The government's higher education white paper consultation has closed with mixed views from the education sector.

Forum Response: Universities Council for the Education of Teachers

Professor Gordon Kirk, academic secretary of UCET, said: "While we warmly welcome the commitment to increase funding for higher education by 18 per cent in real terms over the next three years, we doubt if that level of investment is sufficient to compensate for the sustained and damaging deterioration in the unit of resource that has taken place over the last 15 years.

"While appreciating the government's commitment to the creation of world-class universities, we have reservations about the institutional stratification that is proposed by the white paper. We do not consider it fair or appropriate to place a ceiling on the aspirations of institutions; we do not accept that universities should have to decide between pursuing research excellence on the one hand and knowledge transfer on the other; and we deplore the dissociation of teaching from research.

"We commend the policy commitment to secure a participation rate of 50 per cent in higher education but find it puzzling that the white paper should propose incentives to institutions to widen participation while creating significant financial disincentives to students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter higher education.

"Our most serious reservations relate to the proposals for research. To concentrate research funding in a limited number of institutions is disastrous in the field of education. It will undermine completely the research base of teacher education departments and faculties in England, leaving 41 departments with no research funding at all, notwithstanding the efforts of many of these departments to invest in research.

"The effect is to create a regional lottery as to whether teachers' education and professional development takes place, as it undoubtedly should, in a culture of research and enquiry, as befits a research-based profession. If these proposals are allowed to proceed as they stand it would be nothing less than a national disgrace."

Forum Response: Universities UK

Professor Roderick Floud, Universities UK president, said: "Universities UK has acknowledged some positive aspects of the white paper, in particular the abolition of up-front fee contributions, the raising of the cap on tuition fees, and the reintroduction of a maintenance grant. We are grateful for the government's recognition of the sector's investment needs: the £3.7 billion settlement for England in the 2002 spending review is a substantial first step in closing the sector's funding gap.

"But we have concerns over the attempts within the white paper to restrict universities' missions and impose specialisation on them. Universities UK believes this could lead to a stratified, fragmented higher education sector unable to meet expectations as to how it has to operate in the public interest regionally, nationally and internationally."

"The danger is that mechanisms will be put in place which will force institutions down certain routes rather than be free to decide their own futures in the best interests of their students, their staff, their communities, and their local economies. We hope to work with government to ensure that the admirable aims of the white paper do not founder on the unintended consequences of some of its proposals."

Diana Warwick, chief executive for Universities UK, added: "We have raised a number of concerns in our response to the white paper, particularly with regard to recurrent funding for teaching, the role and remit of the proposed Office for Fair Access, and the damaging effects of further increasing research concentration.

"It is vital that the government addresses these issues so that we can maintain and build upon the success of the UK's universities - celebrated in the white paper - as we look to the future."

Forum Response: Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Gwen Evans, joint acting general secretary for ATL, said: "The news that more students will have a widening access into higher education is welcome but we were also looking to the government to invest in the future by being willing to write off student debt for graduates who go into underpaid but crucial areas - for example in schools as support staff or as teachers.

"We know that newly qualified teachers are starting with five figure debts now. The future prospect for the teaching profession in five years time is grim unless the government produces effective proposals very quickly."

Forum Response: Professional Association of Teachers

Jean Gemmell, general secretary for PAT, said: "Although deferring payment until after graduation is better than paying up-front, we remain very concerned about high levels of student debt.

"Allowing universities to charge even higher tuition fees is bound to deter many - especially those from families on lower incomes. We do not want to see a two-tier system of higher education, with only the rich able to afford to go to those universities charging higher fees.

"Bringing back maintenance grant is welcome, but, it seems, they will be only for the very poorest students. PAT would like to see a national maintenance allowance for all students in full-time tertiary education or training. This would be an investment in our young people.

"A massive increase in funding for higher education institutions is needed too, as an investment in the future of our country.

"As a teachers' union, PAT has long been concerned about the ability of young teachers to pay off student debts and we are worried that this is deterring many from becoming teachers. We await with interest details of the reports that new public sector employees may have their debts paid off.

"Most graduates faced with student debts, high house prices - and now deferred tuition fee payments as well - will naturally seek careers paying the highest salaries - which does not include teaching! When tuition fees were introduced, we warned that they would deter students by burdening them with debt and making the start of their professional life very difficult. Sadly, it seems that we have been proved right.

"We hear of newly qualified teachers leaving teaching because they could not repay their loans and pay for accommodation on a teacher's salary - at a time when there is a recruitment crisis in the classroom.

"It is wrong to finance students through loans, leaving them massively in debt at the age of 21. It seems that the prospect of debt is deterring many applicants from going to university, and this means that society loses outtoo.

"With student fees, large mortgages, dwindling pension returns and high living and transport costs, I am concerned that many young people will be swamped by what is becoming a in-debt society."