Educating into debt

The Guardian this week published statistics showing Universities to be in a state of serious debt crisis. Some, such as Manchester University, owe as much as £12.4million.

Despite this, Phil Harding, chairman of the British Universities Finance Directors Group, doesn't seem at all worried. He said, in the Guardian:

"I think we are borrowing with a degree of confidence and a reasonable expectation the cap on tuition fees will either come off or be lifted so that universities will be able to charge higher fees."

So, the plan is seemingly to spend now in anticipation of increased income from students in the future. The wisdom of this is questionable. With fees already in excess of £3,000 per year, is it fair to expect students to pay so much? An Equifax study last week estimated the average student starting university this year will graduate with £30,000 of debt. Yet the strategy still appears to be to solve institutional debt crisis by causing individual debt crises. We are educating our students into debt and that cannot be good. With consumer indebtedness at record levels, the culture of borrowing is one that should be counteracted, not encouraged.

The Liberal Democrats have a different theory about funding of higher education, which often makes them popular amongst students. Speaking in The Guardian, their higher education and skills spokesman Stephen Williams said:

"Universities should be making a plea for extra central government funds rather than anticipating passing the bill on to future students."

This standpoint makes more sense to me, as individuals shouldering such massive burdens of debt before even considering a mortgage, is surely undesirable. Donald MacLeod in the Guardian makes the point that "on the average graduate salary of £18,000, repayments are £5.19 a week. In that sense, it's more like a tax." If that is the case, then why not just rebrand it as a graduate tax? The Sutton Trust report claims that it is the perception rather than reality of debt that is deterring poorer students from University. As someone who has spent periods as a full-time taxpayer as well as a student, I would have no problems with paying extra tax to support future students through Higher Education.

Thames Valley University, where I am a student, was noted in the Guardian piece as one of the worst indebted. The Guardian reported the debt at £5.8million, whereas the Times Higher Education Supplement quotes a deficit last year of £6.5million.

Yet today, it was revealed the institution is undertaking a restructuring programme that will include a £60million spend on estates. Questions of priorities arise when, from a student's perspective, it appears money is being spent on repainting corridors when people struggle to find a functioning computer in certain faculty buildings. Within this development budget, is included a £6.7million grant from the government. It will be interesting to see if the results provide the 'value for money' the government demands from its public services.

A Culture of Change

Mention the phrase ‘new initiative’ to most teachers, and you’ll see them visibly recoil. Yet this Wednesday, Ed Balls announced the latest in a seemingly unending line of initiatives that would undoubtedly revolutionise teaching. This time, the target was ‘culture’, a subject hard to define in any circumstances, not least within the prescriptive confines of the standardised National Curriculum.

Each pupil should experience a minimum of five hours per week ‘high culture’, so say the Government, although how this should be delivered is anyone’s guess. The Telegraph seems to imply the introduction of a daily ‘Culture Hour’, presumably in the same vein as the Literacy Hour, would be the Government’s intention. Although a cultural framework similar to the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) would be extremely difficult to construct.

For once, in fact, the DCSF are being very vague about what they expect schools to do. The guidance given on launch of the scheme, simply states schoolchildren should experience:

“Five hours of arts and culture a week, in and outside of the school day. This will include the chance to:

· perform on stage and attend top quality performances, exhibitions at museums and galleries, and heritage sites;
· get hands-on experience of the creative industries including film making, radio and TV;
· learn a musical instrument, and take part in a musical performance in front of an audience;
· produce creative writing and appreciate authors and how they work;
· learn about - and practise – new media and digital art; and
· develop art and craft skills.”

Very little of this is new content, with at least the final four examples already forming part of the National Curriculum in Literacy and English, Music, Art and ICT. Despite this, there has been a huge reaction from teachers, who feel their timetables are already stretched. Speaking in The Guardian, NUT General Secretary Steve Sinnott said:

"We still have an overloaded curriculum, particularly in primary schools. Its clutter needs to be stripped out to enable schools to be culturally creative."

Having experienced firsthand the struggle to deliver the intensive curriculum in primary schools, this is a point which I fully understand. However, the benefit of bringing so-called ‘high culture’ to those whose background and finance usually exclude them, is a massive one. The arts are historically incredibly elitist both as a patron and inside the industry. Initiatives, however ill-thought-out, that attempt to break these barriers and allow children into a world they didn’t know was open to them, can only be a good thing.

Some, however, such as Simon Heffer in the Telegraph, do not see any benefit whatsoever to such schemes.

“How was it that we had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton or Wordsworth without their having the inestimable benefit of Arts Council poetry workshops?”

This frankly ridiculous argument, continued throughout the article and echoed by many another middle-class commentator, seems to completely miss the point of what the scheme aims to achieve. There will always be prodigies, talents and revolutionaries within our society; those who rise to fame and fortune with no help from the state or any others. However, funding access to the arts for everyone is about showing young people they have the opportunity to do something they never realised was an option. Opening up children’s minds and inspiring them to a myriad of possibilities – isn’t that what education is supposed to be about?