Flow of Ideas: contributions - New Labour and Variable Tuition Fees by Alison Tuffs

Customer Relationship Managment through Library Automation Systems by Indrani Bhattacharyya

Education Studies - Louise Jemmett

Free University of Brighton by Koos Couvée

Learned Helpfulness by Steve Osmond

Learning Outcomes by John Crocitti

Mental Health Provision by Steve Osmond

New Labour and Variable Tuition Fees by Alison Tuffs

Paul Willis and Learning to Labour - James Thomson

Robert Owen on Education by Neil Southwell

The Role of Business in Education - Sharon Illiff

Universities - Amy Leach

Universities - Michaela Starkey

New Labour and Variable Tuition Fees in Higher Education

A Critical Review of New Labour’s Policy towards Variable Tuition Fees in Higher Education

Alison Tuffs, Education Studies Student, School of Education, University College Northampton, February 2004

When New Labour came to power in 1997, the education system was suffering from years of under-investment and neglect (Bogdanor, 2003). It was clear that universities needed more money, but the government chose to prioritise educational provision for the under fives. The Dearing Report in 1997 established a need for more university funding, so the government implemented up-front tuition fees for students – establishing a progressive repayment scheme in line with salary. Since the last election, as David Blunkett puts it, there is increasing pressure on Britain to “compete in an increasingly global sector”, which clearly requires further resources - so an increase in cost. New Labour claims that its policy is intended to widen access to higher education, increasing the proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups [1]. Believing an increase in fees that were payable up-front would hit hard upon the families who are borderline in the means testing system, they chose to abolish up-front tuition fees. Instead, variable fee packages are to be introduced in 2006 – allowing institutions to charge up to £3,000 per year for tuition. This, New Labour states, will secure a future income for universities and aid the student by deferring payment of fees.

The White Paper, The Future of Higher Education emphasises the need to ‘compete on an international market’ and ‘sell higher education’ abroad (Campbell, 2003), epitomising its neo-liberal ideology. According to Wolf (2003), “its proposals…offer a route towards a freer, more varied and more globally competitive university system” and that “without dynamic universities, Britain will become a backwater”. This emphasis on competitive markets is apparent throughout all sectors of New Labour’s education policy.

The obvious arguments in favour of these measures seem reasonable enough on the surface, but when examined deeper can be considered as flawed. A common reaction to the issue is that those who benefit from higher education should finance it. This immediately suggests the student, but is it not the case that every member of society is in need of teachers, doctors and lawyers? Graduates can expect to earn around £220,000 more than undergraduates (Straw, 2003, p.38), but the British tax system is designed to tax the rich more than the poor - so graduates do in effect end up paying towards their education.

Despite widespread opposition both within and outside the Labour Party, the Bill was passed earlier this year. There are however still concerns about the introduction of variable tuition fees. Straw (2003) argues that it is ‘the erosion of maintenance grants and the principle of free education…which is contributing to the failure of a shift in the social make up of universities”. Referring to research published this year, he shows that the number of students from the lowest socio-economic group has declined by 5% in around ten years, and claims that the deterrent is debt. Firstly he states that only 7% of 16-18 year olds would qualify for the proposed grant of £1,000 (increased to £1500 (Goddard, 2004) and with average student’s living costs at around £6,200 per year, the support package available would still not be sufficient income. Faced with debts of up to £30,000 (Abrams, 2003), poorer students are less likely to apply. Although the government states that “higher education remains one of the best investments a young person can make”, Straw (2003) notes that ‘investing in ones future’ is an extremely middle class notion. Claire Callender [2] (in Abrams, 2003) supports this statement, saying that “fear of debt is a class issue. It puts off students from lower income families more than it does those from well-off backgrounds.” Straw also notes that although uncommon, some graduates do in fact earn less than non-graduates (2003, p.36). A recent analysis by Bekhrania (in Abrams) ‘found no evidence that students were likely to be put off by top-up fees’ and that in countries such as Australia and Canada poorer students have not been deterred. In America, says Abrams, drop out rates improved by the introduction of better financial support, despite top-up fees.

Further opposition to the Bill highlighted the probability of a two-tier system of universities emerging. Due to the fact that fees are variable (according to course and institution), universities can charge up to £3,000 per year. Newer universities that take in a large proportion of students from lower incomes would prefer to charge ‘modest fees’, but will also be expected to find £300 per year per student for those who require bursaries (Goddard, 2004). This will result in a real variation between standards in universities – and institutions will be under pressure to charge the maximum fees. Wolf (2003) claims that it is an ‘obvious reality’ that “universities do – and must – differ”, and this is true, but they should differ on the grounds of ability, not wealth. Campbell (2003) explains the situation: “Students from low income families will get £1,125 paid towards their fees, and will get a grant of £1,000 [now £1500]. This means that should they chose to go to, say, Cambridge to study law they would still have to find £875 [£375] towards their fees.” Furthermore, the maximum student loan falls short of living costs by thousands of pounds. Faced with a financial situation such as this, the number of low income students attending top universities is likely to reduce substantially.

The government are aware of the problems in encouraging working class students to continue their education post sixteen, and in an attempt to increase intake have, this week, introduced the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) (Blair, 2004). This is aimed at encouraging low-income students to remain in study by paying them a maximum of £30 per week. This seems to be an empty gesture – faced with the option of working full time for a full time wage, or staying in education for £30, many students will simply not have a choice.

New Labour claims that students accept that higher education is an investment and ‘vote with their feet’. However wider social issues must be considered. There has been, for example, a massive increase in young people suffering from stress and depression, and increase in drug and alcohol abuse. Students are doing what they feel is necessary in attending university – if the system demands fees, then fees must be paid - but have significant concerns about their financial situations both during study and after graduation. Sixty percent of students have to work in order to make up the finances they need to get through higher education (Campbell, 2003), and this can have negative effects on study.

When Tony Blair became leader of the Labour party in 1994, he stated that the last thing he wanted was “a Tory economy with a bit of social compassion” (in Chitty, 2004, p.59). It seems that this, as well as the statement of 1997: “Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education” (ibid.), have been forgotten. Through the introduction of this higher education policy, New Labour has taken a step further in its journey away from social fairness and a step closer to the traditional ideologies of its Tory opposition.

Notes:

[1] See: http://www.labour.org.uk/education

[2] Professor of Social Policy at South Bank University, London

Additional note: Some points relate to appendices which could not be included here

References

Abrams, F. (2003) Who’s afraid of the big bad debt? In ‘Times Educational Supplement’ 05/12/03. Anon, (2004) Australian student fees, 1 page at: http://www.australia-migration.com/page/Australian_Student_Fees/200 accessed 25/03/04.

Anon (2003) Fees jump for California students 1 page at: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/07/14/daily33.html accessed 25/03/04.

Anon (2004) Higher Education Briefing, 15 pages at: http://www.labour.org.uk/education

Blair, T. (2004) Untitled, at: http://www.labour.org.uk/tbheippr

Bogdanor, V. (2003) Students Must Learn to Pay their Way, The Observer: 26/01/03.

Campbell, S. (2003) Education Betrayal, in ‘Socialist Review’ No. 280: Dec 2003.

Chitty, C. (2004) Education Policy in Britain, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goddard, A. (2004) Grants gamble to save bill in ‘Times Educational Supplement’, 09/01/04.

Marshall, B. (2003) Why I no longer believe in free degrees, in ‘Times Educational Supplement’, 10/10/03.

Straw, W (2003) Education for all – widening access to higher education, in ‘Education Review’, Vol.16 No2 (Summer).

Wolf, M. (2003) A just way to pay for universities, Financial Times, 12/12/03.

© Alison Tuffs, 26th February 2008

Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links

current date time:

Website Design and Coding by Digo PC

Site optimisation by Bytec Solutions