Last-minute discussion is a gamble for Clarke

十一月 22, 2002

There is a temptation to mock an invitation to respond to 77 often fundamental questions about higher education only a week ahead of the date when the government was to have published its strategy. Are ministers really looking for better measures to "help students understand the quality of teaching in different institutions", for example, little more than a year after they agreed to abolish the last ones? However, the point of this week's discussion paper was not to find ideas that might have been missed, but to refocus a debate that has not gone as Downing Street intended. Leftwing backbenchers were always expected to oppose top-up fees, but heavyweight figures such as Clare Short and Frank Dobson are a different matter.

There are dangers in broadening the argument at this late stage. Already ministers have been sidetracked by the unlikely suggestion that parental income might be disregarded in a new payment regime. And if opposition to top-up fees becomes unstoppable, what then? The discussion paper admits to a £4.7 billion backlog in capital work and a growing shortfall in teaching funds. The Treasury may be reluctant to cede control of such vast sums but, even if the spending review finally brings some relief, the case for a step change has been made.

Please login or register to read this article.

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments