"Investment with Reform" Intensifies the Crisis in Education

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

"Investment with Reform" Intensifies the Crisis in Education

Letter to the Editor:
No More Teachers

Scottish Universities Must Not Be Distracted by England

Surveys Show that Poorer Students Priced Out of University

Call for True Social Inclusion for Children Living in Poverty

As Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education, insists that the government's policy of "investment with reform" must prevail, there is growing concern among parents and teachers at the devastation this policy is causing to the education system. Recent reports have highlighted a deep crisis of under-funding which is threatening teachers' jobs and could lead to some schools having to operate a four-day week next term.

The government's recent change to the education funding formula has led to an outcry among educationalists that the education system is being starved of funding. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) has described the new funding arrangements as "catastrophic" and declared that there is a £2.5 billion funding shortfall in education spending which will leave four fifths of schools facing cuts this year. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has estimated that across England's 150 local authorities, some 1,570 teachers could face redundancy this year. Doug McAvoy, General Secretary of the NUT, has already written to the leaders of other teaching unions calling on them to take joint industrial action to protect teachers from redundancies.

Across the country, head teachers and local authority representatives have outlined the severe impact this under-funding is having on the education system. In Croydon, Jonathan Parker, head of Edenham High School had to send 700 children home early as the school is facing a budget deficit of £220,000 and he was unable to employ supply teachers to cover their classes. He declared, " I am horrified. This is my eighth year as a head teacher and I can see everything that I have tried to achieve disappearing rapidly". Sue Sayles, head of Riccall Primary School, had to release a class teacher and take up a full teaching load to cope with her school's £85,500 budget deficit. She declared "I have never seen colleagues so angry and disturbed as this… I have never known education in such a crisis as it is at the moment". East Riding Council announced that it faced losing 100 teaching jobs to cope with its £4 million shortfall in its education budget. Mike Chapman, head of Driffield School, declared that "the local and national factors that have led to the funding crisis must be addressed before April 2004 or secondary education in the East Riding will face meltdown".

The Labour government came to power in 1997 with the slogan "Education, Education, Education". Today, the content of this policy is clear from the deep crisis the education system is in. Education is being wrecked and philistinism in the government prevails. The pressure on educational staff is increasing beyond measure, and the behaviour of the youth is being criminalised. Rather than the education system being geared to fitting young people to take up social responsibility for the future of society, and further and higher education being available to all at the highest standard as of right, government funding of education is being cut back and the whole system is being made to serve the needs of business to compete in a globalised market. This is the significance of the government’s slogan of "investment with reform" which is causing so much anger, resentment and opposition among teachers, university and college lecturers and staff and the parents and students themselves.

According to the National Union of Teachers, schools can expect no more extra teachers or classroom assistants despite government promises to recruit in the 2001 manifesto. The commitment then was for 10,000 more teachers and 20,000 more support staff by 2006.

Government figures say that there are 13,700 more teachers than January 2001 and 16,000 more teaching assistants than in January 2002. The NUT points out that the number of supply teachers has in fact fallen by 2,600 in the last year. Supply teachers are a point of real concern because there are many schools, particularly in London, who rely heavily on them to function. "Supply teachers," say the union, "need proper back up and support and pay and conditions of employment equivalent to permanent teachers – not the threat of redundancy."

The government is trying to paper over the crisis in education and its failure to live up to the promises of its main plank in initially coming to power – to fund and improve education. By sleight of hand the government is claiming to have solved the problem by saying that there is already the full quota of teachers and the teacher shortage is over. New Labour cannot be allowed to get away with this dismissive approach, nor can it be allowed to pass the buck to the authorities over the funding fiasco Charles Clarke has been trying to duck out of.

Consultant John Howson’s research has been commissioned by the NUT. His report, published on April 22, analyses the stated 20,450 increase in teachers between 1997 and 2002. Of these, 8,150 were unqualified, while an extra 10,972 teachers were needed during that period merely to keep pace with rising pupil numbers. Thus he concluded, the real gain "may have been only in the order of 968 extra teachers."

What is needed is for the working class to step into the debate and save the day. The workers need to decide what the future of the education system should be. Teachers, pupils and the people as a whole must take up the education debate and decide the direction education should take as one of the most important of social programmes.

Commentary by Professor Bernard King, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Abertay Dundee. This article is an edited version of a speech he delivered at the Abertay University Day dinner on May 31, 2003. Professor King was commenting on the publication of the Roberts Report on the research assessment exercise, which recommends drastically restricting the availability of government funding for university research.

The Roberts Report on the future of the Research Assessment Exercise, published last week, recommends research funding being terminated for all but a favoured few universities. But Roberts was tackling issues that do not exist in Scotland, and if we sign up to his proposals we risk decimating research north of the Border while compounding the overall funding problems facing our universities. It is time for Scotland to have its own mechanisms to support research.

Professors are, in the popular stereotype, absent-minded. My problem is that, after 17 years as a professor and 11 as a principal, I tend to remember some things all too clearly. Take the introduction to John Major’s 1991 White Paper, for example, which said: "Our key reform will be to end the increasingly artificial distinction between universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges on the other, removing the barriers between academic and vocational streams."

I remember, also, the White Paper proposing that: "All institutions will compete for funds and students on an equal basis." Well, the first part of that certainly came true – we all have to compete now – but I don’t think the second has ever been properly addressed: 12 years later, the funding system remains badly skewed in favour of the older universities, while little is being done to bridge the £10 billion funding gap afflicting all our universities.

We can be pretty sure that the Westminster government’s proposals for £2,000 top-up fees, two-year foundation degrees and (worst of all) so-called research-free universities will not do it.

Last month, Margaret Hodge attempted to defuse the furore over top-up fees by suggesting that only some universities offered courses that actually justified top-up fees. However, the LSE research paper she cited in support of her claim actually says something rather different. It reveals that graduates from older universities can expect to earn a premium of up to £22,000 over their lifetime. Not per annum. Over their lifetime. In a working life of 40 years, that’s about £50 a month before tax.

The paper also shows that most of this premium is actually earned within about five years of graduation; thereafter, any difference in income is negligible. So in fact the main benefit of paying higher tuition fees at an older university is that it will enable you to pay off the debt you will incur as a result of those fees!

The cynical part of my brain argues that the Westminster government has no clear strategy for higher education, and is actually trying desperately to stem the flow of new students into our universities merely to save money.

Let us be clear. Scotland’s universities need not and must not be distracted by what is happening in England. There will be no Golden Triangle of universities north of the Border – and if we try to play rationalisation games in a misguided attempt to compete with endowment-rich US institutions we will soon be bankrupt financially, intellectually and economically. London’s two giants have already peered into that abyss and stepped back.

Comprehensive education at school level is being dismantled by the reintroduction of selection at the same time as it is being imposed on higher education under the guise of a wider access agenda. Greater vocationalism is advocated, yet degree programmes with titles highlighting their vocational content are criticised. The breaking down of elitism in a few ancient universities is proposed, while the achievements of those who have already broken down such barriers are decried. Scottish higher education is fortunate that the Executive has a realistic and realisable vision of what can be achieved through greater integration between industry and universities. With an indigenous research support mechanism, untrammelled by English issues, Scotland would have an opportunity to gain competitive advantage and for its universities to become genuinely world class – but not for their blue-skies research.

Our universities are already rich in intellectual property – with extensive research outputs and expertise that are hugely unexploited. The last thing we need as a nation, and as an economy, is a 1970s research policy designed to produce yet more and more intellectual property that continues to be poorly exploited – yet more knowledge that we fail to transfer.

The inward investment policy of 20 years ago has run its course and proved its unsuitability for the modern Scotland we all seek. It’s time we consigned the equally tired funding policies we inherited from those years to the same dustbin.

Recent National Union of Students (NUS) research on the higher education aspirations of year 10 pupils found that 85 per cent of students who were "likely" or "quite likely" to go to university would change their mind if they were likely to have a debt of £20,000. The government expects student debt to rise to £21,000 by 2006.

A new survey by the Liberal Democrats also shows that 67% of young people may not go to university because of increased tuition fees and spiralling student debt. Responding to this survey, NUS National President, Mandy Telford, said on June 5: "The government keeps insisting it wants more and more young people from non-traditional backgrounds to go to university, but keeps insisting on charging them more for the privilege."

Mandy Telford continued: "Despite schemes such as AimHigher, to raise aspirations of poorer students, there is no increase in young people from the poorest backgrounds going to university. If the government wants to address this problem it needs to do so with more money, not more debt.

"To have a truly world class higher education system we need all students to be able to fulfil their potential. We cannot do that if some are forced to choose cheaper courses and others opt not to go at all because of the debt and hardship they will face. If the government continues with its policy of top-up fees we will have a higher education system where only the rich will benefit."

The outgoing President of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), Alana Ross, used her keynote speech at the EIS Annual General Meeting to call for a truer form of social inclusion which will benefit all members of society, particularly children living in poverty in Scotland. The EIS is Scotland’s largest teaching union.

Addressing the 363 delegates at the City Hall in Perth on June 5, Alana Ross highlighted how anti-discrimination legislation has failed to address adequately problems which face children from disadvantaged backgrounds: "In the last 30 years many pieces of legislation have been passed outlawing discrimination and we all know of these. One large group of our pupils are still discriminated against, namely, children who live in poverty", she said.

Continuing, Alana Ross added, "Over a quarter of our children live in poverty and in some areas that proportion is much higher. Poverty is a major element in multiple deprivation where factors combine to reinforce disadvantage. Poverty denies people choice."

"What is the point in teaching people to eat a healthy diet when they have little opportunity to access such a diet?" she asked.   "Small local shops in housing schemes do not stock a wide range of fresh fruit and vegetables. Since most people are reliant on public transport it is impossible to do the kind of shopping available to car-owners. The youngest children do not have access to the books and toys which are such an aid to pre-school learning."

Continuing, Alana Ross said: "At the Scottish Trade Union Congress in April a colleague moved a motion on poverty. She spoke of children who do not go on school trips, who do not take part in non-uniform days, who do not participate fully in school life simply because they cannot afford to. Most tellingly she read work written by the children themselves which told of disenchantment but also of hope."

Calling on government to act to tackle poverty, Alana Ross added: "The Westminster government has made a commitment to reducing child poverty by 50 per cent over the next ten years. I wish them well. Then they must start dealing with the other 50% because nothing blights so many children’s lives as living in poverty."

In her final major speech as serving EIS President, Alana Ross also moved on to address other key issues such as the need for smaller class sizes in schools, the need for greater resources to enable the inclusion of pupils with special needs into mainstream classes, and the importance of finding better ways to reduce the problem of indiscipline in schools.