07 June 2006

‘The state can not pay for everything.’ It’s a simple sentence but the unstated corollary that everyone else should therefore pay a bit more has provoked intense debate ever since Charles Clarke raised the issue in June 2004. Dress it up in any language and call it things such as ‘re engineering the balance of contributions’ as many do, the core question remains the same – ‘who should pay for what’ when it comes to learning?

The Government in all fairness and in the face of some criticism has identified and stuck to a number of basic principles. First that certain groups should not have to pay. These ‘priority’ groups were first listed in the 2003 Skills Strategy and include 16 – 18 year olds, adult learners on basic skills courses, adults pursuing a first full Level 2 or in specific cases a Level 3. Second that those who benefit most should contribute to the costs. Third that key target areas and groups should be supported through particular grants and entitlements. Fourth that where learning is supported it should be a for a first Level qualification as in first Level 2 and a full qualification at that and fifth that any rise in fee contributions for those expected to pay will be phased in gradually, working towards a long term objective of a 50% contribution. On the surface much of this seems reasonable but squeezing hurts and can have unintended consequences; the target may be inappropriate, deserving learners lose out, what’s funded may not be what individuals want or need.

The crunch question is how much individuals should or perhaps are prepared to pay and that’s where this research, commissioned by the Learning and Skills Research Centre and jointly funded by the CfBT Education Trust and LSC with support from the LSN, comes in. In the absence of any grand national debate as proposed by Sir Andrew Foster and others, this research and that by NIACE, LSDA and in particular Mick Fletcher and Adrian Perry, constitutes some of the most evidenced opinion that we have on this topic.

Fieldwork for this research was carried out between Sept 2004 and Feb 2005 and included interviews with over 4,000 respondents. The conclusion reached is that on balance and on the basis of the mechanisms in the Skills Strategy “there will be more losers than winners.” Losers include “those who are not able to undertake a full Level 2, those who fall between basic skills and Level 2 and those who want a different Level 2.” The conclusion has been open to debate but what seems inescapable is the further implication that “some radical cultural and attitudinal changes will be required to alter learners’ perspectives so that they are willing to pay and invest in their learning.” This research helps pinpoint what some of those perspectives are.

In terms of general attitudes, around 60% of respondents in the sample thought it was worth saving for learning, with people slightly more happy to pay for learning for personal interest than for learning associated with career advancement. Borrowing to fund learning was not popular, two thirds of learners outside HE were ‘loan averse’ and while some, 13%, would borrow to pay back if they could delay repayment until their income level made it easier to pay back, the implication is that particularly for learners taking a Level 1 or 2 qualification, grants rather than loans are the preferred form of support.

Around 15% of all learners in the survey had saved or planned to save for learning. That said, not all had to and many saw it as an investment anyway. “Learners who paid tuition fees were three times more likely to save specifically for their learning or to draw on their existing savings.” Many saved by cutting back on their day to day spending; some, 6%, used savings accounts like ISAs and while there was considerable support for state matched schemes such as the Savings Gateway, it seems that there is little awareness of, perhaps interest in, sussing out different types of savings schemes. This suggests some opportunity for Government to extend managed accounts such as the resurrected adult learning account. The more so as only around a quarter of learners who saved specifically for learning were ‘able to save the total costs of their learning in advance.’

The research included some segmentation analysis, the grouping of respondents together to identify the extent of differential attitudes. Six groupings were identified. The ‘cautious customer’ who is largely 30+, female, keen to learn but worried about the costs. The ‘serious student’ typically male, younger and studying at a higher level and bearing more of the costs. The ‘lifelong learner’ typically female, older and more happy to pay for learning for personal interest. The ‘eager investor’ typically younger and in full time work and more likely than most to feel it’s worth borrowing to undertake learning. The ‘confident professional’ typically older and in full time work with a better idea of the costs of learning and likely to see it as an investment. And the ‘recent returner’ typically younger, with dependents and less likely to feel they can afford any learning without saving.

At present 3 in 5 learners are, have been, or plan to undertake learning that involves a cost to them personally. 25% of Level 2 learners in the survey were paying tuition fees, on average £556, though the extension of the entitlements will help many. Learners who did not pay course fees or didn’t think they would have to in the future indicated they would be prepared to pay a ‘mean value of £259.53’ or a ‘median value of £79.30’ of their course costs. The mean amount that a Level 3 learner who had not paid but would be willing to pay was £265 and the median amount £106. In contrast the mean tuition fee for those who actually paid fees for a Level 3 course was £407 while the median fee was £224.

Some interesting conclusions arise from this battery of statistics. First that people who do not pay fees or costs have little appreciation of the true costs - a point that DfES, LSC and others have made for some time. Second, and it depends how you cut it, but a lot of Level 3 learners have been benefiting from under priced courses and thus the attitudinal shift needed for such learners to pay more may be greater than anticipated. And third, if the estimates about what people are prepared to pay are reflected more widely, there’s some resistance to overcome.

The Report concludes that many learners will be ‘pleasantly surprised’ by their new learning entitlement, many others ‘ill prepared.’ On that basis, the case for a national awareness raising campaign becomes irresistible; it’s usually better to be pleasantly surprised.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2005. Steve Besley is General Manger of Education Policy at Edexcel. Policy watch is a service intended to help busy people understand developments in the world of education. Visit Edexcel at www.edexcel.org.uk