Where do we go next on top up fees?

By Sarah Mulholland

It’s no secret that one of the most controversial decisions the Labour Government has made since coming to power nearly twelve years ago was the reform of higher education funding and the introduction of “top up fees”. The debate over top up fees was fierce, both within and outside the party, but despite the Government’s majority being reduced to five votes, the measures were introduced in 2006 with a promised review into how well the system was working in 2009-10.

So here we are, looking once again at this fundamental issue. The central questions we need to ask now are essentially the same as in 2004:

How can we build a world class university system, able to compete on an international level and produce the high calibre graduates that Britain needs to succeed in the future?

How do we support individual students in higher education, giving them real choice and the resources they need, ensuring they are able to make the most of their time at university?

And how do we do this while at the same time increasing the quality and quantity of higher education provision, so that more and more of our young people can share in the opportunities that were previously available just to a privileged few?

The Government’s answer in 2004 was top up fees. But has it worked? Has the introduction of a market, albeit a limited one, led to a healthy and happy higher education sector?

There have been many positive changes to higher education over the last three years – more people are at university than at any other time; including more people from non-traditional backgrounds; a significant increase in the number of students entitled to a non-repayable grant; fairer loan repayment systems; and the removal of up-front fees.

However, the question is whether the introduction of top up fees has in many ways increased, not decreased, levels of inequality within our education system, with students choosing their course based on what they can afford rather than what they want to study.

With the review of higher education funding we have a real opportunity not only to build an education system that is an effective vehicle for social mobility, but one that will create world class universities producing the graduates that Britain needs to compete on a global level.

However, there is also the possibility that we will lift the current cap on tuition fees, creating a full blown market in education. It is important that we examine exactly what the impact of this would be – for both the quality and ethos of our education system, but also what the political consequences would be for the Labour Party.

What would lifting the cap would mean for the quality of teaching, the distribution of resources and the type and quantity of graduates we produce? Clearly the ‘top’ universities will charge the highest fees and become richer, while smaller institutions, unable to compete at that level and recognising their relevant market value, will be forced to attract students through lower fees, meaning they become poorer and less able to invest in their staff, students and facilities. Do we really want to move towards such inequalities in the type of education we provide?

But we must also ask what it would mean for the ethos of our education system and the direction of the sector if we create a system that will entrench inequalities rather than erode them. I don’t believe that creating two tiers of graduates – one that had a real choice in their education and one that was forced to study at home or at an institution charging lower fees – fits with our values of fairness and our fight for social justice. However we fund higher education, we must ensure that access to all of our colleges and universities is decided by ability and talent, not by privilege.

There is also the political question. Despite everyone’s favourite moan about how apathetic young people are, the student vote still throws a heavy punch, and let’s not forget the National Union of Students currently has upwards of six million members. At the last General Election, candidate after candidate struggled to justify why students should support them following the introduction of top up fees, and that level of hostility will only intensify if the cap is lifted.

As the debate over higher education funding begins in earnest, it is vital that we in the Labour Party arrive at the right answers. After all, since when did we trust the Tories with education? In their 18 years in office they did little to widen participation or increase access, and allowed our universities to crumble though years of under funding. We certainly can’t trust the Lib Dems either after they enticed student voters with the promise of abolishing tuition fees only to drop this pledge when it no longer suited them, instead suggesting that students should simply go to the university closest to home!

So, it’s up to us to get it right, and develop a fair and efficient funding system based on our values and designed to provide equal opportunities. A system that is fair for students but that will also allow our universities to compete in an increasingly globalised world. We must recognise the positive impact of removing up-front fees, and how far we have come in terms of widening access. Now we must go further, building on our commitment to fairer repayment schedules and move towards a system in which graduate contributions are based on income rather than course cost.

This review was never going to be easy, and we have some difficult questions to answer. However, we have the opportunity to ensure future generations can exercise true choice in their education, while at the same time guaranteeing our universities the resources they need to become world class centres of learning.

I look forward to the debate.

N.B. NUS has recently launched a detailed report into higher education funding ahead of the review that provides a detailed critique of the current funding systems . It can be found at:

http://www.nus.org.uk/en/Campaigns/Broke-and-Broken/Broke-and-Broken-the-report/