« LS | Political Economy
Substantially increase the amount we spend on science and research to restructure our economy »

If you would like to comment on a particular block, click on the pale blue bar to the left of the text. If you would like to view the comments on a particular block, click on the speech balloon.

Student Funding: Equitable and Sustainable

“The higher education market casts students as consumers, racking up huge debts. Graduates should instead contribute through a fair mechanism, according to earnings, not prices. ”

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

The higher education funding system fails to meet its flawed market objectives and fails to create a fair system for students, graduates and their families; creating huge debts and a deeply unfair repayment mechanism. A fair graduate contribution would create a funding compact between the state, employers and individuals. Contributions should be based on future earnings, not a notional price in a higher education supermarket. This could form part of a more progressive taxation system, fostering solidarity as graduates contribute back to society, allowing others to pursue opportunities. A more flexible funding system would expand access and choice.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

A fair graduate contribution system would reverse the market logic that currently encourages the fragmentation of individuals by casting graduates as consumers rather than citizens. Individuals would contribute according to the financial benefits they receive, enabling graduates to work in the public and voluntary sectors – contributing back to their communities and the public good instead of seeking the highest paid jobs in order to pay back their debts. This would mark a move away from an individualist market-based approach and one based on the assumption that all valuable enterprise is based on wealth creation.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

There may be additional start up costs to Government, but these would be met in the long term by a more sustainable contribuion system and a highly skilled labour force. Employers, who currently contribute little, but benefit from graduates would contribute more. Future costs would be met by those who earn more paying more through fairer contributions. Initial costs would be a valuable and popular long-term investment: funding for education and opportunities for new high-level skills is vital for economic recovery. Educational participation is infinitely preferable to unemployment, and the economic and social costs it implies.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

A poll conducted by YouGov for the University and College Union (UCU) in September 2008 showed that three out of five members of the public said university funding could influence how they vote, over half wanted a funding system that is free for students and their families, while more than two thirds were against fee rise and said university is less attractive since fees were introduced. A fair graduate funding system would ensure no upfront costs for students and their families, support based on need, and a repayment system that is fair and seen to be fair

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

The Swedish system is designed so higher education is accessible to all those who can benefit, regardless of socio-economic background. Tuition is free-of-charge. Student finance covers living expenses. Student finance comprises a grant and a loan. Student loans must be repaid monthly. The size of monthly payments are adjusted according to income and ability to pay. Sweden has more progressive income taxation than the UK, with the richest paying up to 60% in comparison to 40% here. This is a different mechanism to ensure that those who earn more contribute more to society.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

For:
1. Equity. It would ensure that funding is based on need, not prices, while contributions are based fairly, on earnings.
2. Sustainability. It would ensure funding is fair for all, and that HE policy is part of a progressive, not market-based, approach
3. Well-being. Rather than saddle students and graduates with enormous debts, contributions would be paid back in solidarity with, and to allow opportunities for, others.

Against:
1. Conservatism. It would involve significant changes to the funding system
2. Cost. It could require significant up-front Government funding.
3. Individualism. Reluctance among the rich to contribute a fairer share

This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 8:06 pm and is filed under Miscellaneous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.