Specialist higher education institutions have accused the government of undermining its own mission to grow the UK’s creative industries by cutting funding for arts courses and excluding non-STEM students from grants.��

Labour’s industrial strategy, published in June 2025, identified the creative industries as one of eight key sectors that will contribute to the UK’s economic growth over the next decade.��

In a sector-specific plan published alongside the strategy, culture secretary Lisa Nandy wrote that the government would “build on strong foundations of world-renowned education providers” and “increase direct funding” to help grow the sector.��

But some creative higher education institutions say government cuts and exclusions from funding pots are exacerbating an already-challenging financial climate and jeopardising the future talent pipeline for the creative sector.��

ɫ��ֱ��

“Supportive noises” from the government are failing to translate into “hard cash”, said Mark Osterfield, executive director at the Central School of Ballet.��

The government axed funding for some institutions when, last year, the Strategic Priorities Grant (SPG) was reduced by £100 million a few months prior to the new academic year.��

ɫ��ֱ��

With priority given to STEM and healthcare-related courses, some creative providers suffered. The University for the Creative Arts, for example, saw its funding fall by over £1 million – equivalent to a 50 per cent cut.��

The government also deprioritised accelerated degree programmes, hitting higher education providers like the Academy of Contemporary Music (ACM), where about 90 per cent of students are enrolled on these courses.��

“That was almost a half a million pounds hit to funding with no warning,” said Gordon Sweeney, ACM’s chief executive.��

Some creative institutions did benefit from funding under the reprioritisation, particularly those classed as “world-leading specialist providers” – an initiative first introduced in 2021, which tends to favour traditional and long-standing providers over smaller and newer institutions.��

Osterfield, whose institution missed out on world-leading specialist funding but does benefit from specialist performing arts providers funding – a smaller pot of money – said it is also unclear whether that funding will continue after the 2026-27 academic year.��

“It’s become much more difficult because we’re not able to plan for the mid to the long term,” he said.��

Funding streams as a whole “can be precarious”, agreed Karen Stanton, vice-chancellor of University of the Arts London, which does receive world-leading specialist provider funding.

ɫ��ֱ��

She urged the government to recommit to continuing this fund. “Specialist institutions, including those focused on creative subjects, are particularly vulnerable to changes to funding and challenges within the wider system,” she said.��

ɫ��ֱ��

Alex Proudfoot, chief executive of Independent Higher Education, which represents several creative education providers, said that emerging disciplines like “games design, live events and screen technology” should not “be pitted against the classical conservatoire model in a winner-takes-all bidding competition”.��

“We need both if the UK is to build on its competitive advantage in the cultural and creative industries,” he said. “We also need to move fast to design the right pro-growth approach before the current specialist funding package expires.”

Simone Wonnacott, vice-chancellor of Leeds Arts University, said she was pleased to see the creative sector recognised in the industrial strategy, but was disappointed that creative courses may be excluded from new maintenance grants.��

Students from low-income households will once again be eligible to receive these from 2028-29, but only if they are taking “priority courses”.��

While the specific courses have not yet been named, a similar approach has been taken to the incoming Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), with only courses in computing, engineering and mathematical sciences, as well as healthcare-related courses, eligible for modular funding.

The government has said it will explore alignment with the subject lists for LLE funding when determining which courses are eligible for maintenance grants.

“It seems only logical that courses preparing students for careers in a key growth sector should be eligible for grants that will keep them accessible to people from any background,” said Stanton.��

Providers said they were grateful that the government had carved out an exemption for smaller institutions in the incoming international student levy and that creative subjects had been recognised in a recent review of the school curriculum, but warned that, without further protections, the creative talent pipeline remains at risk.��

ɫ��ֱ��

“These are expensive disciplines to teach,” said Proudfoot. “Delivering world-class creative education and professional training in the 21st century requires high intensity, high contact hours and cutting-edge technology, and the funding settlement needs to recognise this.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com