Do you want to be educated? Educate yourselves first

Before the election National pledged to increase education spending every year, above what was already committed. At the same time it criticised Labour's pledge card.

Now, the Government may effectively cut education spending. It also wants to ensure that people borrowing for studies were likely to find work that would give them enough income to repay their loans.

To do that the Government has to ensure two things: that work is there to be found and that it pays enough.

Instead, what it is doing is to limit the numbers of students who take out a loan so that fewer of those who earn crap incomes don’t have to spend it on student loans to pay back living costs. It is also cutting eligibility for students over 55 as they are not likely to get jobs as a result of their study that will repay those student loans. This move may contravene the Bill of Rights but the Government has shown it is quite happy to pass laws that are in contravention to the Bill of Rights.

Even if some do get jobs, the Government is telling people to do more with less and praising those who do so by lying about the amount they do have.

Just recently the Government used the Napier Kindergarten Association as an example of being able to “do more with less”. by quoting budget figures before funding cuts were implemented. Meaning they are only doing “more with less” by increasing fees.

Fees, in some cases, that are paid by students who have to put their kids in childcare so they can study.

The amount saved every year by restricting access to student loans will be up to $60m a year.

I think the Government would like more couples to go on the student allowance, particularly if they have an earning partner. Most couples -say, with two preschool children - on the student allowance earning $406.00 a week actually get more than they would if they earned $700.00 - due to the sharp abatement rates. Meaning many of those earning over $407.00 a week are paying more tax( some on secondary tax) but getting less net income - but feel they are getting more net income as they are working more.

With the over 55’s, 70 per cent of money borrowed is not paid back – so that means much of the living costs loaned to over 55’s is treated as a student allowance and as less is to be loaned to these students money will be saved.

How much will be saved by reversing the tax cuts? I`ll give you a clue, if we just reversed tax cuts for those over $70k we’d save $1.625 bn. We could ensure the retention of the $20 tax subsidy for all KiwiSaver members, increase access to education, make ECE free, and still have money left over.

Government announces removal of cap on tuition fees

The Government has endorsed a report and practically announced that there will be no cap on university tuition fees, allowing universities to charge double what they currently receive and lead to higher interest rates on student loans. The winners, on the whole, are universities and the losers are students.

Now before you students all take a collective gasp, we are talking about the UK.

This announcement follows a Government review on the future of fees, and their approval of the policy. But one review proposed that universities that charge a certain amount in fees per year would lose a proportion of the fee to help cover the cost of student borrowing. This means that the cap may be removed, but not the restrictions, thus minimising the incentive for universities to ratchet up fees. What this means is that some universities will be able to charge more fees but may be worse off. The average undergradualte degree costs about £3,000.

The executive summary of that report is here. [PDF]

The main principles of the report are

1. More investment should be made available for higher education
2. Student Choice should be increased
3. Everyone who has the potential should benefit from higher education
4. No one should have to pay until they start to work
5. Payments should be affordable
6. Part time students should be treated the same as full time students for the cost of learning

The LibDems have signed pre-election promises to oppose increases in fees, campaigning to phase fees out. That’s not going to happen, so students are planning a big demonstration next month.

Past grades could affect future government assistance to students

The other day I was advised by letter of changes to student loans and allowances. Grades are going to affect eligibility to loans and allowances. But I was particularly surprised to see that grades from 2009 will count towards eligibility. Doesn’t affect me, of course, I passed everything well.

Had I failed half my courses in 2009, I could get a student loan or allowance in 2010. But perhaps not in 2011. And according to Tertiary Education minister Steven Joyce, this new policy of passing more than half of your papers could affect 9000 students – at least the ones that can be enrolled.

If you are being slack and partying hard, and fail because of that, fair enough. But what happens when a student who studied in 2009 because he couldn’t get a job, mid year got a dream job and dropped out of studying. He passed his three semester one papers –getting straight As - but as he has not passed any of his five semester two papers, he will get no government assistance if he wants to continue his degree – even if he wants to study extramurally and do just two papers while working. What if he gets made redundant and wants to go back studying? Will he have to pay everything himself?

Also, a first year student who gets to grips with studying passes three out of eight papers in 2009 because he’s sick, has family and part time work commitments. Perhaps he took on more than he could chew and withdrew from one mid-year. Perhaps he is an extramural student who took a third year paper in his first year (as I did). While a pretty poor performance, it is a little different to a student who skylarks and doesn’t make the effort to pass his papers. But he is treated like one.

So, he takes fewer papers the following year. He doesn’t get a student allowance so he gets a job and takes four papers, passing three with A grades, and withdrawing late from one. Because he did not pass more than half his papers in his first year he may not be entitled to a student loan. His sin was not academic underachievement or slackness – probably more like overcommitment.

The narrow door to education: getting entrance to university just got harder

One of the things that affects student achievement is how the government funds students and tertiary institutions.

The Government has a Tertiary Education Strategy which has a vision for a "world-leading education system that equips all New Zealanders with the knowledge, skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21st century."

Yet the vision does not meet the strategy; and the world leading education system is not financially equipped to meet the vision. The focus of the strategy is on those 25 and under that want to study full time to achieve a university degree. If you want to study part time, or extramurally while working, you don't fit, especially if you are over 25. The strategy notes that funding for tertiary institutions,will, in future, be linked to post-study employment and that a " wide range of students" should be successfully completing university degrees.

The strategy indicates that the Government wants to see more students enrolling, and finishing their degrees more quickly.But while most will have university entrance, many won't be able to enter university, despite the strategy concluding that " the tertiary education system needs to ensure it can meet the educational needs of an increasingly diverse population".

The Tertiary Education strategy says that student choice will be a driving factor in tertiary education provision. Some students want to be able to take some summer school papers - but if you want to do that at Massey University you can't, as enrolments were closed off last week with no warning to prospective students. This is not because the Government is not funding students - indeed, most summer school students won't be eligible for student allowances or student loans for living costs - it is because the Government has funded Massey for a certain number of effective full time students, and these students are now enrolled.

Last year Auckland University turned away 1100 students, and this year the number was almost 2000. Next year, both Victoria University and Massey University will join Auckland in introducing ranking systems for entrants under 20, meaning half of all enrolment places at New Zealand universities will be subject to competitive entry criteria. It is the single biggest change to our tertiary system since the introduction of student fees in 1990, and one that has happened so quickly that it has almost totally bypassed the public radar. Some fear it signals an end to open access education in New Zealand, and a move towards the kind of elitism New Zealanders have always liked to believe happened somewhere else.

That last paragraph was from an article from Matt Russell on capping enrolments in our universities for the Massey student mag Off Campus - but this new form of university capping does not happen at graduation, and is not just happening at Massey, it's happening nationwide.

The whole article is worth a read.

Minister wants education linked to jobs

Okay, the heading is misleading... it's not true at all. Tertiary Education minister Steven Joyce only wants the education that is on the back of state funding linked to jobs. And I agree that education should be linked to jobs.

What the Minister is reported to have said is that, ultimately, he would like to see funding based on how many of the previous year's students found work as a result of their qualification.Yet the minister, who completed his degree over a 22 year period, was one that didn't.

It's a shortsighted approach, particularly in the field of extramural education, which I have a bit to do with. A high proportion of extramural students already have jobs in the field they are studying , and finish their degree part time. Some are studying towards a qualification in a field they would like to enter, but already have jobs - and are not going to run away from that job until they can secure another one.

Its unlikely that funding for extramural institutions will be based on how many of the previous year's students found work in the field they are studying. I know of some students who have dropped out of their qualifications after securing jobs in their chosen field, without these qualifications.I know of others who have worked at Studylink because they were one of the 99 who missed out on each application for jobs in their field after graduating. I know of students who have studied midwifery that have then had kids. Does that count?

If university funding is based on completion and jobs, the model will fail - a third of students who finished university do not have a full time job six months later. Of the two thirds that do, it is not known what proportion is in the field of study. I wonder if this postgraduate student who did a thesis on the political blogosphere managed to get a job blogging six months after he finished.

Nah, he probably ended up at Vodafone or somewhere similar. Good on him, too.

Students are likely to have to fund their own Masters study?

Victoria University's Salient has popped up a story about eligibility to the student loans scheme for post graduate students.

Some future doctors and those seeking a higher education will be forced to fund some of their own studies after changes made to the Student Loan Scheme earlier this year.

In an exclusive statement to Salient, Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce admitted that the changes made to the Loan Scheme in Budget 2010 will mean that some students will not have access to student loans to cover their final years of study.

This is nothing new. There are limits on how long students can get a student loan and for the average student with a three year degree (and honours) this policy won't affect them. But the Salient article says the opposite.

The loan scheme restructure means students who complete a double degree and honours will likely need to fund any Masters study out of their own pocket, but may then be able to access funding for Doctorate study.

That is simply incorrect.

Most students will be unlikely to have to fund their own masters even if they did two degrees - anyway, most students would do a double major,which takes around the same time as a single major.

Most degrees take fewer than 5 EFTS (effective full time student) to complete. A student who studies full time for about 52 weeks a year is a 0.8 EFTS. An undergraduate can get the student loan for 7 EFTS, with a further 1 EFTS allowed for postgraduate study and 3 EFTS for doctoral study if these EFTS are unused.That's more than eight years of study. The same rules apply for the student allowance. So the average full time student studying to honours level will only run out of EFTS if he or she fails and then resits a good deal of papers - in a second degree.

Where the policy could affect students is post graduate study after degrees that take around seven years - such as medical studies. But it is blatantly incorrect to state that students who complete a double degree and honours will likely need to fund Masters out of their own pockets - with the implication that most students who have done honours will have to fork out for Masters.

You only have to look at the Cabinet papers to find that out. Obviously Salient didn't bother to do that.

It’s an arse of a plan, Joyce

Guest post by Ralph Springett, president of Massey’s extramural students’ association

Tertiary education minister Steven Joyce has recently outlined how tertiary education funding will work. Completions must come within the targeted range as described by the institutions investment plan. Otherwise the Tertiary Education Commission will use their funding-stick; give the institution a beating for not being good enough. Sounds like national standards before corporal punishment was banned.

The reaction will be sensible. Tertiary institutions such as universities and polytechnics will increase support for marginal students, using the compulsory student services levy to fund new initiatives. That’s good, lets all muck in and help those that need it most – a bit like how student associations work. Institutions will also be more careful about which prospective (and even current) students they chose to enrol and re-enrol. They will choose those with good grades who want to study full-time. They will be supported in this by the government’s tertiary education strategy push to enroll school leavers. Students who fail will be shunted out the door to make way for the bright new things.

But there is a problem. If you are an adult, the doors will be closed. If you fail because you decided that the course was crap or your mother died; you are out. If you are Māori and are looking for a second chance at education you will have to count on… on what?

National’s direction is discriminating against those with disabilities, students who study part-time for professional or personal development and the elderly who through education wish to continue to contribute to society. It is bordering on racist, as the group they are targeting effectively excludes Māori, despite its own Tertiary Education Strategy targeting Māori learners. Māori learners in degree level tertiary education are predominantly adults who have entered the system through the open entry route for those aged 20 or more. If National closes this door, how would their policy satisfy the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

One wonders if National has considered the social impact of its tertiary education policies.

How to announce new funding without providing new funding

Ann Tolley makes an announcement: $8 million boost for high-performing polytechnics

Tertiary Education Minister Anne Tolley has announced that 12 polytechnics and institutes of technology are to provide up to 700 new student places following an $8 million funding boost."This additional funding for 2010, part of the Government's Youth Opportunities package, will help these institutions cope with forecast enrolment growth"

Looks like the government is announcing new funding. But it is not new funding. Tolley made a similar announcement in August

An $8 million funding boost will help high-performing polytechnics and institutes of technology collectively provide up to 700 new places to help cope with forecast enrolment growth next year, Tertiary Education Minister Anne Tolley announced today.

"This one-off funding will be available to deal with expected increases in student enrolments in 2010 resulting from the impact of the economic downturn on youth employment opportunities," Mrs Tolley says.

It wouldn't have taken very long to write today's media release I`m sure. Just change "one-off funding" to "additional funding", to make it look like a one-off announcement of additional funding for polytechs that are not as high performing as they were initally made out to be - but still have caps on student numbers.

Universal student allowances could lead to increased fees and reduced teaching quality if Government policy does not change

The Government has announced that full time students will get a universal student allowance in 2012 as parental means testing is eventually abolished. It had planned this policy in the first half of this year but only announced now because it is about to lose an election. But the first substantial move won’t occur until 2011. The PM said universal allowances would assist Labour's goal of creating a "knowledge-led society", but two thirds of the people who will benefit from this policy - provided they can live off a student allowance - are too young to vote.

But the increased knowledge will go to lecturers, not students. The real problem is not what allowances students get, it is how tertiary study is funded. Whereas tertiary institutions were funded for study, they are now chasing the research dollar as effective full time students (EFTS) funding declines and teaching students takes a back seat. A fee maxima has been put in place limiting the size of the undergraduate fee increases to 5 percent a year, despite open ended enrolments. In 2008 there simply isn’t enough state funding to cover the cost of educating students, given the caps to fee increases. Tertiary institutions are cutting costs and dropping courses, with senior lecturers focusing on research and writing journal articles rather than teaching, so their institution can get a higher slice of the $250m annual performance based research fund (PBRF). So universities have become research facilities that teach with PBRF goals being more important than student progress. And as universities are collectively $230 million a year worse off in real terms than they would be if government funding had been maintained at the level of the early 1990s, you can see why universities take this research approach.

I wouldn’t be surprised if either teaching quality plummets or the 5 percent fee maxima is lifted and EFTS funding is reduced, increasing fees enormously if the research/ teaching funding balance is not rectified. Students will cop it. If extra money is going to students at underfunded universities, this means that students will be getting more money in allowances as they get lower quality education. That’s hardly creating a knowledge led society.

If the 5 percent maxima is not lifted, the PBRF targets will be the main focus of university lecturers who are already starting to care more about their research than the students they teach. Some will see students as a necessary nuisance. The Government is rewarding lecturers to research, while bribing students to vote for them. This has nothing to do with teaching or quality education.Perhaps this policy will be paid for with cancelled tax cuts in Labour's December mini-budget -if it wins the elction?

We need the Government to reward universities for being good teachers, not just good researchers. But it looks like students are going to have student allowances and increased fees so that universities can meet research goals. Meaning fees subsidise research. Students will have to work longer hours in paid jobs if they don’t want borrow to live. There is no guarantee that any fee increases will lead to increased teaching quality – in fact Government is encouraging students to contribute to their lecturers increased knowledge at the expense of their own because it underfunds tertiary study - and that sucks.