Lesson from the U.K.’S education crisis
It is often said in policy circles that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. But Quebec needs more than a season of student unrest to achieve lasting tuition reform; England’s “big bang” of its university system proves this point.
Political economy scholars have highlighted the need for stars to align if systems with powerfully entrenched interests are to be reformed. An alignment requires: ■ A real and tangible crisis; A public receptive to change;
■ A newly elected party riding the legitimacy of a strong mandate for change; and
■ A political class that believes in the reforms it is pursuing.
Mostof these elements were present in England when it pursued its reforms, but are absent today in Quebec.
The last few years have been bad for Britain. In 2010, it faced a clear and present danger of soaring deficits, rising debt, worsening economic conditions in Europe and the need to reassure a very nerv- ous bond market. This context was further complicated by an election that produced a minority Parliament and resulted in a coalition Conservative-Liberal Democrat government. The coalition adopted a platform that borrowed the best ideas from both parties. Higher education reform was front and centre as part of a broader desire to reform public services, including welfare, public schools and the National Health Service. A coalition government consensus on tuition reform was strengthened by the fact that in 2004 the previous Labour government had introduced tuition fees — a move that even Margaret Thatcher didn’t dare make when she was “rolling back the state.” The Labour government also commissioned the Browne Review to study tuition policy and present independent, non-partisan recommendations to Parliament.
The Browne Review recommended that universities be free to set their tuition fees at whatever the market would bear, but the coalition government instead tripled and capped fees at £9,000 a year. The coalition also removed government operational subsidies to the arts and humanities, effectively privatizing institutions like the London School of Economics. This muted market-based solution to university financing was introduced to plug the financing gap and deal with the proliferation of programs that didn’t improve students’ employment prospects. Universities and programs that now command higher fees (because their teaching, reputations and the future incomes of their students are commensurate) thrive under these new rules. Accessibility has been addressed through a strengthened loan system, with repayment based on future earnings. Evidence indicates that these reforms did not decrease applications from low-income students, and that they are enabling universities to compete in the global market for programs and talent.
Predictably, the student unions in England showed solidarity and protested violently, attacking the Conservative Party headquarters and a royal motorcade. But unlike in Quebec, the protests were ephemeral. A newly elected government had promised the reforms, the political spectrum was reasonably united and the English public and press were unsympathetic to the student cause. Austerity loomed, and everyone was being asked to sacrifice in order to reduce public spending.
The Quebec tuition-reform narrative is remarkably different. A weak government at the end of its third mandate announced tuition increases two years before they were to take effect. This gave student unions, their anti-Liberal party allies in the labour movement and the Parti Québécois time to pounce on the general mood for change. Despite support from most opin- ion leaders and the public, the implementation of comparatively modest tuition increases failed.
England’s reform experience and the deepening crisis of university finances in Quebec have lessons for opposition party leaders preparing for a potential 2013 election, and one of them is: be bold in your electoral position on tuition reform. If there is one similarity with Britain, it is that the Quebec public and opinion leaders are on the side of reform. An effective leader of a new coalition or majority government that implements tuition reform at the beginning of an electoral mandate should defuse the inevitable student protests because the student arguments are not based on evidence: tuition fees do not decrease accessibility, if they are coupled with loans and bursaries for low-income students.
The politicians might not muster this courage. At the very least, however, they should commission an independent review of university financing to counter the obfuscation that the PQ’s shambolic and politicized Higher Education Summit has engendered.
Aspiring premiers should not let this window of opportunity close. The university-funding issue is unresolved and remains on the public agenda. This crisis is far too important for any government-in-waiting to waste.