Forum Brief: University funding reform

Following the publishing of the higher education white paper by the Department for Education and Skills, higher education minister Margaret Hodge has invited ePolitix.com Forum members to express their views.

Forum Response: Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Gwen Evans, joint acting general secretary for ATL, said: "The news that more students will have a widening access into higher education is welcome but we were also looking to the government to invest in the future by being willing to write off student debt for graduates who go into underpaid but crucial areas - for example in schools as support staff or as teachers.

"We know that newly qualified teachers are starting with five figure debts now. The future prospect for the teaching profession in five years time is grim unless the government produces effective proposals very quickly."

Forum Response: Professional Association of Teachers

Jean Gemmell, general secretary for PAT, said: "Although deferring payment until after graduation is better than paying up-front, we remain very concerned about high levels of student debt.

"Allowing universities to charge even higher tuition fees is bound to deter many - especially those from families on lower incomes. We do not want to see a two-tier system of higher education, with only the rich able to afford to go to those universities charging higher fees.

"Bringing back maintenance grant is welcome, but, it seems, they will be only for the very poorest students. PAT would like to see a national maintenance allowance for all students in full-time tertiary education or training. This would be an investment in our young people.

"A massive increase in funding for higher education institutions is needed too, as an investment in the future of our country.

"As a teachers' union, PAT has long been concerned about the ability of young teachers to pay off student debts and we are worried that this is deterring many from becoming teachers. We await with interest details of the reports that new public sector employees may have their debts paid off.

"Most graduates faced with student debts, high house prices - and now deferred tuition fee payments as well - will naturally seek careers paying the highest salaries - which does not include teaching! When tuition fees were introduced, we warned that they would deter students by burdening them with debt and making the start of their professional life very difficult. Sadly, it seems that we have been proved right.

"We hear of newly qualified teachers leaving teaching because they could not repay their loans and pay for accommodation on a teacher's salary - at a time when there is a recruitment crisis in the classroom.

"It is wrong to finance students through loans, leaving them massively in debt at the age of 21. It seems that the prospect of debt is deterring many applicants from going to university, and this means that society loses outtoo.

"With student fees, large mortgages, dwindling pension returns and high living and transport costs, I am concerned that many young people will be swamped by what is becoming a in-debt society."

Forum Response: National Union Teachers

Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "Young people from less well off families will think twice before contemplating a university education. This will have a downward impact in schools and lead to a greater reluctance to take on such heavy debts. Differential top up fees will exacerbate the inequalities of opportunity which already exist in higher education.

"The government should build on success by making the necessary funding available. It should not penalise those who go to university and discourage others from continuing their education beyond 18.

"Wiping out the debts of those graduates who go into public sector employment for a stated period will have a short term impact on teacher recruitment. But it will not guarantee retention nor will it ensure a committed teaching force even for the period required to qualify for wiping out of the debt."

Forum Response: Imperial College London

Sir Richard Sykes, rector of Imperial College London, said: "The proposal to introduce an 'Access Regulator' is designed for party political purposes. Regulation is a blunt tool. Too often regulation further distorts a system rather than rectifying it. We're moving from education, education, education to regulation, regulation, regulation.

"Imperial College's admission policies and procedures are based on academic merit whatever the background of the student. The issue at Imperial, as elsewhere in the UK and abroad, is that of quality of the supply. Universities should not be expected to address problems of schooling, peer pressure and family expectations found in some parts of society.

"The College is pleased that it teaches its fair proportion of students from poor areas and social groups III to V, as judged by the HEFCE benchmarks. Imperial has many projects designed to raise aspiration and achievement in city schools.

"We will continue to welcome able students but admitting students onto our science, engineering and medical courses without them having the proper skills and prior knowledge to succeed would be unfair to them as well as others on the course."

Forum Response: NATFHE

Paul Mackney, general secretary for NATFHE, said: "Despite some positive elements such as the restoration of student grants - albeit modest, NATFHE is vehemently opposed to the introduction of variable tuition fees. This will undermine the coherence of the UK HE system and the further impoverish the new universities - which already only receive 40 per cent of funding while catering for 60 per cent of students.

"Variable fees will put even more pressure on potential students from poor and modest backgrounds to choose courses and universities on the basis of cost. This will reinforce the class-based nature of higher education. Mature students in particular, many with financial and family commitments, will find little in these proposals to help them into HE.

"We welcome the deferment of fee payment. Repayment thresholds for fees should be at above average earnings for graduates, and the entitlement to a grant should be extended. However, the real debate is about a change in educational principles and the abandonment of the right to higher education on the basis of ability to study, not the ability to pay or repay.

"The fact remains that the poorest students will have to pay more. There is no justification for this and it contradicts the government's widening access aims. This gradual transference of the state's role onto individuals is a disturbing trend echoed elsewhere in the public sector."

Forum Response: Universities UK

Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, said: "Universities UK is pleased that today's white paper recognises the success and contribution of universities to the health of the UK. In addition to its outline plans for funding the sector, it contains a number of proposals to ensure that the sector remains competitive and responsive. Universities UK will be considering these carefully and talking to government over the coming months.

"We are pleased the government has recognised that the sector needs substantial investment. In the spending review settlement for 2002 also published today it has made a real contribution to filling the funding gap, and has acknowledged some of the investment needs identified in our submission to the Spending Review. This is reflected in the overall annual real terms increase of six per cent.

"We calculate that there is some £3.7 billion additional public investment in HE for England over the spending review period plus an additional £0.8 billion for student support. This is welcome news and when set against current funding amounting to £6 billion per year (excluding student support) is a substantial increase.

"Universities UK will now look at the details of the recommendations for institutional funding and examine closely the extent to which new money is earmarked to fund specific government initiatives. Clearly any new money available for teaching through the block grant would be reduced by these initiatives. We also note the government's comments on developing research in universities. We will want to look closely at the proposals for new systems of allocation.

"It is good news for institutions that the £170 million made available as a special initiative under Spending Review 2000 on HR strategies will be consolidated into institutions' core grants from 2004/05. This is something for which Universities UK has campaigned.

"In the longer term, we note the steps taken in the white paper to make changes to the student contribution, including the deferment of repayment of an increased tuition fee. We take some reassurance from the announcement that universities will receive an immediate income equivalent to the value of the fee from government following the removal of an upfront fee contribution from the student. Universities UK has said it will judge any new funding mechanism on the extent to which it brings additional new money to the sector.

"We note the new funding arrangements, including the increased access premium, outlined in the white paper, which will help ensure that future expansion is better supported. Universities UK acknowledges the government response to our proposal for the reintroduction of targeted maintenance support - this will go some way towards addressing concerns over debt aversion among potential students from poorer backgrounds.

"Universities UK welcomes the increased emphasis in the white paper on widening participation - all UK universities support a properly funded 50 per cent target and we are already working hard in this area. We note the proposal to introduce an Access Regulator but we remain to be convinced what value a regulator would add to performance indicators and funding mechanisms already in place to encourage access. This is in addition to the government's acceptance that the biggest barrier to university entry is attainment and aspiration in schools.

"We are pleased that the government will finance our proposals for a Leadership Foundation to help university management meet the competitive challenges which the white paper describes.

"We are also pleased that our work with HEFCE on an agency for teaching enhancement is so fully supported. In addition, we will be assessing the regulatory burden of many of the paper's proposals including those for the assessment to determine centres of teaching excellence.

"Universities UK believes the white paper makes a generous acknowledgement of the successful contribution universities have made. It also contains many detailed proposals which we will now be looking at very carefully."

Forum Response: Institute of Electrical Engineers

Dr Alf Roberts, chief executive for IEE, said: "Increased funding is now critical if our best Universities are not to lose their world-class status.

"The rapid expansion of the higher education sector without a corresponding increase in funding has caused Engineering Schools particular problems. Rapidly changing technology means that keeping facilities and equipment in these Schools up-to-date is an expensive business. Lack of resources to meet these costs means that the facilities and equipment we offer to students is increasingly poor in comparison with other developed countries and some developing ones.

"Without urgent remedy this situation will have inevitable consequences for the quantity and quality of engineers available to UK business and industry from UK universities."

"Whilst increased student tuition fees may be seen as a disincentive for some students, there is a strong argument that those who benefit from university education should contribute to the costs. What is important, and is welcome in this announcement, is that they should not be expected to pay unless they have indeed benefited.

"It is essential however that, if students are to receive a better education for their increased fees, these extra resources do supplement existing funding rather than replace funding from general taxation."

Forum Response: UCET

A spokesman for UCET told ePolitix.com: "UCET welcomes the promise of increased funding to HE sector and seeks reassurance that the benefits of the promised increases will apply to teacher education programmes funded via TTA, but is concerned that it may be insufficient to alleviate the current problems in recruiting and retaining high quality experienced professionals as teacher educators.

"UCET is concerned lest the prospect of greater personal debt militates against the present high levels of recruitment to ITT courses and notes also a possible threat to the future of 4 year B Ed and BA/BSc [with QTS] programmes, given present bursary and other inducements in favour of a 3 year degree plus PGCE route to QTS.

"We also wonder whether the proposal to link top-up fees to access might not have unintended consequences for HEIs, principally post 1992 universities and HE colleges who already have high proportions of ITT students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Such students if faced with the prospect of relatively higher fees and larger future debt than previously might be deterred from training as teachers. Careful attention should be given to this point especially in the principal urban contexts.

"UCET is concerned that 'stratification' of universities with respect to teaching and research might impact negatively on the development of teacher education, given current conceptions of teaching as an evidence and research based profession."