Ministers have refused to bow to industry pressure to halt proposed funding cuts for journalism courses.

As previously reported by HTFP, education secretary Bridget Phillipson has ordered universities to deprioritise journalism courses amid a £108m cut in funding for higher education.

The shock move triggered the launch of a campaign spearheaded by the NCTJ to reverse the cutbacks.

However in a letter to NCTJ chief executive Joanne Forbes, pictured, the Department for Education has reaffirmed the move while claiming that supporting high-quality, public interest journalism remains a “government priority.”

Journalism courses currently benefit from a stream of funding known as the Strategic Projects Grant distributed by the DfE.

But Ms Phillipson ordered universities to redirect money away from journalism and related courses to other ‘high cost’ subjects, including engineering, IT, pre-registration nursing, agriculture, forestry, and food science.

In its letter, the department acknowledged the “invaluable role which journalism plays in the fabric of our society” and said that supporting high-quality, public-interest journalism remains a government priority.

However, the response confirmed that journalism has been removed from the list of high-cost subjects receiving targeted SPG funding in 2025-26, saying it was part of a wider effort to prioritise investment in science, engineering and technology.

The department cited “tough prioritisation decisions” due to the “challenging” public finances, while noting that journalism remains a “valued subject” and that provision will benefit from a 3.1pc increase in tuition fee limits for 2025-26.

The NCTJ had previously written to Ms Phillipson and her Cabinet colleague, culture secretary Lisa Nandy, warning the cuts risk damaging journalism education, reducing accessibility and diversity, and harming the wider talent pipeline into the profession.

Responding to the government’s letter, Joanne said: “While we welcome the department’s recognition of the value of journalism, the decision to cut targeted funding remains deeply disappointing and contradictory.

“These courses already operate under financial pressure, and further cuts risk undermining access, quality and opportunity. It also sends a damaging message about the value of journalism education at a time when quality, trusted journalism is more important than ever.”

The NCTJ says it will continue discussions with government as part of its Save Quality Journalism Education campaign which is also backed by the News Media Association.

The government’s response can be read in full below.

Thank you for your correspondence of 6 June, addressed to the Secretary of State for Education, about the Strategic Priorities Grant (SPG) Guidance letter to the Office for Students (OfS) for financial year 2025-26 and your concerns around the removal of high-cost subject funding for media studies, journalism, publishing and information services. I am sure you will appreciate that the Secretary of State receives a large amount of correspondence and is unable to reply to each one personally. It is for this reason I have been asked to reply.

Supporting the provision of high-quality public-interest journalism is a priority for this government. A free, sustainable, and diverse media landscape is the best way to maintain a shared understanding of facts, and we are committed to supporting the invaluable role which journalism plays in the fabric of our society.

At the same time, we have made tough prioritisation decisions driven by the challenging fiscal context that we inherited. We are prioritising support for high-cost subjects that are essential to delivery of our industrial strategy and core funding to support access to higher education (HE) for disadvantaged groups. It is important that the targeted funding allocated through the SPG supports courses that have higher costs of delivery, our Plan for Growth, and the Industrial Strategy.

This means that we are prioritising investment in science, engineering and technology subjects. Media studies, journalism, publishing, and information services are important and valued subjects. Provision for these subjects will also benefit from the increase in tuition fee limits in line with inflation – the maximum fee for a standard full-time undergraduate course in the 2025/26 academic year will increase by 3.1%, from £9,250 to £9,535.

Additionally, we have had to make the difficult decision to reduce the overall amount of money provided for student premium funding this year (2025-26), due to the fiscal challenges. We have asked the OfS to achieve this saving by allocating Student Premiums on a basis which disregards courses delivered at franchised providers, except where providers are in the OfS registered Approved (fee cap) category. Our commitment that opportunity is available for all remains unwavering, and the Government will achieve this by addressing gaps in access and outcomes faced by underrepresented and disadvantaged groups. That is why we have asked that the OfS retain the per-student funding rates for the full-time, part-time, disabled premium and mental health Student Premiums at their current level unless not possible due to fluctuation in student numbers.

We are determined that the HE funding system should deliver for our economy, for universities and for students. We are currently developing a reform plan for the SPG to deliver the Secretary of State’s priorities, including effectively targeting high-cost funding towards provision that supports the priorities set out in the Industrial Strategy within the future. These reforms to the SPG are central our wider plans for HE reform, which we will set out in this summer’s Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy White paper.

I hope this information is helpful and thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with the Department for Education.