Tuition fees set to rise under new government proposals
On 06 November, the government released a Green Paper outlining proposals for controversial changes to higher education in the UK. Although the focus on teaching quality and improving the student experience has been welcomed, the suggestions have provoked strong criticism, especially for increasing marketisation of higher education in the UK.
The new plans would introduce a stronger correlation between teaching standards and tuition fees, with the highest ranking universities in England able to increase fees in line with inflation from 2017/18.
Universities would be ranked according to the quality of teaching, student experience, graduate job prospects and drop-out rates under a new Teaching Excellence Framework. Institutions which performed best in these areas would subsequently be able to increase fees above the current limit of £9,000.
‘It seems ridiculous that different universities would be allowed to charge different prices,’ one student told Epigram, questioning whether this would lead to a more ‘elitist’ educational system.
‘Announcements in the Green Paper look to further increase marketisation within the higher education sector'
Tom Phipps, Union Affairs Officer at Bristol SU, told Epigram that ‘measures used to determine teaching excellence seem flawed. It is unclear how graduate employment earnings are a good way of measuring teaching quality.’
Similarly, Gordon Marsden, Labour Shadow Higher Education Minister, called the proposals a ‘Trojan Horse for increased tuition fees and a two-tier system,’ while Sorana Vieru, NUS Vice-President for higher education and former Bristol SU Postgraduate Officer commented that the plans put ‘a particular kind of student at the heart of the system: those who can afford higher fees and study full-time.’
‘Universities must be sufficiently funded to ensure we can deliver the high quality education students need and expect, and the value of the tuition fee has been eroded by inflation'
The Green Paper, which was released the same week as a mass student demonstration in London against rising costs of higher education, also outlined proposals to replace current university agencies with an Office for Students (OfS), which would oversee the ranking process.
A spokesman from the University of Bristol told Epigram that higher education funding was a ‘national issue’, as increases in fees did not increase the amount of money universities received, but instead passed part of the ‘burden’ of funding from the government to students.
‘Universities must be sufficiently funded to ensure we can deliver the high quality education students need and expect, and the value of the tuition fee has been eroded by inflation.
‘We do however recognise the effects that any rise in fees would have on all our students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We are making progress in attracting students from widening participation backgrounds: in 2014-15 we saw increases in the percentage of applications and intake in several widening participation categories. We realise however there is more to be done.’
The plans also included the prospect of exempting universities from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests ‘to level the playing field’ with private education providers, who are not subject to the legislation.
‘FOI is a fundamental pillar in the pursuit of holding universities to account,’ said Jem Collins, chair of the Student Publication Association, which represents student publications across the country. ‘We strongly condemn any attempt to undermine students’ or journalists’ abilities to probe the decisions being made behind closed doors.’
In response, the University of Bristol said: ‘We aim to work in a spirit of openness with our students, and would encourage all students to ask for information rather than use FOI requests. We aim to answer all requests for information from students except where there are reasons why this is impossible. We would therefore expect that if universities were exempt from FOI that this would have no effect on the way we respond to requests for information from our students.'
Marketisation 'has been at the root of a lot of the problems that students face on the ground here at Bristol, whether that is accommodation shortages or slow feedback on assessments'
More broadly, the proposals also suggest that Government control over students' unions would increase in line with current trade union reforms to ‘improve union practices and increase transparency around how funds are spent.
However the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) have suggested that this is a ‘vague threat.’
Tom Phipps said that Bristol SU ‘are worried that this could further weaken the influence of students’ unions; a weakening which began under the Major government in the 1990s. Being packaged alongside the trade union bill could limit the work of students’ unions through imposed legislative quoracy thresholds and referendums.’
Phipps added: ‘Announcements in the Green Paper look to further increase marketisation within the higher education sector. This has been at the root of a lot of the problems that students face on the ground here at Bristol, whether that is accommodation shortages or slow feedback on assessments.’
Featured Image: Flickr/ Kunal Shah