## Introduction
In 2021, the UK government introduced the Turing scheme as a replacement for the EU’s Erasmus+ student exchange program. The scheme aimed to provide students from lower-income backgrounds with more international study opportunities and broaden the scope beyond Europe. However, the first official analysis of the Turing scheme has revealed significant challenges and shortcomings. Universities faced difficulties with the application process, while students experienced delays in funding and confirmation of placements. This article critically examines the findings of the analysis, highlighting the impact on participants and the effectiveness of the Turing scheme in achieving its goals.
Complex Application Process Hinders Participation
The analysis conducted by IFF Research indicates that four out of five universities (79%) encountered difficulties with the application process for the Turing scheme. The process was described as overly complex, repetitive, and tedious, leading to frustration among university staff responsible for facilitating student participation. Despite efforts to streamline the process, few improvements were perceived by the applicants.
Funding Issues and Delivery Challenges
One of the key issues identified in the analysis was inadequate funding and problems with the delivery of funds. These challenges had a disproportionate impact on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, potentially creating barriers to their participation. The timing of application outcomes further exacerbated the problem, with many participants receiving confirmation of funding after they had already committed to their placements or even after their return.
Impact on Participation and Targeted Goals
The first year of the Turing scheme fell short of the government’s target of 35,000 participants, with just over 20,000 students taking part. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to this shortfall. While the scheme aimed to enable students from lower-income backgrounds to access international study placements, the analysis suggests that the difficulties faced by these students, such as upfront costs and delays in funding, hindered their ability to participate. It is essential to explore whether the Turing scheme is providing better opportunities than its predecessor, Erasmus+.
Feedback from Educational Institutions
The analysis revealed varying levels of satisfaction with the Turing scheme among different educational institutions. Schools, vocational training (VT), and further education (FE) settings were generally positive, with nine out of ten participants indicating satisfaction with the placement opportunities provided. However, less than half of higher education (HE) providers expressed satisfaction, and nearly one-third deemed the scheme unsatisfactory.
Funding Coverage Discrepancies
The analysis highlighted disparities in the perception of funding coverage between university students and FE-VT participants. Less than half of university students (45%) felt that the funding covered at least half of their placement costs, while 86% of FE-VT participants believed their costs were adequately covered. This discrepancy suggests that additional funds are required to support university students participating in the Turing scheme.
Financial Challenges Faced by Participants
Participants reported facing financial challenges throughout their Turing scheme experience. The need for upfront costs to secure housing or cover initial travel expenses posed significant difficulties for some. Many participants expressed concerns about the uncertainty surrounding funding confirmation, which caused anxiety and affected their day-to-day living costs while waiting for funds to come through.
Government’s Target for the Turing Scheme
The government has set ambitious targets for the Turing scheme, aiming to benefit over 40,000 students in the 2023-24 academic year. Of these students, 60% are expected to come from disadvantaged backgrounds or underrepresented groups. The scheme is seen as a game-changer for students from these backgrounds, providing transformative opportunities abroad and facilitating the acquisition of essential skills for their future endeavors.
Reactions and Criticisms
Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, acknowledged the benefits of studying abroad but questioned whether the Turing scheme offers better opportunities than its predecessor, Erasmus+. While the scheme aims to be more inclusive and global, concerns regarding funding, application processes, and delivery issues cast doubt on its effectiveness.
Conclusion
The analysis of the Turing scheme’s first year highlights significant challenges and shortcomings. The complex application process, funding issues, and delivery challenges have hindered participation and disproportionately affected students from disadvantaged backgrounds. While the scheme has been generally well-received in schools, VT, and FE settings, higher education providers have expressed dissatisfaction. The government’s ambitious targets for the scheme must be accompanied by improvements in application procedures, funding mechanisms, and delivery to ensure that the Turing scheme fulfills its promise of providing transformative study opportunities for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds.