Written evidence submitted by the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) -
"the education union" has 160,000 members across England,
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, including teachers, supply
teachers, heads, lecturers, managers and support staff in maintained
and independent sector schools, colleges and universities. ATL
uses the experiences of their members to influence education policy,
in all sectors, throughout the UK.
RESPONSE TO
BROWNE REPORT
1. PARTICIPATION
Recommend a 10% Increase in the Number of Places
While ATL welcomes the recommendation for a 10% increase
in the number of student places in higher education, it is not
more than was planned for by previous government. Therefore we
would argue for a greater increase if the government is to meet
its aspirations to widen participation. Higher education has
a vital role to play in addressing the UK's skills shortage, the
very high unemployment rates currently experienced by the country's
young people, and to aid the UK in its economic recovery from
the financial crisis.
New Support for the Costs of Learning for Part
Time Students
The proposal to provide new support for the costs
of living for part time students by eliminating upfront costs
is progressive. It will impact on a large proportion of students,
as 40% of those studying at higher education institutions in England
are enrolled on part time courses. We agree with the points put
forward in the Browne Report "that students may choose full
time study even though part time study may better suit their circumstances";
and that "the lack of support for part time study makes it
much more difficult for this country to catch up with other countries
on the skill levels of the existing workforce". "As
economic growth relies more on people with high level skills,
it is likely to be through part time rather than full time study
that people already in the workforce will be able to retrain and
prepare themselves for work in new industries".
Proposed increase in the Support for Living Costs
for Students from Low Income Backgrounds
ATL agrees that the current system of student support
for living costs needs improving. As the Browne Report states:
"we have received evidence that the level of support for
students from low income households in particular is insufficient
and that students need to rely on part time work or family contributions
to make ends meet". Whilst we welcome the increase in the
maximum grant available to £3,250, up from £2,906 for
students who have a household income of £25,000, and a partial
loan for those whose household income is £60,000 or less,
we do not believe this is enough given the substantial increase
in the cost of living since the economic downturn. Although this
increase is above the rate of inflation, the cost of living, including
food, basic materials and housing, have risen at a substantially
higher rate. We do not, therefore, believe that these proposals
will realise the Browne Report's aspiration that no person should
be discouraged from "studying in higher education because
they cannot afford the costs of living while they are learning".
The Browne Report states: "Institutions will
of course be free to offer financial aid on top of the support
provided by Government. They may choose to do so in order to
support their ambitions for attracting students from a wide ranger
of backgrounds; and ensuring that they stay on in study until
they complete their degrees. On the basis of the evidence we have
received, we would expect the most selective institutions in particular
to offer generous bursaries to students from low income households".
We strongly believe that this crucial assistance provided to
students from low income backgrounds by institutions in the form
of bursaries should not be optional but compulsory.
We are concerned that the cost of living support
will "not be available to part time students". The
Brown Report argues that "these students are able to combine
study with work; and they have access to other Government benefits
in a way that full time students do not". As 40% of students
in English HEIs study part time a very large proportion will be
excluded from receiving cost of living support. In terms of students
being able to support themselves through work, some employers
have had to reduce the working hours for their employees due to
the recession, have had to freeze or reduce wages, and the cost
of living is increasing due to rising inflation. Welfare benefits
are also being reduced or cut and in particular housing benefit,
which will have a detrimental impact on part time student claimants.
We believe this combination of no support for living
costs and benefit cuts for part time students will be a significant
disincentive to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds
and/or those who are studying to take the lower paid graduate
jobs, such as teaching and nursing. For example, data from The
Sutton Trust's "Increasing University Income from Home and
Overseas students: what Impact for Social Mobility?" report
shows that students from lower socio-economic groups more likely
to apply/enrol for an education degree course than those from
higher socio-economic groups: 26.7% of students from lower socio-economic
groups compared to 17.4% from higher socio-economic groups. Only
Computer Science attracts a higher proportion of students from
lower socio-economic groups, at 27.6%. Education attracts the
lowest proportion of students from the higher socio-economic groups.
Any disincentive could prove to be very detrimental
and damaging to schools as they would find it increasingly difficult
to recruit Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs), especially for shortage
subjects such as science and maths. Earlier this year the government
announced that it would axe bursaries and golden hellos for trainee
teachers in some subjects (including religious studies, music,
PE, art, business studies, citizenship, history, dance and drama)
worth £4,000-£6,000; universities reacted by saying
they were "very worried". Between 2006 and 2009, the
number of teacher trainees decreased by almost 9,000, after the
government decided to close the scheme to pay off NQT's student
loans to all new applicants in 2005, introduce top up fees in
2006 and reduce cash sums paid as "golden hello" to
NQTs teaching shortage subjects.
Another big drop off is now expected. For example,
the government is not meeting its target to double the number
of graduates training to be physics teachers (increased from 518
to 925). There are shortages of chemistry teacher trainees:
the target 1,070 with 877 trainees in this academic year. In addition,
research has shown that debt level for NQTs has been increasing.
It was £4,800 in 2001, rising to £8,000 in 2005, and
to £10,500 in 2007.
The decision to use increased fees to replace funds
government has cut from the university teaching budget will create
a much more direct link between the number of students choosing
a course and how much money the university has to run it. We
believe this will severely reduce funding for teaching in some
institutions; and if there are cuts to teacher training budgets,
we would and anticipate a reduction in the number of places on
these courses.
ATL is also concerned that with the policy direction
of the government's proposals for the future of teacher training
and the subsequent implications for teacher professionalism.
We believe that the proposed weakening of the role of HEIs in
initial teacher education in terms of an over-heavy emphasis on
on-the-job craft-like training will de-professionalise teachers
and stifle reflection and innovation in the profession. Trainee
teachers are being asked to pay more to study for a career which
is in effect being devalued.
2. QUALITY
Create genuine competition for students between
institutions
ATL is extremely concerned about the proposal to
create genuine competition for students between institutions,
as we believe this will widen the gap between successful and less
successful universities. We believe it is highly probable that
only a handful of universities will be winners while the rest
experience far more difficulties in recruiting students.
In March 2011, the NAO reported that "the number
of universities at risk of going bust is likely to rise over the
next few years". It claims that currently 5% of "institutions
are considered to be at a higher financial risk" and a further
"9% had run a deficit for at least three years"; and
the rise in tuition fees, "cuts to higher education and an
influx of companies providing degree courses would raise the risk
of universities going bankrupt". Consequently, students
studying at failing/at risk universities would be in a very difficult
position, as they would have to find an alternative institution
while studying for their degree. The very likely outcome of this
policy is a lessening of choice for students as the number of
HEIs would be substantially reduced.
Given the current economic circumstances, combined
with increase in tuition fees, students are much more likely to
choose courses that would maximise their opportunities of gaining
higher paid and secure graduate employment in order to pay off
their debt, rather than courses that they have an interest/passion
in pursuing. Consequently some degree courses, or those which
have had their teaching budget completely arts, humanities and
social sciences), may not survive; conversely universities may
be under-prepared to cope with significantly increased demand
for some degree courses. We believe the decision to allocate
public resources to "priority" STEM (science, technology,
engineering and maths) subjects has not been properly assessed:
research undertaken by Paul Whiteley, professor of politics at
the University of Essex, concludes, that in general, there is
no link between a successful economy and subjects studied at higher
education level.
Therefore, ATL strongly believes competition for
students between institutions is a very risky and irresponsible
experiment, as ultimately it weakens stability and security for
students, staff, HEIs and the British economy.
SUSTAINABILITY
Seeking higher contributions from those that can
afford to make them
ATL believes it is wrong to seek higher contributions
from graduates earning higher wages, as it means that some graduates
would have to pay more for their degrees than others; wide discrepancies
in remuneration should be addressed through the fiscal system.
The Browne Report states: "students with higher earnings
after graduation will pay a real interest rate on the outstanding
balance for the costs of learning and living. The interest for
graduates earning below the repayment threshold will pay no real
interest rate; their loan balance will increase only in line with
inflation. For those earning between £21,000 and £41,000
will be applied between RPI and RPI and 3% on a gradual scale
depending on income; and for those earning above £41,000,
interest will be applied at RPI + 3%." We believe this is
unfair as higher earning graduates are being penalised twice.
We have serious questions about linking the interest
rate to RPI: why is it linked to RPI when teachers' pensions and
welfare benefits are linked to CPI? Student loan cost has fluctuated
substantially over the past five years: it was at its highest
rate in 2008/09 at 4.8%; and at its lowest in February 2009 at
1.5%. In addition, inflation has risen sharply since September
2009, and it is possible that it could rise further. Rising inflation
would disproportionately affect those graduates earning lower
or average wages in comparison to those on higher wages, as the
latter group would be far more likely to have a higher disposable
income with which they could absorb the increased cost.
Removing the blanket subsidy for all courses -
without losing vital public investment in priority courses
We believe this is a highly regressive move. While
we accept that there are certain subjects that are important to
the UK economy which need to attract increased participation,
such as sciences, technology and "strategically important"
languages, this should not be at the expense of subsides for arts,
humanities and social science subjects. Without funding it is
highly likely that the quality of these courses will be severely
diminished; consequently students may be discouraged from choosing
them and universities may be reluctant to run them. We are extremely
concerned at the future prospects for and survival of these courses
within higher education: the ability to recruit teachers with
these subjects as specialisms to meet future demand could be drastically
reduced as a result.
ROLE AND
FUTURE OF
STATE FUNDING
IN HHIGHER
EDUCATION
ATL is very supportive of the role that the state
plays in both higher education and higher education funding.
We have a keen interest in the future of higher education, funding
and student finance, as we are concerned about how the proposed
changes outlined in the Browne Report would impact upon the number
of trainee teachers in the future. We believe that as higher
education is an inherently public good, the public should remain
heavily involved in its funding and governance. Prior to the
Browne Report, our members strongly supported ATL's view that
students in higher education should not have to make any further
financial contributions to their degree courses; this remains
their view. Therefore, we strongly disagree with the decision
to increase tuition fees from students to make up for the severely
reduced funding for the teaching from government.
We believe our argument to maintain a strong state
role within higher education funding has been strengthened by
some universities (including Cambridge, Oxford, Exeter and Imperial
College London) to charge the full tuition fee of £9,000
per year. Charging the full tuition fee was only supposed to
happen in "exceptional circumstances" but current trends
suggest this could be the norm. While it is encouraging that
the government has recently announced that "England's most
prestigious universities will have to double the amount they spend
on widening access to poorer students if they charge the maximum
tuition fees", we are concerned that non-prestigious universities
will not have to. Also of concern is the government's statement
that "universities will be free to choose how best to increase
diversity, but they will be encouraged to pour money into outreach
work in schools and colleges, rather than into bursaries and scholarships",
but the Office for Fair Access claims "these incentives have
been found to have little effect".
ATL also fears that the increase in tuition fees
would reverse recent progress in widening participation, thereby
further decreasing social mobility and increasing already high
levels of socio-economic inequality. The Trends in Young Participation
in Higher education: Core Results for England Report, published
by the HEFCE in January 2010, shows that teenagers from poorest
homes in England 50% are now more likely to go to university than
15 years ago (mid 1990's = 12.7%; 2010 = 19.2%). It claims this
rise is due to the previous government both increasing funding
for schools and widening access to degree courses. Even if proportion
of these of students remains relatively high after them tuition
fee increase, we anticipate that the quality of students' work
will be affected, as they are more likely to increase the amount
of paid work undertaken to avoid increasing accumulation of debt.
The current situation in the UK labour market is
a vital consideration in the context of higher fees when potential
students are considering undertaking higher education study.
As a result of the economic crisis, there has been an increase
in unemployment and a decrease in the number of full-time employment
vacancies; analysts remain unsure of whether or not the UK will
recover and to what extent. The cost of living has risen steeply:
VAT increased to 20% in January 2011 and inflation has risen sharply
since September 2009; in addition, the trend of wage flexibility
has been downwards.
Young people already face significant financial pressures
as they currently suffer from disproportionately high levels of
unemployment, a situation that has worsened during the economic
downturn. The recession has substantially increased competition
within the labour market which has resulted in graduates taking
lower skilled, lower paid jobs. Given this context, ATL is very
concerned that the increase in fess will discourage potential
students from entering higher education; and that younger graduates
in particular will find it increasingly difficult to secure employment.
England's universities will be even more reliant
on overseas students for funding as they pay higher fees; this
contributed to a record drop in the number of British students
accepted onto courses in 2010. In 2008-09, UK universities received
a total of £2.2 billion from non-EEA students, a figure that
makes up 8.7% of the sector's income. This source of funding
is under threat however, as the government intends to reduce net
immigration to fewer than 100,000 per year by the end of this
parliament. University leaders have stated their objection to
efforts to cut foreign student numbers. The chief executive of
Universities UK, Nicola Dandridge, has called the proposals damaging
and dangerous. Universities are also worried about the abolition
of a post-study work visa scheme, which allows recent graduates
to remain in the UK to work. A survey of London School of Economics
students found that the post-study work scheme was a strong factor
in encouraging international students to come to the UK rather
than the US or Australia.
We are extremely concerned that a decreasing role
for the state in higher education and its funding will mean that
HEIs will be forced to look to alternative sources of income,
such as businesses and foreign governments whose regulations and
/ or human rights considerations are considerably weaker than
those in the UK. The recent case of the London School of Economics
having close links to the Libyan regime and having accepted a
£1.5 million donation from Libya will have significantly
damaged the reputation of this prestigious institution, as well
as the reputation of English higher education in general.
10 March 2011
| 
