Partnership is the way forward

Dear Ron... Our two final open letters to the Dearing committee of inquiry into higher education urge it to conisder the student point of view. Ghassan Kharian, co-ordinator of New Solutions, urges the committee to grab this chance to recommend a more equitable system, giving further education students access to financial support, thus expanding working-class participation.

Further and higher education should be an opportunity for all and yet for decades the life chances it provides have been the preserve of a privileged few. The most important objective that educationists should strive for, and that any government should work for, is an expansion of that opportunity. This is especially significant in 1996, the designated European Year of Lifelong Learning.

However, the dilemma that must be tackled is how to fund expansion. How can we maximise the numbers of those who benefit from post-16 education and raise the funds to achieve it? How can we increase quality in education and alleviate the hardships that many students face?

Earlier this year, after 18 months of discussion and debate, the student movement laid the foundations of a post-16 education policy that is based on a partnership between its three beneficiaries: society, business and the graduate.

Some still wish to limit student numbers and slam the door in the face of the many who seek a better future through the further/higher education experience. This rations education in an unacceptable and unfair way, while proving inefficient and damaging Britain's future economic prosperity. The CBI, seeing the benefits that a skilled and educated work force brings, has rightly called for a 40 per cent graduation rate.

After years of shouting about a return to full state-funded grants, benefits and much more, students have started to talk about the kind of education system that will benefit both them and future generations.

The new policy that the student movement holds is one that sees society as having a major stake in post-16 education. This means that government, and thus the taxpayer, should make the majority contribution in the funding of higher education and further education. Coupled with this is the recognition of the benefit that the business community derives from post-16 education. To insist the Government should foot the huge bill (over Pounds 10 billion) for the proper funding of further and higher education is both arrogant and selfish.

In a world of priorities, choices have to be made on how to spend limited government funds in a fair and progressive manner. Personally, I would see investment in nursery and primary education and the creation of real hope for deprived inner-city children as a much greater priority than the state subsidy of rich students.

It is a travesty that higher education students with millionaire parents get their fees paid for by the taxpayer, while working-class students in further education have to fork out for fees. It is for this reason the student movement has called for a new levy on big business, possibly through a corporation tax, with the resources raised invested in eliminating the unfairness between higher and further education. Further education students up to NVQ level 3 should be entitled to the same access to financial support as higher education students. This will aid a real expansion in participation from working-class backgrounds.

Graduates are direct beneficiaries of their post-16 education experience - with most earning at least 25 per cent more than non-graduates. The student movement now calls for a graduate contribution based on ability to pay.

However, the student movement has not gone far enough in addressing the problems within the funding system. While the main political parties are reluctant to set out detailed education funding proposals before a general election, students should take the lead and set the agenda. Although the new National Union of Students' policy accepts the need for a graduate contribution towards the cost of student maintenance, the real issue of institutional funding and educational quality has been largely untouched.

Using the parameters endorsed by the student movement and also seeking to address the crisis of under-funding in institutions, students should push for the only system of graduate contribution that is truly progressive: a graduate tax for maintenance and tuition fees. Graduates who have reached a certain income threshold (at the national average wage) should pay an extra penny in the pound on their income tax and the money raised should be re-invested into the education system. This should also ensure that those earning much larger incomes pay more.

The need for a government to raise funds for spending priorities can be addressed through securitising future income flows. In other words the government can issue bonds that are secured on the basis of future contributions made by current students.

Finally, students need a system that gives them enough money to live on and guarantees a quality education which will assist them in their future lives. The increased opportunity that expansion in higher and further education offers is not something that should be feared but positively encouraged. Only a new funding partnership between those who benefit from higher and further education can secure the funds needed for that expansion.

Only through radical thinking and the willingness of educationists and political parties to tackle the under-representation in higher education of students from working-class backgrounds will we ensure that we achieve a system that is effective, efficient and, most importantly, fair.

Ghassan Karian is the former president of University of London Union and co-ordinator of New Solutions.