Measuring Impact on Access Funding Changes

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 25 June 2012 11:29:48

The BBC has an article reporting on the response UCU and others have given to the government regarding their proposal that learners over 24 take out a loan to pay for all of their A Level and equivalent courses from next year. They currently pay 50% of course fees. According to the figures quoted the governments own impact assessment is saying that 45% of those learners who currently get their courses at this level funded would not take out the loans, (and so by implication), not engage in the courses. The unions say  "Quite simply, this will result in course closures, job losses and vastly diminished opportunities for adults who need a second chance in education." In this post I am going to unpack this a bit, from my experience teaching in this area and explain why I believe the union position is correct.

The majority of adult learners who come back into education take Access to Higher Education courses which are equivalent to A Levels. These vary between part and full time courses and are modular in nature. Students will normally take a mix of subjects together with a study skills module which prepare them for entry to university. Whilst they enter a range of different courses in higher education many of them go on to train as nurses, social workers and teachers. The students on these courses have traditionally been older students, although in recent years there has been a rise in the number of 19-21 year olds taking these types of courses.

From my experience of teaching Access at various centres in Kent and the North East I have observed several things:

1) That there is often a core within those groups of learners who are predominantly working class or lower middle class women in their late 20's - mid 40's who are excellent learners. The profile of these women tends to be that they are often people who have part-time jobs and families who for various reasons either did not achieve well in education initially or who have been told they need to complete a course of study in order to prove they are able to successfully re-enter education after a significant break. Amongst this group there are often a number of single parents who have decided that they are fed up with living on a mix of part-time wages and benefit top ups and see this as the route into a professional role where they will be able to build a pension, support their children through university and support themselves as well as give to others.

2) Within these Access groups there is a networking aspect to what happens and support is offered within the group. This support often enables students to grow in social skills and self confidence. This often a mentoring aspect which emerges between the more able students and the less able but most enthusiastic and committed members of the group.

3) There are often already significant sacrifices being made by these students who are often having to kick back against the types of prejudices against education which may have held them back in the first place.

4) Many of these students have complicated lives and a number are people who are in their private lives moving from either being victims to being survivors or more often are moving from being survivors to becoming over-comers. These access courses are often key to their development and help them towards long term recovery from deep hurts.

5) The class sizes for these groups is normally healthy but if almost halved there would be serious questions in some cases about whether they would meet the minimum number of learners required to make the course viable. It is this factor which suggests if the figures quoted are correct many courses may be closed. If they are not closed they are more likely to be filled by young people who these courses are not necessarily the most appropriate route for. Often Btec's would be a better option for these students if they feel A Levels are not for them.

My argument against the government's policy is therefore as follows:

Firstly, it would see some good quality learners who go on to benefit our public services remaining in a cycle of part-time jobs and benefit top ups and not fulfilling their potential. Thus, it would achieve short term savings at the expense of long term savings and tax contributions.

Secondly, this will disproportionately hit working class women and single parents.

Thirdly, those who go on to university courses will already have to take out full loans for those courses. What this would result in is these learners with less time to pay them back having more debt than younger learners. The knock on effect would be when earning an appropriate amount they will not be able to put save as effectively for their pensions (something the government will be expecting them to do - particularly within the public sector). They also would not be in the position to help their children if they go on to university and in the period afterwards or throughout their late teens / early twenties more generally (which again the government seems to be expecting from weekend announcements about the possible exclusion of under 25's from housing benefit).

In conclusion this seems to be an ill thought out proposal which will yet again be likely to disproportionately disadvantage the working class, women and single parents. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the sample in relation to these statistics in relation to the groups I have just mentioned, I strongly suspect that the 45%/55% split would be different and they would be statistically less likely to take these courses.