quality Education (SDG 4). To meet basic living costs, students are increasingly forced into situations that detract from their educational experience.

• Students are compelled to work extensive hours in part-time jobs, reducing time available for study and academic engagement.
• There is a marked reduction in participation in extra-curricular activities, which are crucial for developing social capital and transferable skills essential for future employment.
• Increased commuting times, undertaken as a cost-saving measure, further erode the time and energy available for a holistic educational experience.

SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The student funding model is failing to protect students from poverty and is widening socio-economic divides, in direct opposition to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• A report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) and Loughborough University found that students require £366 per week to live, an amount far exceeding current maintenance support, pushing many below the poverty line.
• The system’s implicit reliance on parental financial support creates a significant barrier for students from low-income households, creating unequal access to a quality university experience. As one student noted, “The whole system relies on financial support from parents.”
• Alex Sobel, MP, has described the situation as a “crisis point,” where students subsist on incomes that fail to cover basic necessities, leading to “abject poverty.”

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The financial strain is a significant contributor to declining student welfare, impacting SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The National Union of Students (NUS) highlights a “concerning decline in the student experience” and the “normalisation of crisis within the sector.” The constant financial stress, coupled with long work and commute hours, is a probable factor in the worsening mental health observed across university campuses. Furthermore, rising student rent costs challenge the creation of affordable and sustainable communities (SDG 11).

Policy Recommendations for a Sustainable and Equitable System

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Students and other stakeholders have proposed a series of reforms to address this crisis and realign the system with SDG principles.

1. Establish a Minimum Student Income: Introduce a minimum income for students linked to the living wage and rising with inflation. This directly addresses SDG 1 (No Poverty) by ensuring students can meet their basic needs.
2. Restore and Enhance Maintenance Support: Reinstate maintenance grants and implement an annual increase in maintenance funding in line with the real cost of living. This measure is vital for achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring financial background is not a barrier to participation and success.
3. Control Accommodation Costs: Implement measures to ensure that annual increases in student rent remain below the rate of inflation, contributing to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
4. Implement a Progressive Repayment System: Adopt a stepped student loan repayment model to create a more equitable system, in line with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The proposed model includes:
   • 2% repayment on earnings between £12,570 and £27,570.
   • Up to 8% repayment on earnings of £57,571 or more.

The NUS has urged the government to engage proactively with these findings to ensure that the needs of students are reflected in future policy, thereby safeguarding the UK’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article directly addresses student poverty, describing it as being at a “crisis point.” It highlights that students are forced to live on incomes that do not cover basic needs, which is the central theme of SDG 1.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  Financial hardship is shown to negatively impact the quality of education. The article states that students are “missing out on additional and extra-curricular activities which build social capital and transferable skills” and that these issues contribute to “worsening mental health across campuses” and a “decline in the student experience.” This relates to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article points out that the current system relies on parental financial support, creating a significant disadvantage for students from lower-income families. The quote, “The whole system relies on financial support from parents but I only have my mum who has to use all her wages on mortgages and bills,” exemplifies this inequality. The proposed solutions aim to create a more equitable system for all students, regardless of their economic background.

Specific SDG Targets

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article’s focus on “student poverty levels” directly relates to this target, identifying students as a specific demographic group experiencing poverty within a national context.
   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all. The call for an “annual increase in maintenance funding,” the “restoration of the maintenance grant,” and the adoption of a “minimum student income” are all examples of social protection measures aimed at supporting the vulnerable student population.

2. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article’s central theme is the lack of affordability in higher education, which acts as a barrier to equal access and diminishes the quality of the educational experience for those who struggle financially.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The article describes the current funding arrangements as “failed” and creating unequal conditions. The proposal for a “stepped repayment model” for student loans is a specific policy action aimed at reducing inequalities of outcome for graduates based on their earnings.

Implied Indicators for Measuring Progress

• For Target 1.2 (Reduce Poverty)

  • The gap between student income and living costs: The article implies this can be measured by comparing student maintenance funding to the required living costs, cited as “£366 a week.” Progress would be a reduction in this gap.

• For Target 1.3 (Social Protection)

  • Level of maintenance funding: An indicator would be the value of maintenance loans and grants and whether they are increased annually “in line with the cost of living.”
  • Adoption of a minimum student income: Progress can be measured by whether a policy is introduced to link student income to the “living wage that rises with inflation.”

• For Target 4.3 (Affordable and Quality Education)

  • Rate of student part-time work: The article states that students are “increasingly working part-time jobs.” A reduction in the average hours worked or the percentage of students needing to work could indicate improved affordability.
  • Student participation in extra-curricular activities: The article notes students are “missing out” on these activities. Tracking participation rates would be an indicator of an improved, more holistic student experience.

• For Target 10.3 (Reduce Inequalities)

  • Structure of loan repayment: The implementation of a “stepped repayment model” as advocated in the article would be a direct indicator of policy change aimed at reducing inequality among graduates.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: timeshighereducation.com