The Gown Student Newspaper at Queen's University Belfast

REPORT IN FULL: Leaked Government report dismisses QUB’s calls for increasing student fees

A ‘confidential’ government document seen by The Gown has revealed the interim findings of the government-commissioned review into fees and student support in Northern Ireland. The government review, chaired by Joanne Stuart, head of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, has reached a series of conclusions that spell rare good news for the average student in this torrid economic situation.

BY LORCAN MULLEN

Student union leaders in Belfast, Northern Ireland and across UK are, according to sources, delighted with the interim proposals, deeming them the best possible in the current political and economic climate. A similar review in England and Wales led by Lord Browne is currently gathering evidence in advance of its own report.

The review was designed to offer a neutral examination of the evidence and submit a reasoned factual basis for the coming political debate on the future of higher education in Northern Ireland.

Stuart’s review has, after painstaking examination of statistical and anecdotal evidence provided by the universities, unions (led by the NUS-USI) and other concerned parties, recommended that fees should not rise, and that access to grants should be widened to encompass more students from middle-income homes. Such findings deliver a crippling blow to the vice-chancellors’ clamour for annual tuition fees of up to £7,000.

Pleas for an effective doubling of the cost of university learning have been led by the elite Russell Group of universities (of which Queen’s is a part). This campaign has been granted ever greater political momentum through the effective endorsement of the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson (responsible for UK university policy) and the (almost equally influential) bosses’ lobbying group the CBI. The Stuart review does not just recommend retention of the cap on fees (in the teeth of such powerful counter-argument) – the whole rationale behind the existence of fees as a source of funding is notably undermined.

In paragraph 19 of the document, the review body admits that “it found it difficult to link the additional income generated from the introduction of variable fees with an improved student experience.”

Also: “It is difficult to measure improvement in teaching quality through these audit reports. If serious consideration is to be given to increasing the fee cap, then the HEIs will need to be able to show the improvements to the quality of the student’s educational experience.”

“In essence, students are customers and will rightly demand a high level of service and the ability to see how their money is being spent.” The review confirms the dubious nature of systemic benefits gained from a fees system: previous Gown reporting on the latest results of the National Student Survey revealed stagnation and some slight decreases in quality in numerous aspects of academic life at QUB.

As QUBSU president Shane Brogan stated in a report to council earlier this year: “Last year’s participants were the first to reach final year since the introduction of top-up fees in 2006, and the scores across all 22 questions indicate no significant improvement, and in fact some deterioration in the quality of teaching and student experience at Queen’s since the survey was started four year ago.”

The review document highlights a common complaint amongst student campaigners; that the verifiable income from fees has not been identified or honestly accounted for in the huge general expenditure of the universities:

“Currently, only a portion of the income generated through the increase in student fees in 2006 has been ring fenced for reporting purposes…it is therefore difficult to report exactly on how the revenue has been spent and any improvements that have been made as a direct result of the additional income. There should be greater transparency of how additional income from fees is being spent.”

While the rationale for a fees-based system excused by a new “excellence” is seriously undermined in the text of the report, arguments that fees restrict access to lower-income students are not seriously entertained. The draft review finds that: “there is no evidence of an adverse impact on participation or in subject areas as a direct result of the introduction of variable fees.”

The final report will be read by the Executive minister responsible, the department for employment and learning’s Sir Reg Empey, and will also be presented to the Assembly’s DEL committee. An extensive consultation period will follow the report’s publication, ahead of any decisions on the future shape of the system. Any optimism stemming from the findings of the Stuart Review must be read in the context of drastic proposed cuts, as outlined in the last edition of The Gown.



Tags: Gown, Lorcan Mullen, newspaper, qub, Queen's, queen's university, student, The Gown

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 16th, 2010 at 8:45 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.