Education – Croydon Constitutionalists

Who should pay for a University Education?

On September 5^th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “University Education should be free for all UK citizens”.

Mike Swadling opposed the motion, and below is his speech delivered to the society. As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well proposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

University Education should be free for all UK citizens.

Now I might be able to dramatically shorten tonight’s debate for us all. I’m tempted to say, ‘I agree’, I agree, University Education should be free for all UK citizens.

I agree teachers shouldn’t be paid.
I agree scholarly books should be written by authors for free.
I agree canteen staff must give their time freely and be forced to provide the food for the students at no cost.
And if the university doesn’t have the facilities it needs, we must pressgang builders, plumbers, electricians, and anyone else we need to build them, to work, no excuses, at no cost!

Or is that not what you meant?

If you agree with this motion, you must surely agree that anyone upon becoming a qualified lecturer must be conscripted into the profession as some sort of indentured servant, compelled to work for free.

Or do you not agree with that?

“What we’re really talking about here is having someone else pay for it”

Does anyone of you who worked in education, or frankly anywhere, believe you should have worked for free? Education is important do you think people should be forced to give up their time, effort, or property for nothing in the name of education. Of course, you don’t, of course no one thinks teachers should work for free, and of course no one agrees with this motion. No one thinks Education is free, or even should be free. What we’re really talking about here is having someone else pay for it.

University Education of course used to be free for pupils in this country. Before 1998 students would go to university at no cost, some would even receive a grant. But then of course university used to cater to about 30% of the population, prior to 98, and as little as 15% in 1990. We now have over 50% going to university.

It’s easy to provide a service for free at the point of use if it’s used by so few people. As university education grew in the 90s and 00’s of course the costs grew, and these costs needed to be funded. This left the choice of should they be funded by the user of the service who receives the lion share of the benefit or funded by the wider community. To put it bluntly should the cleaner, dustman or Amazon delivery driver pay for the university education of the children of the well to do families who’s houses they service.

“it is more than the amount almost half of the people in this country earn. Only then do you start to repay your loan”

Now let’s consider for a moment what paying for a university education in this country really means. Students are loaned the funds for their course, which costs £9,250 per annum. Repayments to the Plan 2 student loan kick in only when a graduate earns over £27,295 which incidentally puts them in the top half of 20 something income earners, and 53^rd percentile of all earners.

This is not a massively high income, but it is more than the amount almost half of the people in this country earn. Only then do you start to repay your loan. Student loans are also written off after 30 years.

General taxation already massively subsidises university education in this country. Our debt to GDP ratio is 100.5% the highest level for over 60 years, going back to when we were still paying for the second world war. This motion asks that we increase it further still, not to improve services, not to incentivise economic growth, not to benefit those who most need it but instead to the benefit of those who have the brightest future and can most afford to pay their way.

“In 2012 only 13% of Free School Meal pupils went to University, today, after all the increases in fees that number is over 20%”

Now it’s not uncommon that people say student loans have put people off higher education, but let’s look at what’s really happened. In 2012 only 13% of Free School Meal pupils went to University, today, after all the increases in fees that number is over 20%. For those eligible for Free School Meals the rate is up to 29%. There is also a huge diversity of pupils going into higher education with 63.5% of Black pupils progressing, 67.8% of Asian and 83.8% of Chinese pupils.

“Fewer opportunities will exist, and they will go to those middle class families with the sharpest elbows”

If we were to make university free to the student, and affordable to the taxpayer we would once again have to cap the number of students at a low number. Who would lose out? Who would be those not able to make the grade. We know, as the evidence from the past shows, it is the working class and the most disadvantaged who will miss out. Fewer opportunities will exist, and they will go to those middle class families with the sharpest elbows. Free University education may feel good but, will in reality deny opportunities to those who most need it and worse will be a regressive tax added onto the bills of those who don’t even receive the benefits of the service.

Now none of this is to say how we provide, and fund university today is ideal. There is lots that can be improved with our current system. Whilst the increase in the numbers going to university is a good thing. The drive to make almost every career accessible only via a degree denies opportunities to millions and means all too often square peg students are driven into round hole jobs.

Surely the wide range of basic care, cleaning, feeding, bedside manner, stock supplies, customer service, and practical skills needed by nurses are often not best taught at a university. These are practical skills, best taught I and many who have written on the subject believe via on-the-job training. No doubt there are skills nurses need that are rightly taught in a classroom. But these can be taught as nurses develop in their career, should they want to take on these extra duties and roles. Since making nursing a degree entry career we have seen reported drops in bedside manner and ward cleanliness. Of course we have, why would it come as a surprise to anyone that someone who has trained to become a highly qualified nurse is reluctant to undertake menial tasks. It may be entirely appropriate for some to enter nursing via a degree, and that route should be available, but why have we chosen to deny nursing as a career path to people who are not academically gifted? Yes, I want a nurse to know how to make an injection, but I care more about their basic care skills than their A Level or GCSE results.

Whilst technically you do not need a degree to become a Police Officer, you do either need a degree or to undertake the completion of the ‘Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship’ which is described as a professional degree-level apprenticeship. Or in layman’s terms a degree. In 2020 official figure show police failed to solve a single burglary in half of neighbourhoods, and three quarters of all burglaries remain unsolved.

Of the 30,265 Police Officers in the Met Police in 2021, 22,753 failed to make a single arrest. We used to recruit many of our police from armed forces, we used to value police with local knowledge. Now we have degree educated police more interested in policing Facebook and Twitter than the streets.

“let’s value Police with the skills of a thief-taker more highly than their ability to recite Latin, list the causes of the Franco Prussian war or tell you about their gender studies degree”

In June the National Police Chiefs’ Council confirmed that police will now attend the scene of every home burglary. How was this ever not the case? You must have gone to university to think something so stupid as not attending every burglary was ever acceptable. Yes, have a route into the police for graduates, but let’s also have a route in for people who can handle a rough situation, who know their community, who can deal with people. Let’s once again let’s value Police with the skills of a thief-taker more highly than their ability to recite Latin, list the causes of the Franco Prussian war or tell you about their gender studies degree. We can reduce the number of students, which would allow greater subsidy for university and other forms of education by removing the requirement for degrees for many careers.

There are other ways we can improve universities in this country. The Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman used to list the Four Different Ways To Spend Money. These were:

You can spend your own money on yourself – in which case you are careful what you spend and what you spend it on.
You can spend your own money on someone else – much like a present. You are careful about how much you spend but maybe don’t worry as much about what you buy.
You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself – like being on expenses. You are careful to get good things for the money. But you’re not very worried about the price.
Finally, you can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else – you neither care about the cost or the value.

Funding a free university education for all is rather like the last of those choices. Someone, somewhere in Whitehall takes someone else’s (the taxpayers’) money and provides a service to someone else (the student). Whilst imperfect the current system does mean via a deferred payment, students will pick the best education for them, and presumably seek the best value for money with the degree they undertake. Indeed, the increasing use of apprenticeships and stabilisation of student numbers suggest many are choosing these as the best value route for themselves.

“No doubt the years at university are a great time for many, and a great life experience. But that is no reason to expect others to pay for it”

Now I do want to briefly address the reason some people believe a University Education should be free and widely available. This is that, some believe, it to be some sort of rite of passage. No doubt the years at university are a great time for many, and a great life experience. But that is no reason to expect others to pay for it. Although I could be persuaded on this. I, myself am away on holiday soon, and I hope it will be a great trip. It has certainly cost the earth. If anyone of you here is committed to the idea that we should all help fund other’s opportunities to learn and grow, I am in no way adverse to taking your money to help fund my trip. Please just deposit funds here at the front, during the interval.

If a University Education were to be free for all UK citizens, what limits would be imposed? Could for instance anyone go to university? Would you need a minimum qualification? Could you study any subject? Would you be able to keep doing new courses? I mean, why ever work if you can just stay at Uni?

If the answer to any of these is no, who chooses? Or are we saying the motion is really “A University Education of my specification, should be free for all UK citizens.”? If you impose a minimum level of qualifications once again you tax, then disadvantage, those who can least afford it and you punish the neuro divergent. Free university education would require the willingness of hardworking taxpayers to fund increasingly obscure courses for 30-year-olds who are reluctant to leave academia. Imposing limits, means you create a university system for the few funded by the many.

“If people want degrees and then follow these career paths, fine, good for them, but let’s not burden everyone with the costs”

We already have a problem of what’s known as elite overproduction, a condition which describes a society which is producing too many potential elite members relative to its ability to absorb them. Research suggests 36 per cent of graduates are overqualified for the jobs they currently hold. 3 per cent of post office clerks had a degree in 1992, compared to 30 per cent now, in a job that really hasn’t changed much in that time. In 1992, 3 percent of bar staff, and 2 per cent of security guards had degrees, now those numbers are 19 and 24 per cent respectively. There is nothing wrong with having a degree and working in any of these careers. But are you really saying society needs to pay for degree quality bar staff, rather than say putting them onto an apprenticeship or giving them other on the job training. If people want degrees and then follow these career paths, fine, good for them, but let’s not burden everyone with the costs.

A paid for education does create opportunities to encourage people into qualifications which we as a nation want or need. We could for instance direct students through subsidies that would, I believe, have widespread support. As a nation we don’t educate enough doctors, let’s do that, let’s make the qualifications high to get onto the course, but reduce the costs to encourage more to join. We don’t have enough engineers, or more generally enough people learning STEM subjects, so let’s subsidise them. These are hard subjects that provide great jobs. We don’t need to make the education free, but we could make it cheaper than more popular subjects that provide less societal benefit.

“the necessary restriction needed to fund a so-called free education imposes a tax on all for the benefit of a small often already privileged minority”

The motion is that a ‘University Education should be free for all UK citizens’. No one here believes this, we know an education is not free. The motion proposes someone else pays for the education. As we have discussed someone else paying for someone else’s’ education can lead to some perverse outcomes. But mostly the necessary restriction needed to fund a so-called free education imposes a tax on all for the benefit of a small often already privileged minority. The reduction will reduce opportunities for those who most need them.

Let’s make education pay, make it good value, and make it available to all who benefit the most, which is why I ask you to oppose this motion.

Summary

I’ve already spoken about how fees for UK Universities, haven’t stopped UK students from all backgrounds studying here. But let’s look at international students. They pay on average £22,000 per annum to attend a UK university. The number of international students rose from 450,000 in 2016 to over 600,000 today. The top 10 list of countries sending students to the UK includes, China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Malaysia, France, Italy, and Spain. All of which have a lower GDP per capita than the UK. Don’t tell me student fees put people off studying in UK Universities or make universities only a place for the rich. It may feel like that’s the case, but it simply isn’t born out by the facts.

“It won’t be the pupils of private schools missing out when there are fewer university places, they will know how to still get into their academy of choice”

If people from all over the world think that paying £66k for 3-year UK degree is the right choice for them, why shouldn’t our students continue to pay £27k rather than move that cost onto others. Taxpayers already fund Higher Education in this country to the tune of £4.5 billion, moving more burden to taxpayers will mean we need to constrain costs and restrict supply. It won’t be the pupils of private schools missing out when there are fewer university places, they will know how to still get into their academy of choice. It will mean, fewer places for pupils from the bog-standard comprehensives, and from the families not used to sending their children off to Uni.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would ask you to support the best outcomes, rather than the best intentions and oppose this motion.

To find out more about the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CoulsdonPurleyDebatingSociety/ or email them at [email protected].

Celebrating our town – Winterbourne Nursery and Infant School

Mike Swadling of this parish is Vice Chair of Governors at Winterbourne Nursery and Infant School in Thornton Heath, Croydon. Many of us have found lockdown hard, too many of us have failed to put the time to good use, but one local school has used this period to good effect.

“Founded in 1906, Winterbourne Nursery and Infants School sits on a site with separate Junior Boys and Girls schools. The last remaining single-sex, state-funded junior schools in the country. Whilst the schools often cooperate they remain very much independent schools, with their own staff, heads, budgets and governors”

“ensure compliance with required regulations and the good governance of public resources. Following much hard work over the previous year the school received a commendable ‘Substantial Assurance’ audit”

“Teachers provide a warm, nurturing start to each day with a live online session. They give clear guidance and support to pupils and parents about the day’s learning tasks.”

“This past year has been a challenge for everyone, some of us have used the time to set goals, many of us have failed to achieve them, but one local school, Winterbourne Nursery and Infants, can rightly say, its whole community should be proud of its journey of self-improvement”

Full article: https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/nursery-and-infant-school-in-thornton-heath-reflects-on-a-year-in-lockdown/

The story was also picked up by the Thornton Heath Chronicle https://www.thorntonheathchronicle.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TTHC-April21.pdf

You may also be interested in a follow-up from August 2021 on the schools graduation ceremony: Croydon nursery and infant school celebrates graduation after year of Covid disruption | InYourArea Community

Beyond State Schooling

Dan Liddicott Libertarian writer, podcaster and political candidate, writes about state schooling.

Has lockdown proven we don’t actually need state schooling? That there are better ways of getting an education rather than rely on the government?

“It’s worth noting that our present system of education was invented in the 1800s to meet a very specific need – an obedient and trained population, discouraged of original independent thinking”

Putting the criticisms and worry generated by the state response to missed exams aside, for now, this is likely the start of a long conversation. But let’s begin by considering this briefly. It’s worth noting that our present system of education was invented in the 1800s to meet a very specific need – an obedient and trained population, discouraged of original independent thinking, with teaching limited to those licensed by the state delivering a standardised curriculum – designed in the industrial revolution and built on the Prussian model which wanted obedient soldiers as the end product.

Award winning teacher John Taylor Gatto wrote:

“In the long history of the human race, until the mid-19th century, no such institution as universal forced schooling (following a government design) ever occurred, because the idea is so ridiculous on its face.” (1)

Education expert Sir Ken Robinson, wrote:

“One size does not fit all. Some of the most brilliant, creative people I know did not do well at school. Many of them didn’t really discover what they could do—and who they really were—until they’d left school and recovered from their education.” (2)

In spite of the challenges lockdown posed, I can’t help thinking it perhaps offered more educational opportunities than barriers for those who wanted to seize them. Individuals were finally free – during ‘school hours’ – to pursue education and learning of things that resonated with their interests, passions and inclinations, rather than the ‘one size fails to fit all’ standardised curriculum.

As Kerry McDonald, of the Foundation for Economic Education put it:

“The vast technological platform that is now at our fingertips makes self-education accessible to all. It also makes clunkier forms of learning, like sitting passively in a classroom memorizing and regurgitating information from textbooks and a predetermined curriculum, seem passé at best. …Humans have an instinctual drive to learn and are able to learn an incredible amount of knowledge and skill in their earliest years. This natural curiosity continues into adulthood, but is often dulled by a forced system of education that prioritizes schooling over learning. The ability to self-educate can be schooled out of us, leaving us dependent on others to be taught. Technology changes the relationship between teaching and learning. It empowers the learner, supports the rapid change of knowledge creation, and lets the learner decide what to learn, when, and from whom. Learners may still choose to be taught, but their teachers work for them.” (1)

“Is it just possible, that classroom learning designed over a century ago is an anachronism? Has lockdown shown we don’t need school – except perhaps on a superficial level, as a place to put our kids while parents work?”

Is it just possible, that classroom learning designed over a century ago is an anachronism? Has lockdown shown we don’t need school – except perhaps on a superficial level, as a place to put our kids while parents work? Has the government response to the lack of exams demonstrated even they are not essential – do skills and knowledge matter more than grades? Certainly many graduates of 2020 will be proving that to future employers and Universities without any exams at all.

But what do you think? Can we do without the state school system? Is real education better achieved by technology? Is classroom schooling an out of date throwback to bygone era? Could genuine education leave schooling behind?

References taken from:
(1) Boyack, Connor. Skip College: Launch Your Career Without Debt, Distractions, or a Degree.
(2) Robinson, Ken. The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything.

Article kindly reproduced from original.

Dan can be found on Twitter, Facebook and at his website https://libertaridan.com/.

Image by Adam Vega from Pixabay

Schools vs States – A Limitless Possibility For Education

Opinion Piece by Josh. L Ascough

The task of the educator, whether they be for primary or academia, is to bring quality and qualified information to those who seek to not only engage with truth, but build their ability to function with higher detail and to further the expansion of the knowledge they have gained.

But this function of education, has been stifled by government interference. It should come as no surprise, that the modern format of most school systems were formatted around the era of the workhouse, and were shaped and standardised to fit the model of the workhouse; you are taught in the same manner, the methods are regimented, the process is regulated, and the system is standardised.

The desire to have a publicly funded education system is a sorely faulty one. The government is a centralised legal monopoly of force, and due to its central, top down approach, it cannot comprehend a complex system of education; it has to standardise teaching methods, qualification methods, and ultimately treats students (in our current subject case, children) as projects to be socially engineered to whatever type of citizen the government wishes to govern over, and it is with great thanks to a regimented system of schooling that the children are in a perfect position for moulding, rather than educating, (who reading this remembers when they were in school the way they were “taught” to multiply and the “two 2s are 4, three 2’s are 6” regimented style of teaching?)

“The parent knows how to talk to their child in order for them to understand something, whether that subject be simple or complex, in a manner which the child can best grasp”

This is not to say this method does not help any in an absolutist sense, there will be individuals who benefit from a teaching method of this kind, but a one size fits all education system, does nothing to improve the capabilities of those who learn best via other methods. This is why we should not only hold respect for parents who choose to home school their children, but encourage parents who can see their child is not making any gains from their education to teach at home; the parent knows their child better than any bureaucrat, teachers union, or politician. The parent knows how to talk to their child in order for them to understand something, whether that subject be simple or complex, in a manner which the child can best grasp at their development stage.

However, those who are kept within the regimented education system who do not benefit from it, will be left behind, unable to truly explore their potential. Even those who may benefit from this method, or are able to get by, will face little challenge and will be held back.

School is not meant to keep you in an immobile, easy to handle position, it is meant to enlighten you on unknown knowledge or challenge your held knowledge and expand it.

These are the social issues with the public, government provided school system, and these do connect to long term economic issues, such as due to their being zero choice with education alongside it being mandatory up to the age of 18 (it was 16 when I was younger, that’s how old I am), young people end up leaving the school system with no work experience, making it almost impossible to acquire the most basic of jobs, leading to an influx of higher education applications in order to acquire even no skill to low skill work; but we will delve into higher education later. This also leads to people entering permanent long term work at later stages in life, causing the retirement age to face a need of increasing.

“Economics is all about human action, choice, and the outcomes of these choices; a public education system completely erodes choice, because the individual has no say as to where their resource (money) goes”

But what about the purely economic?

This is where the government formula can be best seen; a monopoly on force, plus an assumed consent to take resources from private citizens, alongside an assumed value on behalf of the individual from the top down, creates an economically and socially stagnated school system.

In order for any transaction to increase value, it must be voluntary and consensual. It must also serve a need which the individual who holds said need wishes to satisfy via the relationship between the use value and exchange value of all parties involved.

Economics is all about human action, choice, and the outcomes of these choices; a public education system completely erodes choice, because the individual has no say as to where their resource (money) goes; even if the parent doesn’t value or places a low value on the education that is being given to their child which could arise for various reasons, such as unsatisfactory quality, it not meeting the educational needs of the child, lack of religious elements; all of these and others can decrees the overall, subjective value the parent holds for said school. Yet the parent is forced to pay for the school via their taxes, as well as the entire system as a whole.

In most of our everyday lives, operating in the world of commerce, if you are unsatisfied with a product you pay for on a regular basis, you can cease further transactions and search for a good which provides use value to you for the duration of time required for it to satisfy your need. Or in another instance, if there is a product which serves no value to you, or if there is an industry which produces economic goods which do not serve any need to you, and therefore no use value, you are under no obligation to enact any transaction or give any money to said industry or purchase any product; with public education on the other hand, that is not the case. A government run and owned education system holds a legal monopoly, and regardless how many people hold no value to it, it will continue to receive funds via forced extraction; taxation.

This legal monopoly creates no incentive for improvement or to consider what the customers (i.e. the citizen) values, and ends with a system which faces no risk; solely relying on the (forced) selflessness of others to provide quality (it is entertaining that we are told constantly that human beings are selfish and evil, yet we persist in creating publicly funded industries which rely on humans selflessly devoting themselves to others via sacrifice of their value and being idealised angels).

Do not misunderstand this as an attack on teachers, the problem isn’t with teachers, as most enter this roles because they have a passion for working with children and young adults; they love passing on knowledge or they are dedicated to a particular subject (maths, English, history, economics etc.) and the teaching of the subject is an added bonus, the attack and criticism is directed towards the education system, not those who are at the end of the system. It is the standardisation, regimentation and regulation of schooling; the format which has been chosen for each individual on their behalf with the magic of assumed consent, and the legal monopoly of the school system, which creates these rigid environments for both teachers and students; if the teachers have little to no wriggle room for methods, because it doesn’t “fit”, then ultimately it is children who suffer, and all of this boils down due to a lack of real choice.

“A private, market education would allow education providers to supply schooling models, methods, and qualifications which parents actually valued; in a market we all vote through the price mechanism”

So how can we solve this problem? How can we create school choice?

I would propose the solution to be very simple; markets.

We should focus on the complete privatisation of the school system, and the establishing of a school voucher program.

Education is an economic good, and like all economic goods it requires the pricing system to determine how to allocate resources, and how to calculate choices based on demand (prices are determined by the equilibrium of consumer demand and producer supply; which allows the consumer to calculate an economic goods use value and the producer to calculate its exchange value).

A private, market education would allow education providers to supply schooling models, methods, and qualifications which parents actually valued; in a market we all vote through the price mechanism, if a school is producing outputs which large numbers of parents do not value, that school will lose out on income and have to adjust to programs that are valued. An additional measure should be considered, that being, adding a “pay-per-package” aspect to schooling. What I mean by this I will explain:

Suppose you have a child and you wish to send them to a private school which specialises in teaching methods best suited for your child; this could be a hands-on approach, a focus on exams, strong levels of independence for students or a greater emphasis on interactions with teachers. The school teaches Maths, English, History, Art, Science, Geography, Cooking and Religious Studies; Maths and English are mandatory subjects, as they are required not just for any and all jobs, but for the child to be able to make basic functions in the real world, all others are optional. Under a pay-per-package system, the parent would be able to choose which subject(s) they value for their child’s growth. A parent could decide they’d rather teach cooking at home as they can supervise much better, and so would not purchase the cooking classes. Or, if the family isn’t religious they could decide to not purchase the religious studies. This system would ensure parents are truly having what they value for their child’s growth provided, and only paying for what they consent to, and what they actually value.

Many would ask how are parents expected to pay for this type of schooling, and this is where a voucher system comes into play.

The voucher system would act as a money substitute, being valued to the equivalent of a certain amount of money, to ensure children from poor households are able to obtain an education. The voucher would be an anonymous program, meaning only the voucher holder and the head of the school, will know who is in use of vouchers; this would ensure children are not ostracized for using or not using a voucher or money.

A voucher program should only be seen as a temporary measure during a transfer period from the public system to a private system; if a voucher system is kept as a permanent aspect, then it runs the risk of causing more demand than there is supply, resulting in prices rising very rapidly, disincentivizing schools from finding ways to lower costs (since like higher education, they’d be guaranteed in getting the money and so would face no incentive for cost reductions) or a combination of both.

After said period schools would be free to create their owns payment options and special offers. These could be in the form of a subscription basis, pay-per-package, a pay-per-class program, a pay in advance program for couples about to start a family as to reserve a place for their child, or the school in question could run its own voucher program for children in care or who are disabled.

In the end, we need to recognise that education is one of the most important things in this would, and the last people we should want running it, are those who face no cost or risk for bad choices on behalf of others, resulting in those people suffering due to the decisions of others.

The very heart of the education issue, should be held on the principle of freedom of choice.

Josh L. Ascough is on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/j.l.ascough/