Higher Education Funding Cuts: Government Response

On 10th July 2026, Music Mark and the Royal Musical Association wrote to the Secretary of State for Education to insist that the proposed cut to Price Group C1.2 funding for higher education music provision should be reversed. The Minister for Skills has responded to our letter acknowledging the important contribution of higher education to the creative industries and arts education, however the Minister has confirmed that the Government will not revisit the 2026-27 funding settlement. The decision risks undermining the pipeline of skilled musicians, educators, researchers and creative professionals needed for the UK’s cultural and economic future. Music Mark will continue to advocate for funding for higher education music provision. You can read the full letter below:

Dear Ms Whyte and Mr Keefe,

 

Thank you for your correspondence of 10 July, addressed to the former Secretary of State, regarding Strategic Priorities Grant (SPG) funding for music, and other creative and performing arts subjects. I am replying as the minister responsible for this policy area and I apologise for the delay in doing so.

 

I appreciate the time taken by Music Mark and the Royal Musical Association to set out your concerns and supporting evidence.

 

The government recognises the important role higher education (HE) institutions play in developing talent, supporting research and innovation, and contributing to the workforce pipelines that underpin both the creative industries and arts education. We have, however, had to take difficult decisions to identify areas for savings within the overall grant for financial year (FY) 2026 to 2027.

 

Decisions on SPG funding were taken against the backdrop of a highly challenging fiscal environment and difficult choices across government spending. As such, we do not intend to revisit the SPG funding settlement for FY 2026 to 2027.

 

The announcement of FY 2026 to 2027 SPG funding forms part of broader decisions taken to support the overall sustainability of HE funding. Amendments to funding for price groups C1.1 and C1.2 represent a relatively small adjustment to per-student funding. For academic year (AY) 2025 to 2026, funding through the SPG was around £130 per full-time equivalent student, or just over 1% of total government funding for creative and performing arts provision.

 

The majority of funding for teaching continues to come through tuition fees, and the government has increased fee caps in line with forecast inflation for AYs 2025 to 2026 and 2026 to 2027. We will do so again in 2027 to 2028, in recognition of wider financial pressures across the sector.

 

In setting priorities for the SPG for next year, we have sought to make targeted reductions, where possible, while continuing to provide funding for areas of strategic importance. We are working closely with the Office for Students (OfS) on wider reforms of the SPG to ensure funding is targeted effectively towards future skills needs, economic growth and support for disadvantaged students. We will provide opportunities for stakeholders to provide their views on proposals through a consultation and elsewhere.

 

We understand the concerns you raise regarding the relationship between this funding decision and wider government priorities, including support for the creative industries, the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the National Centre for Arts and Music Education, and wider enrichment activity. While we acknowledge concerns about the impact on creative arts provision, universities are autonomous institutions responsible for managing their own resources and determining how non-ringfenced funding is allocated. Changes to SPG funding should not be regarded as a reflection of the value or quality of creative arts disciplines.

 

This is why we have maintained funding for the 20 small and specialist providers previously identified by the OfS as world-leading institutions, including 12 providers whose provision is solely focused on creative and performing arts subjects. SPG decisions have inevitably required difficult trade-offs, and we recognise that many stakeholders will have different views on the balance that has been struck.

 

Thank you again for writing.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

The Rt Hon Baroness Jacqui Smith Minister for Skills