Higher Education Policy in Englandand the Coalition Government

Andrew Gunn

Faculty of Education, Social Sciences and Law

Andrew Gunn SRHE Newer Researchers Conference Celtic Manor December 2013 a.s.gunn@leeds.ac.uk

May 2010

June July August September October November DecemberJanuary

2011February March April May June

BillPrimacy Chamber House of

Commons

Upper Chamber House of

LordsAct

Determinants of pre-legislative

scrutiny Green Paper

White Paper

Executive Draft Bill

Committee and Report

stages

Parliamentary Procedure in the Westminster Parliament: a theoretical model

2. Financial Pragmatism

The context of a large national deficit and the need for strategies to reduce public spending.

The removal of the public contribution to undergraduate teaching for all but STEM subjects = Higher tuition fees.

The state loans the cost of study to students who will pay it back to HM Revenue and Customs as graduates.

Although HM Treasury continues to pay out all the money at the point of delivery, only the subsidised part of the loan counts as ‘public spending’ in national accounting - hence this reduces ‘the deficit’ as assessed by the credit rating agencies.

Fees must be capped as HM Treasury will not write universities a blank cheque and loan out unlimited sums of money to students.

Policy in the first year of the Government: three explanations

1. Ideology of Liberal Conservatism

Anti statism: Big Society not Big Government

Coalition thinking on education: in the past we have focused too much on the ‘demand side’; real transformation of public services comes from changing the ‘supply side’.

A political desire to increase the range of providers, choice and competition. Supply side reform: bringing in new providers is “the rising tide that floats all boats” (David Willetts)

It is the role of the state to open up ‘new opportunities’ in a regulated market to make it easier for private providers to enter.

3. Political Statecraft

Statecraft is the art of winning elections and keeping public office. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had very different election platforms on Higher Education yet policy required the support of both parties.

A cross-party desire to keep Higher Education out of the election campaign. An independent review led by Lord Browne commissioned by the previous Labour government.

Policy is the product of Coalition Statecraft, which can be seen in:

a. The timing and sequencing of the reforms.

Decisions were made for party political expediency and did not correspond to the order in the diagram on the left.

Reaction to protests and flaws in policy shaped events. Fees were resolved quickly while decisions on other issues were protracted.

b. Compromise and policy coherence.

May 2010, a Coalition Government was formed with 307 Conservative and 57 Liberal Democrat MPs.

To defuse the situation, Secretary of State, Vince

Cable immediately rules out a main aspect of the review.

Fees will be capped.

TIM

EL

INE

OF

EV

EN

TS

Tuition fee protests, London, November 2010

Source: Telegraph21 May 10

December: Parliament votes just on fees: capped at £9k

with an assumed average of £7.5k. No vote on the Browne Review recommendations. No

Green or White Paper.

By early 2011 it was apparent the new fees regime was flawed in practice. The average

fee is £8.5K - too high and too expensive. White Paper delayed as policy needs a

corrective ‘add-on’ to bring the costs down.

White Paper Students at the Heart of the System published in June 2011. Over six months

after MPs voted on fees.

Browne review published: Advocated unlimited fees. Highly unpopular - protests follow.

A mechanism was designed to reduce fees through the redistribution of undergraduate places (those at <ABB A-Level grades) from £9k to cheaper courses to bring the average price down.

Policy design contains concessions demanded by Liberal Democrats.

Abandoning pledges: Clegg promised no increase in fees - perhaps making the greatest sacrifice to secure a Coalition agreement.