At a time of economic crisis, doubling the pupil premium is not the answer.
Watching all the jazzy Liberal Democrat conference coverage over the past few days, I have been feeling rather jealous as I sit at home applying to every education support job under the sun. Vince Cable and Tim Farron both gave stunning speeches that expressed the most pressing problems in our party. Yet, as I take a break from my depressing unemployment and watch a Q&A session on social mobility, I rapidly become aware of another.
Anyone who knows me appreciates that education is my area. I stood up against MPs wishing to break their pledge with students on tuition fees, supported the introduction of the pupil premium and preferred a reformed Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) than a whole new discretionary scheme. On the last point in particular you can understand my concern when the doubling of the pupil premium was announced. This extra money set to be invested is more than enough money to fund a pound-for-pound replacement for EMA that the Department for Education said wasn’t available.
I believe that in a time of economic crisis, we should use what money we have to invest across the entire education sector, rather than simply investing in early years and primary schools. Yet when I made this reference on Twitter I faced an onslaught of angry Lib Dems who spoke to me as if I had broken my responsibility as a party member, tearing away from the party line like an irate toddler. But if they’d taken time to take note of the facts, they would have seen a huge drop in enrolment figures for over 100 FE colleges and sixth form centres, for the 2011/12 academic year. (http://www.feweek.co.uk/index.php/2011/09/15/where-are-the-16-18-year-olds/)
Many college principals and senior education figures say this is due to EMA’s abolition, and
uncertainty amongst college and prospective students about its replacement.
Less students are continuing in post-16 education, heading out to working life instead. And there just isn’t the jobs to encompass them all, thus unemployment increases, benefit seekers rise and we end up in a downward spiral.
In the Q&A session on social mobility, the panel said that the Liberal Democrats owned the agenda. Simon Hughes brandished his business card with the Lib Dem constitution preamble on the back, pointing out the ‘no-one shall be enslaved by poverty’ phrase, and everybody applauded with glee. Yet we are making decisions today that are pricing people out of education. Students from lower-income families aren’t being supported to stay in Further Education, so can’t be ‘encouraged’ onto Higher Education.
It’s a simple equation – if you can’t afford FE then HE just is not a possibility. And isn’t that a social mobility issue?
