In January, education secretary Charles Clarke unveiled his strategy paper on higher education. For a document which proposes the most fundamental reform of the university system in decades, it is exciting limited popular interest. But with most people’s minds on Iraq, perhaps it’s unsurprising that MPs have not been inundated with post about it.
By the time of the next election, however, this will change. When voters notice the effect of extra charges on their bank balances, a groundswell of opposition will emerge to some of the measures now being proposed.
The most talked-about part of the strategy paper deals with student funding. It’s a mixture of good and bad. First the good news: the reintroduction of the student grant is proposed, a welcome and long overdue admission that debt does put off those from poorer backgrounds. But the ridiculously low level, of around £1,000 set against a sliding scale from households with incomes of £10,000 to £20,000, falls far short of what is needed to achieve the government’s priority of increased access.
But it will not help those households where combined earnings are £20,000 and above – perhaps lower middle-class families or those of public sector workers – where more than one child is at university. Add to that the introduction of top-up fees, and many will be a lot worse off as a result.
The removal of upfront tuition fees should be welcomed by all. But simply moving payment to after the end of a course does not address the fundamental issue. If you accept that society benefits overall from higher education, there is an obligation on us all to share the responsibility for funding the system. Some argue that graduates earn an extra £400,000 over their lifetime. It’s a clever justification but, even if it were true, are we really saying that this provides a credible loophole to remove ourselves from collective responsibility?
The political debate on higher education has moved so far (dare I say to the right?) that we spend our time debating repayment methods for individual debt, rather than asking whether there should be debt at all. The very idea that, as a society, we all shoulder the responsibility for, and benefit from, higher education, has been left far behind. ‘Dustmen and doctors’: soundbites, not sentences, dominate discussion.
So let’s be clear what variable tuition fees will mean. Higher education will quickly become a two-tier system; a market built on ability to pay, not ability itself. Students and staff will face a stark choice between a few universities, well-funded and resourced at great cost to individuals, and the rest. Is that the brave new world you want? If not, argue hard for change, now.
With a real-terms increase in funding, there is an opportunity now to address the, frankly appalling, levels of pay in the higher education sector. Employers are already saying that it is not enough. I agree, but it is sufficient to do something significant for staff who suffer chronically low salaries, poor job security and increasing workloads.
But the trend away from across-the-board, team-based rewards to targeted, ‘incentivised’, string-laden pay deals is likely to destroy this long-awaited chance for improvement. Everyone who wants this government to come good on its promise of greater access needs to understand one thing. It is staff in universities, not ministers, who will deliver this. Without them, it all fails.
The paper’s emphasis on teaching is long overdue and the government should be congratulated for seizing upon this issue. Teaching has long been undervalued compared to research. But please, no more red tape and no focusing on the few. An easy way to improve the status of teaching is to make it simpler for all academics to be promoted on the back of excellent teaching, and for probationary lecturers to receive good-quality training and development. This would break the current situation, in which ambitious academics know that it is research that will give them personal success.
Research is also fundamental to higher education: it is what differentiates universities from every other part of the education system. It is about discovering new things, and not just about passing this knowledge on to others. Consequently, I am very much opposed to further concentration of research funding. There are some good ideas in the strategy paper about funding emerging research areas and promising research departments.
However, this doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. What is needed is funding for new and promising researchers and research departments, wherever they are. Without this, the pool of talent will shrink and increasing numbers will work abroad, where the opportunities are greater.
Furthermore, the link between research and teaching is a fundamental one. The strategy paper’s proposals would create a system which effectively splits these two disciplines. Doing so runs the risk of turning degrees into just another step in an education system which has already become too much of a qualifications conveyor belt. In the new, two-tier system, richer students will be able to afford the universities active in research, but poorer ones will never consider such places. That would be a travesty, and would severely set back the government’s aims of social inclusion and access.
Over the next three years, the ideas in the strategy paper will influence every child and adult who wants to broaden their horizons for decades to come. If there is a well-funded, well-rewarded university system, then all will benefit. If the outcome is a hotchpotch of conflicting political ideas, the damage will be apparent for all to see.