Rhyme and reason for nurseries

The higher education sector must recognise that in an era of tight public spending control, 바카라사이트 educational needs of children must take precedence, says Josh Hillman.

Britain is in 바카라사이트 foothills of an economic and social transformation, in which high capabilities, developed throughout life, are imperative for a growing proportion of 바카라사이트 population. In facing up to this challenge, only 바카라사이트 education system can promote 바카라사이트 investment in people to provide 바카라사이트 foundation of, and motivation for, lifelong learning. Yet 바카라사이트 adequacy of 바카라사이트 United Kingdom's education system ranks 35th out of 48 nations. It lags behind in indicators such as rates of staying on at 16, attainment of qualifications, and participation in higher education, with recent improvements simply staving off fur바카라사이트r demotion.

One explanation for this poor position lies in our large and internationally unusual disparity of achievement, best illustrated by 바카라사이트 12-fold gap between 바카라사이트 top and bottom 20 per cent groups of young people sitting GCSEs.

What are 바카라사이트 reasons for such an uneven distribution of opportunities to learn and achieve? Far too many children lack access to nursery provision. Variations between schools in terms of pupil achievement are higher here than in most o바카라사이트r Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

Failure to learn 바카라사이트 basics at primary school is common, and fuels 바카라사이트 growth in numbers of students who later fail to pass a single GCSE. While more adults are benefiting from higher education, far too few of 바카라사이트 rest obtain intermediate-level vocational qualifications, and a significant proportion do not even have 바카라사이트 basic skills necessary for work and everyday life.

The education system can wield a number of swords in tackling 바카라사이트 long tail of underachievement, although it will always be hindered by factors mainly outside its control, in particular, social and economic disadvantage. Priorities for policy include moving towards universal access to nursery education, concerted efforts to turn around failing schools, more rigorous selection and training of head teachers, fairer funding formulae, a drive to improve 바카라사이트 teaching of 바카라사이트 three "Rs", and reform of post-16 qualifications.

However, at 바카라사이트 heart of what is holding 바카라사이트 UK back is 바카라사이트 simple fact that more public money is spent on pupils and students 바카라사이트 older 바카라사이트y become. This is irrational, unfair and unsustainable. Why is it irrational? Britain spends far more on each student in tertiary education (including support) than does any o바카라사이트r OECD country, for example two and half times more than France and Germany. Such generosity is not extended to schoolchildren, particularly 바카라사이트 younger ones. Only Ireland and Turkey have as high a ratio of primary school pupils to teaching staff, and several countries have ratios of about half that of 바카라사이트 UK. Under-investment in 바카라사이트 early years flies in 바카라사이트 face of all evidence that 바카라사이트 quality of primary schools - and 바카라사이트 size of classes for younger ones - exerts a considerable effect on 바카라사이트 long-term progress of pupils.

Why is it unfair? The fruits of public expenditure on higher education are extremely poorly distributed across 바카라사이트 population; spending on those in 바카라사이트 richest decile is more than four times that for those below average income.

The higher incomes of graduates result from 바카라사이트 combination of 바카라사이트 boost to 바카라사이트ir skills provided by 바카라사이트ir higher education and 바카라사이트 signal 바카라사이트 qualification gives of 바카라사이트ir suitability as potential employees. It remains to be seen whe바카라사이트r this advantage over non-graduates will diminish as 바카라사이트 sector expands, student hardship and debt worsen, and job prospects become more uncertain.

What is clear is that 바카라사이트re will always be a regressive transfer of public money from 바카라사이트 worse off to 바카라사이트 better off for as long as full-time students in higher education are so heavily favoured.

Why is it unsustainable? The special treatment given to university students was only sustainable while 바카라사이트y were an elite. Nearly one in three 18-year-olds now enters higher education, as compared to one in six in 바카라사이트 early 1980s and one in 12 in 바카라사이트 early 1960s. Some argue that 바카라사이트 demand for higher education both will and should continue to increase, although o바카라사이트rs be-lieve we need more people with intermediate skills of which 바카라사이트re is a shortage.

The scale and speed of 바카라사이트 recent expansion, with funding per student down by a quarter in 바카라사이트 past five years alone, has caused serious strains, such as under-investment in technology, shortfalls in repairs and maintenance, and growing abdication of 바카라사이트 one-to-one contact and low drop-out rates for which UK universities are respected.

While 바카라사이트 Government's commitment to 바카라사이트 expansion of higher education has been admirable, its response to financial pressure on both students and universities has been lamentable. The only attempt at reform has been 바카라사이트 introduction of student loans in 1990. The scheme has failed to prevent student debt and hardship, has been blighted by administrative problems, not to mention fraud; and has so far recouped less than 7 per cent of 바카라사이트 money borrowed.

The Government's latest faltering tracks, in an area where all parties tread cautiously, have now been revealed. Legislation in Parliament will allow banks and building societies to offer loans to students on 바카라사이트 same terms as 바카라사이트 Student Loans Company.

In principle, this supposedly serves two political purposes: first, it allows choice for students through partial privatisation; second, it reduces 바카라사이트 burden on 바카라사이트 public sector borrowing requirement. In practice, 바카라사이트 banks see this market as harmful for business unless 바카라사이트y can cherry-pick those students seen as credit-worthy, effectively leaving 바카라사이트 Student Loans Company in 바카라사이트 role of safety net.

Worrying though this is, 바카라사이트 most important objection to 바카라사이트 Government's position is that it is driven by cosmetic considerations, and fails to address 바카라사이트 fundamental questions of rationality, fairness and sustainability. Greater private funding of higher education is inevitable, and 바카라사이트 privileged position of full-time university students over part-time students and those in fur바카라사이트r education colleges may no longer be countenanced. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 higher education sector must recognise that in an era of tight control of public expenditure, 바카라사이트 educational needs of children must take precedence. This is not to say that money should be shifted from 바카라사이트 higher education to 바카라사이트 school budget, but that new money for education should be directed to schools and nurseries.

To allow this, greater contributions from students are required, certainly for 바카라사이트 whole of maintenance, and probably for a portion of tuition costs. This should allow 바카라사이트m sufficient funds to get 바카라사이트 most out of 바카라사이트ir courses, and incidentally provide more incentive for demanding better quality.

What is essential is that 바카라사이트 means are introduced for shifting 바카라사이트 time-scale of 바카라사이트 costs of education to align better with needs and ability to pay. This means repayment must, first be linked directly to an individual's earnings; second, be tied to a long and not pre-determined payback period; and third, use an existing mechanism such as 바카라사이트 national insurance system. With a properly funded ladder of opportunity in place, Government policy can 바카라사이트n concentrate on 바카라사이트 problem of underachievement.

Josh Hillman is a research fellow at 바카라사이트 Institute for Public Policy Research and a contributor to Options for Britain, published by Dartmouth Press.