All posts tagged Education

Reflecting on the tuition fees vote

by John Peart on December 15, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
fees

Some members of the student movement will likely feeling a sense of deja vu right around now. Not 10 years ago, students were campaigning against the initial introduction of tuition fees. Another generation will be remembering the same circumstance in 2004, when fees were tripled under the then Labour government. They lost that battle then and no doubt told themselves that they hadn’t lost the war.

It’s just under a week since the Coalition government voted to again triple fees, and whilst I vaguely remember what was happening in 2004, as an 13 year old outsider sat in a school classroom at a poor performing school that was within a cat’s whisker from special measures, I didn’t expect to be in the same position as my predecessors just 6 years later.

My first taste of NUS was in 2008. A fresh-faced bewildered officer from a FE union in Somerset, I sat on conference floor watching Gemma Tumelty and Wes Streeting asking delegates to support a change in direction over the Union’s fees policy. It was clear then that the coming battle over fees would be radically different this time round. And indeed it was, not only was NUS being taken far more seriously in political circles – both Labour and Conservative alike (Lord Mandelson even commented to a then NEC member that NUS would “be far harder to ignore now”) – but we also faced an unprecedented change in the proposals we’d expected to be put forward.

The situation we face right now is extraordinary. No one seriously expected fees of £9,000 even six months ago, most commentators were expecting fees around £6,000. No one expected swathing cuts to all subjects except those that were STEM related. No one expected a that the Lib Dems, in government, would u-turn on one of their most popular policies. No one expected that Labour, after introducing fees and then tripling them – albeit in times of increased investment in the sector – would turn out to be the ones opposing this as a step too far. But this is the situation we are in.

There will be a lot of people out there right now looking for answers; looking to blame someone; looking for a scapegoat; wondering if we did enough. People with ifs and buts and whys and wherefores. And that’s to be expected. As someone that has seen this play out from the near beginning, as a conference delegate to a member of NUS’ NEC, I’m doing exactly the same thing. The conclusion I keep coming to however, is that we did all we could.

The policy was sound. The campaign was strong. The pledge was the best idea we have ever had. The national demonstration was amazing. The lobby was one of the best I’ve been involved with. The media coverage was excellent. The involvement and dedication of officers in students’ unions and members of the NEC – including the majority of the body that are unpaid volunteers – was out of this world. Everything was in the right place, everything should have worked. We did absolutely everything we could have done and then some.

In the end it was the Liberal Democrat party that cost us this vote and that’s a situation no one expected even 6 months ago. The government majority was exactly the same size as the number of Lib Dem ministers that voted in favour of the tuition fees increases. And I’m not casting these comments to be party political about it – I voted for a Lib Dem in the last election based on his promise to vote against (which he then broke) – but the facts speak for themselves.

NUS has a lot to be proud of right now; though it may not feel like it. NUS has inspired a movement bigger than the sum of its parts over the past several months. Those that attempt to detract from what this organisation has achieved are, I believe, blinded by their emotions over this issue right now and that’s why we see the reaction we have from the membership. This was a battle we didn’t deserve to lose and that makes it all the more painful to reconcile. But this is not over.

The government have only voted through a fees increase; the skeleton of the new framework, if you like. Now is the time we recollect, coordinate, unite and start over. We do not abandon our principles, we do not attack our leadership, we do not look for failings where there are none. We need to work together now to ensure that these proposals are either reversed – pressuring the opposition to use its powers to bring forward new legislation based on the Blueprint, swinging the debate back in our favour – and if that fails we need to ensure that the new package genuinely is better for students than the current one. If the government wants to profess this new repayment package is fairer than the old one and that the market can benefit students, we need to force them to prove it.

Now is the time the student movement shows what it can really do; make students lives better. We know we can do that, now we need to show everyone else we remember how.

Demos and NUS

by John Peart on December 7, 2010 in Demonstrations, Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
demo1

There has been some controversy about what NUS’ stance is over demonstrations taking place on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Most of this is based on a poorly reported article in The Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/student-protests-nus-vote

This controversy is founded because the NEC haven’t made the decision we have been reported to.

NUS has continued to state its support for demonstrations and direct action that is peaceful and lawful. We do not however pretend to be the only route through which students can be activists. NUS believes that a variety of tactics will be required to defeat the government’s proposed cuts and fees rises. We are prioritising a set of activities within Parliament on Thursday because there are already demonstrations occuring, organised by EAN and NCAFC.

That does not mean NUS are opposed to the actions being taken without it on Thursday, and indeed whilst NEC members will be inside Parliament, they will also be on the ground supporting the protests outside.

The motion that was sent to NEC asked NUS to call for – i.e. organise – a second national demonstration on Thursday. To organise something is totally different to supporting the action. By not calling for a second demonstration, we are not saying we don’t support Thursday’s demonstrations. We do.

Aaron Porter, National President, has written to the Guardian to clarify the position, here: http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/news/article/nus/1135/

Responding to Howard

by John Peart on November 9, 2010 in Education, LSESU, Student Movement, The Beaver, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
demo2

It might have been freezing outside, but at last week’s UGM, it was certainly heating up as Howard Davies, emperor penguin and Director of LSE, was in attendance. We, like hundreds of other students, turned out ready to grill Howard and see if there was any substance behind his objections to the Students’ Union’s Freeze the Fees campaign.

We left the the UGM feeling angry, concerned and questioning the intentions of our Director.

During his opening remarks, Howard revealed the Council just signed off on a £38 million purchase of new property at Lincoln’s Inn Fields – at the same time, we are cutting £1 million from the School’s teaching budget. We are concerned about what Howard’s priorities are. When will LSE’s spending spree, which will total £213 million in capital expansion, end? And at what point will the School realise we don’t need endless new buildings, we need fee levels that are low and accessible to the broadest range of students possible.

We are also concerned about Howard’s comments on fees and cross-subsidisation. In his opening remarks, and during his answers to questions, Howard was arguing he was “uneasy” about the gap between fees for home undergraduate students and international students, effectively attempting to divide the student body and pit these groups against each other.

We too are uneasy that international students are subsidising home and EU undergraduate courses, but Howard is not making this argument because he cares about the welfare of students from overseas – he is making this argument to try and justify a blanket fees increase.

On the issue of education sector cuts, we are equally concerned. We are disappointed that Howard has refused to support the efforts of the National Union of Students and the University and College Union this Wednesday, as thousands of lecturers and students march together on Parliament to defend education funding and ask again what his priorities are: survival at any cost with ever higher fees or standing up for the principles of social justice and equality on which this institution was founded on.

And on widening participation we are dumbfounded by Howard’s audacity at claiming this institution has a good record of attracting students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As an institution we are not even top of the Russell Group in terms of widening access, doing worse than both Warwick and Imperial College, and the Group’s record is already worse than every other mission group in the UK. Having just 15 per cent of students from these backgrounds is nothing to be proud of – it’s less than half the national average.

And though Howard thinks, and is arguably right, that freezing fees is a blunt tool to use for access, it is surely better than a failed bursary system that leaves £19 million a year unspent nationally and on out-reach programmes targeted at a minute amount of people.

We are disappointed at Howard’s poorly structured arguments, by his pre-occupation with maintaining a £19.2 million budget surplus, double that which is required by government, rather than prioritising those people he is here to support – students – and his opposition to keeping this school progressive and allowing the market to control this institution rather than its guiding principles.

The Dearing Compact is Dead

by John Peart on October 26, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Beaver, Tuition Fees with No comments
2342578485_528c342f0a

Back in 1997, when tuition fees were first on the agenda of the then Labour government, Lord Dearing’s report on higher education funding argued that those who benefit from higher education could reasonably be expected to pay a fraction of the cost of that course. The since cherished ‘Dearing Compact’ saw higher education as a funding coalition of sorts, between the state, the student and the employer, with each expected to pony up their fair share in line with the benefits derived from the system.

Only 13 years later, the Browne Review, released earlier this month, fired a warning shot at this compact. The entire report was based on an assumption that there would be severe cuts in the higher education budget in the near future, totalling 80 percent of the teaching grant awarded to universities annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and a targeting of funding towards subjects deemed to be more economically viable.

Lo and behold, in a chick-and-egg style scenario, George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stood at the dispatch box in the House of Commons on Wednesday announcing the very same figures, with 7 percent cuts to the budget for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills every year for the next 4 years and real terms costs to science funding. In order words, the Coalition has declared the end of public funding of higher education and a destruction of the Dearing Compact.

An so we see, born from the ashes of the last fortnight’s disaster zone, the creation of the “Browne Compact”. No longer is there a mutual balance between the student, the state and the employer, instead the Government sees fit to agree that the sole contributor to higher education should be the graduate and edge towards a true market in education.

Whatever way you try and look at this, it is a total disaster for students, and for higher education as a whole.

The sector was braced for cuts, but not on this scale. The inevitable outcome of the demolition of the higher education budget is that fees, at the most cash strapped institutions at least, will have to rise to at least double their current levels in order to sustain the same level of student experience. Of course, realistically, this will not happen in the way envisioned. The market in fees will not be based on sustaining quality and competition of course outcomes, but instead prices will be weighted based on league tables and prestige.

The reality of this new Browne Compact is that elite universities will charge the highest fees because of their league table positions, and other less prestigious, but arguably better universities, will be forced to charge lower fees in order to remain competitive in the market. Of course this is wrong in two respects. Firstly because league tables are heavily skewed towards research output – no fair way to set a fee level when the research has very little impact on your teaching – and secondly, it creates a widening gap between elite institutions that don’t need money – both because of their reliance on private funding and large cash reserves. That does not benefit students in terms of their debt burden and it doesn’t benefit students who could be herded like cattle into their lectures, have even less access to good resources than they do now and ultimately receive a terrible student experience.

Of course the principles that form this new model are deeply flawed in themselves.

Lord Browne and the Government believe higher fees will mean quality is driven upwards in universities because students will have freedom to move funding around the system. In fact the opposite can be illustrated even at LSE. Fees for virtually every course have increased at rates equal to or above inflation for the last 6 years, and yet student satisfaction rates have fallen. And this is from an institution that already charges some of the highest fees in the world for postgraduate and international students. It proves that the market is inefficient at correcting these problems and justifying cuts and fees increases on the basis of improved choice and competition is flawed.

Student debt already stands at an average of £24,000 on graduation. Under these proposals, debt would virtually double to around £40,000 and would not carry any additional benefit. Rather it would merely prop up universities that are having the funding cut from the other end. Students should not be expected to pay more for less.

The true argument for higher fees however, is to support deficit reduction. In fact that was the reason that the truly progressive option of a graduate contribution, like that put forward but the National Union of Students in its Blueprint from Higher Education, was dismissed as unworkable. The argument is that the substitution of funding from government to student will the Government can reduce the deficit meaning a better further for that same generation of undergraduates. Of course what they conveniently forget is that increased fees mean they have to loan out more money via student Finance England. The overall impact is that the Government is back to square one for the duration of the Parliament because they will have to spend the money upfront anyway.

And that poses the real question. Where should the debt burden fall? Given that student satisfaction across the sector has stagnated for the last 6 years despite increased funding and the trebling of fees and that graduate employment prospects are the worst they have been in a generation, is it fair to burden students with at least double the amount of debt that we will graduate with when the only real justification, when you wipe away the smokescreen, is deficit reduction?

You can’t expect students to pay more for the same, or worse, more for less. That’s not how the market works, and it would have Lord Dearing spinning in his grave.

Fees or taxes?

by John Peart on October 24, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Beaver, Tuition Fees with No comments
220155450_27a2afcca3

It is impossible to escape the growing argument over higher education funding and tuition fees in the media over the past six months. With each corner of the HE sector fighting over funding and a fragile coalition agreement preventing the Liberal Democrats from sticking to their long term commitment of scrapping fees, its clear that this explosive issue will be upsetting some.

The independent review into tuition fees and student finance, headed by former chief executive of BP, Lord Browne, is expected to present its report this month, after nearly a year of research. Depending on who you listen to, you may believe that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. With only one student on a panel made up predominantly of business leaders and university chiefs, it is easy to suspect that the review is a stitch up and will result in a recommendation that fees should increase. Indeed, the review has suffered several leaks which suggest this; the latest indicating that Browne favours a total lifting of the fees cap.

The political landscape surrounding this issue has changed significantly over the past year. Twelve months ago, increases in fees seemed inevitable; now a range of different options have been put forward from across sectors and has created a new debate about universities’ funding. The question is no longer “how high should fees go?” but instead, “how should students pay for their education?”
As it stands there are three serious options on the table.

The most simple is as following: the government may opt to ignore Browne’s purported recommendations and maintain the status quo, opting to avoid political backlash and upset to the coalition. This presents the biggest problem for the sector in many ways because the coalition, like the previous administration, is expected to make swathing cuts to universities in the near future. Some universities will be able to cope with this comfortably – as has been made clear by the LSE Students’ Union, the Russell Group and 1994 Group universities such as the LSE could still produce 4 per cent surpluses for up to ten years in this scenario – but most universities will have to stretch their resources to the limits. The class sizes in many of these institutions would likely increase, staff cutbacks would be on forefront of discussion and the position of the UK as a world class hub for education would be at risk. Whilst for the LSE, freezing fees is the best option, for the sector as a whole it is likely to do more harm than good.

Another option is to opt for what Browne is likely to suggest; an increase in fees by at least a factor of two, or perhaps even lifting the cap on UK fees entirely, bringing them in line with international student fees and creating a true market within higher education. This is the option preferred by Universities UK, the umbrella organisation for British higher education institutions, because fees have generated £1.3bn of additional investment in the sector, and many institutions are calling for an expansion of the system to allow for more during and after the forthcoming cycle of Government cutbacks. But this is probably the worst option for the end user of universities; students.

Not only does this increase the debt burden on students, up from an already staggering £24,000, but it also creates further strain on the Treasury, as currently, for every £1 that the Student Loans Company lends to pay fees and maintenance loans, it receives 67p back. This is wholly inefficient in itself, but when you consider that the Treasury also subsidises the interest on the loans as well, the system looks even more unsustainable at a time when the coalition is looking to make cuts.

It is also naïve for the sector to think that the Government won’t take advantage of this situation through its austerity measures. When fees were first introduced, it was on the provision that it would be additional income to the sector, not a supplement. In a new fees regime, no such promise would have to be kept and there is nothing to stop the coalition from making deeper than planned cuts if they feel universities can merely prop themselves up with fee income.

Poorer institutions will be affected the most as they find themselves charging lower fees than their cash-rich, prestigious rivals, to sustain student numbers and government funding. Again jobs will be on the line and the student experience will suffer; and the market would widen this cash gap over time making things worse.

As well as that, experience has shown that when fees increase for UK ‘home’ students, fees disproportionately increase for international students. In fact even with fees at their current levels, international fees have grown by an alarming rate year on year even though the National Student Survey has shown that they have contributed relatively little to improving the quality of experience for students studying here.

One of the main arguments in support of fees is that you can use higher fee income to target students from less well off backgrounds, who are generally also more debt-averse, with larger bursaries. That argument no longer stands on its own two feet however, as the Office for Fair Access, reported in September that bursaries are totally ineffective at doing just that.

The third option would be to radically change the system by introducing a graduate tax. The strength of the argument for such a system depends on the source of your figures, but it has certainly ignited discussion amongst the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party as a viable alternative.

The National Union of Students, who first put forward the idea, have gained widespread support for the system which sees an end to fees and an introduction of a small levy for a fixed period on earnings with a maximum and minimum payment threshold. NUS claim that under such a system, a majority of students would pay less than they would with fees and that there would be far less reliance on the Treasury because the system would sustain itself.

This system has been attacked on many fronts, not least because it doesn’t solve the problems surrounding international student fees either, that it may lead to a brain drain as people move abroad to avoid the tax and that it is too costly initially for the Government to support as it would require them to pump billions of pounds in to the system in the first few years – something which contrasts with the coalition’s budget plans.

Coalition ministers have already reminded us that “it is the job of reviews to make recommendations and the job of Government to make decisions”, but just how easy this decision will be and how much more students will be expected to pay remains to be seen until the vote in Parliament.

The Graduate Tax

by John Peart on July 16, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
Easy Money

Yesterday, in his first public speech on higher education, Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, showed the clearest sign yet that a simple rise in the top rate of tuition fees was not as much of a dead-cert as some thought. In fact it was a policy first put forward by the National Union of Students, proposing an income linked ‘graduate tax’, that was put front and centre in the keynote.

Dr Cable is now on record showing support for a graduate contribution scheme that replaces the current fees system and is believed not to be the only one in the coalition government with that view. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have also apparently been keen to make sure that the Browne Review – set up last year to examine the current tuition fees system and how it needs to change – looks seriously at introducing a graduate tax.

There has been much debate over the past 24 hours as to whether this is a good or bad thing.

I’m going to address some of those concerns here.

The main criticisms I’ve heard of the graduate tax system is as follows:

  1. That it would cost money upfront that the government doesn’t have.
  2. That there are other, better options on the table.
  3. That a tax is just a rebranding of debt.
  4. That someone could end up paying back far more than they would under a fees system.
  5. That the system is more unstable than fees because of potential brain drain.
  6. That the system is too complex to understand.

I’ll tackle each of these arguments, some combined, because they deserve proper deconstruction.

A graduate tax would require money upfront to setup, and the government is trying to cut spending, not increase it.

True. A graduate tax is expensive in the first few years after it is set up. It has to be. The principal is that after 4 years the money is self-replenishing though. The burden on the tax payer disappears entirely. Under a fees system, the money would be spend anyway in loans for tuition fees, and more so, if fees increased (which without a feasible alternative, they would, and likely double), then the burden on the tax payer would actually increase, not decrease as it would here.

Further to this, the current loans system is totally inefficient. Only 67p in ever £1 the Student Loans Company pays out it receives back. This is partly because people don’t see the levels of earnings potential to pay their loans back in full. If fees increase, that ratio is likely to worsen, and so making an inefficient system worse. At least with a graduate tax, only maintenance loans are repaid, improving the above ratio as less is paid out through the SLC.

There are better options on the table. We can fund this through general taxation. We can live with higher fees. What about business and their contribution.

I’ve shown, even with my beer-mat economics, as have many others, that you could fund all education through general taxation. But there is a twofold problem here. First, it takes up a heck of a chunk of your life-time’s tax, way over two-thirds, on an average salary. And second, it’s not fair or viable for someone that never had the chance to study at university to pay for someone else’s education.

Yes, we can argue that they benefit indirectly, and that there is a multiplier effect of higher education in the economy, but really, when it comes down to it, they don’t see a great deal more income in their pockets. They benefit in a hugely different and disproportionately small way.

And as I’ve already said, higher fees won’t work. Might solve your problem now, Steve Smith of Universities UK, but it won’t serve you well in 12 months time when the government turns around and says, “well, if you’re getting all this fee income, why do you need us?” and cuts your budgets deeper.

As for business, I’m no expert, but when you can’t get employers to invest in basic skills for their employees through FE schemes like Train to Gain, do you honestly think you’ve got a hope in hell of getting them to pay for this? If your answer is higher corporation tax, then think again, because the figures suggest that if we increase business taxes, in a country that is already expensive to operate in, business will go else where and you will end up with higher taxes and lower revenues in an ever opposing spiral of tax and collection.

A tax is a rebranding of the current system – you pay it back after you earn £15K anyway, and it isn’t an upfront fee, it’s offset by loans. And I might end up paying back more than I would now.

As I’ve just mentioned the loan system is totally inefficient, and the higher fees go, the more strain it carries on the tax payer’s purse. To call the tax a rebrand is simplistic at best, narrow minded at worst. The system is far more detailed and far more progressive than fees. The amount you pay back is linked directly to your earnings – so those on low incomes because their degrees carry a low graduate premium (or because they enter public services which have traditionally lower pay than similar roles from the private sector) will pay back less.

And in these circumstances that is totally right that someone generating a social good – a teacher or a nurse for instance – should be allowed a more favourable rate of repayment compared to a city banker or top lawyer.

In terms of how much you pay overall – the average person in the system would pay back no more than they would if fees increased to £5,000 per annum. That’s £2,000 less (per year) than people are currently proposing fees should raise to.

The system is unstable. What if people go abroad and we can’t collect the money? Or what if the jobs market collapses again?

What if pigs start flying?! I mean seriously, the brain drain isn’t that much of a problem under a different system than it is now, and as for a job market collapse, it’s self sustaining. You pay money for 20 years. It would take one hell of a crash to make this system even a tiny bit unstable. And if it is, the government can and would step in short-term to prop it up again. Even with that caveat, it’s still more sustainable than continuous increases in fees and continuous increases in government loans to students and increasing levels of spiralling debt.

I’m yet to see another viable alternative on the table in terms of the graduate contribution. And if you’ve got any sense, you’ll back this to the hilt.

Find out more about the graduate tax NUS is proposing at www.nus.org.uk, follow @nusuk on Twitter or add NUS on Facebook.

A letter to Jeremy Browne MP

by John Peart on May 12, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
letter

Dear Mr Browne,

RE: Conservative/Lib Dem coalition and Higher Education tuition fees

Late last year, I met with you in Parliament along with a small group of students that attended Richard Huish College and lived in the Taunton Deane constituency to ask you to support a pledge by the National Union of Students on Higher Education tuition fees, as part of its Vote For Students lobby of Parliament. I hope you’ll recall the meeting as being positive and indeed you agreed to support NUS’ pledge at the meeting. That pledge read:

“I pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees in the next Parliament and to pressure the Government to introduce a fair alternative.”

It was with great pride that I, as well as many other current and prospective students in Higher Education that live in your constituency, voted to keep you as my MP in Taunton Deane. A large part of my decision, as with others, was based on the commitment you, and over 400 other Liberal Democrat candidates made around the country to support students when a vote on tuition fees eventually reaches the Houses of Parliament following Lord Browne’s review.

Today however, I read in the papers and see on the news that your party has reneged on that promise thanks to your new coalition with the Conservative party. Instead of voting for students in the upcoming debate, I am led to believe that the Lib Dems would now abstain from the vote to protect the coalition.

I’ll be quite frank, I am totally appalled by this decision.

For years the Lib Dems have held the commanding support of the student vote thanks to their opposition to tuition fees in the 2001 and 2004 fees debates, and now it appears your party has turned your back on that vital support. I’m sure I don’t need to make you aware of the facts that students make up over 7,000,000 of the voting public with an ages ranging from their teens to their late 90s, that more students than ever before have registered to vote this year, that within your constituency over 20,000 students study in Further and Higher Education, and that it is off the back of student votes that MPs like yourself have kept hold of your seats by the narrowest of margins.

I hope that the media reports and statements coming from the new Government are ill-founded and that the Lib Dems will not let students down in this way when it comes to a vote. Because lets be clear about two things; an abstention is as good as a vote in favour when it comes to fees and that if Tony Blair’s Government thought they had it tough with the biggest back-bench rebellion in his premiership over this issue, the new Conservative and Liberal coalition which holds a slender and fragile majority won’t stand a chance.

I ask that you, as my representative in Parliament, and a representative of the 20,000 students in Taunton reaffirm your support for students, reaffirm your commitment to vote against a rise in tuition fees and the implementation of a fairer system – be that the system in your own manifesto or one like the National Union of Students is proposing – and you encourage other Liberal Democrat MPs to do the same.

Many Lib Dems are in their seats following this election because of expectant and supportive student votes.

Please don’t let us down.

Yours sincerely,

John Peart

Lib Dem fees sellout

by John Peart on May 12, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
libdems

It’s not often I will openly criticise a political party or a particular member of Parliament. I tend to find it childish at worst, pointless at best. I usually concentrate more on the policies of the parties and will critique them in my own way. Today though, I’m breaking with tradition because the two go hand in hand.

Today, the Liberal Democrat party should feel absolutely ashamed of itself. It’s Parliamentary Party and Federal Executive have agreed to a coalition with the Conservatives; a coalition that at the centre of it mutes vital opposition to the increasing threat of university tuition fees. 57 Lib Dem MPs are now bound by Collective Responsibility to follow the whip or abstain in a vote on tuition fees, likely set by the Conservatives as they attempt to railroad through a huge increase in fees. 57 MPs, I might add, that less than 6 months ago all signed up to the National Union of Students’ pledge on Higher Education funding;

I pledge to vote against an increase in tuition fees in the next Parliament and pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.

1,500 candidates around the country signed that pledge, and those 57 Lib Dem MPs have benefited hugely from a surge in student voter registration and votes in their constituencies just 6 days ago. Now, with the slightest clutch of power, they’ve sold every single student up the river. It was a bitter enough pill to swallow when I heard that the Lib Dems were going into coalition with the Conservatives, I’d voted Lib Dem in my marginal constituency to stop a Tory win, but this action feels like a total insult to my vote. This was the single most important issue for me at this election, as a prospective HE student, and now that same party I voted for has turned its back on the 7,000,000 strong student population.

I can say now, categorically that should they stick to this deal, I will not be voting Lib Dem ever again; in fact, right now I wish I’d voted Tory – at least that way I knew what I was up against.

There is hope for the fees debate yet though. When the fees bill went through Parliament in 2001 and 2004, students, with NUS at the forefront, nearly brought Labour’s landslide majority to its knees. Only 4 votes were separating that bill from defeat. Now, in 2010, with the Con-Dem coalition barely teetering over the necessary 326 MP overall majority, lets see how long they last with students on their backs.

The message is simple. Vote against students, we’ll vote against you in the next election. Abstain for students, and we will never forgive you. Vote for students, and win our vote again next time.

Learner Voice in the 21st Century

by John Peart on December 15, 2009 in Education, Keynote, Politics, Student Movement with No comments
56090_500399077358_709972358_7207817_6494009_o

University of Portsmouth – Learning and Teaching Conference
The Importance of Learner Voice in the 21st Century

Good morning everyone,

I’m JohnPeart, a member of the National Executive Council for the National Union of Students.

Today, I’ll be looking at the importance of the learner voice in 21st century higher education. What shape it should take, what are the challenges to effective learner voice, the attitudes of stake holders towards learner voice and finally how we react to the changing landscape we are dealing with in this debate.

This is a crucial time for higher education. The recent publication of the BIS Higher Ambitions framework document, the Adrian Smith-led review into Postgraduate provision and the announcement of the long-awaited review into Student Fees & Finance, with broad terms of reference will ensure that searching questions will be asked of our higher education system over the next 12 to 18months. Indeed this builds on the increasing scrutiny the sector has started to come under, following the ongoing debate into quality & standards and the increasing role students are playing in quality assurance.

Of course the National Student Survey has also transformed the way in which students views are taken into account too. I can’t believe it’s only been over the last 5 years, that some of these issues have been flagged up. Issues like assessment & feedback and organisation and management were known as ‘problem areas’ for institutions, but the NSS has now emphasised this by the way it is flagged up in the survey results – and forced institutions to respond. We now need to ensure that this information is appropriately placed into the hands of prospective students to aid informed decision making.

However, I want to start by looking at what the learner voice is and where it comes from. There are many differing definitions of what learner voice can mean and that’s because it is a very fluid thing. Learner voice can be about asking questions and listening to feedback, but more so than that, learner voice is about, and stems from, student engagement. If I had to pin it down, I’d choose this definition:

“Learner voice is about involving students as active participants in the development, delivery, management, and improvement of their educational and student experience.”

So we know what it is, but why is learner voice and student engagement important?

It’s important because universities are communities of learning. That community is achieved through a partnership between staff and students and that committed partnership between students, as active participants, and the staff at an institution will open up possibilities for authentic and constructive dialogue, offering the opportunity for more holistic and reflective feedback and enhancement of learning.

But not only this; research undertaken by NUS with HSBC showed that 48% of students don’t feel involved in shaping their educational experience, where as 85% of students want to be at least somewhat involved in shaping their learning. Learner engagement is important because learners want to be engaged.

It’s really important we don’t lose sight of the essence of what learner voice is about and why it’s important, particularly at the moment when there is an ever increasing pace of change within the higher education sector.

Last weeks pre-budget report revealed what could be the start of a 16% real-terms cut in funding to the HE sector, with a £600million drop in the next academic year, at a time when more and more people are trying to get into HE to escape the recessionary jobs market. There’s going to be a monumental squeeze on universities resources, and that in turn is going to mean a squeeze on the resources of students’ unions which are a key part of ensuring the learner voice is broadcast and listened to.

The future of quality assurance looks to be a sea-change from frameworks gone by. The HEFCE, DEL, UUK and GuildHE joint publication, “Future arrangements for Quality Assurance in England and Northern Ireland”, sets out strong arguments for changes to our quality assurance processes to create and sustain high-levels of teaching, learning and attainment, guided by simple principles of accountability, transparency, flexibility and responsiveness. The QAA is proposing an extension of the scheme that will see student members on Institutional Audit teams, whilst other stakeholders in the consultation are proposing a more flexible system that runs along side this and allows examination of specific themes and concerns based on the institutions and student written submissions.

The idea of student engagement is now starting to be taken seriously by the sector, not least since the introduction of a quasi-market in higher education, brought about by tuition fees. Students are sitting on audit teams, students unions are increasingly being listened to and recognised for their vital role in representation, the National Student Survey is making institutions sit up and listen to student concerns. The landscape of the student voice is changing.

And then of course, these changes are amidst a background of policy change within Parliament. The independent review of Higher Education tuition fees is underway – in fact the advisory panel is in session as we speak. The outcome of that review will have a significant impact on not only the way in which the sector is funded, but also on the ways in which student’s attitude’s will change towards higher education. Depending on the outcome, which many believe is a forgone conclusion, we are likely to see a rise in a consumer-like attitude from future students. Along side the fees debate is a second review specifically looking at issues within post-graduate education.

Regardless of your views on the composition of the review groups and thoughts about whether there is a stitch-up in the offing, one huge achievement for students has been the broad terms of reference for both of these review groups so that they really take into consideration the student voice and in the case of the fees review, the chance to look at plausible alternatives, like NUS’ Blueprint, rather than just posing the question of ‘fees cap, how high?’.

Of course, many of these issues will trigger political and vested arguments about the shape, size and freedom of the HE sector. I’ve heard already from some vice-chancellors that we should be massively expanding HE, no matter the cost, for the sake of our economy going forward. Equally I’ve heard Nick Clegg in the House of Commons budget debate this year arguing that universities are too big and we need to cut back on student numbers. And then we get arguments about what types of courses should exist or get preferential funding and so it goes on. We could be here for days looking at those issues, but whatever the outcome, we need to ensure that the ways in which the learner is involved in shaping the outcome is at the centre of the debate so that the benefits are clearly visible and the student experience is not diminished as a result of hasty cut-backs, fees increases or policy changes.

Amongst this complex backdrop of change and cuts, it’s a wonder how universities are still moving on with their bread-and-butter teaching and research, let alone engaging with the learner voice, but things have and continue to develop in this area.

Probably the game changer in the dialogue about student engagement and learner voice has been the NSS. It’s a bit like Marmite for institutions, but regardless of whether you love it or you hate it, you can’t ignore the student voice here, and you certainly can’t ignore the sway it carries with prospective students at various institutions. In fact, looking more broadly, the vast amount of data that is thrown into the public domain now on quality of experience in HE really stacks the pressure on institutions to consult and listen and engage with students.

There’s also been a refocussing of students’ unions and NUS. Over the last 2 and half years, NUS has undergone a significant refocus and re-orientation. Seeking to place student engagement and the learner voice, representation and support to SUs at the heart of our mission. NUS’ reform process has seen it catapult itself into the centre of the debate around student finance and the student experience, given it credibility where before it was seen as attacking from the sidelines, and it like its constituent member unions are being taken more seriously now as a key player than it ever has before.

At the same time, students’ unions are reforming themselves to be more representative of the increasingly diverse student population at large to ensure that they can effectively translate student concerns to institutional management. Students are becoming more savvy of the issues within higher education and their involvement with students’ unions is on the increase. You only need to look at NUS’ massively successful Town Takeover program, which has seen literally hundreds of students – not just union officers – out on their campuses and in their communities campaigning about issues they really care about.

Then there is the government’s listening agenda. There are more panels and bodies with student representation on them at the moment than I can shake a stick at across the entire education sector. From schools, through colleges and up to universities, the government is taking learner voice seriously for the first time. The FE sector and the new Ofsted framework is probably the best example of this new agenda. Colleges now cannot get an ‘outstanding’ rating if they do not effectively engage and resource learner voice within institutions. The idea of learner as partner in their education is coming across loud and clear in many areas – though perhaps not in as many as we might like.

Certainly there have been a number of drivers to this increase in student engagement and representation. Not least, the Labour governments interest (perhaps bordering on obsession) with listening to users/consumers right throughout their public policy from the NHS to transport, this same interest in wanting to listen to users have filtered through to higher education.

But the HE sector itself has also made the case for student involvement – not least because of the additional perspective it brings, but also its unique perspective on supporting enhancement. The cynic in me, might also add that in order to legitimise the financial contribution made by students over the last decade, it will become increasingly difficult for institutions to ignore the requests of students – there is power in the line, ‘I’m paying for this degree’ however narrow a perspective it may be, it has undoubtedly changed the HE landscape.

And then, as I’ve mentioned there are student’s involved in quality. Student written submissions, whilst just four or five years ago were concocted in a room by one or two sabbatical officers with little evidence or thought are now open and transparent to the membership of institutions, well-researched and taken as seriously by auditors and institutions as any other report from stakeholders. Then there are students as auditors, which is a scheme being rolled out this year, with the first wave in training now since they were recruited earlier in 2009, 25 – 30 universities have students on periodic review panels, and more and more institutions are placing importance on course and class reps. The feedback from institutions doing this has been positive.

I quote: ‘The more we involve students, the more they will feel part of what we do.’

Another: ‘The centrality of students as partners in the strategic development and improvement of the university is very important to us, and so their participation on internal review panels is essential.’

And another: ‘Students are part of the wider academic community and having them on review teams reinforces that message. We want them to contribute to development of the whole university, not just their own course, and this is one way for them to do that.’

Students are really rising to the challenge of broadcasting their voice within the sector and many institutions are equally rising to the challenge of listening.

There needs to be a continuous and self-assessing cycle of engagement across higher education. Institutions and students’ unions must select the mechanisms with which they wish to engage their students. This might be through questionnaires, through focus groups, online campaigning, student representation or something completely different that’s been adapted to meet the needs of the students’ at that institution. And when that is done there needs to be a monitoring phase; a stage by which the effectiveness of that engagement is reviewed and improved. This will ensure that quality of experience is continuously built upon for all students.

This is a great idea, yet in practice more needs to be done to react to a new wave of student engagement, not least as the motivations and attitudes of students change, but also as the sector’s view of the relationship between student and institution changes as well.

NUS has found through further research that over 60% of students have either career progression or earnings enhancement as their driving motivation for entering higher education. The traditionalist view of academia and learning for learning’s sake is no longer the populous opinion and consumerism has crept into the mind-set of our student generations, for better or for worse.

It’s no wonder this has happened though. When you look at the language coming out of Whitehall, BIS or from the opposition benches, it’s clear that the Government, or in these cases Lord Mandelson and David Willetts see students as consumers of education. The new Higher Education framework references students as consumers virtually all the way through the document, looks at competition between universities nationally and internationally in some sort of knowledge market, looks at how business should be the driving force behind education and that skills and certification are the be-all-and-end-all. Don’t get me wrong, the document had some positive ideas, but it further evidences politicians view that education is a tradable resource and that students consumes it, rather than co-produced it as partners in their learning.

Equally student attitudes are changing to align themselves with this philosophy. When you attach a price to your education, like the tuition fees system does with degrees, you immediately indoctrinate that student in a consumer like mentality. As a fee paying customer, you expect your needs and wants and demands to be catered for. If you pay for something you expect a good return on your money. There is a problem here though, and I’ll illustrate it.

When I pay for a cup of coffee, I expect a good quality product as return on my investment. If I’m dissatisfied with it, because of my rights as a consumer, I can return the product for a refund or an exchange of some sort. When I’ve paid my £3,200 in tuition fees per year, I am not guaranteed a good service, nor am I guaranteed a qualification. I am not refunded for any dissatisfaction or able to be compensated in any way. And because of that, education cannot be a product and students cannot be consumers because we don’t automatically see return on investment, we have to make that investment work for us, and as such we are partners in our education, not consumers of it.

That said, consumerism in higher education is not going away because the fees system and guaranteed debt still exists. We are paying for a service and so whilst many don’t like the relationship, we are still consumers thanks to fees placing the emphasis on the ‘all important’ 2:1 rather than on the importance of an academic community and a rounded educational experience.

It’s also little wonder that those 60% of students want career progression when the graduate employment market looks so dire at the moment and increasingly higher level and higher quality qualifications are needed to secure an income.

So yes, there is a problem in so much as the student is seen sometimes as a consumer, sometimes as a producer, sometimes partner. But regardless of the relationship, the student voice must be prioritised if we are to ensure quality in the sector. Students should be treated as experts in their field – they are experts at being students and experts at knowing how they best learn, we should be using that expertise, perhaps utilising that consumer mentality in the short term. At the same time however, we need to re-balance the playing field. The emphasis needs to be shifted away from supplier and consumer and more towards student and institution in partnership. NUS will, as always, help to facilitate that dialogue and to promote the student voice, but institutions now need to do their part in treating their students as their equals, to ensure that the proper structures are in place to listen, and that feedback is not only acted upon, but that the action is also fed-back so that students know that their opinions are listened to, are valid and valued.

The Challenge of Student Engagement

by John Peart on December 10, 2009 in Education, Keynote, Politics, Student Movement with No comments
keynote1

Good morning everyone.

I’ll start by extending a thank-you to the QSN for inviting me to the event today and allowing me to speak on an issue that is really at the core of the student experience.

The ways in which students engage in the learning process can make or break the experience they have in Higher Education. Getting students involved in shaping their learning process can fundamentally change the outcome of that students time at university, and that’s why it is absolutely vital that we attempt to engage all students, from all backgrounds, at all times.

Whilst this a fantastic idea in theory, in practice making students actively engage with the decision making process and engaging in a way that allows them to shape their learning is more difficult.

For want of a better word, in the ‘ideal’ scenario, all students would be the same. All would study similar courses, be of a similar age group, be actively seeking to shape their learning provider and experience, and students’ unions would help to facilitate that dialogue between the student body and the institution. The three parties would work in partnership to promote an ‘ideal’ learning environment, students would have an equally positive learning experience and universities would see higher retention and attainment.

Unfortunately for institutions and for students’ unions, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, the student population is far more diverse than that. The student body of the 1950s is not the same as it is today.

Over 40% of young people are now entering Higher Education. The sector enrols more part-time and mature students than it ever has before, and they now make up an overwhelming majority of the student population. Students seeking postgraduate qualifications continue to increase. International students are flocking to the UK in their tens of thousands every year.

The huge variations in types of students is so large now, that the sector is unrecognisable from even 10 or 20 years ago. And thus, the challenge for both institutions, students’ unions and for NUS, is to ensure that we not only cater for our traditional “bread-and-butter” 18-25 year old members, but also to provide for our silent majorities that are those part-time, post-graduates, mature and international students. We must represent the hyper-diversity of the student body and ensure that they are engaged in the system.

And it’s important we do this because we know it’s what students want. Research into the divergence between how involved students feel they are in shaping their course, and how involved they would like to be, show a complete contrast.

In a sample of 2400 under-graduate students, 21% felt that they were not at all involved in shaping their course, and only 5% felt very involved. When asked how involved they would like to be, those numbers reversed, with 5% wanting less involvement or none at all and 21% wanting to be actively involved.

If we are to treat students as consumers; as paying customers with demands and wants; rather than partners or co-producers – which seems to be the trend of opinion amongst Vice-chancellors and government ministers – then surely we should be acting upon this and making it happen. Equally, if we are to treat them as partners, then we should be pressing ahead with this agenda, as it has benefits for all parties concerned.

Challenge one then, is recognising the diversity of the student population and following on from that recognising that students, be they consumers, co-producers, partners or products, want to be in control of their learning and their course. And if that is challenge one, then challenge two must be the question of how to engage students in shaping their course content and learning experience.

Notwithstanding the ever increasing hyper-diversity of the student population, the traditional methods of engagement don’t carry so much weight any more with those bread-and-butter full-time undergraduates. Simply wallpapering corridors with posters and expecting a huge turnout to your students’ union AGM or a curriculum focus group won’t cut it with your 21st century student body; even though these are perhaps the most important ways for them to shape their learning experience.

Today’s ‘traditional’ students expect more from their institutions and from their students’ unions. They expect more innovative ways of getting involved and ways that make that engagement easy for them; in many ways, that makes the task for students’ unions harder, and easier at the same time. Harder, because there are so many different ways that we can use to engage those students in consultation and decision making, but easier because many of those tools get straight to the heart of social circles; they allow us to get to students in places we couldn’t even imagine 10 years ago. Most of that is through advances in technology – sites like Facebook and Twitter and Youtube – but this movement can be supported by better resourcing and funding of our HE students’ unions, and they must be supported in this way.

A blog post might be circulated enough to make people aware of the opportunity to shape their experience, but students’ unions need to make sure their officers and volunteers are out of their union offices and on all their campuses, talking to students, getting to know the issues and making sure the right message is being put across to their universities. The onus is then on institutions to listen and take note and to work with students and the students’ union to make it happen.

Of course when you factor in the student populations’ hyper-diversity, there suddenly comes a mountain to climb to represent that breadth of difference. Students’ unions traditionally haven’t had to consider that hyper-diversity and so now aren’t equipped to represent the interests of non-traditional students. And so again, it is vital that students unions are resourced properly, but this is not the only thing they need.

Implementing measures like ensuring guaranteed part-time, post-graduate, mature and international student representation within the students’ union executive committee is an important step to making sure their interests are represented and this can be achieved by reviewing the students’ union constitution.

Even less complex, when planning activities and forums, don’t just consider the impact on ‘students’ as a whole, but break down the group and consider each group on their own. It is only by micro-analytical-consideration that the partnership between students and their institutions will be successfully facilitated on a macro-level.

There is one other angle to look at too. There has been a pre-requisite so far that these students are on campus at least some of the time. Many institutions though have distance learners and so for students’ unions another piece of the puzzle must be wedged into place. How can you engage someone that you will never be able to meet face-to-face? Again, web technologies must play a part in this, and it is further evidence that the traditional engagement model of ‘lets set up a meeting in the students union building at 3:00pm on a Monday’ is becoming increasingly redundant. Just like part-time students that aren’t on campus every day, or the post-graduate that has teaching commitments for most of the week, or the mature student, who’s a single mum with huge outside commitments, distance learners need a more innovative way of being involved. What shape that takes is very much down to the learner and the institution, but as I’ve evidenced, it needs to happen in order for those students to get the most out of their higher education experience.

The third, and perhaps most conflicting challenge takes place outside of the university environment entirely and centres around the pressures of being a 21st century student. Perhaps the biggest barrier to a student being involved in shaping their university experience is the need to be financially stable.

Unlike the students of the 1960s and 1970s, who were lucky enough to be fully grant maintained, todays students priorities contend on many fronts. Not only do the majority of students now take on part-time jobs to supplement their income during their courses – some even taking on full time jobs whilst studying full-time as well – but there is also the pressure of fees and loans mounting in the background to the tune of over £23,000. Financially, students have never had it so bad, and yet even though students contribute 25% of the cost of their degrees, they are still isolated from influencing their experience because of other commitments. Student support is failing to support students and in turn universities and students’ unions need to step up their efforts to ensure that those students are not isolated and they have to the ways and means to inform the decision making process in a non-traditional manner.

In reality, engaging students is never an easy task, but students’ unions need to continue to challenge themselves. No one method alone with cut it when you’re dealing with a student population that is so diverse. And equally, no university or student population or students’ union is the same, so the methods used at Cambridge might not work at Bristol. Just as our members are hyper-diverse so to must be our campaigning efforts, our consultations, our debates, our decision making processes and our ways of ensuring engagement.  Students’ unions and universities must be open and transparent and NUS will work to support that change.

 

← Older Entries