I’m rarely idealistic but allow me for a second to impart unto you one truism that I shall always hold dear; that education is the most powerful weapon we have in our fight to better ourselves.
If you listened closely whilst eating your cornflakes on Tuesday morning you could probably have heard the champagne corks popping in Oxbridge as the details of the Browne Review finally emerged. Both Oxford and Cambridge have long extolled the benefits of allowing universities to charge higher fees for undergraduate degrees and it is with open arms that both the institutions, and no doubt countless others, will welcome the latest government commissioned review into the sector’s funding.
The government, hardly averse to cutting public services, will no doubt also welcome the findings, happily accepting increased student contributions as a green light to decrease higher education spending. It’s important here however to separate what may happen to the higher education sector from the deficit reducing cuts this country is experiencing; these moves are not budget balancing knee jerks but an ideological shift on the government’s part to move the responsibility of paying for education from the state to the student and is a shift that, when considering my opening gambit, I wholly disagree with.
An abundance of rumours had circulated in the build up to the release of the report with most sources estimating a fee between £7,000 and £10,000 as the recommended upper limit for a year’s worth of undergraduate education. Browne’s suggestions, however, go even further and allow for fees upwards of £12,000 per annum although they do include stipulations that a percentage of any tuition fee charged over £6000 is given to the state in lieu of increased lending to students.
Hypothetically a basic 3 year undergraduate degree could saddle a student with £36,000 worth of debt, an astronomical amount of money to ask a 17 year old to commit to burdening himself/herself with. This is before we factor in maintenance loans and any personal debt the students may incur during their studies which could easily add on another £10,000.
Bearing in mind that since top-up fees were introduced in 2006 there has been no quantifiable evidence that the students paying these extra fees have received any form of vastly improved experience during their time at university, the decision to move the onus to pay from the state to the student becomes increasingly clear. Vince Cable’s statement to the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon that “the government is going to invest in higher education” is, quite bluntly, not true and is a complete falsification of the direction in which the Browne Review seeks to send the sector.
Telling also of the way Browne would see our higher education sector function was one particular passage of the review, namely the heavy handed notion that funding should be pulled almost entirely from “less economically important” subjects. Whilst not alluding directly to ‘Mickey Mouse degrees’ its not difficult to extrapolate from the report that Browne sees arts and humanities as serving a less important role in the country and as such evolving to become a privately funded pursuit. A dangerous vision for the future indeed.
Thankfully the recommendations protect the guarantee that education should be free at the point of entry; Browne’s model continues to provide students with loans covering the whole cost of any tuition fees incurred. Welcome also is the proposed increase from £15,000 to £21,000 as the earning threshold for paying back one’s student loan.
I’d add to this that I’m proud to live in a country where, in practical financial terms, higher education tuition fees cost nothing up front but we can go further; these ‘deal-sweeteners’ do nothing to address the deterrent effect that a high cost education has upon people from lower socio-economic backgrounds wishing to learn.
It’s much easier to take the decision to take on thousands of pounds worth of debt if your parents have the capital to bail you out if all goes wrong or if you have the savings to pay your fees up front in the first place. Education should always, without exception, be afforded to those with the ability to learn and never denied on the lack of an ability to pay.
Until the government can produce quantitative data that opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds are in no way jeopardised by increased tuition fees, the Browne review should not even be considered. It is morally unjust to play fast and loose with the futures of our youth especially when based almost solely upon an assumption that a loan will placate any financial anxieties a student may have.
In these choppy economic times I have often found myself advocating investments over cuts but I find no example more suited to this ethos than the future of our education system. Increased debts and inaccessible courses are not the way to encourage learning and advancement and as such are not the way to creating a highly educated, working economy. To these ends, the Browne review should be rejected at all costs.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Claudy and 9/11
The United States of America, land of the free, the city on the hill, a shining beacon of liberty. Unless of course you're a Muslim, in which case (in the eyes of some leading Republicans) you don't qualify for such privileges.
Opposition to the 'ground-zero mosque' this week is almost unfathomably narrow minded, not least because no-one has actually proposed to build a mosque at ground zero of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The proposed building work under scrutiny is for an Islamic community centre to be built a good 2 blocks away from where the World Trade Centre once stood. Specifics aside however, the premise behind the argument against the new building is that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks therefore allowing an Islamic building close to the site of the attrocities is unacceptable and insulting to the families of those who lost their lives that day. Right. Noted. Understood.
But what have we learnt this week? A catholic priest played an active role in the 1972 bombings of the small Irish town of Claudy which took the lives of 9 people. Although they happened 29 years earlier and saw a significantly lower amount of people lose their lives, the Claudy bombings are comparable to 9/11 in one hugely poignant way; both were perpetrated by evil attempting to justify itself on religious grounds.
No-one blames the whole of the catholic church for the actions of Father James Chesney, so why is it justifiable to punish the whole of the Islamic faith because of the actions of a few Al-Qaeda members?
Lets put that in practical terms. Does Father Chesney's contribution to the Claudy bombings preclude any churches from being built in the town? Would doing so "stab hearts" Ms Palin? No, I didn't think so.
Opposition to the 'ground-zero mosque' this week is almost unfathomably narrow minded, not least because no-one has actually proposed to build a mosque at ground zero of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The proposed building work under scrutiny is for an Islamic community centre to be built a good 2 blocks away from where the World Trade Centre once stood. Specifics aside however, the premise behind the argument against the new building is that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks therefore allowing an Islamic building close to the site of the attrocities is unacceptable and insulting to the families of those who lost their lives that day. Right. Noted. Understood.
But what have we learnt this week? A catholic priest played an active role in the 1972 bombings of the small Irish town of Claudy which took the lives of 9 people. Although they happened 29 years earlier and saw a significantly lower amount of people lose their lives, the Claudy bombings are comparable to 9/11 in one hugely poignant way; both were perpetrated by evil attempting to justify itself on religious grounds.
No-one blames the whole of the catholic church for the actions of Father James Chesney, so why is it justifiable to punish the whole of the Islamic faith because of the actions of a few Al-Qaeda members?
Lets put that in practical terms. Does Father Chesney's contribution to the Claudy bombings preclude any churches from being built in the town? Would doing so "stab hearts" Ms Palin? No, I didn't think so.
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Kenyan Democracy: New dawn or false dawn?
Disappointingly a hugely fractious issue has been largely ignored in the British press but it is one that underpins the struggles of a nation with a Christian majority but with a significant Islamic community. Furthermore it helps us to better understand some of the motivations behind the ‘No’ camp.
The issue I’m alluding to is that of the exclusively Muslim kadhi courts and the state funding they will continue to receive now the proposed constitution is all but passed. The courts exist almost exclusively on Kenya’s largely Muslim east coast and survived through British colonisation and independence purportedly as an accord made with the Sultan of Zanzibar during his secession of the coastal strip to the mainland country. The courts rule mainly on issues of inheritance, family and succession and although they will remain subordinate under the superior courts of Kenya the issue of central government funding being put towards religious activities is a contentious one and has roused much opposition from Christian leaders. A panel of 3 High Court judges implored MPs earlier in the year to reconsider the provision for the courts on the grounds of constitutionality but the appeal was met with petty accusations of the judges acting beyond their remit instead of any credible justification for the courts’ inclusion. In principal using state money to fund activities only accessible to a certain proportion of the country is unfair and discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent in a country with a history of fractional fighting, albeit more recently in a tribal rather than religious nature.
As a British citizen (and a self-confessed liberal) used to more progressive human rights laws I was also shocked, as my eyes wandered across the draft bill of rights I picked up from my Daily Nation last June, to spot a glaring omission. Perhaps unsurprisingly to some, a person’s sexuality is not provided for in any way in the document that many will champion as a great step towards providing protection and equality for Kenya’s citizens. Far from being churlish enough to think achieving reform of such magnitude is like ripping off a plaster I can’t help but feel that introducing legislation designed to protect citizens’ rights is the perfect time to begin correcting this great injustice and failing to address it completely is a huge missed opportunity. Homosexuality remains illegal in Kenya, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The ‘moderate’ view of one leading Christian pastor that homosexuals “should not be killed but removed from society” gives us some indication of how far Kenya still has to come on some equality issues.
The removal of some powers from the presidency (most importantly, in the new constitution the president will become impeachable for the first time) and the devolution of powers to local authorities are reforms that seemingly unite many Kenyans behind the ‘Yes’ camp but further contentious issues abound. Land reforms may very well leave some residents of the Rift Valley, the crucible of much of the 2007 violence, bereft of land to which they once laid claim to whereas the Christian community refuses to back down in its fight for tougher laws on abortion.
Idealism aside however we must not ignore the successes that have been achieved during this referendum. The vote on the new constitution has been the biggest democratic event since the bloody presidential elections of 2007 and could not seem much further removed from the fighting that left 1000 Kenyan citizens dead. One thing that struck me during my time in Kenya in the lead up to the referendum was the huge effort being made to educate the populace on the content of the constitution to encourage debate and allow citizens to make an informed decision. Draft copies of the constitution were readily available from the country’s print media and electoral commission stations were dotted sporadically throughout even the most rural areas, this is certainly something that Kenya can take great pride in.
As a resounding ‘Yes’ seemed increasingly inevitable one of the leading protagonists of the ‘No’ campaign, higher education minister William Ruto, backed down respectfully proclaiming that “the majority had their way, we had our say.” Importantly however he added that “we are now proposing immediate consultations”.
This view from the upper echelons of the Kenyan ruling elite seems also to be one echoed by the country’s electorate. Peter, an IT specialist from the small coastal community of Makongeni told me of the importance he places in the way the referendum was conducted. “It has been vital for this country to vote on the constitution without it being overshadowed by bloodshed like the 2007 elections.” Like Ruto though he acknowledged that this is by no means the end of reform in the country adding that “we must now look at the areas we disagree on and deal with them democratically as we move forwards.” Pragmatism and a great desire for peace seem to be winning out amongst many Kenyans.
On the surface the referendum has achieved peace, stability and a respect for democratic values but before we count our kukus let us ask ourselves this; do we accept an imperfect document as collateral for achieving a peaceful democratic process or are we merely ignoring the issues and leaving the door open for more clashes further down the line?
The issue I’m alluding to is that of the exclusively Muslim kadhi courts and the state funding they will continue to receive now the proposed constitution is all but passed. The courts exist almost exclusively on Kenya’s largely Muslim east coast and survived through British colonisation and independence purportedly as an accord made with the Sultan of Zanzibar during his secession of the coastal strip to the mainland country. The courts rule mainly on issues of inheritance, family and succession and although they will remain subordinate under the superior courts of Kenya the issue of central government funding being put towards religious activities is a contentious one and has roused much opposition from Christian leaders. A panel of 3 High Court judges implored MPs earlier in the year to reconsider the provision for the courts on the grounds of constitutionality but the appeal was met with petty accusations of the judges acting beyond their remit instead of any credible justification for the courts’ inclusion. In principal using state money to fund activities only accessible to a certain proportion of the country is unfair and discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent in a country with a history of fractional fighting, albeit more recently in a tribal rather than religious nature.
As a British citizen (and a self-confessed liberal) used to more progressive human rights laws I was also shocked, as my eyes wandered across the draft bill of rights I picked up from my Daily Nation last June, to spot a glaring omission. Perhaps unsurprisingly to some, a person’s sexuality is not provided for in any way in the document that many will champion as a great step towards providing protection and equality for Kenya’s citizens. Far from being churlish enough to think achieving reform of such magnitude is like ripping off a plaster I can’t help but feel that introducing legislation designed to protect citizens’ rights is the perfect time to begin correcting this great injustice and failing to address it completely is a huge missed opportunity. Homosexuality remains illegal in Kenya, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The ‘moderate’ view of one leading Christian pastor that homosexuals “should not be killed but removed from society” gives us some indication of how far Kenya still has to come on some equality issues.
The removal of some powers from the presidency (most importantly, in the new constitution the president will become impeachable for the first time) and the devolution of powers to local authorities are reforms that seemingly unite many Kenyans behind the ‘Yes’ camp but further contentious issues abound. Land reforms may very well leave some residents of the Rift Valley, the crucible of much of the 2007 violence, bereft of land to which they once laid claim to whereas the Christian community refuses to back down in its fight for tougher laws on abortion.
Idealism aside however we must not ignore the successes that have been achieved during this referendum. The vote on the new constitution has been the biggest democratic event since the bloody presidential elections of 2007 and could not seem much further removed from the fighting that left 1000 Kenyan citizens dead. One thing that struck me during my time in Kenya in the lead up to the referendum was the huge effort being made to educate the populace on the content of the constitution to encourage debate and allow citizens to make an informed decision. Draft copies of the constitution were readily available from the country’s print media and electoral commission stations were dotted sporadically throughout even the most rural areas, this is certainly something that Kenya can take great pride in.
As a resounding ‘Yes’ seemed increasingly inevitable one of the leading protagonists of the ‘No’ campaign, higher education minister William Ruto, backed down respectfully proclaiming that “the majority had their way, we had our say.” Importantly however he added that “we are now proposing immediate consultations”.
This view from the upper echelons of the Kenyan ruling elite seems also to be one echoed by the country’s electorate. Peter, an IT specialist from the small coastal community of Makongeni told me of the importance he places in the way the referendum was conducted. “It has been vital for this country to vote on the constitution without it being overshadowed by bloodshed like the 2007 elections.” Like Ruto though he acknowledged that this is by no means the end of reform in the country adding that “we must now look at the areas we disagree on and deal with them democratically as we move forwards.” Pragmatism and a great desire for peace seem to be winning out amongst many Kenyans.
On the surface the referendum has achieved peace, stability and a respect for democratic values but before we count our kukus let us ask ourselves this; do we accept an imperfect document as collateral for achieving a peaceful democratic process or are we merely ignoring the issues and leaving the door open for more clashes further down the line?
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Why I support a graduate tax
How pleasing to see the HE funding debate garnering so much media coverage today. The ever-present issue in student politics of how university's should be funded is now firmly in the domain of public consciousness but refreshingly not because of a seemingly inevitable call for an increase in fees from Lord Browne. Instead this morning the former student leader in me ate his bran flakes with delight while listening to Vince Cable, Business Secretary, outlining his support for a potential graduate tax and his subsequent request to Lord Browne and his team of tuition fee reviewers to fully explore alternative funding models.
Crucially, Cable explained after a rather lenghty speech, what may seem like a radical departure from the current system is, in practical terms, not wildly different. Students already take a loan from the government and repay it to the tune of 9p in every £1 earned over the initial allowance of £15,000 per annum. Athough not established yet it is hard to see the new repayment system being much different to this one, the key issue being that those students who benefit financially in their work life from obtaining a degree will contribute more to the scheme whereas those who don't experience such monetary benefits will not be required to contribute so highly. Progressive, I like.
What it removes from the process is the decision to take the risk, often as an 18 year old, to burden yourself with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt to further your education. A huge decision for a young person to make, a dilemma that is undoubtedly making many think twice before embarking upon a HE course. Research would suggest that on average in a lifetime a graduate may only be up to £100,000 better off than a peer who doesn't have a degree. By increasing tuition fees, and in turn increasing student debt, we are only serving to close this gap and remove any financial impetus for people to continue their education. A graduate tax allows us to remove this gamble.
Finance and numeracy aside however we must not forget one key ethos, that education is a right and it not only benefits the individual, it benefits the whole country. Our greatest tool in improving our country is education and in all we do when discussing or reforming our HE system we must ensure that keeping education accessible to as many people as possible is at the heart of our endeavours.
The devil, I have been told by no more than 4 independent sources today, is in the detail. Indeed ahead of the detail of this potential system being produced I have 2 concerns. One is that the increased contribution that may potentially be asked of higher earners will serve to demotivate our top graduates from excelling themselves. Secondly that any graduate tax must not be completely open-ended, it would be beyond the realms of reasonable social responsibility to ask someone to contribute indefinitely and gratuitously to something which does infact have a tangible value attached to it. Both issues will hopefully be addressed as the debate continues and a firmer plan of implementation materialises.
Crucially, Cable explained after a rather lenghty speech, what may seem like a radical departure from the current system is, in practical terms, not wildly different. Students already take a loan from the government and repay it to the tune of 9p in every £1 earned over the initial allowance of £15,000 per annum. Athough not established yet it is hard to see the new repayment system being much different to this one, the key issue being that those students who benefit financially in their work life from obtaining a degree will contribute more to the scheme whereas those who don't experience such monetary benefits will not be required to contribute so highly. Progressive, I like.
What it removes from the process is the decision to take the risk, often as an 18 year old, to burden yourself with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt to further your education. A huge decision for a young person to make, a dilemma that is undoubtedly making many think twice before embarking upon a HE course. Research would suggest that on average in a lifetime a graduate may only be up to £100,000 better off than a peer who doesn't have a degree. By increasing tuition fees, and in turn increasing student debt, we are only serving to close this gap and remove any financial impetus for people to continue their education. A graduate tax allows us to remove this gamble.
Finance and numeracy aside however we must not forget one key ethos, that education is a right and it not only benefits the individual, it benefits the whole country. Our greatest tool in improving our country is education and in all we do when discussing or reforming our HE system we must ensure that keeping education accessible to as many people as possible is at the heart of our endeavours.
The devil, I have been told by no more than 4 independent sources today, is in the detail. Indeed ahead of the detail of this potential system being produced I have 2 concerns. One is that the increased contribution that may potentially be asked of higher earners will serve to demotivate our top graduates from excelling themselves. Secondly that any graduate tax must not be completely open-ended, it would be beyond the realms of reasonable social responsibility to ask someone to contribute indefinitely and gratuitously to something which does infact have a tangible value attached to it. Both issues will hopefully be addressed as the debate continues and a firmer plan of implementation materialises.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Pandering to bigotry?
What I found most striking, indeed most morally abrasive, from this week's synod were attempts from the upper echelons of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, to establish some form of tepid middle-ground of equality. Ostensibly, this proposed compromise would allow for female bishops but would have them under male supervision should this be deemed necessary; surely this is just moving the goal posts and neglecting to deal with the actual issue of equality? It's akin to telling a suffragette they can have a vote then subsequently endowing the male population with two votes each, it achieves nothing, in fact if anything it places more hurdles on the path of those striving for equality.
The issue of unity in the church also grates on me. Don't get me wrong, maintaining a united church all singing from the same sheet, as it were, is the noblest of intents - but at what cost? In what other organisation would the top brass be pandering to sections of its membership whose views were inarguably sexist? Moreover, where else in our country would community leaders be attempting to placate these bastions of inequality with legislation rife with prejudice? It wouldn't happen, the law would be cited and these purveyors of archaic bigotry quashed. But our bigoted brothers threaten to leave the church? Show them the door I say, your prejudices have no place here.
The whole debate throws up even more questions about the relationship between church and state which I shan't attempt to tackle here but I will ask this; if the church is seemingly above the law in matters of equality then where else is it above the law? Where exactly is this exemption provided for?
As a closing remark I'd like to offer my congratulations to those open-minded and progressive people who have put into motion great reform in the church. You might just find your vote for inclusiveness is exactly that and new membership for a church that is increasingly beginning to champion equality far outweighs any loss suffered from any deserting zealots.
The issue of unity in the church also grates on me. Don't get me wrong, maintaining a united church all singing from the same sheet, as it were, is the noblest of intents - but at what cost? In what other organisation would the top brass be pandering to sections of its membership whose views were inarguably sexist? Moreover, where else in our country would community leaders be attempting to placate these bastions of inequality with legislation rife with prejudice? It wouldn't happen, the law would be cited and these purveyors of archaic bigotry quashed. But our bigoted brothers threaten to leave the church? Show them the door I say, your prejudices have no place here.
The whole debate throws up even more questions about the relationship between church and state which I shan't attempt to tackle here but I will ask this; if the church is seemingly above the law in matters of equality then where else is it above the law? Where exactly is this exemption provided for?
As a closing remark I'd like to offer my congratulations to those open-minded and progressive people who have put into motion great reform in the church. You might just find your vote for inclusiveness is exactly that and new membership for a church that is increasingly beginning to champion equality far outweighs any loss suffered from any deserting zealots.
Welcome!
Hello kind people!
Welcome to my first attempt at keeping a blog. An enjoyment of student journalism at university compounded by lengthy arguments with the newspaper and news bulletins has spurred me into turning what have previously been bitesize Twitter musings into fully blown opinions.
I would say politics and sports are what grab my attention most although this is by no means an exhaustive list of my interests. Being a former student leader has given me an unshakeable interest in Higher Education and indeed education in a much broader sense.
Any of you who take the time to read my ramblings are always invited to comment, hope you enjoy!
Welcome to my first attempt at keeping a blog. An enjoyment of student journalism at university compounded by lengthy arguments with the newspaper and news bulletins has spurred me into turning what have previously been bitesize Twitter musings into fully blown opinions.
I would say politics and sports are what grab my attention most although this is by no means an exhaustive list of my interests. Being a former student leader has given me an unshakeable interest in Higher Education and indeed education in a much broader sense.
Any of you who take the time to read my ramblings are always invited to comment, hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)