Online learning fund to benefit both online and off?

Universities are being asked today to work together to bid for money to develop new e-learning projects.  David Lammy (Minister for Higher Education) is hoping to help ensure UK universities are at the forefront of online distance learning.  Lammy announced a £20million learning innovation fund to allow better access to online learning.

Among other things, a new taskforce is hoping to, “work to increase the quantity of learning resources freely available for all institutions to use”.

photo by jaylopezFor you, as students, the more quality information available for free online, the better it should be.  That’s even if you live on campus and aren’t studying online as such.

You can already access a huge number of wonderful resources for free, but much of the content originates outside the UK.  For the UK to retain a world-class status, more effort is required to increase the amount of quality material placed online.  Better scope to promote lifelong learning and the constant updating of skills is also required.

Now more than ever, we want to find material that speaks to us. It’s not good enough to find a particular resource dry and difficult to study from, yet have no option but to carry on regardless.  More content available in different formats means we have more chance to effectively digest information in whichever way suits us.  And generally at our own pace too.

Lammy said, “Education must be increasingly personalised to meet the needs of the student as the student requires it and wherever the student requires it.”

David Lammy

David Lammy

At the same time, a new report, supported by JISC, has been released.  Called “The Edgeless University“, the report calls for universities to embrace technology and make the most of the tools available online in order to be at the forefront of Web2.0, social networking and communication.

Online study activity is becoming more important for students, as is easy access to material and content online that is openly available to all.  I know not all students are happy to interact online in the same way they check Facebook and chat with mates, but the game is changing fast.

The ‘Edgeless University’ report mentions Dr Michael Wesch, who has worked wonders at the University of Kansas with his Digital Ethnography programme.  Wesch says, “What I need to do is inspire [students] and give them the tools to harness that information and harness the skills of other people to do the things they want to get done. And that transforms the way you approach the classroom.” (Page 37)

And there really is a transformation.  Not all academic material need come from the confines of a university, especially as online collaboration becomes more common.  However, since the greatest amount of research can take place in HE institutions, it’s sensible to see the uni as the best place to make as much world-class information accessible as possible.  This is where the new learning innovation fund hopes to come into play.

Interactivity is a big deal too, which the ‘Edgeless University’ report supports.  When students see a tutor who is open and available online to talk to students, the demand to engage with that tutor face-to-face actually grows. So students demand more exposure face-to-face as opposed to less.

And face-to-face learning is so important, especially for those who have just left school.  While distance learning should be embraced as a good thing, I still see the student experience of 18 (ish) year olds spending three or so years on campus as a worthwhile and fulfilling encounter that should not be ignored.  Living on (or around) campus is important for the social element, the extra-curricular element, the lifestyle element, and so on.  Do everything online and you could miss out a great chunk of what’s possible.

Nevertheless, the ‘Edgeless University’ report states:

“We are having to reassess the stereotypes associated with ‘being a student’ as something that teenagers do after school and before they start work. It’s a three-year experience – you arrive with a suitcase and leave with a degree. In fact this model of higher education – residential, fulltime and pre-employment – now only reflects the experience of a minority. Two out of five higher education students are currently studying part-time; 59 per cent are mature and almost 15 per cent come from overseas; and there is every indication that the student population will continue to grow and change.” (Page 18)

It’s clear that things are changing, but I hope the ‘stereotype’ remains a big deal, even if student numbers overtake in other modes of study.

Whatever the future holds, the materials that should arise out of the new learning innovation fund would hopefully be of use to each and every student, regardless of their circumstances and the materials they already have access to.

Graduate Tax – A better alternative to tuition fees?

The National Union of Students (NUS) has published a blueprint that suggests setting up a People’s Trust for Higher Education.  It is, they say, “A fund built mainly on contributions by former undergraduate students and their employers, and the employers of current students”.

NUS Blueprint

Rather than ramp up fees, lift caps and get universities charging different fees, the NUS blueprint asks for a form of graduate tax that would be paid over a fixed period of 20 years, based on your earnings.  The more you earn, the more you pay back.  This has been suggested as a reasonable alternative to implementing higher and variable fees.  In fact, it’s designed to abolish fees completely.

This blueprint has been written to stimulate public debate, rather than answer every question, rather than prove a solution to every problem, rather than explain a perfect system.

That said, it is still a clear set of proposals aimed at creating a fair system for all and encouraging widening participation.

The NUS state:

“Our proposals would end the very notion of a course fee or price, and shut the door on a market in fees. Graduates should contribute to the future costs of higher education according to their actual future earnings, so that those who benefit the most from university by earning more will contribute more, in order to give future students access to higher education.”

However, Nick Taylor brings up a valid point that the NUS suggestions could be “Funding Our Failures”.  He asks us on his blog to “think of an alternative that doesn’t persecute successful students and reward idiots”.

Taylor’s blog post asks a reasonable question, especially as the NUS blueprint specifically states, “Those who leave higher education and, for whatever reason, have only a very low income for the rest of their working lives, may pay nothing at all, and will have relatively little debt compared to today.”

Problem areas like this do need to be addressed, otherwise the system is open to abuse.  It is, therefore, up to us to contribute further to help introduce a system that works for all.  The NUS brings us closer to a way of funding HE using methods other than charging sky-high fees.  So now we have a more detailed, greater supported and generally talked about platform to work from and mould into shape.

Although an open statement, the NUS blueprint also starts to talk about the future of HE given the likely boost in revenue that’s been calculated.  They call for the funding to:

“be conditional on new measures to monitor and improve the quality of the student experience and the impact of higher expenditure in the higher education sector. We believe this should be focused on the outcomes of higher education and the extent to which it actually changes people’s lives.”

If widening participation is truly being taken seriously by the government, it should be made clear to all that HE can change people’s lives for the better and that it’s worth being a part of.  There will always be the ‘Wasters’ that Nick Taylor refers to, but I believe more can be done to persuade these individuals that they can achieve more to the benefit of themselves and others.  It won’t work for everyone, but this new blueprint should go beyond the debate of graduate tax versus student fees and look to the way in which individuals can be encouraged to make the most of their time within HE.  University looks like a laugh because it really can be a laugh.  That doesn’t stop it from being a positive and rewarding move in life at the same time.

Finally, the blueprint opens the way for better support of lifelong learning (which is something I’m all for).  The graduate tax would be related to the number of credits that people have studied.  That allows people to move in and out of HE in different ways and benefit without being hit with huge fees, just for trying to gain more education.  A graduate tax would still need to be paid, but in such a way to allow greater access and better participation.

I am pleased to see today’s blueprint and hope for a wider debate within HE because of it.  While we may not have all the answers right now, we’re certainly a lot closer to finding an effective and fair system of funding higher education.  Now it’s up to us to get working on filling in the cracks and building a system that works for as many people as possible.

The more of us who get involved, the easier that should be.  Let’s do it!

Related Links:
The Guardian – Wes Streeting (President, NUS) on the blueprint

The Guardian’s own take on the graduate tax

BBC News

24dash

Compass Online

Metro

Times Online

University and College Union (UCU) response to the blueprint

Million+ response to the blueprint

The Guardian has put up a voting and commenting page about “Graduate Tax vs Tuition Fees“.  Be sure to watch the comments both for and against!

links for 2009-06-03