By Zanny Begg and Marina Carman
One of the most controversial recommendations of the West review of higher education was the proposal for "student centred funding" — vouchers or "learning accounts" for higher education.
The rhetoric that surrounds vouchers is all about "choice". We are told that a voucher system will increase the "choices" for students by giving them control of education funding, more responsive courses and a wider alternative of public or private universities.
The reality will be exactly the opposite. A voucher system would throw the control of education onto the whims of the market, massively expand the number of students forced to pay fees and further the differences between the "elite" universities and their poorer cousins.
The voucher system looms on the horizon because it represents the next logical step in the Coalition's push towards a more privatised and deregulated education market.
The difficulty the government faces is creating a domestic market for fees. The implementation of undergraduate fees (for places on top of publicly funded places) has so far largely been a failure. Fewer than 400 fee-paying enrolments had been taken up by the end of the second round offers.
Most students can enter the university system through a HECS-funded place without paying up-front fees. The few who miss out on their choice of degree can usually enter the system at another point and work their way into their preferred course at a later stage. There's just not the demand for university places costing tens of thousands of dollars.
One response to this situation has been to try to "close the back door". For example, Melbourne University has just raised the cut-off score for arts students transferring to law and introduced fees for those below target. But ultimately measures like these will be piecemeal.
What the government needs is to radically restructure the funding model for higher education and create a larger domestic fee market — which is where the voucher system comes in.
The most likely option canvassed by the West review for a voucher scheme was a set amount ($26,000 was suggested) to be spent by students over a fixed time frame.
This means universities could charge fees at the level they wanted, and students would have to pay up out of their "learning account". If the fees exceeded $26,000, then students would have to cough up the difference. People studying after their account was spent would be thrust directly into the fee market.
The second main benefit for government is that, once introduced, the voucher system would allow it to start to whittle away the public contribution (i.e., the "value" of the voucher) and increase dependence on fees revenue. Currently the average breakdown of university income is 57.1% from the government, 12% from HECS and 11% from fees. The government's own revenue targets indicate further cuts to funding are due.
Further, a voucher system would make the market the key determinant of the very structure of the higher education system. It would remove any remaining centralised government funding and planning. The impact would be to create greater differentiation between universities and an intensified competition between them.
This prospect is welcomed by the vice-chancellor of Melbourne University, Alan Gilbert, who stated, "We do need the gaps between institutions to get wider and quite quickly". This intensified competition has already begun, with many universities putting schemes in place to poach students from other universities.
For universities like Gilbert's, such differentiation may lead to them becoming the "Harvard of Australia", a truly elite institution. But a voucher system would relegate less established universities to second or even third class status. They would become the education providers for the poor — cheap degrees at "cheap" prices.
A further spin-off would be the provision of public money to private universities. The West review makes it clear that vouchers can be spent at "any institution (public or private)".
In spite of all the rhetoric about "choice", vouchers would open the way to further major restructuring of the university sector, a restructuring which would hurt students and staff and restrict choice for all but the very rich.
[Zanny Begg is the Brisbane organiser of the socialist youth organisation, Resistance, and the education officer of the National Union of Students in Queensland. Marina Carman is a member of the Resistance national executive and vice-president of Sydney Uni SRC.]