RE: Student organising and organisations

[Paul.Benedek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Magnus,

Green Left Weekly has had many articles over the years on education campaigns 
of many
varieties, and analysis of such campaigns (mostly in Australia, but also
international, and the lessons are often the same). I post here one article 
which i
quickly found. You can search for more in the back issues archive at
www.greenleft.org.au.

The article points out the relationship between education content and financial
barriers of fee hikes etc. In short, as education institutions are further 
privatised
and handed over to the market, we see both more "user-pays" (and thus continual 
shifts
toward education only for the privelledged, not a right for all) AND a 
complementary
shift away from any courses, studies, classes etc which are not seen to have a 
bottom
line value (eg much of arts, humanities, etc).

Anyway, enjoy the article, hope it helps in some way, and good luck in your 
speech!

comradely,
Paul


Education and the free market
By Zanny Begg

The final report from the West Review into higher education has provoked a 
national
debate on what is the most efficient and economically viable way to provide 
quality
post-secondary education.


The review is clear in its proposals: more deregulation, greater privatisation 
and a
closer connection between funding and the market. The most controversial
recommendation is to move towards "student-centred funding" or "vouchers".

Although vouchers have been ruled out by the Labor Party and the Liberals 
before the
next federal election, the ethos behind a voucher system has been overwhelmingly
accepted by both parties. Neither rejects the notion that the market should 
become the
key determinant of the nature of our education system or that vouchers are the
ultimate policy goal for higher education

Federal minister for education David Kemp, in a speech in Sydney on April 21, 
outlined
options which continue the push towards greater privatisation. Kemp argued for
stronger links between "student choice" and funding allocations for 
universities.

Kemp argued that universities have been "less then fully responsive to the 
diverse
needs of their students" and had become "somewhat insular" from the world that
students work in.

These sentiments have been backed up by Mark Latham, ALP spokesperson for 
education,
who has also recommended tying university funding to student "choice" and 
performance
indicators.

The key argument for a voucher-based funding system is student "choice". The
underlying assumption is that if we remove central planning in higher education,
students will be able to force universities to tailor their courses more 
closely to
their needs.

The reality is that a voucher system would do just the opposite. By removing 
centrally
planned funding, vouchers will hold the education system hostage to the market.

Popular courses at popular universities will continue to attract large numbers 
of
students and therefore income. Socially useful but less popular courses will not
receive as much money, will be starved of funds and may face the axe.

Already courses like languages, classics and English have been cut at many
universities in the restructuring brought about by the 1996 budget cuts. A 
voucher
system would accelerate this trend.


West proposes to ameliorate this by guaranteeing funding for socially useful but
expensive or specialised courses. But as Dr Carolyn Allport, president of the 
National
Tertiary Education and Industry Union, points out, this "would defeat the 
purpose" of
the government's desire to reduce public funding for education, and such 
funding would
always be precarious.

A voucher system would also limit students' choices by forcing universities to 
compete
for students and funding.

In a sink or swim environment, less established universities will be forced 
into niche
markets, reducing the breadth of the education they can provide students, or 
they will
be forced to reduce the costs of their degrees. So poorer students will be 
forced to
study at "cheaper" universities, which will be able to provide only a lower 
quality
education.

Currently the provision of block grants enables all universities to spend money 
on
both teaching and research. A voucher system would undermine this. Universities 
that
become "world class" may attract enough money for research activities. The rest 
will
become teaching only institutions, thereby limiting the quality of that 
teaching.

Rather than "choice", vouchers are about taking away an entitlement. Currently 
most
people wanting to study can access a HECS-funded place at university, if they 
are
prepared to clock up a large debt, for the entire period of study. A voucher 
system
would provide each student with an amount that will not cover the cost of most
degrees, let alone second degrees or postgraduate study.

Underpinning the whole discussion surrounding vouchers is the idea that the 
market
provides a more "efficient" and "responsive" way to structure education than
government planning.

This argument is also seriously flawed. Education provides a socially useful 
role. The
community as a whole benefits from doctors, lawyers, engineers, writers, actors 
and
nurses. The market cannot take into consideration social need. It responds only 
to
profit indicators.

Throwing control of education funding to the market will undermine society's 
ability
to set education priorities. A university's ability to provide courses that are
socially useful, but not financially profitable, will be eroded. Education will 
become
more tied to the needs of big business and will less and less serve learning for
social needs.

Our university system is already far removed from the needs and wishes of 
students.
Many feel like cogs in the university machine, bored with what they are 
learning and
unable to have a real say over the content of their degrees.

But we should not be seduced by the rhetoric of "choice". Rather than looking 
to the
market to make education more responsive to students, we should instead advance 
our
own demands for real student control over education.

We should defend centrally planned block grants but argue for greater democracy 
at the
university level, where students can have real say over how the university
administration decides to spend the money. We should argue for greater student 
and
staff control of the university.

If we want a university system which encourages questioning and learning, then 
we need
to campaign to defend publicly funded and publicly controlled education.

[Zanny Begg is the NUS Queensland co-education officer and the Brisbane 
organiser of
Resistance.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Bernhardsen [mailto:magnus.bernhardsen@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday,10 February 2000 1:50
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Student organising and organisations


This weekend I'm going to give a speech about the relevance of student
organisations today. I wondered if any of you have stories to tell about
students fighting about the content of their education, and not only about
tuition fees and grants and such.

Magnus Bernhardsen