Education and the free market
By Zanny Begg
The final report from the West Review into higher education has provoked a national debate on what is the most efficient and economically viable way to provide quality post-secondary education.
The review is clear in its proposals: more deregulation, greater privatisation and a closer connection between funding and the market. The most controversial recommendation is to move towards "student-centred funding" or "vouchers".
Although vouchers have been ruled out by the Labor Party and the Liberals before the next federal election, the ethos behind a voucher system has been overwhelmingly accepted by both parties. Neither rejects the notion that the market should become the key determinant of the nature of our education system or that vouchers are the ultimate policy goal for higher education
Federal minister for education David Kemp, in a speech in Sydney on April 21, outlined options which continue the push towards greater privatisation. Kemp argued for stronger links between "student choice" and funding allocations for universities.
Kemp argued that universities have been "less then fully responsive to the diverse needs of their students" and had become "somewhat insular" from the world that students work in.
These sentiments have been backed up by Mark Latham, ALP spokesperson for education, who has also recommended tying university funding to student "choice" and performance indicators.
The key argument for a voucher-based funding system is student "choice". The underlying assumption is that if we remove central planning in higher education, students will be able to force universities to tailor their courses more closely to their needs.
The reality is that a voucher system would do just the opposite. By removing centrally planned funding, vouchers will hold the education system hostage to the market.
Popular courses at popular universities will continue to attract large numbers of students and therefore income. Socially useful but less popular courses will not receive as much money, will be starved of funds and may face the axe.
Already courses like languages, classics and English have been cut at many universities in the restructuring brought about by the 1996 budget cuts. A voucher system would accelerate this trend.
West proposes to ameliorate this by guaranteeing funding for socially useful but expensive or specialised courses. But as Dr Carolyn Allport, president of the National Tertiary Education and Industry Union, points out, this "would defeat the purpose" of the government's desire to reduce public funding for education, and such funding would always be precarious.
A voucher system would also limit students' choices by forcing universities to compete for students and funding.
In a sink or swim environment, less established universities will be forced into niche markets, reducing the breadth of the education they can provide students, or they will be forced to reduce the costs of their degrees. So poorer students will be forced to study at "cheaper" universities, which will be able to provide only a lower quality education.
Currently the provision of block grants enables all universities to spend money on both teaching and research. A voucher system would undermine this. Universities that become "world class" may attract enough money for research activities. The rest will become teaching only institutions, thereby limiting the quality of that teaching.
Rather than "choice", vouchers are about taking away an entitlement. Currently most people wanting to study can access a HECS-funded place at university, if they are prepared to clock up a large debt, for the entire period of study. A voucher system would provide each student with an amount that will not cover the cost of most degrees, let alone second degrees or postgraduate study.
Underpinning the whole discussion surrounding vouchers is the idea that the market provides a more "efficient" and "responsive" way to structure education than government planning.
This argument is also seriously flawed. Education provides a socially useful role. The community as a whole benefits from doctors, lawyers, engineers, writers, actors and nurses. The market cannot take into consideration social need. It responds only to profit indicators.
Throwing control of education funding to the market will undermine society's ability to set education priorities. A university's ability to provide courses that are socially useful, but not financially profitable, will be eroded. Education will become more tied to the needs of big business and will less and less serve learning for social needs.
Our university system is already far removed from the needs and wishes of students. Many feel like cogs in the university machine, bored with what they are learning and unable to have a real say over the content of their degrees.
But we should not be seduced by the rhetoric of "choice". Rather than looking to the market to make education more responsive to students, we should instead advance our own demands for real student control over education.
We should defend centrally planned block grants but argue for greater democracy at the university level, where students can have real say over how the university administration decides to spend the money. We should argue for greater student and staff control of the university.
If we want a university system which encourages questioning and learning, then we need to campaign to defend publicly funded and publicly controlled education.
[Zanny Begg is the NUS Queensland co-education officer and the Brisbane organiser of Resistance.]