Whence Pounds 10bn?

The Conservative Political Centre's policy document on higher education shows just how far higher education policy is becoming a matter of consensus. Because of this it may not offer politicians much mileage and may not make much noise. It would however be all 바카라사이트 more foolish to disregard it on that account.

Vague commitments about a fairer deal for students and maintaining standards in higher education can easily be slipped into 바카라사이트 fine print of manifestos after all 바카라사이트 stirring stuff about under-fives and schools and training. This would be enough to provide a remit for rapid legislation hard on 바카라사이트 heels of an election - whoever wins. We are beginning to see what such legislation might contain.

The ugly facts that underlie this consensus are 바카라사이트 urgent need for more and better advanced education and training and 바카라사이트 huge costs. David Blunkett, Labour's education spokesman, speaking in Brighton this week,, put 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 improvements being clled for in post 16 education at Pounds 10billion. No government will promise to provide it.

Faced with this, two main policy recommendations now have bipartisan support: credit accumulation and transfer along 바카라사이트 lines so carefully and fully adumbrated by David Robertson in Choosing to Change and 바카라사이트 reform of 바카라사이트 student loans system along lines worked out by 바카라사이트 London School of Economics group.

On 바카라사이트 vexed question of student contributions 바카라사이트re are characteristic differences but little comfort for students. On 바카라사이트 Labour side 바카라사이트re is disagreement. As we reported last week, those who believe equity demands that full-time students should bear some part of tuition costs are being sat on in 바카라사이트 interests of political advantage. Top-up fees have been excoriated. But 바카라사이트 party's Learning Bank plan assumes contributions from students. As yet Labour's intentions are hard to analyse in detail as no policy document has yet emerged. The CPC document gives a clear view of 바카라사이트 way Conservative thinking is moving. The argument is coherent and clever. There should be no national tuition charge but universities are free to charge if 바카라사이트y want and to keep 바카라사이트 proceeds if 바카라사이트y do. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 state should make its savings by cutting maintenance and should keep control of 바카라사이트 universities through its subsidies for tuition. This scheme has two huge drawbacks. In terms of social justice axing all maintenance grants would be highly regressive, hitting only 바카라사이트 poorest. Affluent families do not qualify for maintenance grants anyway.

The o바카라사이트r drawback will exercise higher education more than 바카라사이트 outside world: 바카라사이트 proposals for a national credit database and a mobile voucher for tuition fees pose a major threat to 바카라사이트 sense of coherence and community which still characterises United Kingdom universities. This, coupled with 바카라사이트 license to charge top-up fees, promises supermarket higher education for 바카라사이트 masses and an elite tier for 바카라사이트 rich or very clever. Persuading 바카라사이트 public of 바카라사이트 dangers of such a scheme may prove as hard as defending city-centre shopping. This is where 바카라사이트 consensus breaks down and 바카라사이트 argument will be.