Funding changes 'create more losers than winners

One of the central pillars of the government's skills strategy is that adults struggling with the most basic skills should not have to pay to learn to read and write or handle simple calculations. Another pillar is that people doing higher level courses, or studying for their own pleasure and fulfilment, should pay more - if not all - of the cost.

But how far do the voters go along with this? Two substantial surveys of public opinion to be published this week suggest that on the second pillar, at least, people agree with the government, though many have no accurate idea how much a further education course costs.

Nor have people cottoned on that the government's skills strategy produces many more "losers" than "winners" in terms of who has to pay and who doesn't, says Claire Callender, professor of social policy at London South Bank University, who coordinated one of the surveys.

But what about the first pillar? Labour is clear that those who are old enough to vote but unable to make out the names on a ballot paper, or mature enough to get a mortgage but incapable of totting up their milk bill, have first call on limited funds.

Whether these people have been failed by the school system or themselves failed to cooperate with efforts to teach them - or both - ministers believe there is an economic imperative to improve their skills that justifies the taxpayer stumping up.

The taxpayer, however, disagrees. New research shows that only a small minority are with the government on this. Barely a fifth of people aged 17 and over believe the public purse should bear the full cost of the government's Skills for Life scheme.

Furthermore, twice as many people oppose any public subsidy. According to a survey by the independent pollsters RSGB, more than 40% think the state should not cough up any money at all to teach basic skills to adults.

So, has the government made the right decisions on how to deploy its adult education budget? According to Niace (the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education), which commissioned the research, there is an urgent need to rethink the policy and review the decision to put young people's immediate post-school education so far above adult education.

"Adults will need to fill two in three jobs of the next decade, since there are not enough young people to go around," says Alan Tuckett, Niace's director. "Yet as a result of success in recruiting and keeping more young people in education, budgets for adult learning are being squeezed."

In every age band over the age of 30 fewer people have enrolled on adult education courses this year. "This clearly makes little sense, either for the government's economic or social goals for lifelong learning," says Tuckett.

Niace is publishing the research in the hope of stimulating discussion in Adult Learners' Week, starting May 22.

Paradox

This snapshot of public opinion might worry ministers. It ought to give them pause for thought but for another finding in the same opinion poll. The public thinks the government should pay a bigger share of the cost than the taxpayer should.

According to Tuckett, Niace was so surprised at the finding so few of the 4,000 polled thought the state should pay for the basic skills policy that it ran the survey again with a fresh sample of 1,700, but substituted the word "government" for "taxpayer". This time, just under 40% said the government should pay the whole cost and only a fifth said it should pay nothing.

What this spurious distinction between government and taxpayer appears to express is an unwillingness by people to see a greater chunk taken from their pay packet to help their educationally challenged neighbours, but a greater acceptance - albeit by a minority - of the notion that the state ought to bear the cost.

Through such paradoxes skilled politicians easily wriggle. The government is not going to make the overall pot of money for adult education appreciably bigger. This means the subsidies people have enjoyed - for instance on evening classes or for more advanced courses to help their careers - must be reduced and they or their employers pay more.

Apart from the heavy emphasis on young people, is it wise to shovel so much of the rest of the budget into improving basic skills or to helping people gain a first full level 2 qualification (five GCSEs at A*-C, or the equivalent)? Or should ministers be paying more heed to public opinion?

"Despite cuts in spending and learner numbers in England, there is growing recognition that it is in the public interest to secure a learning society," says Tuckett. "As well as helping individuals, lifelong learning benefits both society and the economy more widely. The question is: who should pay?"

One reassuring message for government is that people do not seem outraged at the prospect of paying higher fees. Indeed, they take a much harder line than the government, which states that within the next few years it wants individual students to bear 50% of the cost of courses that fall outside the funding priorities.

The overall public view, from the poll, is that for every £10 spent on personal development courses the taxpayer should contribute just 92p, instead of the current £6.50. The individual should pay £8.24. Employers get off even more lightly. The public thinks their share of the costs should range from 84p in £10 for personal development to around £2.50 for Skills for Life courses to £5.06 for vocational courses.

Further research

The other research coming out this week, led by Callender, was funded jointly by the Learning and Skills Council and the Centre for British Teachers, a charity dedicated to advancing education for the public benefit.

This shows that six out of 10 people are happy to pay some or all of the costs of learning for personal interest. Curiously, fewer are content - 54% - with paying for courses that they consider part of their education or career. When Callender filleted out those people from the 4,000 sample who were actually studying in further education, she discovered that three-quarters are happy to pay some or all of the costs of learning - currently averaging£663, of which £323 is on tuition fees - to further their education or career.

So far so good for the government. There are, however, gaps between public willingness to pay and the real cost.

"While stating they were prepared to pay, they appeared only to contemplate a fee level well below the average tuition fees currently charged by colleges," says Callender. And only a third of FE students say they can afford to pay for learning out of their current income, and two-thirds would not consider taking out a loan to study.

About 10% of FE students are winners, she says, because they have previously had to pay fees and now will not have to under the strategy. By contrast, about two-thirds of current or past FE students are losers because they previously paid no fees, but would have to in future.

"I would want the government to look carefully at the unintended consequences of the skills strategy," says Callender. "While one can't argue with prioritising funding to the less qualified, are the consequences what was anticipated?"

"Politicians have a hard job here," says Tuckett. "People don't want higher taxes, but expect adult education and training to be a public service, not a leisure option. We can't have our cake and eat it. There needs to be a much better informed debate about what the country expects and can afford."