Written evidence submitted by UNISON
SUMMARY
— The
Browne report proposed radical changes that could undermine the
current world class HE system, but produced little hard evidence
to support them.
— The
Government has not fully accepted the Browne report and has put
on some welcome limits, but concerns still exist about over reliance
on a market model, levels of debts to students and the possibility
of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) failing financially.
— Measures
to widen access and participation are welcome, but may be counteracted
by levels of debt and rapidly disappearing careers services.
— The
threats to arts and humanities courses caused by cuts in teaching
grant funding.
— There
are alternative funding models. Suggestions that the UK should
mirror the US have major risks.
— Recognition
of the role of business, but also the risks and importance of
blue skies research and the role of HE in FE.
BACKGROUND
1. UNISON is the largest education union in the
UK with over 300,000 members from early years through schools
and including tertiary settings. Of these around 50,000 work in
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), representing all grades
of staff from manual staff to senior managers.
2. We welcome the chance to give evidence on
the future of higher education. However before we consider the
proposed changes it is important to acknowledge how well HE is
delivered in the UK. The THE world rankings, which were revised
last year to take a wider world view, still showed that the UK
was the second ranked country for higher education in the world.
The THE has also just released another set of rankings based on
reputations across the world and this also shows the UK in second
place, This is a remarkable achievement for a comparatively small
nation. It is in this context that we should look at the government's
proposals. This does not mean that we should be complacent, but
neither should we undersell or potentially damage our successes.
THE BROWNE
REPORT
3. UNISON was extremely disappointed with the
Browne report. Its recommendations represented a fundamental shift
to a market based system, yet there was little evidence in the
report to justify their proposals or any detailed cost calculations.
4. UNISON agrees with much of the analysis by
Stefan Collini, Professor of English at Cambridge University,
in his article for the London Review of Books in November 2010.
This dissected the ideology and exposed the weaknesses within
the Browne report. He described the proposals as moving HE from
"…the provision of a public good, articulated through
educational judgment…" to a "lightly regulated
market in which consumer demand is sovereign"; accompanied
by the retreat of state funding. He accepted weaknesses in the
current system but queried whether students would act as rational
customers in a new market. He also challenged the premise that
the only relevant measure of teaching quality is "student
satisfaction" - indeed he argued for certain kinds of student
dissatisfaction "as a satisfied student is nigh on ineducable".
5. Recently David Willets disputed Collini's
analysis - saying that consumerism "should not jeopardise
the relationship between teacher and student". Yet we can
see from a number of HEIs in the United States that some fee paying
students are using their role as "customers" in unintended
ways; including seeking legal address when they do not receive
the grades they believe they should have got. This is not to argue
that students should not be more engaged - but the transference
of education and resultant qualifications should not be a guaranteed
financial transaction.
6. David Willets also argued that "some
students go to university as a route to the job". True -
but to build a system around "some" is no better than
the argument that HE should take no account of society or the
taxpayers (currently) contributing towards it.
7. UNISON agrees that students are not a homogenous
group and what they want from HE Institutions will vary depending
on their age, their life experience and their reason for choosing
their particular institution. So those studying for a chosen vocation
will differ from those studying to get a qualification in a subject
that interests them, but have not yet decided on a career. Nonetheless
we can surmise that all want a high quality education and will
want it in a "safe" and supportive environment. The
so called "student experience".
8. It is important to note that the "student
experience" covers more than just teaching. Some international
students may want English language support and those with disabilities
will require particular support mechanisms to assist them. Not
all of these are the remit of academics but are vital to students
achieving their potential. In particular support staff provide
students with the necessary environmental context to feel safe.
We have seem innovative models such as cleaners trained in counseling
as they can be the first point of contact for new and lonely students
when they clean student dwellings. In other institutions our security
guards make sure that students are protected from outsiders who
would seek to steal or abuse them and often are called to make
sure they are safe.
9. The dangers of focusing on cost alone could
well impact on quality and the "student experience".
A UNISON sponsored report "The business case for the living
wage: the story of the cleaning service at Queen Mary, University
of London" showed that a previous decision to outsource
cleaning services at this HEI had led to problems with quality.
When services were brought back in house the management, other
staff and students acknowledged that the quality of services improved.
Staff were also paid the London Living Wage, which gave them increased
financial security and led to productivity increases and meant
the staff were happier to take on a broader range of tasks. The
overall increases of costs were marginal and the Chief Administrative
Officer declared himself to be "perfectly happy" with
the rises. UNISON is negotiating with other HEIs in London to
introduce the London Living Wage- a concept that the Mayor of
London Boris Johnson also supports. So far 10 HEIs have signed
up to the concept.
10. The Browne report recommended a complete
lifting of the cap on fees. UNISON responded to a previous Select
Committee consultation (when HE was under the province of the
Department for Education) that "Lifting of the cap will extend
the divisions and differences between the wealthy and poorer institutions".
We have seen no convincing evidence to change our mind. When fees
were first introduced all but one moved to charge the maximum
as to charge less than a competitor was to indicate that their
degree was worth less than others. Already under the new scheme
we have seen the first HE institutions raising their fees to the
maximum. It may be that this time that there will be some greater
differential. However we would be surprised if any HEIs pitch
their fees at £6,000. Those that undersell themselves could
send a message out to students that they are second best.
11. UNISON believes that the government's funding
policy will dissuade many students from pursuing HE, particularly
those from poor backgrounds. The wealthy will not have a problem
with paying the increased fees and the proposals will support
some at the very bottom. However others will be saddled with massive
debts with many in the "squeezed middle" trying to tighten
their belts to cover the costs. It is therefore likely that those
who will suffer most are some in the middle classes and the group
sometimes referred to as the "aspiring working classes".
These groups, courted by the previous conservative government
and who were a focus of Alan Milburn's report "Fair Access
to the Professions will have limited resources and may well be
discouraged by high levels of debt".
12. It also seems odd that at a time when the
government is seeking to reduce national it seems happy to encourage
young people to start their working career with huge debts, even
before they look to add to it with mortgages etc. Students may
also be forced to stay at home by the debt; counteracting the
"student choice" they are supposed to be taking advantage
of.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO
THE BROWNE
REPORT
13. We are pleased that the government has rejected
significant parts of the Browne report. Whilst we would have preferred
no increase to fees at least the government has introduced some
caps and is seeking a more interventionist role in the market
than the report proposed. However the government's introduction
of greater competition could mean that some HEIs might be left
to fail. Unfortunately it is likely to be those that have been
more successful in widening access that will struggle - undermining
the government's stated aim of widening access and participation
in HE.
14. There have been three recent reports on the
finances of the Sector. UNISON has been most closely involved
in the recently issued Joint National Committee for Higher Education
Staff (JNCHES) interim report on "The Financial Health and
Sustainability of the HE sector". JNCHES is the national
negotiating body which includes both HE employers and (for this
report most) HE unions. The interim report which takes a UK wide
view of funding was drawn up by Jim Port, a respected HE financial
analyst. It recognises that financial health of the sector was
good in 2007-08 and 2008-09 with improved operating surpluses.
Nonetheless problems lie ahead and that for HEIs "maintaining
financial health and sustainability is significantly more challenging
than in the last decade"; that financial health is "now
more problematic than it was in 2008, because of the significantly
higher financial risks and threats it faces"; and that "this
level of financial strength may prove inadequate for the more
demanding and unstable future conditions." Finally "we
conclude that the sustainability of the sector, which was assessed
as problematic in the 2008 report, would now have to be assessed
as in a worse position in 2010, despite the partial relief of
two to three years of relatively good financial performance."
15. A report
by the National Audit Office report concurs with this. It recognises
improvements in the finances of most HEIs, however it also suggests
that some universities could be put at risk of bankruptcy as a
result of cuts and changes to funding. It notes that many HEIs
have improved their finances but that there will be an increase
in the level of risk, noting that 7 HEIs were classified as "higher
risk" in December 2010. Such institutions tend to be newer
universities who are at the forefront of widening access. Again
this raises the question: will the government allow HEIs to fail
especially if it knocks a hole in its access plans? The third
report; by the HE Funding Council for England (HEFCE) unsurprisingly
tries to paints a somewhat rosier picture suggesting that the
"projected performance in 2010-11 is sound overall, but not
as strong as 2009-10". However they state that although the
overall financial results showed a healthy position, the sector-wide
picture encompasses a wide range of results. "Of the 129
universities and higher education colleges in the English HE sector,
20 institutions recorded real-terms reductions in income compared
to 2008-09…" And Sir Alan Langlands Chief Executive
of HEFCE states: "the outlook for 2010-11 (despite further
in-year reductions to recurrent funding) is manageable" he
also adds "for the vast majority of institutions".
16. In another report "The Independent Review
Of HE Funding: An Analysis" published in October 2010, the
Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) stated that the government
appeared "strangely unconcerned with the effect of its proposals
on universities whose market position may not be strong…the
reason they may not be strong in the market place may have nothing
to do with the quality or their standards…the apparent absence
of any recognition of public interest in the health and well being
of those universities that may not thrive in the marketplace is
to be regretted".
17. Unsurprisingly the Government accepted Browne's
recommendations to increase links to business, with a view to
improving the economy. This is important but needs to be handled
carefully as too close links could be a double edged sword. Current
businesses are likely to be focused on the market as it is rather
than the future. Many new ideas come out of wider research and
"blue skies thinking" which could challenge current
business models. UNISON's campaign to introduce "safer needle
devices" into the NHS saw significant initial resistance
from larger manufacturers, who saw a threat to their business
model. This disappeared as these manufacturers got their products
ready for the market.
18. We welcome moves to widen access and participation,
although we worry that OFFA will not have the resources to monitor
the agreements it is being asked to police. We also feel that
to blame HE institutions for access problems that are mainly a
result of disadvantages introduced at a much earlier age, is highly
unfair. Significantly strengthened careers services for state
schools could help to address lack of knowledge and expectation.
Unfortunately the current funding cuts by local authorities that
are decimating the Careers and Connexions workforce and the lack
of identified funding for careers advice in schools does not bode
well.
19. If we do widen participation further then
students may need additional support and appropriate specialist
staffing and resources to deliver this. As well as academics to
lead the learning and research, specialist support staff with
back up welfare, IT, library and information services. This needs
significant investment to ensure that hardware, books and web
based services are up to date to allow students to work at the
forefront of technology.
THE ROLE
AND FUTURE
OF STATE
FUNDING OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
20. UNISON believes that the state has a vital
role in funding HE and not just as a prop for the most expensive
science and technology courses. An unfettered market will not
necessarily provide the skilled workforce that we need. The removal
of the requirement to teach modern languages in schools had a
disastrous impact on the numbers learning foreign languages and
we would not want to see similar gaps open up at tertiary level
Handing over complete control to students might also mean that
we have an overabundance in some areas - would another series
of the BBC TV programme "Silent Witness" mean another
increase in demand for courses to become criminal psychologists?
21. We also have grave concerns around the withdrawal
of teaching grant funding for arts and humanities courses. David
Willets made a spirited defence of the proposals in a recent speech
at the British Academy arguing that the cuts in funding was across
the board and was a "scrupulously neutral policy". Unfortunately
HEIs are already looking at long term plans to deal with current
funding cuts and so planning will inevitably take into account
the potential viability of courses. Thus courses without some
guaranteed income could be seen to be more risky compared to STEM
subjects which continue to receive a subsidy. Additionally whether
it likes it or not the government is sending a clear message to
potential students by taking teaching grants away from arts and
humanities courses; allied to a call for employer focussed HE.
22. UNISON opposed the introduction of fees for
students and continues to believe in the provision of free education.
There are alternative financial models on view across Europe where
governments' are increasing state funding, recognising the need
to compete in global markets. The Scottish National Party has
re-stated that it will not introduce fees for students from Scotland
if it gets into power, and whilst students from the EU would also
be exempt it is possible that they will charge students living
in England. Plans for Wales feature strong commitments to widening
access and increased regional co-operation as opposed to isolated
competition.
23. The US, although often portrayed as a full
blown champion of the HE free market has a major and recently
increased commitment to state funding, notably in California.
Those calling for a similar mixed market in the UK, who suggest
privatisation of the Russell Group Universities, fail to acknowledge
the huge differences in funding models. For instance there are
significant cultural differences in their alumni willingly making
contributions and their huge investments which underpin their
funding regime, which our HEIs would not start off with. These
investments are also open to risk, with recent stock market crashes
wiping millions off the reserves of the Ivy League Universities
leading to huge job cuts and course closures, notably at Harvard.
24. We have concerns at the open language around
student finance in the education bill. The 1998 Teaching and HE
Act introduced "income-contingent repayment loans",
linked to inflation. The new act says that loans will be "lower
than those prevailing on the market or no higher than those
prevailing on the market, where the other terms on which such
loans are provided are more favourable to borrowers than those
prevailing on the market". This means at least commercial
rates of interest and possibly higher if associated conditions
are preferable. Under the 2008 Sale of Student Loans Act, the
government has the power to sell post-1998 loans to third party,
private providers without the borrower's consent and without notice
to the borrower. In 2007, outstanding debt was already over £18
billion. This could now be handed over to others in the future
25. We are pleased that the government has protected
research funding, but as we have pointed out above there needs
to be a significant amount of money allocated for "blue skies"
thinking, the spin offs of which are the life blood of innovation.
We believe that the UK has not taken full advantage of EU research
funding and that work needs to be on the forthcoming 8th
EU Research Framework. UNISON, working with sister unions from
Ireland and Denmark, has had a series of meetings with MEPs and
the EU commission to highlight difficulties that administrative,
technical and other support staff have with the current procedures.
26. The government also sees expanding the provision
of HE in the FE sector as a way of saving money. We welcome it
if it promotes foundation degrees which provide opportunities
for young people who might not otherwise have them, providing
them with gateways to honours degrees. However we have concerns
around resources available to FE colleges, especially with tightening
budgets and their need to raise additional funding from students
- who are often from the poorer parts of society. Particularly
in libraries, where there are issues over stock and staffing and
restricted opening hours. We have had reports that some FE colleges
currently have access to their local HE institution library for
students on courses that are validated by them and concerns have
been expressed that if colleges validate their own degrees these
might not be withdrawn. Staff in FE also report concerns around
staff training and unsustainable increased demands.
27. The government has seen fit to call for pay
restraint in HE. We would remind them that the welcome increases
over the last decade were in response to the Bett report. This
acknowledged that pay in the sector had fallen well behind other
sectors and needed addressing to ensure quality staff remained
in the sector. Increases also reflected the need to update old
grading structures that did not meet equal pay requirements. However
it is also important to note that last year's national pay award
was 0.5% and this year 0.4% is being implemented. This is hardly
profligate and linked to the proposed cuts to pensions we could
see the return of the brain drain.
28. The government is taking a reckless and unnecessary
gamble with Higher Education funding. It risks undermining the
world class service we provide and does so based on ideology and
lacking an evidence base.
29. We would be happy to give oral evidence if
required.
14 March 2011
| 
