The Diploma debacle

The September of 2008 was witness to a quiet revolution in British education. That month, the Diploma was launched, with the promise to offer “14 to 19 year olds practical, hands-on experience as well as classroom learning…designed to help young people develop the knowledge and skills employers and universities want”. These new semi-vocational, semi-academic qualifications were intended to challenge the virtual monopoly orthodox academic qualifications held over secondary education, and perhaps even eventually replace them as the qualification of choice among students nationwide. However, the promised revolution has not materialised. So, what went wrong? And how can the Diploma be made to work?

This is a real tragedy as Diplomas have the potential to remedy our outmoded qualifications system. The Tomlinson Report, published in 2004, announced that A levels lacked breadth and challenge, and proposed the introduction of an all-inclusive vocational and academic qualification, such as the Diploma, to combat their narrow focus. The education establishment’s adherence to the “safe” duo of the GCSE and A Level has, however, yet to be seriously challenged by the different conception of the Diploma that the Labour government introduced.

The Diploma has the potential to play a role in tackling the rising number of “NEETs” (young people Not in Education, Employment or Training) which reached one million for the first time last year, while a recent report revealed that Britain “ranked 25th out of 27 OECD countries in the proportion of 15-19 year olds in education”. Such figures are a source of national embarrassment, but also entail material costs. A report by the Prince’s Trust in 2007 signalled that NEETs “costs the economy upwards of £90m per week”- a financial expense incurred in the present to challenge the social expense faced in the future.

The means to transform the Diploma into a more effective qualification rest in the government’s hands.

Firstly, it can ensure that the Diploma is granted equal status with A Levels and GCSEs by universities. Time and again, the most prestigious universities have wilfully ignored the “tariff” that standardises qualifications for university entry, admitting students with academic qualifications in preference to those with vocational equivalents. It is the duty of the government to make such institutions play fair.

Secondly, the government should review the structure of the course to make the Diploma both simpler, and more cost effective. A report published last December by Kathleen Tattersall, head of England’s exams regulator Ofqual, suggested that “simplification” would make the Diploma more attractive to a larger number of schools and students.

Sadly, the government’s position on the Diploma remains ambiguous at best. In June, it pulled the plug on the Diplomas in humanities, language and science due to be launched next September. In July, the right of students to enrol in all the established Diploma courses was abolished along with the Extended Diploma – a prospective addition to the programme worth 4.5 A Levels. Nick Gibb said that students should “be able to sit the qualification that is right for them” and not “be told by government what they can and cannot take.” Under the guise of student choice, he has actually reduced young people’s options by abolishing their entitlement and reducing the range available.

Finding a difference is taxing

The debate around a graduate tax rumbled on this week – with decreasing certainty as to the coalition’s position. Here, Young Fabian Policy Development Group member, Dan Harkin, struggles to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The YF Aspiration and Equality PDG will be addressing university funding in a future meeting.

Everyone from the BBC to the Telegraph has reported Vince Cable’s recent speech as in favour of a graduate tax. Most of the Labour leader candidates and the NUS have come out in favour it. But this isn’t really much of a debate. The difference between the two systems is skin deep.

Before tuition fees were brought in, higher education was free. Sort of. With the expansion of student numbers the grants were successively diminished and mortgage-style loans were brought in to cover the gap. Labour brought in a new student loans system, which was income contingent and means-tested. The rate of interest was (and continues to be) subsidised. When so-called top-up fees were brought in, the fees were added to the loan. Universities were required to use part of the income generated to support poor students.

I remember being sat in campaign groups at university, having paid a token fee for the year, surrounded by many over-privileged individuals campaigning against the fact that they had to pay full fees (this was the earlier tuition fees system). Never mind that the individuals on whose behalf they were supposedly campaigning didn’t pay any such fees. Under the current system the provisions for poor students is even more generous.

Student leaders talked about the burden of debt. But let’s get one thing straight, a student loan is not a mortgage. Loan providers don’t take it into account because it is paid back through your tax bill. To be frank it is either this form of debt or the real debt burden of a credit card or overdraft. And there is nothing wrong with the principle of distributing your income in your highest-earning years to your leanest years: that’s what we do with pensions. We take out loans to help us start out and we save to help us later on. Therefore loans are an entirely rational way to finance one’s education.

So what about a graduate tax? Imagine if we got individual A, with a student loan, and individual B, who pays a graduate tax, to exchange places. Both graduates would start repaying after a certain income level (£15,000 under the current system). The amount they pay back would be a portion of income, not fixed payments (10 per cent above the earning threshold). They would both cease paying after retirement. It’s a bit like asking two people at different weddings, one dancing the Macarena and the other the Time Warp, if they’d prefer to swap. Doing the Macarena with your aunty is painful but doing it wouldn’t be any more enjoyable if the friend of the family in the DJ booth put on his only other CD. (Incidentally, I’m fairly certain Mr Cable is technically proficient whatever the track.)

The only difference I can make out is that the loan repayments are, by their nature, finite. The Scottish system had a cap on the total amount an individual would pay back under its graduate contribution scheme. So either the graduate tax would replicate that, in which case it would be utterly indistinguishable from the current system, or it wouldn’t – in which case it appears to be somewhat sinister. But a graduate tax is problematic for a whole host of reasons: it’s not a direct payment to an institution; it’s hard to define a graduate; it’s hard to chase non-UK nationals with a “tax”; and, as there’s no borrowing element, it delays the funds available to universities.

Last there is something rather unholy about charging a class of citizens a different rate of tax. Taxes normally fall on a particular economic activity. Picking out a group of individuals and taxing them separately is an ill-paved road to start travelling down.

There isn’t space to go into all the arguments surrounding whether students should contribute towards the costs of their study. My argument assumes that will be the case, especially if student numbers need to rise as our economy changes. Given the large private benefit derived from having a degree it seems dodgy to suggest that the taxpayer should pay for the whole cost of a degree – especially when further education and part-time students get such a rum deal.

There are loads of ways to reform the current system to extract more money from those who should stump up the cash and still make it accessible to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. (Means-testing the share between the state and individual could be a goer.) But just rebadging it won’t help anyone. Hey, Macarena.

Young Fabians nationwide participating in new policy development

Building upon the success of 2009’s YF Policy Forums, Young Fabian Vice Chair, Adrian Prandle, established four new Policy Development Groups to answer some of the key questions the centre-left needs to address in order to retool following Labour’s general election defeat. 

If the Fabian Society is about ideas, and the Young Fabians is about the next generation, then the YF Policy Development Groups (PDGs) are about realising that there is no time to waste. The context of a Conservative-led government and the first competitive Labour leadership election since today’s oldest Young Fabian members were at school offers a huge opportunity for centre-left ideas on domestic policy, Britain’s policy abroad, and even the way the Labour Party organises and presents itself.

The four groups – Livelihoods & Resource Security (looking at development and foreign policy); Work & Families; Aspiration & Equality (focusing on education policy); and a special project group, Transforming Our Party – have Young Fabian members, with a range of interests, expertises and experiences,  signed up in their hundreds.

The PDGs are seeking new policy ideas with the aim of developing these collectively to inform decision-makers and senior party figures as well as other Young Fabian and/or Labour Party members. Published outcomes from the PDGs predecessor in 2009 have been cited from the top table at leadership hustings and 2010’s work promises to be just as important and influential.

But they’re not just about influence. The strength of the PDGs lies within our membership. Recognising the need to harness the talents of all of our members, we have redoubled efforts to involve and empower and have utilised web-based resources to make this easier for Young Fabians across the country. Members have been encouraged to participate by email, blogging, joining a Facebook group, and accessing the many resources in the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website, as well as attending meetings in person.

And the PDGs have hosted a first for the Young Fabians – online meetings. We’re not using webcams just yet, but members are finding the chatroom software both productive and easy to use. Plus the work of the groups benefits: the breaking of geographic boundaries brings in wider perspectives from the length and breadth of Britain than meetings in London often allow.

We are looking into using wikis for policy development and remain open to other ideas members want to suggest. Young Fabians are getting involved in whichever ways suit them best – members in Manchester have organised their own meeting to feed into the discussions of the Transforming Our Party PDG.

The PDGs will report later in the year so it’s not too late to join in. If you’d like to participate in any one of the PDGs, or would like to find out more about their latest work then please email Adrian, aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk, or visit the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website: http://tiny.cc/yfpdgs.

GUEST POST: Triple-jeopardy in welfare proposals increase risk of poverty

In this guest post, Young Fabian member Neil Coyle argues that, despite the supposed similarities in the welfare policy of Labour and the Coalition government, the proposed changes announced by the Coalition so far are regressive.

Incoming Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, has announced welfare commitments including:

• Putting DWP at the forefront of improving quality of life for worst-off citizens;
• Ensuring work pays; and
• A Social Justice Cabinet Committee.

Sound progressive? Examination of the detail available is more worrying. Overall, proposals could mean the triple-jeopardy of:

1. enforced, ineffective medical tests;
2. cuts to support to find work; and
3. cuts to in-work support.

Medical tests

Labour introduced a ‘Work Capability Assessment’ (WCA) to ascertain the impact of health conditions on people’s ability to work. But organisations that supported reform have criticised WCA implementation.

Disability organisations suggest the WCA is unable to effectively ascertain the impact health conditions have on ability to work. Cases have arisen of people assessed as ‘fit for work’ being exempted from undertaking work related activity on appeal. 40% of the people who appeal have DWP decisions overturned and the number of appeals already outstrips other benefits.

Instead of addressing WCA challenges, the new Government is bringing forward wider reform plans using the assessment on all 2.6 million Incapacity Benefit (IB) claimants. Labour had proposed 1.5 million IB claimants undergo the WCA at a rate of 10,000 per week to 2014. The new Government’s WCA plans will require significant additional costs – recruiting Jobcentre Plus/medical assessment staff to handle assessments and public resources wasted in costly appeals.

Support to find work

Labour provided support for people furthest from the job market through initiatives like Pathways to Work. The coalition has announced it will scrap Pathways and other programmes in favour of a single ‘Work Programme’.

But a ‘one size fits all’ approach will be ineffective at ensuring all citizens, especially disabled people, are supported to find work. At a time of higher unemployment this is doubly disadvantageous and could cause a bias in the system against helping people with highest needs to find work.

Reduced in-work support

Labour proposed a £40 per week better off in work guarantee for many people moving off benefits. The coalition has cut this proposal, instead making loose statements about ‘making work pay’ which some fear may mean cuts to benefits in the June Budget.

The coalition’s tax credit proposals also cut in-work support. The threshold of income planned to restrict access to tax credits may not reflect some people’s – especially parents of disabled children’s – higher living costs and could push families into poverty.

The coalition agreement also pledges an employment law review. A weakening of employers’ obligations on parental rights, flexible working and ‘Reasonable Adjustments’ for disabled employees could make work untenable.

The ‘C’ change

Despite shared terminology and a general media focusing on similarities in the main parties’ on welfare, the combination of recent announcements represent a sea change from Labour to Coalition.

Progressives must monitor the impact of proposals on poverty.

Fabianism in bed with offshore financial centres?

Has the Young Fabians lost its marbles? Their new ‘Networks’ projects launch event is sponsored by none other than Jersey Finance, a representative body for financial services in the island of Jersey. An outrage? An abandonment of the socialist fraternity on the very day that the Treasury is briefing that the Chancellor will use the Budget to double the maximum penalty for offshore tax evaders?

Far from it. On Thursday, in the heart of the City of London, the Young Fabians are launching two new innovative projects – the ‘Future of Finance’ and the ‘Technology and Society’ Networks. These networks, collectively, aim to bring young people and young leaders from the worlds of finance, technology, science and engineering together with progressive politics in order to help bring insight, imagination and energy to the broader progressive fight and to respond to our shared economic, social and environmental challenges.

These networks, in the true spirit of Fabianism, are open access and inclusive. They are founded on the belief that there are swathes of socially minded people working at the front edge of finance, research, academia, science and technology who have so much to offer the progressive movement, but perhaps have struggled to find a home in the Left. The networks aim to provide a forum that allows people to combine professional expertise with a social conscience, and – in the process – help the progressive movement become more sophisticated, more aware and more responsive to the realities of the marketplace and the broader environment.

Our inclusivity is our strength. Greater nuanced understanding of a complicated world and dialogue with all actors maybe held in horror and disgust by the revolutionaries, but they are the hallmarks of Fabian gradualism and the foundation of effective real reform towards social and progressive ends.

That’s why we’re delighted that Jersey Finance, alongside the TUC and Prospect Magazine, are supporting the launch of the Young Fabian Networks and that’s we are so keen to embrace those who support our ends, regardless of their place of work. Both Young Fabians members and progressives who aren’t members are very welcome at the launch event and in the Networks themselves. If you’re interested, please click through and RSVP.

GUEST POST: Rob Newman – My Manifesto Idea

Rob Newman is a Young Fabian member and as part of our ‘My Ideas for the Manifesto’ week we’re publishing Rob’s 100 word pitch to Ed Miliband on what he thinks should be in Labour’s 2010 Manifesto.

If we are to tackle the deficit and return Britain to growth, we must harness everybody’s potential and refuse to leave anyone behind. Tackling intractable social problems must be a part of our agenda. We should commit to ending homelessness by 2012.

This will take many forms – from ensuring that veterans leaving the Armed Forces are supported back into civilian life, to tackling multiple needs and enhancing services such as drug addiction rehabilitation and mental health support. It will mean building more houses and making better use of existing stock. It’s a demanding task – but we must end this blight if we are to call ourselves a civilised 21st century society.

Guest Post: My Manifesto Idea

Sam Cullen is a Young Fabian member and as part of our ‘My Ideas for the Manifesto’ week we’re publishing Sam’s 100 word pitch to  Ed Miliband on what he thinks should be in Labour’s 2010 Manifesto.

The introduction of a National Railcard to allow discounts on rail travel across the UK. At present, once you turn 26, you can only get a Network Railcard which doesn’t have a national remit, only covers London and the South East.

The introduction of a national railcard could further encourage people to switch to more environmentally friendly transport and also stimulate domestic tourism due to discounts that would be available travelling to destinations such as York, Manchester and Liverpool. Putting pressure on Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) to introduce the scheme would once again highlight Labour’s commitment to public transport and promoting sustainable travel.

What do you think…?

It’s the Manifesto Stupid!

According to the press it’s a tough week for Ed Miliband as Labour’s manifesto coordinator. Yesterday’s Times said that Alistair Darling’s tight purse strings are hampering Ed’s efforts to write a bold manifesto, and other papers have been less kind to Ed suggesting he has been asked to work magic on the Party’s fortunes.

So we’ve decided to cheer Ed up a bit and send him the best Young Fabian ideas for the manifesto.

The Young Fabians are offering all our members the chance to send their manifesto ideas to Ed this week through our blog. If you have a bold policy suggestion which you think deserves to make it into Labour’s 2010 election manifesto then email your 100 word idea to me, David Chaplin, on dchaplin@youngfabians.org.uk or register as a YF Blogger on this page and post it yourself.

All your manifesto ideas will be posted onto our Blog, and at the end of the week a panel of judges including Jess Asato from Progress, and Sunder Katwala from the Fabian Society will choose the best manifesto idea to be sent onto Ed Miliband.

Get thinking and get blogging!

There’s no substitute for policy thinking and campaigning

As we move closer to election day and the polls begin to tighten one thing is increasingly clear. There is no substitute for good policy thinking. You can spend money on billboards, pollsters, glossy leaflets and even gimmicks, but if you haven’t done the graft and got the ideas and arguments together, you run the risk of the press tearing you apart quicker than voters put the leaflets in the shred pile.

As Labour begins to put the detail on top of the core narrative of securing the recovery, protecting frontline services and building the new industries of the future, we are already starting to see a Tory party run fast out of ideas as well as direction.

For Young Fabians, sometimes unfairly derided as being a little shy to campaign on the ground, this is a time to step in and do some scrutiny of the Tory parties policy and detail. That’s why we’re re launching, Young Fabian Policy News and have included a brand new feature ‘Opposition Policy Watch’ to look at some of the thinking coming from the Tory right and put it to the test.

If you’d like to contribute to future editions of Young Fabian Policy News please get in touch and if you’d like to receive further information from the Young Fabians, you only need to join.

The press are right to say that this election will be a big choice, a big battle of competing ideas and visions. I think Labour has done the thinking and the graft in policy terms, I don’t think that the Tories have and it’s up to all of us to expose that.

But whilst it is true to say that Labour is winning the battle of ideas, we must also win the argument on the doorstep. There is no substitute for hard graft and thinking in the policy sphere, but there is also no substitute for knocking on doors and speaking to voters to communicate those ideas and I know that Young Fabians across the country will be helping Labour campaign on the ground as well as win the battle of ideas.

A few hours left to complete YF Members Survey – prize draw closes at midnight

Our annual members survey gives you the chance to have your say on the issues and activities most important to you, and to guide the executive committee’s planning over the course of the next year. It’s also the first chance to sign up to this year’s policy development groups.

www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngfabiansurvey2010

All survey responses received by midnight tonight will be entered into a prize draw to win a £25 book token.

Please email me on aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk if you are having any difficulty completing the survey.

Adrian Prandle, Vice Chair