Figures show free tertiary education is not serving any real need. Photo / Getty Images
Figures show free tertiary education is not serving any real need. Photo / Getty Images
Editorial
COMMENT:
Free tertiary education was one of those election promises the Labour Party might not have made had it known it was coming to power. It was conceived before Jacinda Arden became the party leader and gave it a lift in the polls.
When that happened the policy was madeslightly less expensive. Rather than three years free education from the outset, only the first year would be free from this year. The second and third years would be free only if Labour got second and third terms in Government.
As election bribes go, it was grudgingly admired. A youthful constituency was served, along with parents of school-leavers beginning tertiary education, and it was expected to help trigger a "youthquake" of voters such as had nearly unseated Britain's Conservative Government a few months before. Well, the youth vote here did not significantly increase and the waiver of first-year fees has turned out not to make a difference to enrolments in tertiary education either.
Figures released by the Tertiary Education Commission on Tuesday show the total number of students is slightly down on a year ago. Nor has a free first year had much impact on Māori enrolments. Only 17 per cent of university and polytech students taking up the offer are Māori, less than the Māori proportion of tertiary rolls overall.
The majority of students having a free year (71 per cent) are of European descent, 80 per cent are aged 19 or younger and nearly 60 per cent are female. In other words, the beneficiaries of this additional $236 million outlay are principally young white school leavers whose family circumstances and personal prospects probably make them perfectly capable of paying back the subsidised student loans most of them will readily take out for the rest of their degree.
This in policy jargon is "poorly targeted spending". If the intention was to boost participation in tertiary education by those who might not otherwise afford it, the money could have been used for programmes aimed more precisely at them.
In fact, Labour's aim was to do little more than lower the cost of tertiary education for all students embarking on a first degree, and that is all it is likely to achieve.
Education Minister Chris Hipkins now claims the policy has succeeded in stopping a decline in tertiary enrolment. "Given the difficult last couple of years that many of our polytechnics have experienced," he said, "the stabilising of enrolments in that sector is particularly encouraging."
Conditions are "difficult" for polytechnics when the economy is strong and jobs are plentiful. Many school leavers want paid work rather than another three years of lessons and unpaid assignments. It is not clear why this is a bad trend that needs to be "stabilised". Polytechnics proliferated when unemployment was high, it would seem natural for the sector to contract when work is abundant.
If the Government is concerned too many school leavers are taking jobs that equip them with few portable skills, it should redirect the fees-free money to better training for young people who want to learn as they earn. That is the tertiary education they are voting for with their feet.
