Report to Court of Governors | January 2010 Higher Education Funding: The Future Landscape "It has taken more than 800 years to create one of the world's greatest education systems, and it looks like it will take just six months to bring it to its knees." - Prof Michael Arthur and Dr Wendy Piatt, The Russell Group “[the Russell Group analysis was] as surprising as it is misleading. We currently invest around £15bn in higher education every year. And the fact is that government's teaching and research funding – even after the £180m efficiency savings and the reductions in December's grant letter – will grow between 2009-10 and 2010-11." - David Lammy, Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property “We should be in no doubt that shrill protestations from the Russell Group about the state of university funding are over-stated and designed to increase pressure on the review group to hike up fees after the General Election” - Wes Streeting, National President, National Union of Students “We will see teachers on the dole, students in larger classes and a higher education sector unable to contribute as much to the economy or society. How all that marries up with a government that is pioneering a university sector more reliant on student feedback is beyond me." - Sally Hunt, University and College Union
Cuts Since the release of the Pre-Budget Report in December 2009 I have attended a number of national events with activists, colleagues and experts where the main topic of conversation has been the cuts facing Higher Education between now and 2013, and beyond. The range of perspectives on the significance of these cuts is necessarily driven by the political agendas of those speaking out, and I won’t shy away from the fact that we have an agenda too. Our agenda is our membership; students at the University of the Arts London. And we have many allies who we will be seeking to work with through the difficult times ahead. I hope that through these times of change we might come out the other side a better sector; fairer, of higher quality, focused on students as co-creators, and better governed at a local, national and SUARTS REPORTS | COURT OF GOVERNORS – HE FUNDING | JAN 2010
Page 1 of 5
international level. I am aware that my view of what those terms mean might be different to yours which is why open discussion must be encouraged. I am also aware that it is entirely possible that we come out of the other side a worse sector; unfair to many, quality compromised for profit, focused on students as customers, and poorly governed at all levels with a lack of shared purpose. It is up to all of us to make sure that we reach the former scenario and I think we all have a responsibility to raise our heads above the parapet, work together where we can, and openly debate where we cannot agree.
Defending Arts Education Summer 2009 saw Lord Mandelson introduce an additional 10,000 university places, but restricted them to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. With a continued focus on protecting and prioritising STEM, it is essential that students, staff and Governors stand together in defending arts education and in promoting the contribution that it makes to society. In these difficult times, the contribution that the creative sector makes to the UK economy is continuously growing. In a Guardian article Prof Elaine Thomas, Vice Chancellor for the University for the Creative Arts points out that:
“NESTA, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, predicts that between 2009 and 2013 the sector will grow by an average of 4%, more than double the rest of the economy. The creative industries currently account for 6.4% of the UK economy and it is expected that the volume of digital content will increase between 10 and 100 times over the next three to five years.”
The Students’ Union have been active in defending arts education over the years, stepping up our activity in the past two years. As was reported to Governors at the time, in November 2008 SUARTS founded the Arts Group thus co-ordinating national representation and action for art students. Through the Arts group we have lobbied the major political parties and numerous bodies including Skillset, the Equalities Challenge Unit and the Higher Education Academy. While other HEIs make use of the mission group structure to unite around common issues, UAL and other creative institutions have yet to present any united voice despite the similarity in the issues we face. The following are just some of the areas on which the Arts Group has been vocal. In many ways speaking up on these issues should be seen as much the responsibility of creative institutions as representatives of creative students. The Governments’ prioritisation of STEM subjects and deprioritisation of arts education Internships and employability for arts graduates Student finance within arts education; a sector that asks more of people’s personal finance than most The marketisation of Higher Education viewed through the lens of an arts graduate and how debt disproportionately negatively effects us As an institution we are well versed in profiling our prodigious Alumni and their influence on the creative sector, but we appear to have no strong or active voice within our own sector; Higher Education. This, despite arguably being the largest and most ably equipped of our peers to do so. We strongly believe that UAL needs to be more visible in national debates on funding. Politicians still frequently cite us as a ‘soft’ area of academia, and fail to form links between investment in our institutions and economic development. Other disciplines, HEI’s, mission groups and business have established influential lobbying forces, we are the only institution in our area capable of beginning any equivalent action.
SUARTS REPORTS | COURT OF GOVERNORS – HE FUNDING | JAN 2010
Page 2 of 5
Quality Although I agree that the Russell Group’s outcry is more about forcing unlimited fees through, I am concerned about teaching and learning quality in the years ahead. Many are predicting staff redundancies, increased class sizes, and reduced contact time, which are already concerns of students here. It is certain that the cuts will hit the areas of UAL that are already pressure points. It is the job of any President to work to increase teaching and learning quality and to fight cuts that will impact upon the student experience. However, I also understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that the government’s cuts may impact deeply on UAL, and in some way on students. I am willing to work with senior University staff to facilitate negotiations with the student body about where they are prepared to compromise and where they are not. In order that we move forward together, minimising the impact that cuts will have on the student experience, it is essential that the student body be viewed as a central part of any discussions about what to cut.
Voice The direction in which the Government is current travelling fails arts students, arts institutions and arts graduates more than any other part of the sector. Arts graduates are likely to earn significantly less than any other group of graduates over the course of their lifetime. From our perspective, the perspective of Arts students, the current interest-accompanied loans system means that those who earn less over their lifetimes pay more for their education than those who earn more and are able to pay off their loans quicker, or not take one out at all. The flat fee rate discriminates against arts students because as a percentage of earnings, we will be paying significantly more than graduates in other fields. And if we see the introduction of variable fees and a market enter Higher Education arts graduates will increasingly find that they would have been financially better off had they never gone to university at all (because the cost of studying will exceed the average graduate premium for arts graduates). In addition to the increasing financial strain on arts students, there will too be increased strain on this institution. In a speech in October 2009, Lord Mandelson clearly indicated that there will be more pressure on institutions to compete against each other not only for funding but for students. In a speech at the Confederation of British Industry’s HE summit he said:
"We need a greater degree of competition between institutions that encourages them to improve and tailor courses. That can mean competing for collaboration with industry, but the key drivers of change should be students and student expectations. The more information students have on courses and their outcomes, the more their choices will drive universities to improve.”
If we are to maintain any impression of legitimacy in our Widening Participation ambitions we must fight to ensure that funding is easily available for every student, which covers the real costs of their study. We should also consider action on the other aspects affecting our graduates, in particular the mass exploitation of unpaid interns and work experience placements, and the low earnings associated with the Arts. These combinations of factors will have already reduced the appeal of our subjects to students from target groups, and significantly effect the credibility with which we might claim that an Arts education is accessible and available to the most talented and not the just most privileged.
SUARTS REPORTS | COURT OF GOVERNORS – HE FUNDING | JAN 2010
Page 3 of 5
A Fairer Alternative Looking beyond the immediate future, the Students’ Union believe that we should strive to have a fair Higher Education system that isn’t subject to the overwhelming drive of a commercial market. It is clear that many MPs from all major parties and Vice Chancellors believe that raising the cap on tuition fees, or removing the cap completely is inevitable. Those in favour of lifting the cap often argue that those opposing it are flawed in their arguments because they are only focused on full time UK Undergraduates and ignore part-time students, Postgraduates, and international students. The debate until this point has been focused on the full time UK Undergraduate tuition fee, however there is an opportunity in Lord Browne’s review to widen the scope of the debate and find solutions to funding problems that have been long ignored through the mass expansion of Higher Education. Last academic year, NUS produced Broke and Broken1: A critique of the higher education funding system which exposed the regressive, unsustainable and damaging, flaws of the current funding system. Responses from the consultation that followed of which we were a part and which sought to investigate what a fairer funding system would look like, were developed into Five Foundations2 for an alternative higher education funding system for England:
1. The way 'student support' is funded should be considered independently from the way that the 'individual contribution' to the costs of higher education is collected. This will allow greater flexibility to better meet both the needs of students and the aims of a contribution system. 2. Students should be provided for according to their true needs while they study, and should make a contribution to the costs of higher education according to the true benefit while they work. We would define this as a progressive approach. 3. There should be significant flexibility for students, so that they can move between stages in the structure with ease and without penalty. As part of this, the system should make more use of flexible units of academic credit. There should also be flexibility to meet diverse needs on the student support side. 4. The systems and processes of higher education funding should be made more efficient and ensure that maximum resources are applied, either in support for teaching and learning or in direct financial support for students. Unmanageable levels of debt, in particular, are bad for both the borrower and the lender and should be avoided wherever possible. 5. The financial compact between the state, individuals and employers should be reestablished. Each should play a role within any new, fair and progressive funding structure.
These foundations framed the development of NUS’ Blueprint for an Alternative Higher Education Funding System3. The Blueprint puts an end to the idea that top-up fees are the only way of funding higher education, and shows that the terms of reference of any debate on the subject should be broader than ‘the cap - how high’. From both a principled and practical point of view, the Students’ Union are supporting NUS’ Blueprint. Some selections from the introduction to the paper provide a concise summary: 1
Broke and Broken Report: http://nus.org.uk/PageFiles/3115/Brokeandbroken.pdf Five Foundations Document: http://nus.org.uk/PageFiles/4920/FiveFoundations.pdf 3 Blueprint Summary Report: http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/5816/NUS_Blueprint_Summary_report_final.pdf SUARTS REPORTS | COURT OF GOVERNORS – HE FUNDING | JAN 2010 2
Page 4 of 5
We have been challenged to propose a better solution to the market logic of variable fees. This blueprint does just that. Our proposals would end the very notion of a course fee or price, and shut the door on a market in fees. Graduates should contribute to the future costs of higher education according to their actual future earnings, so that those who benefit the most from university by earning more will contribute more, in order to give future students access to higher education. The system for personal contributions would be designed to ensure considerable flexibility in the way higher education works. By establishing payment related to the amount of higher education studied and abolishing all up front fees for part-time students, our system would initiate a new era for non-traditional learning and continuing education through life.
The full paper details the formulae, economic arguments and processes that would underpin the proposed system, which would effectively deliver a long-term increase year on year on available funding for the sector based on progressive graduate contributions. We would advise UAL to join the HEIs and other bodies publicly backing the plan, and to ensure that as the landscape develops we seek to emphasise the effective funding of our particular subjects within this system. By contrast, modelling and evidence around a rise in the cap on tuition fees has indicated we would receive relatively little benefit (dramatically lower than Russell Group institutions and similar) from a raising or lifting of the cap and an introduction of a true market in fees, whilst we could be relatively certain this would begin to have a significant effect on the demographic of our intake. A rise in top up fees would result in potentially insurmountable obstacles to institutions’ Widening Participation, and we may face a further move towards Creative Institutions becoming ‘daycare for the rich’ more than the ‘hotbeds for nurturing creativity’ we should aim for.
Helen Gimber Students’ Union President president@su.arts.ac.uk
SUARTS REPORTS | COURT OF GOVERNORS – HE FUNDING | JAN 2010
Page 5 of 5