The NUS proposals on funding: fairer, more progressive and widening acess to higher education

June 10, 2009 4:07 pm

StudentBy Wes Streeting / @wesstreeting

As the Labour Party turns its attention away from introspection over its leadership to debating ideas to secure a fourth term, the National Union of Students today launches a radical alternative to tuition fees – a policy which has caused the Party a serious headache throughout the past twelve years.

The introduction of so-called variable ‘top-up’ fees, capped at just over £3,000, brought the government within just a handful of votes of defeat in 2004 and threatened to bring down the Prime Minister himself. Later this year, the government will establish a review of the existing fees regime and the forthcoming debate is likely to generate as much political heat.

It is crucial that the forthcoming review is not simply a question of how high the current cap on tuition fees can rise. Although a real market is yet to emerge while the cap remains where it is, NUS published a report in September 2008 revealing the serious consequences that would arise if the fee cap were set at £7,000 (a modest target for some university chiefs). In short, the richest institutions would benefit most despite their poor performance in widening access to under-represented groups, and the market itself would reinforce existing social inequality of both opportunity and outcome.

I don’t believe that the miserable vision offered by the proponents of the marketisation of our higher education system is one that is shared by people who vote Labour and spend their time toiling away on #labourdoorstep. Any minister committed to social justice should baulk at the prospect that, further down the line, those universities with the worst widening access records would be able to charge runaway fees, while those institutions with the best record of expanding opportunities would be left to languish at the bottom end of the market.

The Labour Party’s relationship with students has suffered during the past decade. But students will never forgive a Labour government if they establish a review that simply seeks to plunge them into further debt, unleash market forces and indulge those in higher education who are encouraging the privatisation of elite universities.

Instead we need a wide ranging review that is open to alternatives and encourages solutions that meet the political aims and objectives of our Party.

That’s why NUS has made a radical break with our history of simple opposition to any form of graduate contribution. The model we propose today is fairer, more progressive and supports widening access. It prevents variable top-up fees and instead abolishes the notion of ‘fees’ altogether. It delivers more income for our universities and opens the doors to part-time students, currently priced out by unregulated up front tuition fees.

Our model is not a ‘graduate tax’ that would see graduates paying an extra penny in tax for life, only for the Treasury to siphon off funds to other areas. We propose a People’s Trust for Higher Education, to which graduates would make a contribution, linked to how much they earn and how many academic credits they have attained. The actual proportion of earnings donated to the trust would vary on average from 0.3 from the bottom fifth of earners to 2.5% for the top 20% of earners. Contributions would only be collected for a fixed period of 20 years and graduates would not contribute anything while earning less than £15,000.

No system is perfect, and we don’t claim that our proposals can solve every problem. But our radical proposals deserve serious consideration by our Labour government, and students deserve a place at the heart of the forthcoming review.

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →