8/12/2019 Blueprint Flyer

1/2

WHAT IS THE BLUEPRINT?Earlier this year, the National Union of Students (NUS) published a paper laying out a new model for Higher Education

(HE) funding. The document was called The Blueprint, and proposes a graduate tax model of funding for

undergraduate qualifications, including those outside of the traditional BA/BSc framework, such as some vocational

training, etc. This is a change from previous NUS policy, which was to focus their energy on opposing the lifting of the

cap, while supporting the ideal of free education. This flyer is intended to explain the Blueprint and some of its flaws as

Education Not for Sale see it; we hope it will be taken in the spirit of open constructive criticism intended to address

flaws in the NUSs tactics and The Blueprints model, rather than an attack on another voice of the student movement.

The basic ideas of The Blueprint are:

That HE funding should be administered by a Peoples Trust for Higher Education. This would be under thecontrol of representatives of HE institutions, HE students, and graduate employers, with the chair being

appointed by the Secretary of State. It would design and implement a personal contribution scheme defined

by legislation and ministerial guidance, and would set and adjust the price of an individual academic credit.

That personal contributions should be based on the "ability to pay", "sustained income over time", and"amount of accredited Higher Education undertaken", lasting for a fixed period (20 years) rather than being of

a fixed amount. Therefore different income brackets would pay different rates, on a monthly basis, out of

their income, but the tax would only be applied to those who have actually studied for HE qualifications.

That it should be possible to pay off a certain amount of academic credits in advance. The amount that anormal student could pay off should be capped, but their employer should also be able to pay off some

creditsthe Blueprint does not mention a cap on employer pay-offs. Paid-off credits could be partially offset

against National Insurance contributions, offering a tax incentive for employers to do so.

That slightly different rules regarding the paying-off of credits would apply to mature students, to account forthe fact that they may not be earning for a full 20 years after they complete their course, etc.

That the personal contributions from this scheme should replace top-up fees; in other words, the governmentwould continue to partially fund HE with money raised through other sources of taxation, and there would

continue to be other income streams such as donations from alumni, sponsorship by business, etc.

Its worth noting that the graduate tax payments would be made on top of any repayments of student maintenance

loans, as they only replace repayments on student fee loans, and the existing maintenance package would be expected

to stay in place. The NUS failed to point this out in The Blueprint, so their figures only account for the graduate tax.

Note also that the NUS figures need to be adjusted for inflation from 2006 -7 prices, meaning that the rates are higher

than they appear, especially when the failure of pay to track inflation in many industries recently has led to a decline in

real wages.

A final issue to be aware of is that you could get free higher education under this system by emigrating after the end

of your degree no matter what you earn in Canada, Mexico or Japan, you are under no obligation to pay anything

back to the UK government. Language students, take note!

APOLITICAL CONSENSUS?NUS President Wes Streeting has suggested that The Blueprint was produced in an attempt to break the political

consensus that fees were the only or best way to fund HE. In other words, Wes thinks that the best way to defend

students interests is to show that there are other ways for them to pay, rather than questioning whether they should

be paying in the first place.

But this approach of playing into individual funding of HE is dangerous it makes small concessions look larger

because they are close to the position students are actively arguing for. It puts less pressure on the government and

asks for minor alterations to the system that are not necessarily better. It legitimises the consensus on education

being individually funded by moving the main dissenting voice within the consensus. The Blueprint challenges the

consensus on fees, for sure... But it fails to challenge the consensus that education cannot be free!

Education Not for Sale argues that this approach to breaking the consensus is naive proposing the Blueprint as the

cure for HE fundings ills would mean turning our backs on free education. Instead we think that students should befighting on all fronts for their interests, always supporting universally free education funded by those who can best

afford it rich individuals and businesses while also exerting influence over decisions taken within the current

framework, such as the lifting of the top-up fee cap. If you agree with us, contact us and get involved in our campaigns.

8/12/2019 Blueprint Flyer

2/2

WHAT ARE THE BLUEPRINTS FLAWS?The problem with proposing The Blueprints model is not just that students should be arguing for free education

instead. There are various problems with the Blueprint that could have been tightened up even within the mainstream

approach of individuals paying for their degrees. Leaving the issue of free education aside, the NUS should at least be

demanding a more democratic and transparent model that preserves the academic integrity of our HE institutions and

prevents marketisation. Here are just some of the flaws of the model proposed by NUS:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

The backbone of The Blueprint is the Peoples Trust. However, there is no guarantee that the Trust would be

democratic; the NUS does not propose that representatives be elected, etc. Furthermore, students are likely to

have less influence on the board unless all members are limited to a short period on it, as employers could stay

on for 40 years or more, while almost all undergraduates would last less than a tenth of that time.

The Peoples Trust would not be as independent as NUS claim the chair would be appointed by a member of

the government, it is to submit to ministerial guidance and legislation, and the government would be able

to set and alter the key constant in the formulae used to determine contributions, thereby controlling the tax.

The NUS itself openly admits that its model would shift HE towards providing par t-time study for the

workforce, and meet*ing+ the needs of businesses. In other words, HE would become a training tool for

employers, would help to casualise work and shift towards part-time work (thereby pushing down wages and

job security), while genuine academic work would be squeezed even further out of undergraduate work.

The idea of paying off credits in advance makes a mockery of the graduate tax if the cost is set too low, then

the rich could pay off a large chunk of their contributions, thus lowering how much they pay (possibly to a

lower rate than someone on half their wage, depending on the exact numbers), whereas if it is too high, only

the rich will be able to do it, buying their way out of the 20-year period, while the less well-off cannot.

The NUS failed to include important figures, such as how many credits an employer could pay off, or the

probable cost of a credit. This makes it difficult to predict the actual impact on peoples finances, or the

fairness of the scheme to those on low incomes, and means that even if the government did follow the NUSs

proposals, they could be made to suit any agenda by choosing the right numbers.

The graduate tax is based on the idea of a service-user fee, whereas HE should be funded on the basis of

ability to pay, just like the majority of public spending, including the NHS, lower levels of education, defence,

etc. This is because everyone benefits from HE, not just graduates, while businesses and the rich benefit

disproportionately through their roles as employers, the main consumers of new technologies, etc.

The Blueprint is not a stand-alone solution it relies on the government finding alternative funding for

National Insurance contributions so that credit pay-offs by employers can be offset against them. The NUS

suggests that savings could be made due to the removal of various administrative tasks allowed by this

model, but this doesnt take into account the massive administration required to calculate every graduates

contributions on a monthly basis, etc.

Employers who make large contributions to their employees, or who make charitable donations to the

funding body, and who sit on the board controlling funding, are much more likely to want a marketised

system that panders to their desires, allows them to set the syllabus, and strips HE of its academic integrity.

The NUS claim to oppose the marketisation of education, and yet the model they have suggested puts heavy

emphasis on the centrality of employers and businesses in sponsoring individuals, controlling HE funding, etc.

While industry-HE links are necessary to ensure (at least some) education is practical, this should be based on

voluntary consultation by institutions, not business control over funding, etc.

The Blueprint is completely opaque. At least under the fee system we know how much we are paying for our

course before we do it; under the graduate tax, we would have to ask ourselves can I pay back P=(I-

(T/12))xCxW, calculated monthly, for 20 years? Add to that credit pay-offs, fluctuation in the constant set

by the government, fluctuation in credit prices, employers' contributions, and so on, and it becomes a

nightmare. The government could change how much you have to pay at any point after the start of your

course under The Blueprints model.

The Blueprint does not call for, or even hint at, free education. The NUS has an obligation to be fighting for

students interests, improving the accessibility of HE, etc. The Blueprint fails to adequately do that, because

the NUS have turned their back on the struggle for free education. The Blueprint actively condones the idea

of paying for HE on an individual user basis, and if successful, would lock us into a situation of accepting a

similar system to fees for at least 15 years before it broke even. This would be a massive setback for those

who want to see free education reintroduced across the UK, like present-day Scotland or 1970s England.