Protestors against the £9,000 tuition fees outside the University of London in 2010. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Student loans policy likely to cost more than the system it replaced – how could they be so wrong?

Tripling fees to £9,000 was a clever exercise in smoke and mirrors accounting. Students and universities are paying the price.

The latest estimate of the costs of the student loan system given by David Willetts, the Universities Minister, comes as no surprise. Both before and after the Coalition rushed through its reform of university funding in 2010, we warned in briefings to MPs that the government’s sums were wrong.

Willetts has now conceded that 45p in the pound of the money lent to students for fee and maintenance loans may never be repaid by graduates. This figure stands in sharp contrast to the Impact Assessment published by his own department of Business, Innovation and Skills. In June 2011 BIS claimed that the write-off would be between 28 and 32 per cent.

Using detailed modelling of the costs of the system undertaken by London Economics, we had no hesitation in providing evidence to the BIS Select Committee which challenged these assumptions. As it turned out the Committee’s MPs were rightly sceptical of the government’s forecasts.

It took until May 2013 for Willetts to throw in the towel and concede that the write-off might be 35p in the pound. By December 2013 an answer reported in Hansard confirmed that the BIS estimate had risen to 40p. Three months later this has increased yet again. It seems that Nick Clegg’s promise that the majority of students will never repay their loans is about to come true but it is hardly good news for taxpayers.

So is this all just an arid argument among economists? Behind all of these figures is a story which goes to the heart of the coalition’s fiscal policies and its belief that higher education should be opened to the market. Tripling fees to £9,000 was a clever exercise in smoke and mirrors accounting which removed direct funding of universities from the BIS departmental budget. Its primary aim was to help George Osborne eradicate the structural deficit by 2015. Lifting the fee cap was also accompanied by policies which favoured private providers which now benefit from double the amount of state-subsidised fee loans than were available under Labour even though they remain largely unregulated.

Unsurprisingly many younger students have opted into higher education even though fees have risen. Unless their parents enjoy considerable wealth, they have little choice but to take out a fee loan if they want to study for a degree. But 30,000 qualified students chose not to progress to university in 2012 and may never return to higher education. Critically participation by part-time and older students has melted away. This is a horrible waste of talent.

Ministers claimed that universities would be better off under their reforms – a claim that is now treated with a great deal of scepticism. By 2015 universities will have had to absorb three further years of cost-cutting with no inflation-proofing. The grant to the Higher Education Funding Council will fall by a further 9 per cent by the date of the election. The NUS is worried about maintenance grants not keeping pace with the cost of living.

Osborne’s response is to lift the cap on student numbers but not provide any additional resources. The idea is that universities will rise or fall according to how well they compete for additional students. Of course, this move will inevitably increase further the amount that taxpayers will have to write-off but there is little mention of this.

It is difficult to understand how or why the coalition got the costs of their higher education reforms so wrong for so long. The thousand dollar question which all political  parties now have to answer is just how they will fund universities in the future to deliver a system that is fair for students, graduates and taxpayers. It’s unlikely that a funding regime that costs 45p in the pound is the solution.

Pam Tatlow is Chief Executive of the university think-tank million+

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.