The Human Cost of Education Cuts

I've spoken before about 'austerity measures' to reduce national debt. As my loyal reader will know, my special interest is the field of social care, but I've spoken enough about that for now.

Education has come to my attention, both in Ireland and England. In picking up on austerity measures in both countries, I've realised how much I've missed out on the education debate, and the human cost to education cuts.

The situation in Ireland is different to that of England, in that the cuts to services are being driven by the European Central Bank, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, even though there are many who believe that the savage cuts across the board are unnecessary. For many years the Irish Government has been a coalition, and currently this is Fine Gael, as the largest party, and Labour, who came second in the last election. It's sad to say that Labour has had little impact on Fine Gael's plans for cuts, particularly in the area of education.

For many months, there have been protests about the Irish Government's plans to cuts Special Needs Assistant's (SNA's) posts from over 200 schools. The role of SNA's in Ireland has been important, as the very individualised support to children with special needs has enabled them to remain in mainstream education, and this has enabled them to have a 'normal' education. From the Government we hear about the necessity for cuts to reduce the national debt, but from parents, we hear about the human cost of these cuts on their children. There is no finer example of this than a mother's powerful piece on 'The Anti Room' web site, which you can read here. Do read some of the comments as well if you have the time.

The Socialist Workers Party in Ireland has said, "When children with special needs are denied early educational and therapeutic intervention, not only do the children themselves suffer major setbacks in terms of reaching their potential, but their entire families also suffer directly in terms of stress and exhaustion. And in simple economic terms, wider society suffers too, as it costs the taxpayer much, much more to intervene later on in the life of a person with special needs than it does to provide appropriate early intervention". This view is supported by Richard Boyd Barrett, TD (member of the Irish parliament), who said, "It is utterly obscene, that children, and particularly our most vulnerable children should be asked to pay the price for the gambling and greed of banks and speculators. The removal of these vital supports is not only grossly unfair - it is utterly short-sighted and economically stupid". He went on to say, "High quality early education is the single most important building block if we are to lay the basis for economic recovery and avoid social breakdown. To persist with these cuts is a recipe for disaster".

These comments could easily have been said about the situation in Britain, in relation to cuts in our educational system. Short-termism again dominates the agenda, as saving today, just stores up other problems for tomorrow.

According to researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) last month, they estimate that total public spending on education in the UK will fall by over 13% in real terms between 2010/11 and 2014/15, and that "this represents the largest cut in education spending over any four-year period since at least the 1950's". The Government of course disagree, saying that "the schools budget is actually increasing by £3.6 billion in cash over the next four years". They are being disingenuous here, as there is a difference between funding for local authority schools, and the greater educational budget. Education cuts seem to be hitting the following the hardest.

1. Capital spending on school buildings
2. Higher education
3. Education for 16 - 19 year olds
4. Early years learning

Voice, the union for educational professionals, commenting on the IFS report said, "It could be argued that the areas facing the deepest cuts should be seeing increased funding. It is crucial that there is investment in education now and for the future".

On the subject of school buildings, Ian Toone from Voice said, "Many school buildings require urgent repair. Government estimates are that 75% of all UK schools have buildings that comprise asbestos-containing materials. The Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) has called for a national audit of asbestos in school buildings after figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that of the small number of academies inspected, approximately 60% had enforcement action taken against them for failing to adequately manage the asbestos in their buildings". The Chair of the JUAC said that "we simply do not know the true extent of the problem; this could just be the tip of the iceberg". As possibly serious as asbestos is, it is but one part of the condition of school buildings. Lack of action now is simply storing up problems for the future.

Higher education, in which Britain is a world leader, is crucial for the future of research and economic development. According to estimates produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, funding to universities has been cut by 40%, but that some of that shortfall will be recouped with increased tuition fees. However, though the deadline for application to most courses is next January, it should be some cause for concern that according to Ucas applications at the moment are 9% down on the same period last year. This means that about 7,000 fewer students have applied so far. If you take out overseas applications, there is a drop so far of 12% for UK students. All of this may well pick up before the end of January of course, but the rise in tuition fees and subsequent student debt, is causing many people to think more carefully before applying to university. More mature students seem to be definitely re-considering their future, as people over the age of 25 have fallen by more than 25%, and among those in their forties, the drop is 28%. The Chair of the Million+ group of new universities has warned of the importance of mature students not being put off university. "Studying for the degree people need to get the job they want in the future will be particularly important for those seeking to re-enter the labour market after losing their jobs". This policy of cuts is again possibly storing up future problems, as the people the country will need, are not there.

The General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) has said, "Despite the Government's claim to have protected school funding, most schools will see real terms cuts. Sixth form colleges and school sixth forms will be hit by the particularly savage cuts of up to 20% to 16 - 19 year olds education". Further education (16-19) plays a key role in providing training for businesses and jobs and in preparation for higher education. I've come across too many people who became educationally alive, only at the age of 16, and it would be tragic to think that similar future generations would lose out on this opportunity.

Someone said about working with the under five's, "The early years are crucial for children's social and behavioural development and in laying the foundation for lifelong learning. The early years set the course for the rest of a child's life". Cuts in this area makes it more difficult for the next one, and the next one after that, and so on. But the Government are adamant that the spending cuts will not have an adverse affect on education.

As the NUT says, "Education cuts don't heal - they cause massive social and economic costs". The social costs can be equated to the human costs of education cuts. We're not just talking about institutions or establishments losing out, but children, young people and adults, as well as those who teach them. Cuts to education will not bring long term economic recovery, but investment in education to give us the skills we need for economic recovery will.

The Journey from Illiteracy

The Up N Down Under

Wandering down St James' Street, just off the Old Market Square in Nottingham a little while ago, I read something that I hadn't thought much about, but which simple concept thrilled me to the core.

I came across the 'Up N Down Under Sports Bar'; of course I'd seen this many times, but on the gable end of the building is a notice, giving a little bit of the buildings history. It was this that thrilled me, and set me to thinking about literacy and the working class.

To quote from Wikipedia, "Literacy has traditionally been described as the ability to read for knowledge, write coherently and think critically about printed material". The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) takes this definition further, saying it is the "ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society". This of course is the ultimate goal, but over the years, people have been satisfied with being able to read and write.

Gable Wall of Up N Down Under Sports Bar

The 18th Century was an important period in addressing illiteracy in Europe. It is interesting to note that by the middle of the century, the ability to read and comprehend translated scripture led to Wales having one of the highest literacy rates.

This came about because of the 'circulating schools' started by Griffith Jones. One of the differences between non-conformist religion, and that practiced by the established Church, was the belief that everyone had the right to read the Bible for themselves, and not to rely on reading by others. Jones' aim was to have everyone read the Bible for themselves in Welsh (after all, that was the national language). In Sweden, by the end of the 18th Century, the ability to read was nearly 100%, because of enforced literacy on the people. However, in Wales, Sweden and England, the ability to write lagged far behind the ability to read. It is said that "as late as 1841, 33% of all Englishmen, and 44% of Englishwomen signed marriage certificates with their mark, as they were unable to write". European countries were more successful than England in implementing educational reform because, as the historian Ernest Gellner says, "those governments were more willing to invest in the population as a whole". England didn't have government-financed public education until 1870, and even then it was limited.

Back to the 'Up N Down Under'. In the mid-18th Century it was known as The Talbot, (not to be confused with The Talbot in Long Row, which since the 1920's has been Yates, or with The Talbot House Hotel in West Bridgford). In 1799 the name was changed to The News House (also not to be confused with the current pub The Newshouse situated on Canal Street), in recognition of the newsreaders who had been paid to work there. William Ayscough began the first Nottingham printing press in Bridlesmith Gate in 1710, and before too long the Nottingham Post, and Nottingham Courant were being published. In the early days it was just a weekly sheet with three columns, with news "stolen from London papers". Newsreaders were paid to go to places like the News House and read the papers for the benefit of illiterate clientele. They were very popular. As technology improved, the newspapers could afford to hire reporters to record the local news, but they still put out special editions for newsreaders to read out in pubs. Because of increasing literacy levels in the 19th Century, the need for newsreaders died out. (Interesting how they re-surfaced on radio in 1922, and on TV in 1954).

Not everyone was enthused by the education of the working classes. In a visit to Nottingham in 1891, the American writer, Washington Irving saw the education of the working classes as a threat to the status quo. He said, "They become too knowing and begin to read newspapers ... and talk of reform". In this he was right, as in 1831 rioters opposed to the Reform Bill attacked Nottingham Castle. How dare they think for themselves, if this carries on, it will be the end of the class system. If only that were true.

In spite of opinions such as Irving's, there was a huge drive in the 18th and 19th Centuries to improve the reading ability, and in many cases, the writing ability of people. There were significant initiatives in the Scottish Highlands, Methodist Societies in England, and the Circulating Schools in Wales previously mentioned. It has been noted that in Wales, between 1737 - 1761, there appears to have been about 3,000 schools with over 150,000 scholars. 

While the schools were predominantly there to teach children, adults were also welcomed, but this work with adults was definitely seen "as subsidiaries to the teaching of children". The first proper school for adults is said to have begun in Nottingham in 1708 to meet the needs of women in lace and hosiery factories. This was independent of any other organisation and was run by a Methodist (William Singleton) and a Quaker (Samuel Fox). The main focus was on reading the Bible, and then writing from dictation or copies. Over 160 years later the national education programme was introduced by the Government through a system of mass schooling. Literacy teaching outside the formal school setting continued though. In the view of the historian Harvey Graff, the introduction of mass schooling was in part an effort to control the type of literacy that the working class had access to, and that this uncontrolled, potentially critical reading could lead to increased radicalisation of the populace. In his view, "mass schooling was meant to temper and control literacy, not spread it". There was still the attempt to keep the working class down where they belonged, and to know their place.

Working Class Movement Library, Salford

But the working class were not to be kept down, and learning to read brought an appetite to read books for themselves, and the establishment of libraries. There is a long and glorious history of working class libraries, even though working class people had to fight through paternalistic provision before they got what they wanted.

I've just been reading a fascinating lecture given by Peter Hoare in September 2009, called, "Mechanics, Artisans, Operatives, Labourers and Others", which is about libraries for the working class in 19th Century Nottinghamshire. This is worth a blog on its own, which I may return to sometime, but for now let's just take a peek at the battle for control of working class libraries. Members of the Chartist movement in the 19th Century, such as William Lovell, "made intellectual freedom their first political priority, calling for adult education programmes and public libraries governed by the workers themselves". This is one of the reasons why I love the Chartist movement so much, in an age when we take 'intellectual freedom' for granted, they had to fight for it.

Peter Hoare points out that creating institutions such as the Mechanics and the Artisans Institutions were essentially 'top-down' institutions, run by the town's elite to improve the conditions of the working class. He saw this as an exercise in social control, as the book-stock was carefully monitored. The Founder of the Workers Education Association, Albert Mansbride, had particular comments to make about the Mechanics Institutes. To him they "were largely the result of philanthropic effort, set on foot by some local magnate, rather than upon the initiative of the mechanics themselves". Nottingham and district had these institutions (libraries) that were heavily influenced by the clergy. The Radford Artizans' Library was founded in 1837, and in its rules it states, "No works opposed to pure morals, or to the great doctrine of justification by faith alone, or of the divinity or atonement of Christ, shall be admitted". Though Peter Hoare says that a few dozen novels were stocked. This selection policy was not universally appreciated, and in August 1835 half a dozen members of the Radford Artizans' Library broke away and formed the first Operatives Library in Nottingham. How did this come about? They wanted to read, "Popular History of Priestcraft" by the radical Nottingham writer William Howitt. The committee refused, with the members breaking away; subscribed a small sum each to buy the book themselves, leading to further purchases and a growing list of borrowers. This new Operatives Library, based in the Rancliffe Arms, was totally democratic, had very low subscription rates and all decisions were in the hands of the members. Before long, other similar libraries had been formed in the working class suburbs of Sneinton, Radford and Hyson Green. Seven of these libraries formed a co-operative, and were numbered 1 - 7.

Exercising intellectual freedom, their rules showed how broad thinking these libraries would be. The first rule states, "As we believe, no political institution ought to stand that cannot bear examination, and no creed ought to be believed that cannot bear discussion, we, therefore, resolve to purchase works of every description, political, as well as those embracing history, science and literature". Unfortunately for the working class in Nottingham, in the end it was the paternalistic and socially controlling Mechanics that survived, while the Operatives disappeared almost without trace. However, this was not necessarily the case in other parts of the country. 

Working class libraries across the country existed long before the advent of public libraries. Some of the first working class libraries in Britain were The Leadhills Reading Society (1741), the Wanlockhead Miners' Library (1756) and the Westerkirk Library (1792). In lowlands Scotland, one of the first true public libraries was thought to be the Innerpeffray Library in Perthshire. Working Men's Clubs, Pubs and Co-operative Societies also contributed to mutual education. By 1903, 500 out of 900 Working Men's Clubs had libraries, with a total of around 187,00 volumes. Miners libraries in the coal fields of South Wales made exceptional efforts to support their own libraries right up to the middle of the 20th Century.

One commentator has said, "When public libraries were established, they were used by some working class people, but this was never a mass activity. Working class people who used libraries were the exception rather than the rule".

I'd be interested to know the demographics of library use today, to see if this situation has changed. There is so much opportunity, that I really hope it has.

But what of literacy today? It is not a good picture throughout England and Wales. When you think about what our forefathers went through to be literate, it is nothing short of disgraceful that we are in the position we are in in 2011.

In May this year, The London Evening Standard launched a literacy campaign to "Get London Reading". Though their statistics were for London, they bear comparison with many other parts of England and Wales. I spent many years working with prisoners and ex-prisoners, and I agree with a recent study by the Prison Reform Trust that found 48% of inmates have the reading age of a seven year old or younger. When the Westfield Stratford City shopping centre was recruiting for staff earlier this year, the Director was horrified by the educational standards of job applicants. The Director comes from Australia, and he could hardly believe that so many British young people have left school "functionally illiterate and innumerate". They had to bring in tutors for the people they thought might make it because their enthusiasm levels were high.

The Standard provided these statistics for London.

• 1 in 4 children leaves primary school at 11 unable to read or write properly
• 1 in 5 leaves secondary school without being able to read or write with confidence
• 1 in 6 (one million) working age adults cannot read with confidence. From other sources we learn that around half of the working age population in England and Wales lack basic numeracy skill, and 1 in 6 lack basic literacy skills. In Wales it is 1 in 4
• 16% is the estimated proportion of 16 - 65 year olds with the reading age of an 11 year old
• 40% of 11 year olds at inner-city primary schools have a reading age of between six and nine when they start secondary schools
• 40% of London firms say their employees have poor literacy skills - and report that it has a negative impact on their business

We don't need to go on. The problem throughout the country is a big one, and not being an educationalist, I struggle to understand why. I do understand however the facts. Achieving literacy levels as per UNESCO's definition seems a million miles away; we'd settle at the moment for confidence in reading and writing. If it was possible to turn in your grave, that would be happening with our working class forefathers who fought so hard for intellectual freedom through schools and libraries. What has to be done to reverse this appalling situation? Over to you educationalists.

"Literacy is not a luxury, it is a right and a responsibility. If our world is to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century we must harness the energy and creativity of all our citizens".

President Clinton on International Literacy Day, 8th September 1994

Success! But what about the failure?



Council House, Nottingham

There's a large banner strung across the front of the Council House in Nottingham, which in case you can't read the picture says, "Congratulations to all pupils, teachers, schools, governors, parents and carers on Nottingham's best ever SAT's, GCSE and A-Level exam results". Of course, we all agree with that.
The banner exemplifies the pride in the city, that has also been shown in the local press and television. But while rejoicing with those who have achieved what they wanted to achieve, is anyone sparing a thought for those who have failed their exams, and are wondering what the future holds? Now I've never liked the word 'fail', preferring to use 'set back' instead. Some will feel that this is mere semantics, and they may well be right, but certain words do come with connotations. The word 'fail' gives an impression of negativity and finality, while 'set back' says, 'you've taken a knock, but there's hope'.

I failed my 11-plus, which was devastating at the time, and I remember a fellow class mate who also failed, being so distraught, that he locked himself in the school toilets, and wouldn't come out for hours. A few words of public commiserations for those who have failed would not go amiss. There will be many feeling like my class mate, and wondering what now? I could talk about failing at SAT's or GCSE, but I'm particularly thinking of those who sat A-Levels.

For years there has been this insane drive to encourage more and more people to attend University. It has been akin to the insane drive for home ownership over the last thirty years, and the subsequent sale of council houses, leaving nothing but the vagaries of the private housing sector for those in need. (Get back on track John). Some will have sat A-Levels and got nothing; others will have sat them and not achieved high enough grades. Both will feel that the door to University is closed to them. They have failed. If society sees success as getting to University, and not getting there as failure, then society has a lot to answer for in the destruction of dreams, and the blighting of lives.

I never went to University, and there does seem to be an awful lot of them. There has to be huge differences in what they provide, and the quality of the degree that students come away with.

All I know is that getting a degree is no guarantee of a chosen career in the future. Graduates are stacking supermarket shelves or serving in fast food outlets. Those that come out of University with a degree in subjects that matter to employers probably fare a little better.

So to those who haven't succeeded in their A-Levels to allow them to go to University, there is still a life of hope. They may be made to feel second class because of all the hype, but there are opportunities to explore that may bring greater future rewards. I have to question also the sense of incurring huge debt - which will be even bigger next year - to get a degree that may well be next to worthless in enabling graduates to get a career. By the way, this is not an anti-university rant, as I'm very well aware of the benefits attached to certain University studies. I just want to show that getting to University is not the be-all and end-all of everything, and that not getting there is not the end of everything.

There are many fine Occupational courses at local colleges that provide a decent education and qualification at the end of it. I've known a number of people over the years who have gone down this route, and ended up with better paid jobs than their graduate counterparts. Apprenticeships are all the rage again, and the benefit is that you get paid while you are learning a profession. Though there is no guarantee of permanent work even if you go down these routes, they at least give hope. The ones I really feel sorry for are those living under parental expectation. There's a long tradition of University education in the family, and you're the only one to 'fail'. Unfortunately there are some horror stories of children being made to feel like 'black sheep', but everyone isn't the same. Some are perfectly intelligent, but are happiest working with their hands. The country would be in a poor condition if there weren't people like this, and this isn't failure.

Around the city centre there are these banners advertising a jobs fair on the 22nd September. I'm all for promoting job vacancies in every way possible.

The banners say that there are 100's of jobs available, but unfortunately there are 1000's of people looking for them. So employers will have choice, which is great for them, but this cherry-picking will leave far too many disappointed and still without work.

In a capitalist society, that's how it will always be.  But there are chances out there for those with determination; who can show that they have something to offer. Not getting exam results is not the end; it may just mean a rethink, that could just turn out for the best.

Yes, I know that I'm putting a positive spin on this, but that's what those who've been told they've failed need. I'm really pleased for those who've got what they wanted, but my thoughts are with the rest. There is much written about education, and I leave you to ponder the words of Oscar Wilde,

"Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught".

Is Bigger Always Better?

This is the question posed by South Nottingham College. On the 1st July 2011, they took over the running of Castle College, who had run into financial difficulties. (The official description is merger). Being one of the smaller colleges in the area, I guess that they are always competing with others for student intake. The above sign can be found outside the former Castle College campus on Maid Marian Way, now one of a growing list of South Nottingham College (SNC) buildings.

The question is an interesting one. Are those colleges which are bigger than SNC, better than them, just because of their size? Purely from reading press reports around the 'merger', the expected size of the new college is a bit confusing. In the Guardian of the 7th July we read, "A 2011 merger will see South Nottingham College grow considerably in size". Later saying that "the total number of higher education students for the two colleges in 2010/2011 was 350, but future capacity has yet to be confirmed for the merged institution". However, in the Independent newspaper, on the 1st July it said that the college was "expecting 43,000 students in its first intake after the merger". I've no idea how these figures compare on the size scale of further and higher educational establishments, and to be honest I can't really be bothered to check; it however, just doesn't seem that small to me.

Bruce Lee

Let's take for granted that one size doesn't fit all. But to answer the question, we have to delve a little bit deeper, and ask what do we mean by 'bigger', and what does 'better' mean?

Take this scenario, as unlikely as it may seem. I'm out on a dark night, and I'm confronted by a group of 6 foot thugs, who are out to engage in mayhem. On the surface, bigger is better. Beside me is Bruce Lee, the martial arts phenomenon, a much smaller man, and he's on his own (there's no good looking to me, as I'd be useless). I know it's unlikely, as Bruce Lee died in 1973, but please stay with me.

The group of thugs would not stand a chance, and would be routed in no time. Under these circumstances, bigger is not better. I base this scenario on one of Bruce's party pieces. He would have a man stand in front of him holding a coin in his outstretched hand. Bruce would have his arms down by his side, and would take the coin from the man, and leave a penny in its place before the man could clench his fist. That's the sort of friend I want with me in the unlikely event of being confronted by a group of large thugs (any size really) in an alley, on a dark night. Better, is more appropriate than bigger, under these circumstances. You've probably detected an underlying love of martial arts films here, and you'd be right - guilty as charged.

But let's get back to the real world.  Are we asking is bigger better for sustainability or service provision? South Nottingham College is now bigger, and should therefore be better equipped to sustain itself financially, as core costs can be spread out across a greater range of income sources. This is often called economies of scale. Financial sustainability though, does not mean that the educational process is better. The former Castle College had as its Motto, "To unlock potential, raise aspirations and deliver excellence". Size on its own will not achieve this end. So in this case, 'Is Bigger always Better?' evokes the answer, not necessarily so.

In a way, it depends who's asking the question, and why? In a recent interesting survey of 2,900 workers in Australia, 73% wanted to work somewhere else. Where? Google stole the top spot, with Virgin coming in second. Apple took fourth place, followed by Qantas, The Walt Disney Corporation, Sydney Water, Getaway and Coca-Cola.

To these workers, bigger was better, as brand recognition was cited by 41% of them as a factor pushing them towards their choice. The survey conducted by Insync and RedBalloon commented, "Do people honestly believe that bigger is better, or do people like to hide within a large corporate business, rather than be accountable within a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME)?" My employment has always been with SME's, but my involvement with others has often been with large public or private bodies. Is bigger always better? There is of course no definitive answer to this question, as we must always say, it depends. There are pros and cons, though I do tend to like the view of Voltaire, who said, "God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best".

In my view, 'shooting best' means that the end product is better. If bigger has a better end product, then bigger is best. If smaller has a better end product, then smaller is best. Let me give you two examples from my experience, which will highlight why I say, in answer to the question, it all depends. One is from the Public Sector, and the other from the Third Sector.

During the early to mid 1990's, my organisation worked with the East Sussex Probation Service to provide accommodation and support for those clients who were under Probation supervision in a small geographical area. It worked well. The Senior Probation Officer responsible for the contract worked down the road, and we were able to meet regularly to discuss the work, solve any problems and make quick decisions. A few years later, it was decided to merge the East Sussex Probation Service with the West Sussex Probation Service to form the Sussex Probation Area. There was the inevitable 'rationalisation' of their services, as you no longer needed two of everything. Some senior posts disappeared, along with some finance and back office staff. A new structure was in place, which meant that local contact was diminished. Problem solving and decision making took longer, with the result, in my opinion that the end product was tarnished. In this case, bigger was definitely not better. Since leaving the work, I have learnt that Sussex and Surrey have merged to form the Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust. It's now therefore, even bigger.

For about twenty years I worked closely with a Third Sector organisation in Sussex, which grew to become one of the foremost organisations in England and Wales, working to provide safer communities and healthier lives. With around 200 projects; 2000 staff and a budget of over £50 million, it could so easily have been caught up in the corporate gravy-train. But it hasn't. Growth has enabled it to have a strong infrastructure, with sound HR and Finance departments, which has allowed excellent opportunities for staff training and staff progression. Working with so many contracts, has also allowed it to keep its management costs low, so enabling it to present very competitive bids. Its philosophy in working with 200 projects is exactly the same as for when it was working with one. This has meant proven success with the client group, which is the main aim of any service delivery. The end product was good. In this case, bigger is better.

What do you think? Is bigger always better? Will the answer be different for Government, Education, Business, Third Sector, or any other field? Or do you feel like me, that the question needs to have an autopsy performed on it, to examine the pros and cons? You may well come to the same conclusion, and say, "It all depends". Over to you, Is bigger always better?

Cost v's Investment

Inspired by my son's blogs on higher education, I decided to re-visit a subject that I spent many years pursuing with Local Authorities, Government Departments and Funding Bodies. It was the question of do we see things as costs, or as investments?

In a list updated on the 25th May 2011, more than 90 universities in England have revealed their plans for undergraduate tuition fees for 2012 (more than three quarters of the total). More than two-thirds of these want to charge the £9,000 maximum fees for some or all courses. The rise in fees has come about because of the cuts in teaching grants. The University and College Union (UCU) is opposed to these cuts, and at its Annual Congress last weekend warned that the UK could become "yesterday's country equipped with yesterday's skills". The UCU leader said that "it is ignorance that is the expensive option, not education". They see the present Coalition Government as a "fundamental threat to everything we stand for as educators".


Cambridge University Library

Now, I always like to set out my stall before proceeding, so that there's no confusion as to where I'm coming from. I believe in free education for all - from the nursery to the university.

I applauded the Scottish Parliament when on the 28th February 2008, they approved the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, which restored free higher education in Scotland. I agreed with the Scottish Education Secretary, Fiona Hyslop when she said, "We believe access to education should be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay".

With the Government's determination to provide ever more places for ever more students, cost is going to be seen as a worrying factor. Perhaps this is at the heart of the problem - the emphasis is on quantity, where it should be on quality. Too many universities and too many students, with too many second-rate degrees that major employers are not looking for, and don't want. Perhaps more people would be better off taking advantage of the proposed 250,000 vocational apprenticeships over the next four to five years, rather than thinking of university.

Having less universities, but ending up with 'smarter' ones is hardly new thinking I know, and probably is opening a can of worms, but it will begin to address the subject of cost. Wales is placing a cap on student places at Welsh universities, which is being met with some concern by the NUS Wales, who's President has said, "Thousands of able and qualified applicants will miss out on university places this summer, and the introduction of a cap on students numbers will do nothing to alleviate the anxieties that so many learners and their families have about this issue". They also feel that the cap will be hardest on those from less affluent backgrounds. Now, normally I'd be the first to jump to the defence of those from poorer backgrounds having the same opportunity that others have, but this could be a red herring. As in Scotland, we're talking about the "ability to learn" as meriting a place. To give the impression that there's no quality outside of the 'affluent society', is an affront to thousands of people.

More quality (not elitism) rather than quantity makes it easier to consider the value of free education for all. "But it can't be afforded", I hear the cry ringing around the corridors of power. Nonsense. It's a question of Government priorities. Quality education should be seen as an investment in our future - this means spending now for future advantage or benefit. It should not be just seen as a present day cost, without any thought for the future. All major businesses have succeeded because they have invested now, for future gain. I've said that Government priorities dictate where money is made available. Take war. Iraq cost £9.24 billion. Afghanistan up to last year (and remember we're still there) has cost £11.1 billion, with the Ministry of Defence stating that last year in Afghanistan the bill was around £4.2 billion. This means that nearly £12 million is being spent every day in that country. The former London Mayor, Ken Livingstone has said that the cost of the war in Afghanistan "would have funded free tuition in English universities for ten years".

Don't tell me that it can't be afforded. It's ideology and short-termism that is preventing it from happening. It's a myopic view of cost rather than the panoramic view of investment that's the problem. Remember the words of the UCU President Sally Hunt, "It is ignorance that is the expensive option, not education".

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest". - Benjamin Franklin

Prison Yard

It's not just education where there is the battle between cost and investment. It covers many fields, not least in the criminal justice system.

Let me give a simple example from work that I was previously engaged in. My organisation had a contract with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), to work with local Probation Service offices with around 200 offenders a year being released from prison.

Because Probation Services do not tend to work with anyone sentenced to under twelve months, our clients being released had served a great deal of time in prison for their crimes. The value of our service contract was say £40,000 per year, which I constantly had to justify in terms of value for money to the local Probation Service, rather than as investment which brings benefit as a whole to the criminal justice system.

Look at figures and costs to show what I mean. Take the number of 200 clients in a year. Let's take a small number of 10% (i.e. 20 clients) of the most difficult, damaged people, who have a recidivist history for violent crimes, and who as a result get 'sent down' for years at a time. Because of the nature of their crimes, when caught, they have to be tried at Crown Court before a Judge and jury. These trial can cost around £30,000 each time. Magistrates Courts can be 10 times cheaper, but this is largely due to the fact that Magistrates are volunteers and only receive out of pocket expenses. Crown Court is the only option for a large number of cases. A successful prosecution takes place, and the defendent is sent to prison. Each prison place costs upwards of £45,000 per year.

Now, each person being tried at Crown Court (cost £30,000) and been sent to prison (cost £45,000 per year) has cost £75,000. Let's say that our work with 50% of the 20 clients (i.e. 10 clients) has successfully kept them out of Court, and out of prison [and our success rates were higher than that], the total saving to the Criminal Justice System is £750,000 in the first year. All this from an outlay of £40,000. This is a net benefit of £710,000.

If you focus on cost, you'll look at the £40,000 and ask can we afford it. If you focus on investment, you'll look at the £750,000 and say that this is worth it. Cost v's Investment? It's a no-brainer!