Rav Casley Gera

Am angered by article in Prospect by Robert Jackson calling for a “mixed-model” format for higher education. He repeats regularly that this does not mean privatisation, even though he advocates allowing Universities to decide salaries, fees and, by implication, admissions policies entirely independently. Quite how this differs from privatisation is not clear. Jackson emphasises the success of the US model in meeting the need for mass vocational training, arguing that a centrally-regulated model can’t match up. Of course, his fundamental concern is of cost, that further extension of HE beyond the government’s 50% mark will simply be politically untenable. He also reiterates the tired line that funding HE from taxation means “the transfer of money through the tax system from poorer taxpayers to the children of better-off taxpayers.” Although Jackson left the Tories for Labour not long ago, he’s clearly learnt the Government’s trick of only ever adopting left-wing rhetoric in pursuit of the most right-wing policies.

It’s certainly true that, under the current taxation model and class makeup of HE students, government subsidy to Universities overwhelmingly benefits the middle class. But this is the result of the grotesque over-representation of middle-class students (including, of course, myself and almost all of my friends, colleagues and associates). Like all universal benefits, higher education funding gains its political support from its benefits to the middle class, but its moral value from its benefits to the poor. The solution is progressive taxation, to reorient the tax burden towards the best-off, and further measures to increase working-class participation in Universities. But Jackson’s policy prescriptions promise the opposite.

Jackson asserts that the answer to middle-class domination of HE is not to lower the financial barriers to participation, but “to raise the intellectual aspirations of secondary schools.” That schools in poor areas offer poor results is well known. But what is equally well known is: not only are you far less likely to obtain top A-level grades in a comprehensive school in a predominantly working-class area than in a comp in a middle-class area; but even if you do obtain such grades, you are still substantially less likely to attend a University, and if you do, you will attend a less prestigious one than someone from a better-off background. Jacksons’ blithe assertion that the need for financial support “is being met by grants from government and by bursary schemes run by the universities” is deeply complacent.

Jackson pays lip service to the idea of a transformation of access, and even calls for a “paradigm shift” in remodelling the sector towards mass participation. But the key plank of his proposal for making this possible - raising or removing the incoming GBP3,000 fee ceiling - spells disaster for participation. And not content with removing the cap, he also wishes to impose interest on student loans through privatising the service, a system which has been shown again and again in the US to lead to graduate penury and often bankruptcy - not to mention exacerbating the nation’s already huge debt problem. Jackson’s other sop to the poor - that their “future… lies in part-time study as a mature student” has a nasty ring of “let them eat cake.”

Indeed, a quick read between the lines of the article makes it clear that Jackson sees the idea of a massive reorienting of HE attendance towards the less well-off unachievable and undesirable. As I’ve said, his criticism of government funding for HE as regressive depends on students being overwhelmingly middle class - the more poor people attend university, the more progressive government funding becomes.

Jackson’s own predictions undermine his argument. He argues that, over the next decade, demographic shifts will see the number of British students begin to fall, increasing competition between universities. And he makes a cursory mention that reforms to schools might help students from disadvantaged backgrounds fill the gap. But his “paradigm shift” - with its supposed massive expansion of vocational training through part-time courses and American-style community colleges - does not appear to get a look in here.

Ultimately Jackson’s scheme, just like the Government’s reforms to HE funding so far, attempt to reconcile two competing aspirations. On the one hand, the talk is always of a massive expansion of HE - not just to 50% but beyond, as better comprehensive education brings greater numbers of working-class students into the scope of the system. Greater flexibility, with more part-time courses, vocationally-focused options, and distance learning options are all to be welcomed. But the magic wand Jackson hopes to wave to achieve this - the same one as always, deregulation and the invisible hand of the market - simply cannot be compatible with an increase in access. Privatisation can achieve quality, if competition is present, and it can often achieve cost efficiencies. But if the privatisation process takes financial responsibility away from the state and onto individuals, an accompanying reduction in working-class access is inevitable.