The Cabinet's decision to make certain cutbacks to its funding of the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (Gate) programme has provoked significant discomfort among certain citizens. Perhaps the recipient of the most criticism is the new policy position to no longer extend Gate to citizens over the age of 50.
Condemnation has been forthcoming from the opposition UNC, anti-ageism associations, media houses, the Catholic Religious Education Institute and even controversially from the Equal Opportunity Commission. The thrust of all these arguments are that restricting tertiary education funding by age is discriminatory and counterproductive.
However, before we write off the Government's new policy we must assess whether such a position aligns with the objectives of State-sponsored tertiary education in the current economic context.
Whenever a discussion on Gate takes place citizens must remain mindful of the economic crisis which now confronts the nation. Accounting for over $700 million in the 2015-2016 fiscal year, Gate was introduced in 2004 by the Manning Administration as one instrument of the then government's policy of free education–free education "from ABC to PhD."
However, such an ambitious programme took flight at a time when petroleum revenue was at a high and continued to climb even higher over the next eight years. This is no longer the case. The national revenue flows have dwindled over 50 per cent and many experts contend that we have not yet seen the bottom. Gate, the URP and Cepep together with other transfers and subsidies such as the fuel subsidy and food cards amount to almost or even more than half of the national budget.
These programmes, while extremely popular among the masses as a route to social mobility in the case of Gate, in reality do little to boost the revenue generation of the State and are oftentimes shamelessly abused by the citizenry. In a time of economic contraction where revenue streams are drying up the Government, whatever the mathematical composition of the House of Representatives, simply cannot afford to fund an unfettered Gate programme. This means that there must be some drawdowns on who is eligible to qualify for funding and the extent of that funding. At the same time it must be borne in mind that any cutbacks will be labeled as discriminatory by those affected, however, it is up to the citizenry as a collective to determine if in principle the cuts are reasonable in all the circumstances.
The overarching objective behind Gate was to ensure that no citizen is denied access to tertiary education because of an inability to pay. This cannot, even by a stretch, be interpreted as signifying that the State should pay for every foray into tertiary education by any citizen.
It was intended that through Gate citizens be afforded the opportunity to be free to access tertiary education for the first time. It allowed for 100 per cent State-funded first degrees. The bottom line was to obtain a tertiary qualification. Now for 12 years people over age 50 have had this programme available to them and many have already accessed the funding for degrees already in their possession.
Checks at the universities will reveal that the majority of mature entrants over age 50 are already in possession of tertiary qualifications. Further studies at this point is largely for career advancement and the Government should not in all good conscience be required to fund that as well. Such citizens will also be in a better financial position than people of lesser age and hence more capable of funding tertiary studies.
Similarly, no citizen has a right to free tertiary education. While citizens do have a constitutional guarantee of equality of treatment before any public authority under section 4(d) of the Constitution, that right is not absolute. Differentiation is allowed so long as it pursues a legitimate objective. Fiscal consolidation is a legitimate goal when one considers that the objective of Gate was a means towards being qualified so as to access the job market.
While the decision to give people over 50 the axe have quite predictably provoked the ire of that constituency of citizens we must remain mindful of the overarching principle behind Gate to allow ease of access to first-time tertiary studies and the economic constraints in which our nation finds itself.
So as to make this bitter medicine more palatable the Government should make credit facilities more easily accessible to people over 50 for education purposes as well as work with the tertiary institutions themselves to offer more attractive rates to mature entrants. At the same time steps should be taken to ensure that the Gate programme is accessible only to citizens for it will be patently unfair to exclude a wide group of citizens while allowing non-nationals to benefit from citizen-funded tuition.
All in all we must realise that the Government surely isn't taking comfort in such biting adjustments but it should highlight for us the gravity of our economic condition.
Vaughn M Thomas
Sambrano Street, Biche