Deep divisions on top-up fees

By Angela Harrison
BBC News Online education staff

The government has pledged to expand student numbers

The education world is split on the government's plans to allow universities to charge higher tuition fees.

University chief executives as a group have welcomed the move as a "major milestone", saying it will deliver desperately-needed funds.

Students and representatives of lecturers and teachers have all come out against variable fees.

They claim the changes will lead to a two-tier system, where poorer students might decide against university or choose to go to less-prestigious universities to do cheaper courses.

Universities UK - the group which represents university vice-chancellors - says it "strongly endorses" the new bill, which it says is a "major milestone".

Professor Ivor Crewe, the group's president, said: "This bill marks a critical point for the future of higher education.

"It makes an important and welcome contribution to addressing the financial problems of all universities.

"The accompanying measures for student support show how strongly the government has responded to the concerns of the sector, of students, and of its own backbenchers on funding and access issues.

"It strikes a fair balance between the needs of institutions and students to the benefit of society, the economy, and the country."

'Disaster'

Concessions to the Labour rebels who threaten to block the Higher Education Bill in the Commons have done nothing to make students, teachers or lecturers change their opinion of top-up fees.

The concessions include an increase in the proposed new student maintenance grant and bursaries funded by universities.

Ivor Crewe, Universities UK: "Critical point"

Mandy Telford, the President of the National Union of Students said the proposed changes would be a "disaster" for higher education.

"The new plans for variable top-up fees will create a market in higher education," she said.

"Students from poorer backgrounds will be put off going to more expensive courses."

Doug McAvoy, leader of the National Union of Teachers attacked the plans: "Instead of widening access, the fear of debt will narrow take-up and the whole country will be the loser."

Leading universities, like the 19 in the Russell Group, are pleased that the government did not give in to demands from some Labour backbenchers to have a fixed tuition fee.

Universities will have the power to set their own fees for individual courses up to a maximum of £3,000 a year.

"A good first step," says Russell group chairman Michael Sterling

But Russell Group universities like Oxford, Cambridge and Bristol will have to show the access regulator that they are trying to widen access to poorer students before they are allowed to charge the full £3,000 fee.

That will not be a problem said Russell Group chairman Professor Michael Sterling, because most universities were doing that already.

The Russell group, he said, supported the government's proposals.

"They are carefully crafted. They don't give us everything but it's sufficient to be a step forward."

The group was delighted, he said, that universities were not being asked to contribute to a national bursary scheme and thought the amount universities would be required to give to poorer students had been set at a "sensible level".

Bursaries

Some of the newer universities, which often are proud of admitting many students from poorer backgrounds, are worried about the effect of the bursary arrangements announced by Charles Clarke.

He told MPs that where course fees were set at a level above the maximum government support given to the poorest students (£2,700 a year), universities would have to give a bursary to the poorest students to make up the difference.

So universities with many students from the poorest backgrounds might think hard before setting course fees above this level.

I'm going to be in a huge dilemma as to what level to set fees at Michael Thorne, vice-chancellor East London University

Dr Michael Thorne, the vice-chancellor of East London University said 44% of his students were from poorer backgrounds and did not pay fees, compared to 9% of Oxford's students.

"I'm going to be in a huge dilemma as to what level to set fees at," he said.

"Universities like mine need their position protected, as we take a majority of working class and black and ethnic minority students."

The Association of Colleges, which represents further education colleges and sixth-form colleges is in favour of the changes.

Dr John Brennan, the group's chief executive, said: "The measures announced today should begin to strike a better balance between the responsibilities of the state and the individual to pay for their higher education, a balance which has long been in place for the millions of students studying vocational qualifications in further education colleges.

"We are also pleased that the attention of the Access Regulator will be focussed on the elite institutions, where even now some continue to take half their student population from public schools."

Sally Hunt, of the lecturers' union the AUT, said lecturers were "desperately disappointed that the government has ignored the nation over variable top-up fees".

"But, we're relieved to see that it is listening to people about grants, although it does need to be far more generous."