Student bursaries: number of hardship cases growing

Press, 19 May 1981, Page 23

Student bursaries: number of hardship cases growing

By

ALAN SAMSON

As far as university students go, Marcus is fortunate. He. shares a flat with three other students, not too ■far from the campus.. They walk to the university for their lectures and they are paying just $l5 a week each in rent. Some are paying a lot higher.

There is a problem, however. Marcus and his three companions depend for their day-to-day living •on a Government', bursary system which allows them only $23 a week; Each has $8 left over for food, travel, petrol, electricity, telephone rentals, and the incidentals. They are all under 20, and a social life is important to them: ■ -

The difficulties facing today’s students have been well handled at the “education fightback” rallies. Marches are a dime a dozen these days, and everyone knows that the students will never be satisfied. In earlier days, one expected to work for the privilege of an education ...

The Department of Statistics’ household survey for the year ending March 31, 1980, has a section on average weekly expenditure by household composition. It is a year out-of-date; the prices it lists should be increased by at least 15 per cent. Before March, 1980, the average family of four could be expected to spend $9.04 on fruit and vegetables, $11.82 on meat, $3 on poultry and fish, $7.19 on dairy products, and $31.21' on other foods. The total is $62.25; a little over $l5 each. A 15 per cent inflation rate makes it at least $l7 each in 1981. The bursary simply will not stretch for Marcus and his friends. A calculator is not required to show how these students need a minimum of $27 to cover food and rent. And there are other costs to their living. ’ When the new bursary structure was announced in

the 1979 June budget,. the Minister of Education, Mr Wellington, insisted he /was not trying to make it diffi-. cult for students to enter university or “On the contrary, (our job) is to assist them.. But we must make sure we are helping the right person,” he said. Before that Budget, students attending a tertiary institution in their home town were paid $l9 a week; those from outside a university town, $3O a week. Students of both categories could also apply for a hardship allowance of $7 a week. The new-look bursary slashed the basic rate to $23 for all students, but increased the hardship grant to a possible maximum of $l7 a week. During the last year under the old system, about 1000 students applied for the hardship grant. In 1980, the number was closer to 15,000. What the Government, if unintentionally, has done is to place the emphasis on the hardship grant rather than the basic living wage. The basic income for the students, which was not increased in 1981, is too low to cover their most fundamental needs. The hardship grant, for most, has become an urgent need. Marcus faces further difficulties. He applied for his hardship assistance in early March; now, on the verge of the second term, he has received no reply to his application from the Department of Education.

He is not alone. By the end of April, slightly more than 1800 students at Canterbury University had applied for the assistance. Only 140 had received replies. Of these, 55

were awarded nothing; the remainder gained amounts ranging from $2 upwards. At Lincoln College, at the end of the first week in May, 870 ' students (out of 1300 eligible) had applied. The Education Department had processed 120 of these, but had referred 51 back to the students for further information. ,In some cases, the department had asked to examine the farm accounts of the parents.

According to Lincoln’s student president, Geoff Bilbrough, at the same time last year 320 applications had been processed. At Lincoln and Canterbury alone, nearly 2500 students, before the start of the second term, still do not know if they are to receive, any supplementary assistance. The figures . ignore - - the Christchurch Polytechnic and other institutions where students are eligible for the grant.

If the Minister is correct, all applications will be dealt with five weeks quicker than in last year’s case. A spokesman for his office said last week it was hoped to have “turned over” the applications by the end of May or early June.

There had been difficulties experienced by the department in processing 15,500 forms to date, difficulties exacerbated by an enforced change of premises for the processors. Nevertheless, said the spokesman, things were going as well, or better, than last year. That comment elicits a response from Geoff Bilbrough: “At the present rate, some students may not get a reply from the department

this year. The delays in processing are placing undue stress on the students who have not heard; they are financially unsure and insecure.”

It is not only the students who are dissatisfied with the present bursary system and its speed of implementation. At a recent Lincoln College meeting, members expressed sympathy for the student cause.

The New Zealand ViceChancellors’ Committee has arranged to make submissions to the Government on the subject. Professor J. D. Stewart, the principal of Lincoln College, and the chairman of the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, was named to lead the delegation to Mr Wellington. So what sort of bursary would be acceptable to students? Canterbury’s student president, Katrina Amos, has taken the old bursary, as at 1976, added inflation, and' suggested a standard grant of at least $47.

There have been suggestions that the staff of various; universities have formulated a new scheme which gives a basic $3O to all students. Students having to live away from home would be given a further $lO, an automatic increase, then anybody meeting set criteria for hardship would be eligible for yet another $lO.

Commenting on the scheme, which includes an inflation-proofing clause, Ms Amos says: “I think the figures are still too low, but it is a much fairer system.” Professor Stewart adds: “We

would be interested in a restructuring of that nature.” The second university term begins on May 27. Most students at that time will still be waiting for news about their supplementary assistance. Even if the Minister’s office is correct, and they learn their fate by the end of the month, most will get nothing or a small proportion of the whole. Students are finding it difficult to manage. There can be no argument on that point. But there can be, and is, argument about whether students in general deserve financial assistance at the level they and their staff require.

The citizen who says, “Why shouldn’t they work for their education? Life was never meant to be easy,” probably has a point. If the view is accepted, however, a whole new set of issues is raised, including the question of whether education should be something for the rich alone.

The reality, invariably, is that students are supported by their parents, or are forced to work their way through university. More issues: should parents support their children after they have left school? What is wrong with students having to work while they are studying? Added to these could be the question, “Has New Zealand got a free educational system?” If so, does the country wish to maintain that ideal?

Students have traditionally survived by working, at least

in their long vacations. Not so long ago the money earned would comfortably cover their needs and their entertainment. Things have changed. For a start, the economic situation has worsened considerably. Students are finding there is simply no work available. They are also confronted with something called “internal assessment.” In the early 19705, almost all students depended for . their grades entirely on the end-of-year examination. The change has occurred unevenly, depending on department and university, but today most students are judged on a mixture of assessments and tests throughout the year, as well as the final examination.

The rights and wrongs of internal assessment are beyond the scope of this discussion. The effect, however, is clear: students cannot afford to work as regularly as they used to. Many students talk of working if they could find work. Many others say, “I started a part-time job, but had to drop it.” The Government, too, has recognised the growing plight of students. In midFebruary, a Post Office load scheme was introduced which provided cheap terms. Some banks now also provide small loans. But, according to Ms Amos, students are finding they have to work over the holidays to pay back their loans.

Regardless of loan options, students remain tfith their difficulties. The argument should be simple. But if times are hard, where does the money come from? The

students have a catch-phrase which has almost become a cliche: “It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Air Force has to run a cake stall to buy a bomber.” If it is a question of priorities, who decides the priorities; even within the education area? The proposed commerce-law building at the university has been postponed indefinitely; the department’s surplus requirements are crammed into floors in the library tower, thus restricting the library, and causing further congestion for the librarians.

It is not only the students who are suffering. When the priority issue is put to Marcus and his friends, the response is shrugged shoulders. “Could you live on $23?” they ask. “Priorities ...” says Marcus, “I don’t know. But surely education is an investment for the future. Students are tomorrow’s decision makers.”

Where . the money should come from may be argued ad infinitum. Students should not be provided with a paid holiday for their university lives. They do deserve a realistic bursary, however, and their endurance at .a tertiary institution should not depend on supplementary hardship money. The present system has not proved suitable, and the Government might listen carefully to the submissions of the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. The debate should be both public and thorough. . Whatever the outcome bf that debate, the chosen system should be dealt with quickly and efficiently. If the system denies the students the chance even to know where they stand before the second term, it is a bad system. At the very least the students have the right to be able to budget what finances they have.