By Dan Box
Charles Clarke's white paper on university funding is a product of the contradictions that drive the New Labour project.
These contrary forces are best described by two decisions that dominate the government's education policy, the effect of which will only be felt in the years after their time in power.
Labour sources say the twin themes of these proposals, to widen access to university and increasing the cost of that education, were driven by Downing Street. In attempting to couple the engines of market economy and social equality, they betray the hand of Tony Blair.
Blair sees his Third Way as bringing together the "necessary acts of modernisation" of Thatcher's economic reforms with old Labour values of social democracy in one, unstoppable force. The double advantage is that he believes this is possible and that doing so puts him the middle ground where elections are won.
Announcing the government's proposals, education secretary Charles Clarke spoke of the need for hard choices, of the fight against "the attractions of inaction" which have led others to duck the challenges of university reform.
But while his talk is of the need for tough decisions, the plans he has laid on the table avoid them by trying to please everybody, wallpapering over the contradictions this involves.
So the idea that 50% of under-30s should go to university is plucked from the air, and reiterated by Clarke, to appeal to socialist principles of education for the masses.
Equally, the new government regulator, already dubbed 'Off-toff', will force universities to improve access for the poorest students.
To balance these, New Labour abolishes the grant and introduces tuition fees, then raises the price of those fees to three times their original limit. Thus the Third Way tries to satisfy old Labour principles while fulfilling a Conservative ambition, one which even Thatcher never dared attempt.
The driving force behind these decisions is not so much a concern for education as for the ideology and appeal, of this government. The problem is that the pull of these contradictory forces threatens to tear the system apart.
Following his decision to introduce fees, the then education secretary, David Blunkett, described the role of universities as existing to serve the "knowledge-based economy." If this is so, then economic laws of supply and demand will dictate the price paid for what they produce. As the jobs market is flooded with graduates waving first degrees as a result of the relentless drive towards that 50% target, the individual value of those qualifications must fall.
In terms of economic benefit, as the stepping-stone to a career, a degree is worth less now than in 1990, when only 20% of under-30s went to university. To throw the same weight around the job market it becomes necessary to gain a post-graduate qualification, which means another hammer-blow of between £10-50,000+ in debt.
Even without this, with average debts of up to £21,000 on graduation, these proposals will result not in a knowledge-based economy, but one driven by those with no option but to work at any level to pay for what they have learnt.
Further compounding the contradiction, the proposed form of graduate repayments exacerbates those social barriers the 50% target works to overcome.
By imposing a scheme where debt is repaid by graduates at a fixed rate, rather than as a tax on their income, those who already earn least at work, such as women and ethnic minorities, will have to face the same debts with less means to meet them.
Already market forces are beginning to rule against those who cannot afford to ignore them. One in three students polled this week by MORI said they would not have opted for their first choice university if it had charged higher fees.
In the same poll, being able to live at home was said to be a major factor in their choice of university for 35% of students from working class background. Only 13% of those from professional families admitted to having their prospects limited in the same way. All this is before the proposals detailed in the new white paper have begun to bite.
Increasing the limit of tuition fees charged by universities will mean that the poorest end up paying more for the best courses, directly undermining the ambitions of the access regulator.
While the basic £1100 tuition fee will still be means-tested, with the government subsidising those from the poorest backgrounds, universities will be free to add to this price, up to a total of £3000 per year. This remaining £1900 will not be means tested. So the best universities will cost more.
Supporters of the plans argue that those whose combined family income is less than £20,000 can apply for a grant towards these costs. Yet the maximum proposed figure of £1000 available is still less than the maximum £1710 per year payable before Labour scrapped grants in 1997.
New Labour is happy to let the headline writers worry about 'Top-up fees.' The words are disingenuous, a saccharine media tag which conveniently disguises the reality of an almost 200% hike in price.
In reality, this is not even an argument about that £3000 figure, but about what will come after. Dissenters in the party describe this white paper as the litany for free university education and the first step towards privatisation of the sector.
The £3000 limit will only apply until 2011; with hindsight, if fees made top-up fees inevitable, this new limit will only be extended. Ultimately, this government will not be in office forever. For whoever comes after, it will only take one decision to loose the reins.
In truth, our universities do desperately need the money these new fees will generate, and it is brave of New Labour not to duck an unpopular decision. The problem lies in the contradiction which lies at the heart of these recent proposals.
By encouraging those who will find it hardest to go to university, while massively raising the cost of doing so, the Third Way aims to appeal to both sides in the argument for a solution. Only in the next few decades will we know if it succeeds, or fails, to do so.
|
Funding Campaign- Tools, Information & Advice.
|
| >>
Charles Clarke has now delivered the White Paper which will map out student and university funding in the future.
As expected it contains a lot of bad news, with debts of over £20k planned and funding cuts in other areas which will see us move closer to a two-tier system of Higher Education.
So here is a resource centre for student activists to help oppose the proposals.
White Paper Summary & what you can do
 | Left A poster template for
the national lobby. To access a word version RIGHT click here and choose 'save target as'
Right If you can get them done, here's a template of a postcard to send to MPs. Click Here to see more |  |
| >>
Amnesty International say a letter is worth ten protesters,
so here's the easy way to get a letter to your MP. You may not believe this, but not all MPs have published email addresses.
However, you can go straight to a web based fax form just by entering your postcode. More Info and Petitions
|
|
