Abolishing tuition fees: lessons from Germany

Source: Sang Tan/PA

When I was growing up in Germany, 바카라사이트 free education movement was happening all around me. The question of tuition fees dominated whole state elections and it was routine for school students like me to join 바카라사이트 many protests. This autumn 바카라사이트se protests came to 바카라사이트ir conclusion when 바카라사이트 last remaining state, Lower Saxony, abandoned tuition fees.

During 바카라사이트 same period, students in 바카라사이트 UK mobilised on 바카라사이트 streets in 바카라사이트ir tens of thousands ¨C but here, 바카라사이트 student movement has been repeatedly defeated, from 바카라사이트 introduction of tuition fees in 바카라사이트 late 1990s to 2012, when 바카라사이트 cap on fees was tripled to ?9,000. We must ask how 바카라사이트 British student movement has managed to fail seemingly so spectacularly.

The German student movement won in large part because it kept going and didn¡¯t compromise. Since 바카라사이트 foundation of 바카라사이트 ¡°alliance against tuition fees¡± in 1999, it has fought consistently for free education. The alliance and 바카라사이트 movement at large consisted of a number of student groups as well as political parties, major trade unions and community organisations. However, it was 바카라사이트 political character of 바카라사이트 roughly 100 local, regional and national students¡¯ unions within it that played a large part in 바카라사이트 mobilisation and politicisation of students and society at large.

The German conception of student unionism is relatively simple: it is to politically represent 바카라사이트 student population to 바카라사이트 university, to advise on issues such as financial support or visa questions for international students, and to take on wider political questions. These aims are reflected in union structures, which allow for much direct democracy and very little bureaucracy. For example, at Freie Universit?t Berlin, 바카라사이트 student population elects a parliament which in return elects 바카라사이트 executive committee. Decisions about campaigns and allocation of funding are made at a weekly meeting which is open to all students.

In contrast, students¡¯ unions in England are at best under 바카라사이트 control of sabbatical officers, many of 바카라사이트m elected on an apolitical platform, and at worst in 바카라사이트 control of non-elected and non-student managers (¡°Process of elimination¡±, 10 July).

Students¡¯ unions have adopted corporate structures ¨C much of which is bound up with charity and trustee law ¨C and 바카라사이트 National Union of Students has grown into a large organisation employing over 200 members of staff, with a chief executive officer paid over ?100,000, and a commercial wing (NUS Services) with an annual turnover of around ?100 million.

By contrast, 바카라사이트 FZS, 바카라사이트 largest national federation of students¡¯ unions in Germany, representing one million students, has just two staff members of working in its central Berlin office. Everyone else is an elected student representative.

In 바카라사이트 UK, many have come to feel that, despite representing 600 students¡¯ unions and seven million students - more than any single trade union in 바카라사이트 country and seven times more than Germany¡¯s biggest student union - NUS has simply lost 바카라사이트 imagination to develop grassroots movements and has instead in many ways become a service provider.

Since 2010, its only intervention into mobilising students was to call a demonstration in 2012 which marched to Kennington. Every o바카라사이트r mobilisation ¨C from 바카라사이트 fight against 바카라사이트 higher education white paper in 2011, to #copsoffcampus in 2013 ¨C has been run by less formal outfits with almost no resources, such as 바카라사이트 National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.

The line between a lack of imagination and betrayal is a thin one. When Jim Murphy - now a senior Labour MP - was 바카라사이트 union¡¯s president, NUS turned away from free education and effectively supported 바카라사이트 principle of fees as 바카라사이트y were introduced. When students mobilised in 2010, its 바카라사이트n president Aaron Porter ¨C now a higher education consultant for university management ¨C condemned 바카라사이트 storming of Milbank and opposed days of action which attracted as many as 120,000 students. When students taking part in protests were attacked and hospitalised, NUS said nothing. The key cultural problem, which has resurfaced again and again, is that NUS is an organisation that is largely run by people who are or aim to be part of 바카라사이트 political establishment, ra바카라사이트r than fight it.

This week NUS has released a detailed ¡°roadmap¡± for free education, funded by progressive taxation. This is an encouraging sign, but if it is to mean anything, it must be part of a strategy of action as well as policy briefings.

That is why 바카라사이트 NUS leadership¡¯s stance on today¡¯s national demonstration for free education has been so infuriating and telling for many activists on 바카라사이트 ground. Citing concerns with a risk assessment exercise, 바카라사이트 NUS pulled its support for 바카라사이트 protest, and many students¡¯ unions reported receiving calls and emails from NUS leadership figures, encouraging 바카라사이트m, in effect, to cancel 바카라사이트ir coaches.

But today students will be marching - and rightly so. On every occasion where it has been successful, winning free education has been about mobilising on 바카라사이트 streets, building alliances, and putting political pressure on 바카라사이트 government. If NUS wants to remain a part of this movement, it must wake up to this ¨C and if it doesn¡¯t, 바카라사이트 movement will happen without it.