By Joe Rukin
According to the Association of University Teachers, 82% of the people want rise in university funding. This is hardly news as back before last years' general election, voters were willing to be a bit more specific as to where extra funding should go, with 73% of voters wanting the grant to return, but the AUT findings show that the groundswell of feeling that existed then has shown no sign of dissipating. Their question itself was a bit of an odd one, as it could imply the 82% want more money for universities, lecturers and or students; "The government wants universities to educate 20 per cent more of the nation's young people by 2010. Should university funding also increase by 20 per cent to help ensure standards don't fall?"
Obviously the AUT will see this as a crucial piece of evidence in their battle for increased pay levels and to keep hold of their jobs. Their General Secretary Sally Hunt said;
"The poll result is wonderful news. It shows that people want the Government to give universities the money they need to do their job. The public realises that if the Government wants to push through hundreds of thousands more students it's got to back that up with adequate funding. I think people, particularly students and parents, are very concerned by what they see is going on in higher education. They can see that unless funding is adequate the quality of education, that can be provided by universities, is clearly going to go into decline."
As we predicted two months ago, the Government is set to shamelessly blag that 73% who wanted to see the return of the grant. Heralding doing nothing but agreeing with what the government wants to do, NUS President Mandy Telford talked up a 'Massive Win', in that grants will return. Unfortunately this is far from reality, with Grant MkII not even able to look Dr Evil's Mini-Me in the eye. If the best is to believed, students can expect a maximum of £40 per week or £1,200 per year grant or 'HEMA', if the worst is to come about, they will get a maximum £30/week in the first year, with that dropping to £20 & £10 for second and third years. Means testing will be steeper than before, and of course the absence of student finance from the comprehensive spending review means that any changes must be self-financing. Even those heavyweight political commentators at The Sun have picked up on that one, meaning the only real speculation is over exactly which way the government will rob Peter to pay Paul; whether by grad tax, commercial loans or variations on top-up fees.
The 'grants' or HEMAs as they will be known (Higher Education Maintenance Allowances) will not stop students from going into debt, but it is hoped will cut the number who work part-time, allowing them to spend more time on studies. But as for the means testing, well would you think your parents were rich if they earn £30,000 between them? That's being touted as the upper limit on the means testing scale, with which students would qualify for £5/week. To get the full amount, parents will have to earn £13k or less. And what exactly does your support as an adult have to do with what your parents earn? Well still everything it seems.
As far as NUS's campaigning response is concerned, the 'mass' lobby of parliament is hardly likely to be that with details to be kept under wraps. The reason is apparently that the Government is so scared of Labour-controlled NUS, that if a date for the lobby is set and publicised, then the Government will move their announcement around it. As a result, the lobby will be called at just 72 hours notice, as soon as the student spending review is announced, and the union will only publicise it direct to union officers. This seems to have been taken straight out of the 'How to minimise participation' manual and will ensure that the Government has nothing whatsoever to worry about, as only on-message union officers will get to go, meaning that there is no chance of a high-profile event. Those amateurs in the Countryside Alliance (22nd Sept) and Anti-War movement (28th Sept) have fallen straight into this trap, and will surely have lots of individuals with minds of their own attending their publicised-in-advance events!
Of course any changes to university finance are supposedly in the name of achieving the Holy Grail of 50% of under 30's to have had a 'higher education experience' by 2010 and increasing participation from all socio-economic groups. Of course it doesn't take much scratching of the surface to see that it may well have more to do with privatisation in line with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Why else would the very institutions that achieve the sort of participation levels which are supposedly the target be dragged down.
A report titled The Internal Economy of UK Higher Education Institutions
1994-2000, and Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK" has shown that post-92 universities and colleges are 'efficient, widen access and economically important'. However, since all the government cares about is raising numbers across the board, these very institutions are the ones hardest hit. Ivy League universities are given more money to 'widen participation' than those post 1992 universities which have excellent participation levels, and since 1998, caps on student numbers at 'top' universities have been removed, allowing them to poach students from places with less of a reputation, who in turn have lost funding as they have missed the higher targets for student numbers and been labelled as 'failing'.
The reality is that despite winning a graduate employability survey last year, the University of Luton is receiving a 10% real terms cut in 2002-3 even though it takes 99% of its students from state schools, and well over a third come from the poorest social classes. Currently, the Government is spending less in real terms than the Conservatives did from 1992-1997. The amount spent on each student's education has fallen by more than 30 per cent in the last 20 years. Universities like Warwick, Nottingham, Exeter, Bristol, and York have seen a surge in applications, with the AUT warning that Luton, South Bank, Lincoln, Greenwich, Hull, the University of North London (now London Metropolitan University), Coventry, and Leicester could all go to the wall. Other Universities which face mounting debts due to a drop in numbers include Sunderland, Derby, East London, Liverpool John Moores, Teesside and Nottingham Trent, though the crisis is not limited here as last year for the first time ever, the HE sector as a whole ran at a loss last year of £50.6 million.
Speaking in response to the The Internal Economy of UK Higher Education Institutions 1994-2000, and Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK" report, NATFHE General Secretary Paul Mackney, said:
"It's clear that the new universities are the government's greatest asset for delivering its stated objective of widening university access to non-traditional students from working class and ethnic minority communities. A majority of ethnic minority, mature and poorer students are in new universities. The post-92 sector is in the forefront of integrating FE and HE provision, creating pathways into HE for
non-traditional students. Given this impressive evidence it is hard to understand how the government could consider allowing universities which are successfully delivering on these objectives to go to the wall. I hope that ministers will pay close attention to this information in the HE review."
Sally Hunt, also attacked unattainable targets on student numbers and the ruthless approach to struggling institutions;
" The government is in danger of creating a new elitism in higher education, and could unwittingly undermine equality of opportunity for lots of students. The introduction of a dog-eat-dog approach to funding in higher education would be absolutely unacceptable. If the Government goes through with these appalling proposals, then some areas may well end up with no university at all. The only way to end the crisis is to increase government spending to sustainable levels. Currently the Government is spending less on universities than the Tories did in the mid-1990s. If the government allows these institutions to go to the wall, its proclaimed goal of widening access to higher education will be set back by 30 years."
Just in the nick of time (though who knows how much attention will get paid), a survey produced by Paisley University, which with a 26% dropout rate has the highest in Scotland, has confirmed that increasing dropout rates are caused by financial problems, not academic workload.
Related Articles
Independent, Debt-fearing students shun universities
AUT, 80 per cent want big rise in higher education funding
AUT, Nation's universities in crisis
NUS Online, Majority of public want government to invest in HE
The Sun, Grants to return
The Herald, Hard work is not bane of university drop-outs
Observer, Student payouts to balance 'top-up' fees by universities
Guardian, Wanted: students
Guardian, Down the US route
Guardian, 80% want rise in university funding
Guardian, Funding crisis deepens
Times, Unpopular universities 'may go to the wall'
