Mike Causey – Wrecclesham and Rowledge
Waverley Borough CouncillorArchive for Children and Youth
University of Life
The subject of university funding, and specifically tuition fees, is not yet something I’m 100% clear on, but it feels timely to pen a few mixed thoughts on the topic, with one eye on future weeks when I hope to be able to form a conclusion of sorts.
1. Graduate Tax
When I first heard of this proposal, I was immediately opposed. The idea was that graduate would pay different amounts depending on the success they achieved in their work. On principle I disagree with this approach, as it essentially says that graduate tuition is valued differently, even though it was provided equitably when it was received.
2. Held in trust?
One argument is that we hold further education in trust for the next generation. Having experienced it ourselves, and enjoyed its consequential benefits in our employment prospects, we are told we should ensure that it is available to our children in the same way. The challenge to that argument, is that the past 15 or so years have seen a ballooning of courses and students, that has reset the type of study that is available, and changed beyond recognition the number of students, and the type of ‘academic’ ability that is required.
I’m not trying to declare categorically that it’s worse that it used to be, and that we should return the courses and students numbers of 1995 (my year of graduation). But, I am saying that it is so fundamentally different that to declare that we must provide the ‘same’ opportunity to the next generation, is to compare apples with pears.
3. Cost
Is £9000 really too much to pay for a year of tuition? I don’t think it is. But, I do think that introducing it immediately doesn’t allow for the development of savings and other financial instruments that assist the planning of funding, and avoidance of debt on each graduate. Ultimately, what’s the value of the tuition provided, and who should be paying for it? If at least a portion is paid by the student, then how much is right, and why?
4. Professional Qualifications
How can we encourage the pursuit of more professional qualifications rather than the unquestioning study of academic and pseudo-academic courses?
Family Planning
Cutting child benefit to those that earn more than £45,000 pa has made the headlines this past week and the response has been extremely critical if the media is to be believed.
Firstly, however, I don’t believe that it is the state’s role to pay citizens for having children. In fact, I might even go so far as to agree with our MP Jerermy Hunt’s comments on Newsnight recently, emphasising the responsibility of parents to undertake family planning that doesn’t assume that the government will pick up responsibility for choices that they cannot fund.
In any case, on principle I am pleased that this benefit has been reduced in breadth, and do wonder whether it shouldn’t go further.
Secondly, £45,000! That’s a lot of money. I have to confess to being surprised that a family having this much income can’t budget for not receiving child benefit. It’s about priorities. If one has to give up a tv licence then so be it. Or the holiday abroad. Or whatever.
Thirdly (and I realise that this will, if it hasn’t already, become a tired excuse in many people’s view), the parlous state of our nation’s finances have given the current government no choice but to take tough decisions. As it happens, this one is closer to the ideological position of the party than some.
In summary, this is a right decision. I’m certain that there’ll be some ways in which the implementation of the rules could be better (and I’m not yet clear on what the truth is about whether it’s a household income level or individual), but it’s in the right direction.
RE, PD, P&E
A few months ago I had a conversation with a secondary school teacher that depressed me: not allowed to mark work in red ink; multiple trial essays and teach guidance before the actual essay that gets marked; an expectation that grades improve each year even though the students are totally diffierent.
Today I had a conversation with a secondary school teacher that leaves me at the other end of the spectrum of emotions: hope.
This particular teacher’s topic is RE (Religious Eduction). And PD (Personal Development). And P&E (Philosophy and Ethics). And I can only wish that when I was 15 or 16 I was taught the same issues: government, good and evil, medical ethics, to name but a few. I know that we covered a few bits and pieces in A-Level General Studies, but I’m convinced that our curriculum was nowhere close to being as developed and potentially sophisticated as it is today. I’m incredibly encouraged that such a broad range of thinking issues are part of pupils’ study and, whilst it doesn’t guarantee that a pupil attends to the topic with enthusiasm, it at least presents the opportunity that a proportion of our school leavers have a basic ability to converse in the important languages of worldview, philosophy and civil society.
Puzzled, from Wrecclesham
Is it me, or is there a total void of political leadership making the obvious and irrefutable point that whatever the Roman Catholic church think it may have done in decades past to priests who abused children, they always, always fell short of the necessary step they should taken as part of civil society: reported it to the police and ensured that the justice system made the decision on what to do.
The fact that they didn’t and that they are obviously hoping to avoid any kind of retrospective punishment and wide-ranging enquiry now, is a clear and clarion announcement that they think themselves above the law of the land.
They are not. And, if they have in mind the protection of the reputation of the church and thus their faith, then they elevate reputation above truth and holiness, something to which they are called by their own faith, and a title they give to their head.
And therefore I’m puzzled: puzzled why there is no declaration from our governing authorities that wherever this abuse is found now, or evidence from years past, that the police are called in and those upon whom suspicion is cast, are required to account for themselves.
Legal Drugs?
This post carries the potential to have me called ‘insensitive’ and ‘out-of-touch’, and treated a bit like Maggie Atkinson. But, I do believe that in the midst of understandably emotional and distraught reactions to the tragic deaths being attributed to the use of the legal substance mephedrone, other positions on whether decriminalisation of similar substances should occur, should be heard.
What I’m not saying is that I have this unimaginably clear and unequivocal policy on it all. But I am saying that to allow knee-jerk reactions to drive public acceptance that banning anything that has the potential to kill is the right response, would be to deny a much more sensible, liberal and, measured approach.
Should we protect our children? Absolutely. Is creating laws against everything in sight which has even the remotest change of damaging our children, the way to protect them from harm? No.
Do we ban glue? No. But we know that glue-sniffing is common and damaging. Do we ban alcohol? No. But we know that alcoholism kills and that banning it has been tried and failed dramatically.
Also, the fact that something is legal, is not a very solid case for claiming that this makes people think that it won’t do them any harm. I don’t buy that. Our government can and should influence behaviour through guidance and laws, but it is not accountable per se for individuals’ actions.
The very best way to protect our children is to role model behaviour in our families. To show how to make good decisions. To be an example of modesty in actions and words and consumption. To give our children a framework of boundaries that they understand, and understand why. I know that I won’t get this perfect – far from it. And I also know that my aspiration to role model in this way will not guarantee my children’s safety at all times. But I don’t expect that it will. I acknowledge the risks inherent in every day life and, the consequences of individual decisions. Let’s keep it that way – keeping bigger government at bay – and continue to do our best in our homes.
Caterpillar Cake
This afternoon I attended the best birthday party I’ve been to all year. And yes, I’m biassed. Without doubt much better than attending or listening to the Conservative Spring Forum.
Family Firm
What a great sign. Yesterday we popped into Hobby Lobby to pick up a few craft bits and pieces for friends back in the UK. Whilst we were inside, I noticed that the music being piped around the store was instrumental versions of praise songs from church.
Then, on the way out, I saw this sign: what a fantastic way of saying that the company values the time that families need together to stay together. I’ll be shopping there again.
