The UK Policy on Education Concerning Payment of Tuition Fees - Essay Example

? and Tuition Fee Policy in the UK Introduction Since the last century the UK has had progressive education policies that are designed to make education, albeit fundamental, accessible to all. This has seen the number of students who progress to pursue higher education significantly improve from the 1940s to the present (Ainley, 1994). During that period the UK education policy has undergone some metamorphosis that has influenced the nature of education being provided, the purpose for which it is provided and the reasons behind the government funding of higher education providing institutions. This paper will seek to establish the major underlying assumptions conceded by the education policy makers in the UK and explore the pressing and controversial issue of student’s tuition fees payment in the UK higher education structures. Education in the UK, just like in the rest of the world is regarded as an important undertaking by both an individual and the society. This is because of the benefits of schooling or otherwise acquiring education that accrue to the education seeker. Henkel and Little (1999) state that education is an important instrument in social policy and a lot of social welfare initiatives go towards education. In the welfare state by the government and the local authorities, funds allocated to education average 40% of the total amount available for allocation. Education is therefore important, both the basic and higher education. The perception towards acquiring education has also rapidly changed. Not so long ago, one would just strive to complete the basic education stage but right now, with the world becoming increasingly competitive, getting higher education is evidence of aspiration, success and a tool for upward social mobility (Marcucci and Johnstone, 2007). This view has also changed the importance the government attaches to higher education and consequently the funding. Successive governments have progressively support advances in education especially higher education. This had been evidenced by the scrapping of the tuition fee for those students pursuing higher education in universities and colleges (Mayhew, Deer and Dua, 2004). However, with the changing economical atmosphere and increase in competition among institutions providing higher education, the government reverted back to the tuition-paying system in 1998. The issue of tuition fees has been hotly contested since then especially considering that the burden shifted to the students has progressively been increasing. Education Policy: Higher Education Tuition Fees The UK policy on education concerning payment of tuition fees for higher education students has undergone rapid changes in less than two decades. Before 1998, students in universities and colleges were not required to pay for tuition related expenses by the higher education institutions. The government used to fully finance these institutions (Barr, 2003). However, the population has increased and so is the number of students pursuing higher education and the institutions offering these services, this has strained the government’s resources allocation in the welfare state. Consequently, this allocation by the government has proved insufficient for these institutions and they began lobbying the government for more. The government opted to introduce student’s education fee to facilitate smooth running and operating of these institutions because the level of education was decreasing. The universities and colleges could not compete with other universities form the globe because of their financial strain. The government therefore gave in to those demands (Barr, 2003). Tuition fees were introduced in the UK in 1998 by the Labour Party that was in government then. The undergraduate and postgraduate students were supposed to pay up to ?1,000 towards tuition. This was estimated to be roughly a quarter of the average tuition fees a student is likely to pay for a course (Mayhew, Deer and Dua, 2004). In 2004 the government deemed the amount insufficient and raised the cap to ?3,000. This is after the then Labour education secretary had written a white paper proposing to raise the amount and recommending ?3,000. The Higher Education Act that brought that instruction into force provided that universities could charge its students tuition fees of not more than ?3,000 from 2006-2007. This was later adjusted to ?3,225 in 2009 after considering the effects of inflation (Patton, 2013). By 2011-2011 the cap had been raised to ?3,290. However, in order to mitigate the apparent financial strain on the students the government introduced the students’ loans to be offered by the Students Loans Company and the Office of Fair Access to ensure that less students are locked out of higher education because of financial reasons. This office was to identify the needy students and forward them so that their tuition fees are taken care of fully by the government (Anyangwe, 2012). Still, universities deemed this amount insufficient for each student per annum and that they needed an extra 15-20% funding, above the amount provided by the government, which can be provided by the students. They suggested that students did not feel the impact of the fees and that the cap was overprotective. The Universities pointed out to the steadily increasing enrollment in the university students as a pointer that even if the cap was raised there was no significant difference to be noted in terms of ability to access higher education. This led to a formation of a commission led by Lord John Browne to look into the matter. The Browne review of 2010 came up with recommendations that were geared towards securing a sustainable future for higher education. The most significant of the recommendations were the removal of the ?3,290 fee cap and raising the tuition fee repayment amount from ?15,000 to ?21,000 (Browne, 2010). This led to a public outcry and demonstrations by students all over the UK protesting this recommendation. The government rejected this recommendation and instead opted to lift the cap to ?9,000 for each student per annum. A survey conducted in 2012 established that despite these change there has not been any significant change in the number of admissions (Bolton, 2012). This may be due to the fact that while some students may drop out, some may find the loan initiative appealing for them to start pursuing higher education. The existing interest rate of 2.2% was also rejected for that of up to 3% depending on the capability of the student to repay (Browne, 2010). This marked the end of the metamorphosis that the education policy with regards to higher education tuition fee has undergone. Concepts and Assumptions Theoretically, the government has a social responsibility of promoting the welfare and well being of its citizens. One of the ways of doing this is by ensuring that anyone who has the ability to access higher education accesses it regardless of his financial ability (Marcucci and Johnstone, 2007). The introduction of the tuition fees and the initiatives that have accompanied it as a way of mitigating the burden on the student’s part is quite illuminating. The government has transferred the responsibility of funding higher education to the academic institutions. Furthermore, the government is promoting the social welfare by making education affordable to all but at the same time creating some social issues. The government is trying to take care of the less fortunate in the society by making education affordable to all (Henkel and Little, 1999). The rationale here is that one does not have to pay tuition fees in order to get that education; it can be paid later after graduation. The government will start repaying itself the loan it has advanced to the students provided that former students has a job that allows has returns and the government deems the person fit to start repaying. This is usually any amount above ?21,000 per year. The philosophical assumption is that all most of those who benefit from the loan system will repay and this helps another needy student. This is not always the case and the system may fail due to defaulting by some beneficiaries. Clegg (2010) points out that the government’s repayment model is too optimistic. It embodies the dominant discourse of higher education as the ‘present future’. This has been described as the conception of the future as empty and open which is not always the case. The government, therefore, also set up the Office of Fair Access that is supposed to identify extremely needy students so that they are completely exempted from paying tuition fee. Again, this does not resonate with the principle of social justice as in a way it is stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor. As a result, the government promotes the principle of education as ‘provision for all’ (Clegg, 2010). This approach however has been critiqued by social justice activists. These activists and scholars argue that the government should not have introduced the tuition fee in the first place. According to them, this system where a student can access loans in order to school and then repay later heavily influences the decisions that young people who want to pursue higher education make. Their decisions are increasingly becoming more financial driven (Barr, 2003). A student will choose a course that he feels will justify the loan taken and is worth being bothered to pay once he starts working. The social welfare significance is that young people are being limited in their career choices by indirectly having their choices curtailed. There are also some people that are against the policy arguing that the government has made a major assumption that all students are not debt-averse and will take loans to pay for their studies. This is not always true. There are some students from families who have not had the tradition to attend universities or other higher learning institutions or are simply debt-averse; the government has not taken them into consideration. These students, a minority in this sense, would have fared better if the tuition fee was scrapped (Anyangwe, 2012). The purpose of higher education has also changed with time and forced the government to change its policies. Higher education is now slowly becoming part of basic education. The government sees higher education as liberal education aimed at developing that individual’s intellectual and social aspects to that person’s full potential. It is also viewed as a social engineering tool that is supposed to bring social change and lastly, it is still one way of churning out trained workforce. But the relevance of education has not stopped there. It is also being used as a political tool with the various parties at the helm using it to advance their own interests (Marcucci and Johnstone, 2007). Conclusion The UK government has been in the forefront of promoting the principle of education for all. It has continuously reviewed its education policy since 1940s. In the bid to provide this education, it has been faced with a challenge of dwindling education standards necessitating it to adjust the tuition fee cap upwards. This should give the higher education academic institutions more funds after adding to that provided by the government. This move has also deterred students from pursuing higher education as much as it has encouraged. Therefore the principle of education for all cannot be said to successful as yet under this approach. More brainstorming and research should be done on the issue of sustainable tuition fee for higher education. Education is an agent of social change and if used wisely it will bring about progressive social and economic change for the country (Patton, 2013). References Ainley, P., 1994. Degrees of Difference: Higher education in the 1990s. Stratford: Lawrence and Wishart. Anyangwe, E., 2012. What does 2012 hold for higher education policy? The Guardian, [online] Available at: [Accessed 23rd December 2013]. Barr, N., 2003. Financing higher education: lessons learnt from the UK debate. LSE, [online] Available at: [Accessed 20th December 2013] Bolton, P., 2012. Changes to higher education funding and student support from 2012/13. www.parliament.uk, [online] Available at: [Accessed 23rd December 2013] Browne, J., 2010. Sustaining a Future for Higher Education: Final Report. www.gov.uk, [online] Available at: < https://www.gov.uk/government/new/lord-browne-report-on-higher-education> [Accessed 23rd December 2013]. Clegg, S., 2010. Time Future- The Dominant discourse of higher education. Time Society, 19(3), pp. 345-364. Henkel, M., and Little, B., 1999. Changing relationships between higher education and the state. London: Jessica Kingsley. Marcucci, P., and Johnstone, B., 2007. Tuition fee policies in comparative perspective: Theoretical and Political Rationales. Higher education, [online] Available at: [Accessed 22nd December 2013]. Mayhew, K., Deer, C., and Dua, M., 2004. The move to mass higher education in the UK: Many questions and some answers. Oxford Review of Education, 30(1), pp.103-116. Patton, G., 2013. ?9,000 cap on student tuition fee is ‘unsustainable’. The Telegraph, [online] Available at: [Accessed 23rd December 2013]. Read More