Phil Willis MP Liberal Democrat Spokesman for Education & Skills

HIGHER EDUCATION - TRAINING AND MANAGEMENT

The great problem with the government's plans for higher education is their failure to identify a mission. Their current proposals are far more to do with process and revenue sources than with addressing the core issue of the role of higher education in the 21st century. Of course, this issue is a complicated one and a vibrant proactive higher education sector will have a variety of clearly defined missions reflecting local, regional, national and international priorities. One of those priorities is to provide a future labour force with the intellectual and vocational skills needed to compete in an ever more complex market. In simple terms, as a nation we need to develop human capital to a point where the cost of doing so is outweighed by the economic and social benefits.

The government, rather than seeing higher education as an investment in the nation's future, has seen it as a cost. They have wrongly assumed that all graduates benefit financially from their experience and that they, and not society, are the principal beneficiaries. As a result the whole focus of government policy is the requirement for graduates to contribute more towards the cost of their university education.

The Liberal Democrats start from a different perspective. We accept that, after two decades of underfunding, our universities and higher education institutions are in desperate need of investment. We applaud their success in doubling student numbers, albeit from the same middle-class backgrounds, during the same period. But we do not accept that we have a delivery model for higher education that is 'fit for purpose' in the 21st century and, according to government ministers, we certainly do not: they openly talk of 'Mickey Mouse courses', 'teaching-only universities', 'research concentration', stand-alone Foundation Degrees, encouraging a 'market' and even 'allowing some universities to go to the wall'. Yet how could we have a higher education sector fit for purpose when it has been encouraged to grow on the basis of expanding student numbers without a reassessment of its purpose? Lord Dearing posed very real questions about future purpose in his lengthy report in 1997 but on no occasion was the House of Commons encouraged to debate its findings.

Restructuring is Necessary
There is a need to radically restructure higher and, for that matter, further education based on clarity of purpose. It must recognise the broader needs of society, the needs of students and crucially the demands of employers. It is the failure to address these broader issues that undermines the government's case for the introduction of 'top-up' fees and, we would argue, tuition fees as well.

Of course graduates benefit from their higher education, but the government's oft-repeated claim that graduates obtain a Â£400,000 premium over their lifetime is patently misleading if not dishonest. This figure was put together from an unweighted sample of graduate earners from the 2001-2002 labour-force survey - a snapshot of the population at a particular point in time, which reflects more the earning potential of those graduates who were lucky enough to attend university as a privileged elite decades ago. Analysis of employment outcomes for more recent graduates is considerably more depressing: 35 per cent of graduates end up in jobs where they do not require a degree while graduates with Arts degrees, even from Russell Group universities, potentially earn less than students who left school with two 'A' levels.

Perhaps even more disconcerting for those who set such store by the graduate earnings premium is what the value of that premium will be when 50 per cent or more of 18-30-year-olds are graduating from universities, and what calculations have been made to factor in the cost of repaying loans in excess of Â£20,000?

The arguments about who should pay for higher education and the growing costs for individual students of maintenance and tuition have inevitably created a much stronger link between education and employment. The highly competitive graduate job market has made students as consumers more demanding. Unfortunately, the quality of the product that many students receive does not match this expectation. This gap between expectation and delivery has been caused by an expansion of higher education under successive Conservative and Labour governments and the failure to accompany this expansion with investment. In 1981, the proportion of GDP invested in higher education stood at 1.33 per cent; by 2002-03, it stood at 1.16 per cent, despite student numbers more than doubling. The effects have been that pay for academic staff has virtually stood still, and student-to-staff ratios have rocketed, now exceeding the ratios in secondary schools and further education.

Yet, despite these depressing statistics and serious concerns, there is ample evidence that a better-educated workforce is a more productive workforce. And to invest in Britain's future we must invest in Britain's young people. This is a burden that should be borne fairly through progressive taxation - specifically by the funds raised from a 50 per cent rate of tax on incomes over Â£100,000. Should David Beckham - a highly paid individual - be exempt from contributing simply because he did not go to university himself? He relies on doctors to mend his broken foot and on lawyers to arrange his transfer to RÃ©al Madrid. Those graduates who earn a significant premium will pay more, while those who don't will not be faced with any additional burden.

However, if we are to make the most of a better-educated workforce, we need radical reform within our higher education system. We need better links between higher education institutions, colleges and employers with local businesses, as well as greater investment into this sector. The expansion of higher education and the shift towards the knowledge-based economy means that universities have now become important players in the training of the local workforce, a role traditionally occupied by further education colleges. Regional Development Agencies and the Local Learning and Skills Councils are actively encouraging higher education institutions and colleges to work together, often with local employers, to meet local skill needs. Already 11 per cent of degrees are gained in further education colleges, usually under arrangements with a local university. Often these involve links with local employers, and both colleges and universities are actively involved in training initiatives. This is precisely the sort of linkage the Liberal Democrats want to encourage and take forward with small and medium-sized employers as well as with the larger firms.

Climbing Frame for Learning
The Liberal Democrats' proposed 'climbing frame for learning' offers a flexible system that will support this linkage. A modular, credit-accumulation system allows flexibility for students to switch between vocational, academic and work-based routes of learning. This will provide better support for both part- and full-time students, and should give a considerable boost to these types of arrangement. Some students, for example, might opt to take first-year 'foundation' courses at their local further education college. They may then choose to move on in their second or third year to studying at a higher education institution that already has links with the college. Likewise, local employers, working in conjunction with local colleges and universities, could develop training courses offering credits towards a range of qualifications all the way up the 'climbing frame'. These could be taken either through part-time and evening study or through ten-week modules.

This flexible system could work to everyone's advantage. Employees undertaking in-service training could earn themselves credits towards a degree at the same time. Businesses may have the opportunity to use existing courses to complement their specific training requirements. Having acquired credits towards a qualification on a firm's course, employees might well be encouraged to cash their own credits and study in their own time towards a further qualification. The aim of the system is to encourage the individual on to the climbing frame in the first place, and to provide a number of diverse paths so everyone has the opportunity to climb a little higher - whatever their background and needs.

In many US states, and indeed in some of the regions of Europe, this dynamic link between universities, colleges and local employers has provided a nucleus for regional growth. In particular, it has expanded to provide innovation-support activities amongst local small and medium-sized businesses. This is more than just discussions about curriculum design, institutional collaboration and financial support to employees. It is about encouraging small and medium-sized firms to raise their sights, use new equipment and develop new skills, pushing into the research and development field as much as training. It is about establishing an innovation-support network, built on personal links and bonds of trust and involving the experts from the colleges and university departments alongside the small businesses.

The proposed structure of higher education provision is very different to the one in existence today. It is an ambitious vision that seeks to maintain and renew Britain's reputation for quality and excellence in this sector - a reputation that is currently under strain from 25 years of neglect from successive governments. It seeks to sustain a world-class education system that will be appropriate to students in the 21st century and to avoid the reversion to a class-based system that would inevitably follow either Labour's proposed introduction of top-up fees, or the Conservatives' limitation of student numbers. It proposes direct interaction with employers and businesses to create a flexible and inclusive approach, so that no student will be deterred from continuing their education either because they cannot afford to or because they must work or stay at home. It is a system that will encourage regional prosperity, which will in turn generate wider economic growth. In this way the Liberal Democrats would provide quality, diversity and choice in our higher education system.

Supplied by courtesy of Phil Willis MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesman for Education and Skills