My THELoginRegister
Third Level Navigation:
20 November 2009

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

-
Main Page Content:

Deregulate and win back autonomy, watchdog urges

18 December 2008

Radical blueprint calls for Offa and QAA to be abolished in bid to cut bureaucracy, says John Gill

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) should be stripped of its role in distributing research funding, a think-tank has argued.

The blueprint for a deregulated future for universities, produced by the Centre for Policy Studies, also includes the abolition of both the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Office for Fair Access (Offa).

In the week that academics received the results of the research assessment exercise - under which Hefce will distribute more than £1.5 billion a year in core "quality research" funding - the think-tank proposed distributing all research funding through the seven subject-based research councils, including funding currently under Hefce's control.

This would end the so-called "dual support" system through which Hefce provides funding for research infrastructure while the research councils provide funding for specific projects.

The abolition of dual support was one of a series of radical recommendations for reordering the regulation of the sector to cut back bureaucracy, which the Centre says is impinging on university autonomy and limiting institutions' potential.

The Centre for Policy Studies was co-founded in the 1970s by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph to promote policies supporting free-market economics and privatisation.

The Centre also suggested an end to Hefce funding allocations for specific purposes, such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund, or for widening participation, which it says involves the "micro-regulation" of university activity.

"Should a government wish to pursue these ends, it should do so in a non-regulatory fashion by explicitly allocating additional monies to certain types of student to provide universities with a financial incentive to take them," the report says.

Calling for Offa's abolition, the report argues that if market-based incentives were adopted to encourage universities to accept students from deprived backgrounds, the watchdog would become obsolete.

Another of the think-tank's targets is the QAA, which oversees academic standards, the subject of a Commons select committee inquiry due to take place next year.

The Centre for Policy Studies suggests that the QAA should be scrapped, claiming that "numerous private-sector bodies review the quality of university courses and will readily expose those that are offering poor-quality teaching".

However, those concerned about "dumbing down" may not be satisfied with such ad hoc regulation, nor with the proposal that students unsatisfied with courses can seek redress through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which the report calls a "powerful incentive" for institutions to maintain quality.

The report concludes: "These recommendations would substantially reduce the burden on higher education institutions and restore some of the autonomy which they have enjoyed in the past.

"It is, however, worth noting that a move to a more market-based system is possible for some universities ... Truly independent universities would greatly benefit academics, students and the UK as a whole."

john.gill@tsleducation.com.

Readers' comments

  • Rosemary 19 December, 2008

    It is a wonder that any department has managed to do well in the RAE given the amount of time academics now spend pushing paper that has nothing to do with research and rather more to do with heavy-handed bureaucracy. Even the summer vacation - once sacred research time - is now spent dealing with appeals from litigious students whose parents refuse to accept that plagiarism or not submitting work should be grounds for failure. This insidious combination of obsessive regulation and market forces is in danger of wiping out everything that the sector is trying to achieve.

  • Chris 23 December, 2008

    I think we have all seen enough of unregulated or deregulated institutions, surely we have seen enough evidence in the last couple of months that "unregulated markets or institutions" are not in the interest of anyone? I certainly do not see any evidence that truly independent organisations free of tiresome regulation will benefit students who will probably pay higher fees, staff tenure and conditions are bound to suffer and can only play the tune of the persons footing the bill. Can someone let me know where a student appealing a grade is an “audacity”? Surely if you believe in the market surly it's just a customer complaining about a service they have purchased? You should be able to take this in your stride after all what are your Customer Services doing whils you are waisting your valuable time? <p>All this to satisfy the budding business acumen and ego that lays dormant in many a market focused academics! Well if it means that much to you then why not join the private sector where all the rewards are waiting to be picked of the tree and if there is a downside then it’s not the rest of us that pick up the pieces!

Comment on this story

Post your comment

You must fill in all fields marked *

18 December, 2008

 

Main site navigation:
Secondary site navigation:
Main site navigation end
-
 
-
Abacus E-media
Abacus e-Media
St. Andrews Court
St. Michaels Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2JH
-

Advertisement