University Lecturers' Strike

[Serial_Apologist]

The mistake, I believe, is the perpetuation of the idea that going to a university is the only way to achieve a higher level of education. As was suggested in an earlier post, students should be able to learn without being spoon fed.

Apologies - your missus did!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Apologies - your missus did!

[greenilex]

I started my teaching life in a rural Junior Comprehensive, a properly local, newly built, small school where there were some horrific aspects (a sinister Head) but the attempt was truly being made to provide equality of opportunity.

Of course it was soon closed by the LEA as being too expensive.

[french frank]

Of course it was soon closed by the LEA as being too expensive.

Big is beautiful as far as comprehensives are concerned? Like anything produced in bulk, it's cheaper. Or 'more efficient', to put a positive spin on it. I wonder how big a part of that particular thinking played in the original idea, masked by emphasising social benefits of having a standardised free education available to all, regardless of wealth or background? "Oh, and by the way, it's more efficient. And cheaper, as an added benefit."

But going back to ardcarp's Msg #44: "[One of my daughters who is on the bottom rung of FE college lecturers' pay finds the salary deductions for her student loan oppressive …" Hang on, what makes the student loan deduction more 'oppressive' than the income tax deduction and the NIC deduction? Income tax will be at 20% on anything over £11,500 (2017-18), NIC (not sure currently, but last I heard 12% on anything over £157 per week, i.e. anything over c £8,000).

If she's on the bottom rung, she will still be paying 0% on her loan on the first £21,000 (£25,000 from April), and 9% thereafter. The salary deduction for the student loan will be peanuts in comparison - why is that so 'oppressive'.

People became so hung up on the 'tripling of fees' headline that they seem hardly to notice that only the best paid graduates are actually paying out more than they were paying under Blair's initial system, many were paying the same or less, and a far greater number were getting free tuition. That was the 'fairness' part of the altered scheme. Students were NOT paying three times more. I apologise for the 'sophistry'.

[HighlandDougie]

People became so hung up on the 'tripling of fees' headline that they seem hardly to notice that only the best paid graduates are actually paying out more than they were paying under Blair's initial system, many were paying the same or less, and a far greater number were getting free tuition. That was the 'fairness' part of the altered scheme. Students were NOT paying three times more. I apologise for the 'sophistry'.

Apologies, FF, for implying that you were indulging in sophistry but, imagine that I am eight years old and coming completely new to the complex world of student finance, can you explain to me in what way a, "far greater number were getting free tuition"?

I had assumed that you are referring to Access Agreements with OFFA where universities, in return for the authority to charge up to the maximum fee laid down by the Government, are required to set aside a significant percentage of their higher fee income for expenditure on activities to support wider access to HE, with such expenditure typically including a mix of support (e.g. activities promoted by widening access offices within a university), bursaries and scholarships and fee waivers. The last of these is not universal across the sector (indeed, the average fee in 2017/18 is estimated by OFFA to be £9110 across the sector which, when an allowance is made for fee waivers, goes down by £20 to £9090). Bursaries of, say, £2,000 a year, which reduce the cost of fees from £9250 per annum, are much more likely but that still leaves the student with a bill for £7250, which the student can then of course pay through a loan so that the SLC pays the fee on their behalf.

You are no doubt right to assert that the current system is no worse/no better than what went before in terms of the overall financial burden on students (I'm not so sure about that on the Government, though, despite their attempt to transfer the responsibility for funding the bulk of undergraduate teaching from the government through HEFCE to the students through higher tuition fees) but is there any evidence to support your assertion that "many more" were getting free tuition? Or have I got the completely wrong end of the stick and you are in fact referring to them not in fact repaying the cost of tuition through direct taxation?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I started my teaching life in a rural Junior Comprehensive, a properly local, newly built, small school where there were some horrific aspects (a sinister Head) but the attempt was truly being made to provide equality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity is a great concept, but it can never mean equality of results.

[french frank]

Apologies, FF, for implying that you were indulging in sophistry ...

Heh, heh - it did rankle a little

I was referring really to the entire original package, where what any individual student might pay would vary according to their individual circumstances. There were additional scholarships and bursaries, as you say, which would move more graduates into the zero repayment area, especially also with the raised threshold. It would be the case that, for instance, many women who had short earning careers through marriage/family commitments and non-employment/part-time employment would never be earning above the threshold, particularly under that scheme which guaranteed the regular threshold increases. So a husband and wife who took the identical course at the same time may find his liability being paid off completely (if he was among the top graduate earners) and hers not at all. I cannot see how the two changes wouldn't result in more lower paid graduates paying nothing.

It seems unfair that all the flak is directed at the coalition, the hated Tories, the despicable LibDems for reneging on their pledge, when a) it was Labour that reneged on introducing fees in the first place, and are now, seemingly, fully forgiven and b) the increase in fees didn't increase the graduate salary deductions, which to students is, surely, the important point. Only the top earners pay more, over the 30 years, than before the fee increases.

The coalition scheme was more progressive, thus fairer (less fair since it was tinkered with subsequently) and aimed at encouraging those from less advantaged homes to apply. An interesting point made by a student last year is that the abolition of fees in Scotland has actually narrowed access because the Scottish government 'effectively' rations student places.

My view was that , as you say, the then government wanted to shift the bulk of the payment from the taxpayer to the graduate, but the 'fairness principle' diluted that to the point where what is agreed (by whom, you may ask) is that the system is now unsustainable because of the burden on the taxpayer, not the graduates. I strongly suspect it was the universities who lost out because the government seems to have given with one hand and taken away with the other, replacing all the various government grants with the 'tripled fees', plus the obligation to offer scholarships &c. I'm not convinced the universities ended up any better off.

[oddoneout]

There were things that were wrong then and things are wrong now, but in a different way

I didn't express myself as well as I could have done in #56. I agree with you about things being wrong then and now, but what I find a problem is that arguably 'we'(actually 'they' since I am not in a position to have any effect) know far more about the problems and possible solutions than say 50 years ago, but rather than attempting to make use of that knowledge the approach seems to be to carry on experimenting even in the face of evidence of poor outcomes. The employment landscape is very different but the decision to ditch technical education(rather than adapting it) and the more recent drive to seemingly remove vocational options from the curriculum, was not a good one and is now biting badly with employers saying that they cannot get staff with the skills needed(compounded of course by business not engaging in staff training, but that is another, although relevant, issue). It is not something which a conventional three year university degree education can address; practical elements need to come in addition to the three years, as in medicine, or an engineering sandwich course.
Another concern of mine is the lack of options and alternatives, post-school, which again I see as something not being better now. Adult education, courses at technical, agricultural and art colleges, the OND/HND alternatives to degrees, enabled motivated individuals to better their qualifications for the career or line of work they wished to pursue, to make good what they didn't or couldn't get from school, often as mature students while working. BTecs and GNVQs were never really an effective replacement(not least because employers could not understand them in terms of what level of skill/knowledge they represented), in the same way that the universal GCSE cannot fully replace the old CSE/O level system(and therefore fails those at the top and bottom of that single scheme).

[HighlandDougie]

Heh, heh - it did rankle a little

It seems unfair that all the flak is directed at the coalition, the hated Tories, the despicable LibDems for reneging on their pledge, when a) it was Labour that reneged on introducing fees in the first place, and are now, seemingly, fully forgiven and b) the increase in fees didn't increase the graduate salary deductions, which to students is, surely, the important point. Only the top earners pay more, over the 30 years, than before the fee increases.

If you have time to download/read this recent paper, you might its conclusions interesting, in that they rather bear out what you say in relation to the post-2012 scheme. Potted intro first and paper second:

http://wonkhe.com/blogs/up-up-and-away-the-era-of-high-tuition-fees/

http://www.researchcghe.org/publications/the-end-of-free-college-in-england-implications-for-quality-enrolments-and-equity/

[french frank]

If you have time to download/read this recent paper, you might its conclusions interesting, in that they rather bear out what you say in relation to the post-2012 scheme. Potted intro first and paper second:

http://wonkhe.com/blogs/up-up-and-away-the-era-of-high-tuition-fees/

http://www.researchcghe.org/publicat...ts-and-equity/

Thanks, HD. Now downloaded. That's my afternoon activity taken care of

[ardcarp]

But going back to ardcarp's Msg #44: "[One of my daughters who is on the bottom rung of FE college lecturers' pay finds the salary deductions for her student loan oppressive …" Hang on, what makes the student loan deduction more 'oppressive' than the income tax deduction and the NIC deduction? Income tax will be at 20% on anything over £11,500 (2017-18), NIC (not sure currently, but last I heard 12% on anything over £157 per week, i.e. anything over c £8,000).

If she's on the bottom rung, she will still be paying 0% on her loan on the first £21,000 (£25,000 from April), and 9% thereafter. The salary deduction for the student loan will be peanuts in comparison - why is that so 'oppressive'.

Perhaps 'bottom rung' was the wrong expression. She's actually a Head of [Music] Department...but she is young. I've no idea what 'point' she is on the pay scale (I don't like to ask) but she is having deductions made for her student loan...and she finds all deductions oppressive!

[Serial_Apologist]

But going back to ardcarp's Msg #44: "[One of my daughters who is on the bottom rung of FE college lecturers' pay finds the salary deductions for her student loan oppressive …" Hang on, what makes the student loan deduction more 'oppressive' than the income tax deduction and the NIC deduction? Income tax will be at 20% on anything over £11,500 (2017-18), NIC (not sure currently, but last I heard 12% on anything over £157 per week, i.e. anything over c £8,000).

If she's on the bottom rung, she will still be paying 0% on her loan on the first £21,000 (£25,000 from April), and 9% thereafter. The salary deduction for the student loan will be peanuts in comparison - why is that so 'oppressive'.

But what, on the other hand, does such reassurance concerning the threshold needing to be met before debts must be repaid, contribute to the "common cause", namely of a self-respecting community analogous with the one which has for ever since i can remember agreed to the common principle on which the NHS in funded - namely that everyone, from richest to poorest, benefits by paying for it through taxation?

[french frank]

Perhaps 'bottom rung' was the wrong expression. She's actually a Head of [Music] Department...but she is young. I've no idea what 'point' she is on the pay scale (I don't like to ask) but she is having deductions made for her student loan...and she finds all deductions oppressive!

But possibly differentially oppressive? In your previous, you only mentioned the student loan deduction, this could be, for instance, because she resents that bit more than the others. But factually, it's a considerably lower proportion of her deductions at source.

[If I knew what the deduction was, I could tell you her gross salary!]

[french frank]

But what, on the other hand, does such reassurance concerning the threshold needing to be met before debts must be repaid, contribute to the "common cause", namely of a self-respecting community analogous with the one which has for ever since i can remember agreed to the common principle on which the NHS in funded - namely that everyone, from richest to poorest, benefits by paying for it through taxation?

I would refer you to the excellent piece of research (30 odd pages) HighlandDougie referred me to, which touches even on such 'common good' benefits as having a well-educated population.

One answer to the last question is that according to the research into the development of HE funding, the situation was that all but the poorest (who paid no tax) were paying for it while only the wealthier benefited from it. I accept, completely, the progressive argument - put forward c 1997 by Blair et al - for the introduction of tuition fees; and the regressive aspects of free HE for 'all'.

The paper broadly concluded that on the three 'social gains' it studied (quality, enrolments and equity), the performance since fees were introduced showed marked improvement: quality of provision, after a disastrous halving of funding per head between the 1970s and the 1990s, funding has recovered considerably (though still not back to 1970s levels); enrolments increased, most dramatically in the lower-income families; on equity, which I understood here to mean the funding and support made available to students while studying, that also had improved. Students (as distinct from graduates) were the main beneficiaries.

The final sentence of the paper reads (a US paper, I think, hence for 'college' read 'university'):

"No model is without its challenges. But the English experience suggests that making college completely free [my bold] is hardly the only path to increasing quantity, quality, and equity in higher education."

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks, ff - lots to think about.