Hello everyone

In two week’s time, we have some important decisions to make. One of those decisions is about the governance of NUS - which has dominated the public debate in students’ unions, and has been the focus of most of our attention over the last few months.

But governance is not the only crucial matter for us to consider up in Blackpool. There are a number of motions to be considered on educational issues like the learning participation age, learning and teaching policy, access and admissions, teacher recruitment, changes to the funding for ELQ courses, the relationship between higher and further education - and many more. The education debate at this year’s Conference promises to be one of the most wide-ranging and important in recent memory.

And all of the issues scheduled for debate are linked to the underlying question of higher education funding. For four years now, the central matter of how higher education is paid for has not been the subject of a great deal of debate by politicians or the wider public - but higher top-up fees have remained near the top of both the NUS hit list and the universities’ shopping list.

Today, a renewed debate is necessary and urgent. Two weeks ago, the government announced seven critical reviews of areas of HE policy including the effect of demographic change, the student experience, widening participation, and the way we measure the success of the higher education sector as a whole. These reviews set the context for a further review of HE funding, expected to take place in two thousand and nine.

We have been given assurances that in that funding review, nothing will be ruled in or out - and we will have the opportunity to influence the development of new policy.

So the conditions are now perfect for NUS to look again at our own policy in this area, to debate the values that we believe should underpin the funding of the HE sector, and try to find new ways to reconcile the different interests that lie at the heart of this complex problem.

The debate starts with principles. Of course we want education to be free. But it’s worth remembering why we have historically believed in free education. We’ve believed it because we’re principled, we’re progressive, and we’ve wanted to guarantee access to all that can benefit from higher education.

And that position- and the tactics that go with it- has served us well in the past. It held back damaging change in the 80’s, it brought us concessions in the 90s, and it almost generated a historic government defeat on Top Up Fees in 2004. Even then, to buy off the rebels and force the change through, concessions on bursaries were added at the eleventh hour and bolt on changes have been added since to try to make the system fairer.

At the time the Government said that its policy was designed to do two things- solve the funding crisis in HE and improve access.

And on the issues of institutional funding and access, of course it’s right to ask what we believe in principle. But we also have to ask whether the system as designed, is delivering the goods in practice. And it’s clear to us that it is not.

The Government said that the policy would remove financial barriers to HE from the poorest. But behind the UCAS headlines, working class applications have fallen since 2005.

The Government said that no student would be put off from applying because of financial reasons. But the Sutton trust disagrees, leading student finance researchers disagree and even Universities admit that the system is dangerously complex and difficult to navigate.

And the Government said that the system would give Universities the resources they need, whilst poor teaching, academic pay and distribution of resources remain key issues on the sector’s agenda.

So the policy has been a failure.

The Government responds with denial- spinning UCAS stats, inventing ELQ changes and layering advertising campaigns on a funding system that students need a PhD to understand (if they could afford it!).

VCs respond with arrogance- throwing up buildings and spending an increase in the cap before the debate has even started on lifting it.

That means we also need to consider our response. And yes, it’s right that we consider our principles. But those principles need to extend way beyond a narrow row between “free education” or “keep the cap”.

We need to decide whether we agree with the expansion of higher education to ensure social justice and economic prosperity, because many people don’t.

We need to decide whether the state should increase its contribution from general taxation to match the OECD average- because many people don’t.

And we need to decide whether business should pay more for the benefits from HE through a structured contribution through the taxation system- because many people don’t.

But if universal grants aren’t on the table, we also need a position on student support. We need to agree a view on bursaries that goes beyond everything for everyone all of the time. And we need to know what to say when the Government says you can’t have it all- so what’s your second best.

We need a position that doesn’t just obsess over home undergraduates, but one that also looks at part time students, postgraduates and international students- all ignored by the principled debate of the past.

And above all, we need a position that makes clear the effect that marketisation is having on education. The features of the current system- where cost is increasingly influencing academic choices- will only get worse if VCs and the free marketeers get their way. We need to make clear why we believe that linking the contribution students make to prices, rather than incomes is regressive, damaging and failing the Government’s original aims for the system.

Having an evidenced, nuanced and comprehensive position doesn’t mean selling out- in fact standing on the sidelines in principle whilst the Government and Sector negotiate in practice is what I call selling out.

And it’s also a good time to develop a new position. The politics have changed. Brown is not Blair. The majority is not 168(?). The general election is not far away. And most Labour MPs- and many from other parties- share many of our principles.

So it’s time for a proper debate on HE funding. Today’s event has been established to enable us to do just that - to explore the way that higher education is funded and the policies that result from those decisions in a forum that is creative instead of oppositional, and in a setting that is supportive and not confining.

So we’ve brought together a range of key people from politics and the sector today, specifically to engage with us on these questions. So we will have the opportunity to engage with politicians, including leading politicians from both sides of the aisle in the shape of Bill Rammell and David Willetts, university heads such as Deian Hopkin and Malcolm McVicar, and thinkers and researchers like Nick Barr, Lorraine Dearden and Claire Fox. I hope that by the end of today, you will have had the chance to expand your understanding of the debate about higher education funding, and also feel able to participate fully in the formal debate at Annual Conference.

Because that debate couldn’t have been framed more clearly. There will be a higher education funding motion and 11 amendments - for those of you who haven’t seen the education motions, the final motions document will be online tomorrow - and together these amendments will allow delegates to make a clear choice between opposing political positions. That is as it should be.

But the position that is finally agreed will be decisive in setting NUS policy as we go into the funding review. In my view, it is absolutely imperative that such a policy should well defined, it should leave us with room to manoeuvre, and above all, it must be politically credible.

That’s exactly what NUS policy in this area has lacked for the last couple of years, and I’m determined that this year should be the year we put our house back in order - not just on governance, but on policy too. For a long time - perhaps a decade, since fees were first introduced, NUS has always had the doors closed in our face, forced to make our case outside on the streets.

The other side used evidence, reason, political analysis and logic. No- Vice Chancellors and the free marketeers didn’t get everything they wanted last time round- but they came close, and unless we’re round the table with our own evidence, reason, political analysis this time round, we’ll lose again.

So that’s the challenge.

Let’s not throw away our principles.

But let’s also not throw away the chance to win a truly historic settlement for students.

Let’s go through those doors with a strong, credible position, and see what we can achieve.

I hope you have a useful and productive day.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/gemmatumelty/275302.aspx