Category: Governance

  • Effect of Institutional Autonomy on Academic Freedom in Higher Education Institutions in Ghana

    Effect of Institutional Autonomy on Academic Freedom in Higher Education Institutions in Ghana

    By Mohammed Bashiru and Professor Cai Yonghong

    Introduction

    The idea of institutional autonomy in higher education institutions (HEIs) naturally comes up when discussing academic freedom. These two ideas are connected, and the simplest way to define how they relate to one another is that they are intertwined through several procedures and agreements that link people, institutions, the state, and civil society. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy cannot be compared, but they also cannot be separated and the loss of one diminishes the other. Protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy is viewed by academics as a crucial requirement for a successful HEI. For instance, institutional autonomy and academic freedom are widely acknowledged as essential for the optimization of university operations in most African nations.

    How does institutional autonomy influence academic freedom in higher education institutions in Ghana?

    In some countries, universities have been subject to government control, with appointments and administrative positions influenced by political interests, leading to violations of academic autonomy and freedom. Autonomy is a crucial element in safeguarding academic freedom, which requires universities to uphold the academic freedom of their community and for the state to respect the right to science of the broader community. Universities offer the necessary space for the exercise of academic freedom, and thus, institutional autonomy is necessary for its preservation. The violation of institutional autonomy undermines not only academic freedom but also the pillars of self-governance, tenure, and individual rights and freedoms of academics and students. Universities should be self-governed by an academic community to uphold academic freedom, which allows for unrestricted advancement of scientific knowledge through critical thinking, without external limitations.

    How does corporate governance affect the relationship between institutional autonomy and academic freedom?

    Corporate governance mechanisms, such as board diversity, board independence, transparency, and accountability, can ensure that the interests of various stakeholders, including students, faculty, and the government, are represented and balanced. The incorporation of corporate governance into academia introduces a set of values and priorities that can restrict the traditional autonomy and academic freedom that define a self-governing profession. This growing tension has led to concerns about the erosion of academia’s self-governance, with calls for policies that safeguard academic independence and uphold the values of intellectual freedom and collaboration that are foundational to higher education institutions. Nonetheless, promoting efficient corporate governance, higher education institutions can help safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy, despite external pressures.

    Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of males and females regarding institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and their relationship?

    The appointment process for university staff varies across countries, but it is essential that non-academic factors such as gender, ethnicity, or interests do not influence the selection of qualified individuals who are necessary for the institution’s quality. Unfortunately, studies indicate that women are often underrepresented in leadership positions and decision-making processes related to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This underrepresentation can perpetuate biases and lead to a lack of diversity in decision-making. One solution to address these disparities is to examine gender as a factor of difference to identify areas for improvement and promote gender equality in decision-making processes. By promoting diversity and inclusivity, academic institutions can create a more equitable environment that protects institutional autonomy and promotes academic freedom for everyone, regardless of their gender.

    Methodology and Conceptual framework

    The quantitative and predictive nature of the investigation necessitated the use of an explanatory research design. Because it enabled the us to establish a clear causal relationship between the exogenous and endogenous latent variables, the explanatory study design was chosen. The simple random sample technique was utilised to collect data from an online survey administered to 128 academicians from chosen Ghanaian universities.

    The conceptual framework, explaining the interrelationships among the constructs in the context of the study is presented. The formulation of the conceptual model was influenced by the nature of proposed research questions backed by the supporting theories purported in the context of the study.

    Conclusions and Implications

    Institutional autonomy significantly predicts academic freedom at a strong level within higher education institutions in Ghana. Corporate governance can restrict academic freedom when its directed to yield immediate financial or marketable benefits but in this study it plays a key role in transmitting the effect of institutional autonomy. Additionally, there is a significant difference in perception between females and males concerning the institutional autonomy – academic freedom predictive relationship. Practically, higher education institutions, particularly in Ghana, should strive to maintain a level of autonomy while also ensuring that academic freedom is respected and protected. This can be achieved through decentralized governance structures that allow for greater participation of academics in decision-making processes. Institutions should actively engage stakeholders, including academics, in discussions and decisions related to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. This will ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in policy development.

    This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 02 January 2025) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2444609

    Bashiru Mohammed is a final year PhD student at the faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. He also holds Masters in Higher education and students’ affairs from the same university. His research interest includes School management and administration, TVET education and skills development.

    Professor Cai Yonghong is a professor at Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. She has published many articles and presided over several domestic and international educational projects and written several government consultant reports. Her research interest includes teacher innovation, teacher expertise, teacher’s salary, and school management.

    References

    AAU, (2001). ‘Declaration on the African University in the Third Millennium’.

    Akpan, K. P., & Amadi, G. (2017). University autonomy and academic freedom in Nigeria: A theoretical overview. International Journal of Academic Research and Development,

    Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education,

    Aslam, S., & Joshith, V. (2019). Higher Education Commission of India Act 2018: A Critical Analysis of the Policy in the Context of Institutional Autonomy.

    Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance.

    Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded
    assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial management & data
    systems,

    Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Routledge.

    Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). CSR governance and departmental organization: A typology of best practices. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.

    Neave, G. (2005). The supermarketed university: Reform, vision and ambiguity in British higher education. Perspectives:.

    Nicol, D. (1972) Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility: The Tasks of Universities in a Changing World, Stephen Kertesz (Ed), Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.

    Nokkala, T., & Bacevic, J. (2014). University autonomy, agenda setting and the construction of agency: The case of the European university association in the European higher education area..

    Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university Springer Netherlands.

    Tricker, R. I. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA.

    Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Zulu, C (2016) ‘Gender equity and equality in higher education leadership: What’s social justice and substantive equality got to do with it?’ A paper presented at the inaugural lecture, North West University, South Africa

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • When OfS reopens its register, there will be implications for everyone else

    When OfS reopens its register, there will be implications for everyone else

    The process may be paused right now, but if you are thinking of registering with the Office for Students (by choice, or following the requirement for larger franchise providers to get on board) the game is changing.

    The Office for Students has issued a consultation on two new initial conditions of registration.

    Interested parties have until 23 April to offer feedback, with the overwhelming majority of conditions due to come into force from August – at the point where OfS is planning to resume registration activity following the current pause.

    This will have a particular impact on providers who are currently planning (or preparing to restart) submissions quashed when the pause started. Expectations and requirements will change – and while OfS hopes to primarily assess documents a provider will already have, these things do tend to be tailored to fit requirements.

    C5: Treating students fairly

    New condition C5 replaces C1 (consumer law) and C3 (protection plans) as initial conditions – an assessment will be based on identifying behaviours that constitute unfair treatment of students (there is a list) from documents providers already have.

    There are implications from that one that reach far beyond new applications to the register – Jim Dickinson has covered those in detail elsewhere on the site.

    E7: Effective governance

    This new initial condition replaces the current E1 (on public interest governance) and E2 (on management and governance), though those two remain as ongoing conditions. OfS offers a rationale:

    We are increasingly finding that newly established providers (with less experience of delivering higher education) are less sure about what is required in terms of the self-assessment we ask for at registration. This leads to inefficiencies in the assessment.

    Providers have been engaged in substantial back-and-forth conversations with OfS about what is expected during registration. The regulator has noted that people are describing existing documents where it would be quicker to submit them, and has spotted that what is submitted can often be poorly written and excessively tailored to paint a rosy (and hopefully successful) picture.

    Some applicants have been borrowing and adapting plans and documentation from other providers that are inapplicable (a small, single subject, provider using processes developed for a traditional, multi-faculty, university) – in part because of perceived expectations that newly established providers need to have the same range of processes and policies.

    So the self-assessment aspect will go – the plan is that providers should submit actual governance documents, a five year action plan, and other bits on the knowledge and experience of those involved.

    One surprising shift is that there will no longer be an explicit test of “public interest governance” (the Nolan principles and suchlike) in the registration process. OfS reckon that the strengths of the rest of these new requirements, plus the continued inclusion in ongoing condition E1, makes up for this.

    Ditto the absence of the (largely toothless) student protection plan – the line being that this should be visible to students via the documentation provided, which is a win for all those applicants who read governance documentation before they decide where to apply. See Jim’s piece for more detail.

    Documentation

    So what would you now need to submit:

    • The governing body’s terms of reference (or similar), which would cover purpose, membership, appointment procedures, responsibilities, decision-making procedures, meeting frequency and the arrangements for reviewing effectiveness
    • Establishing documents – like a Royal Charter or articles of association
    • A scheme of delegation (or anything else useful) about who makes decisions and how
    • Documentation pertaining to risk and audit – the operations of the committee responsible is given as one example
    • A policy on conflict of interest

    These are, to be clear, governance documents, not detailed operational arrangements – although of course such policies would need to be operationalised for ongoing conditions E1 and E2.

    In assessing these documents, OfS intends to look at the “appropriateness of arrangements”, bearing in mind a provider’s size, complexity, context, and business plan.

    Oh yeah, you need a five year business plan too. The regulator hasn’t been impressed with what has been seen so far.

    Some providers applying for registration have not been able to demonstrate that they have sufficient understanding of how the higher education sector operates. This can result in a provider making unrealistic assumptions in its planning, such as overestimating its ability to recruit students in a competitive market, which can pose risks to the ongoing viability of the provider and cause associated harm to students.

    Part of being sufficiently equipped to deliver higher education is preparing to meet the relevant regulatory requirements. We have encountered issues where newly registered providers were not sufficiently aware of the regulatory framework and so did not have robust plans in place to meet ongoing requirements

    And there’s a telling indication that problems multiply pretty quickly when the plans get hit with a dose of operational reality.

    Where a provider does not have robust plans in place, it may encounter financial challenges after registration. Providers have at times taken steps to address this without fully considering the risk of doing so, for example:

    a. Rapidly entering into new partnership arrangements because of the unexpected withdrawal of a current partner without having the governance and management processes needed to manage this change properly.

    b. Employing financially incentivised external recruitment agents to meet recruitment targets that are too ambitious.

    c. Taking out additional unplanned borrowing to fund unanticipated expenditure.

    All of these behaviours can result in negative consequences for students and taxpayers

    Being objective

    Who could possibly have foreseen, eh? Going forward OfS would like business plans to be comprehensive and clearly written – and demonstrate an understanding of the sector, of managing risks, and of the conditions of registration.

    It’s all standard stuff (objectives and targets and how to achieve them, risks and how to manage them, regulatory compliance) over a challengingly long five-year period. OfS’ assessment will not be based on the targets themselves, but whether the provider can deliver these in practice given their resources and prevailing sector conditions. As an overriding primary consideration the plans need to focus on the interests of students.

    There’s no expectation that there will be an assessment of the objectives in and of themselves (or whether they are a proper thing for the provider to pursue), and OfS would not endorse these objectives – it’s more a matter of understanding a provider’s chosen approach in looking at the plans it has to deliver. A neat distinction.

    People who need people

    So who will be delivering these plans? The new condition would set out key knowledge and expertise for the chair of the governing body, accountable officer, and where applicable, the person with overarching responsibility for financial management and an independent member of the governing body. There’s a sensible sounding list on pages 30-33, but the big shocker is that these would be assessed via an interview with OfS officers!

    Yes, you read that right: 30 to 60 minutes based on key questions allowing said knowledge and experience to be demonstrated. On one level it feels sensible to talk to the people involved as a way of establishing the credibility of plans, but the feeling that OfS is appointing (or approving the appointment of) your chief financial officer is a hard one to shake.

    In contrast the “fit and proper persons” test is pretty much as expected, with additional requirements to supply new information (if you are disqualified as a director or trustee, or declared bankrupt) during the course of the application process. This is a welcome admission that these processes can take a long time to work through.

    You’ve probably spotted that OfS and government are now very focused on fraud in the sector – and assessment of arrangements to prevent fraud will focus on an institution’s track record where it has already been delivering higher education as part of a franchise or partnership arrangement.

    Other requirements for registration applications

    Got all that? Well strap in, there’s more.

    There’s the new C5, the new E7, and OfS intends to beef up their financial information requirements from August 2025 too.

    Financial viability and sustainability is currently assessed via initial condition D – providers already submit full, audited, financial statements for up to three years alongside four years of forecasts and a commentary on these. OfS has noted that new registrants tend to defer their first year of recruitment (setting up a HE provider is hard!) and substantially under recruit when they do – with current financial and recruitment pressures this isn’t going to improve any time soon.

    The new requirement is an addition to the template, which allows a provider to model financial viability against different yet plausible scenarios: zero growth over four years and 40 per cent below forecast followed by three years of zero growth for those currently delivering HE – zero growth followed by 80 per cent below forecast for the next three years for those entirely new to the sector.

    These aren’t set in stone – OfS reserves the right to tweak them based on emerging sector issues. And we may also get an alternative for providers whether the business model is not predominantly balanced on higher education provision.

    The commentary to this new table would let the provider set out mitigations, or provide evidence that these scenarios are unrealistic. But even so, there is a risk here that condition D becomes the hard one to pass – OfS reckon this is fair enough given short– and medium– term challenges to the sector. Although one cannot help but think of the many existing registered providers that would not pass these tests.

    By OfS request

    There’s another welcome recognition that applying for registration takes ages in the requirement for a provider to submit updated finances, student numbers, and commentary in the late stages of application by OfS request. While this makes sense in that the regulator isn’t relying on year-old (and the rest…) numbers this is a hard sell for those prospective registrants now expecting to submit similar data twice – although it could be argued that this gets them used to regular submissions while registered.

    Likewise, if the financial year turns over during the registration process you’ll need to put an extra batch of audited financial statements in for that year.

    And, wonderfully, OfS wants an ownership and corporate structure diagram too – it’s been finding some structures “complex”, poor thing.

    If your provider is or has been under investigation by another regulator – or awarding organisation, professional body, funding body, statutory body, and so forth – you’d better believe that OfS wants to know about that up front too. Apparently it keeps finding out about such things midway through the assessment process – and it does tend to be relevant, even if it is not an automatic fail.

    The rules are for the 60 months proceeding application, any investigation that closed or opened during the application period is something OfS wants to know about: a brief description, the responsible body, the dates, and the findings and/or outcomes.

    And if you are looking forward to the exciting world of “reportable events”, something similar now applies during registration. If stuff happens (there’s a long and familiar list on page 42) then you’d best drop OfS a note within 28 days.

    Finally, from January 2026 you won’t be able to reapply within 18 months of an unsuccessful registration application. This “double jeopardy” rule is a new one, and it looks like it is aimed at ensuring that OfS capacity is not clogged with resubmissions of poor quality applications where identified weaknesses are not addressed. We learn that 40 per cent of applications don’t comply with the existing guidance.

    There is the possibility of individual exemptions from this rule, for example where there have been IIT problems or where information that was not available for reasons outside of the provider’s control is now available.

    How this will be done

    The changes to application requirements were done via the same “manner of application” loophole – section 3(5) of HERA – that was used to pause the registration process. It is, as we said at the time, a reach in terms of legislative interpretation but it is difficult to argue against many of the principles here.

    It is regrettable that the same group of providers that have been forced to delay or resubmit applications due to the pause will now have to do considerable extra work to get these into the new format.

    While the principle of assessing existing documents rather than new ones is a good one, the reality of this is not as neat as regulators sometimes think. For an expected influx of new registrations – the franchise thing, and whatever ends up happening with the lifelong learning entitlement is expected to flush out at least a few – it makes sense to have all this in order. But there are always winners and losers with these things, and the losers have lost several times in a row here.

    The only other disappointment is probably that these new approaches will apply only to new registrations – there’s clearly a lot of benefit to similar approaches (especially for C5 and the financial requirements) to be extended to existing registered providers, and it is likely that there is more to come on that front.

    Source link

  • University autonomy and government control by funding

    University autonomy and government control by funding

    by GR Evans

    A change of government has not changed the government’s power to intrude upon the autonomy of providers of higher education, which is constrained chiefly by its being limited to the financial. Government can also issue guidance to the regulator, the Office for Students, and that guidance may be detailed. Recent exchanges give a flavour of the kind of control which politicians may seek, but this may be at odds with the current statutory framework.

    As Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Keegan sent a Letter of Guidance to the Office for Students on 4 April 2024. She stated her priorities, first that ‘students pursue HE studies that enable them to progress into employment, thereby benefitting them as well as the wider economy’. She also thought it ‘important to provide students with different high-quality pathways in HE, notably through higher technical qualifications (HTQs), and degree apprenticeships’ at Levels 4 and 5. These ‘alternatives to three-year degrees’, she said, ‘provide valuable opportunities to progress up the ladder of opportunity’. As a condition of funding providers were to ‘build capacity’ with ‘eligible learners on Level 4 and 5 qualifications via a formula allocation’.  The new Higher Technical Qualifications were to attract ‘an uplift within this formula for learners on HTQ courses’. ‘World leading specialist providers’ were to be encouraged and funded ‘up to a limit’ of £58.1m for FY24/25.

    The change of Government in July 2024 brought a new Secretary of State in the person of Bridget Phillipson but no fresh Letter of Guidance before she spoke in the Commons in a Higher Education debate on 4 November, 2024. Recognising that many universities were in dire financial straits, she  suggested that there should be ‘reform’ in exchange for a rise in tuition fees for undergraduates which had just been announced. That, she suggested, would be needed to ensure that universities would be ‘there for them to attend’ in future.

    However, commentators quickly pointed out that Phillipson’s announcement that there would be a small rise in undergraduate tuition fees from £9,250 to £9,535 a year would not be anywhere near enough to fill the gap in higher education funding. The resulting risks were recognised. When the Office for Students reviewed the Financial sustainability of higher education  providers in England in 2024 in May 2024 it had looked at the ‘risks relating to student recruitment’ by providers in relation to the income from their tuition fees.

    Phillipson was ‘determined to reform the sector’. She called for ‘tough decisions to restore stability to higher education, to fix the foundations and to deliver change’ with a key role for Government.  Ministers across Government must work together, she said, especially the Secretary for Education and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology in order to ‘deliver a reformed and strengthened higher education system’. This would be ‘rooted in partnership’ between the DfE, the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation’.

    “… greater work around economic growth, around spin-offs and much more besides—I will be working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on precisely those questions.”

    In the debate it was commented that she was ‘light on the details’ of the Government’s role’.  She promised those for the future, ‘To build a higher education system fit for the challenges not just of today but of tomorrow’. She undertook to publish proposals for ‘major reform’.  There were some hints at what those might include. She saw benefits in providers ‘sharing support services with other universities and colleges’. Governing bodies, she said, should be asking ‘difficult strategic questions’, given the population ‘changing patterns of learning’ of their prospective students. The ‘optimistic bias’ she believed, needed to be ‘replaced by hard-headed realism’. ‘Some institutions that may need to shrink or partner, but is a price worth paying as part of a properly funded, coherent tertiary education system.’ She saw a considerable role for Government. ‘The government has started that job – it should now finish it.’

    Like her predecessor she wanted ‘courses’ to provide individual students as well as the nation with ‘an economic return’. She expected providers to ‘ensure that all students get good value for money’. Other MPs speaking in the debate pressed the same link. Vikki Slade too defined economic benefit in terms of the ‘value for money’ the individual student got for the fee paid.  Laura Trott was another who wanted ‘courses’ to provide individual students as well as the nation with ‘an economic return’. Shaun Davies asked for ‘a bit more detail’ on ‘the accountability’ to which ‘these university vice-chancellors’ were to be held in delivering ‘teaching contact time, helping vulnerable students and ensuring that universities play a huge part in the wider communities of the towns and cities in which they are anchor institutions’.

    Government enforcement sits uncomfortably with the autonomy of higher education providers insisted on by the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act. This Act created the Office for Students as ‘a non-departmental public body’, ‘accountable to Parliament’ and receiving ‘guidance on strategic priorities from the Department for Education’. Its ‘operations are independent of government’, but its ‘guidance’ to providers as Regulator is also heavily restricted at s.2 (5) which prevents intrusion on teaching and research. That guidance may not relate to ‘particular parts of courses of study’; ‘the content of such courses’; ’the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed’; ‘the criteria for the selection, appointment or dismissal of academic staff, or how they are applied’; or ‘the criteria for the admission of students, or how they are applied’.

    This leaves the Office for Students responsible only for monitoring the financial sustainability of higher education providers ‘to identify those that may be exposed to material financial risks’. Again its powers of enforcement are limited. If it finds such a case it ‘works with’ the provider in a manner respecting its autonomy, namely ‘to understand and assess the extent of the issues’ and seek to help.

    Listed in providers’ annual Financial Statements may be a number of sources of funding to which universities may look. These chiefly aim to fund research rather than teaching and include: grants and contracts for research projects; investment income; donations and endowments. The Government has a funding relationship with Research England within UKRI (UK Research and Innovation). UKRI is another Government-funded non-departmental public body, though it is subject to some Government policy shifts in the scale of the funding it provides through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

    Donations and endowments may come with conditions attached by the funder, limiting them for example to named scholarships or professorships or specific new buildings. However  they may provide a considerable degree of financial security which is not under Government control. The endowments of Oxford and Cambridge Universities are substantial. Those made separately for their Colleges. may be very large, partly as a result of the growth in value of land given to them centuries ago. Oxford University has endowments of £1.3 billion and its colleges taken together have endowments of £5.06 billion. Cambridge University has a published endowment of  £2.47 billion, though Cambridge’s Statement for the Knowledge Exchange Framework puts ‘the university’s endowment ‘at nearly £6 billion’.  Cambridge’s richest College, Trinity, declares endowments of £2.19 billion.

    The big city universities created at the end of the nineteenth century are far less well-endowed.  Birmingham had an endowment of £142.5 million in 2023, Bristol of £86 million. Of the twentieth and twenty-first century foundations, Oxford Brookes University notes donations and endowments of £385,000 and Anglia Ruskin University of £335,300. The private ‘alternative’ providers of higher multiplying in recent decades have tended to have a variety of business and commercial partnerships supporting their funding. Categories of funding provided by such gifting remain independent of Government interference.

    The Review of Post-18 Education and Funding (May 2019) chaired by Philip Augur stated ‘Principles’ including that ‘organisations providing education and training must be accountable for the public subsidy they receive’, and that ‘Government has a responsibility to ensure that its investment in tertiary education is appropriately spent and directed’. ‘Universities must do more to raise their impact beyond their gates’, Phillipson said, so as ‘to drive the growth that this country sorely needs’ including by ‘joining with Skills England, employers and partners in further education to deliver the skills that people and businesses need’.

    In the same Commons debate of 4 November Ian Roome, MP for North Devon, was confident that in his constituency ‘universities work in collaboration with FE sector institutions such as Petroc college’. Petroc College offers qualifications from Level 3 upwards, including HNCs, higher-level apprenticeships, Access to HE diplomas, foundation degrees and honours degrees (validated by the University of Plymouth) and ‘in subjects that meet the demands of industry – both locally and nationally’. Roome saw this (HC 4 November 2024) as meeting a need for ‘a viable and accessible option, particularly in rural areas such as mine, for people to access university courses?’ Phillipson took up his point, to urge such ‘collaboration between further education and higher education providers’. Shaun Davies spoke of the £300 million the Government had put into further education, ‘alongside a £300 million capital allocation’, invested in further education colleges’.  

    However in an article in the Guardian on 4 November 2024,Philip Augur recognised that ‘the systems used by government to finance higher and further education are very different’. ‘Universities are funded largely through fees which follow enrolments’, in the form of student loans of £9,250, now raised to £9,535. ‘Unpaid loans are written off against the Department for Education’s balance sheet’. At first that would not be visible in the full  government accounts until 30 years after the loan was taken out. Government steering had become more visible following the Augur Report, with the cost of student loans being recorded ‘in the period loans are issued to students’, rather than after 30 years.  

    By contrast the funding of individual FE colleges is based on annual contracts from the Education and Skills Funding Agency, an executive agency of the DFE for post-18 education. They may then spend only within the terms of the contract and up to its limit. The full cost of such contracts is recorded immediately in the public accounts. This makes a flexible response to demand by FE colleges far from easy. Colleges may find they cannot afford to run even popular courses such as construction, engineering, digital, health and social care, without waiting lists for places. The HE reform Phillipson considered in return for a rise in tuition fees had no immediate place in FE.

    Government funding control maintains a pragmatic but very limited means of means of giving orders to universities. This depends on regulating access to taxpayer-funded student loans. The Office for Students measures a provider’s teaching in terms of its ‘positive outcomes’. These are set out in the OfS ‘Conditions’ for its Registration, which are required to make a provider’s students eligible for loans from the Student Loans Company. Condition B3 requires that a provider’s ‘outcomes’ meet ‘numerical thresholds’ measured against ‘indicators’: whether students continue in a course after their first year of study; complete their studies and progress into managerial or professional employment.

    An Independent Review of the Office for Students: Fit for the Future: Higher Education Regulation towards 2035 appeared in July 2024. The Review relies on ‘positive outcomes’ as defined by the OfS’s ‘judgement’,  that ‘the outcome data for each of the indicators and split indicators are at or above the relevant numerical thresholds’. When such data are not available the OfS itself ‘otherwise judges’.

    The government’s power to intrude upon the autonomy of providers of higher education continues to be constrained, but chiefly by its being limited to the financial, with many providers potentially at risk from their dependence on government permitting a level of tuition fee high enough to sustain them.

    GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Anticipating Impact of Educational Governance – Sijen

    Anticipating Impact of Educational Governance – Sijen

    It was my pleasure last week to deliver a mini-workshop at the Independent Schools of New Zealand Annual Conference in Auckland. Intended to be more dialogue than monologue, I’m not sure if it landed quite where I had hoped. It is an exciting time to be thinking about educational governance and my key message was ‘don’t get caught up in the hype’.

    Understanding media representations of “Artificial Intelligence”.

    Mapping types of AI in 2023

    We need to be wary of the hype around the term AI, Artificial Intelligence. I do not believe there is such a thing. Certainly not in the sense the popular press purport it to exist, or has deemed to have sprouted into existence with the advent of ChatGPT. What there is, is a clear exponential increase in the capabilities being demonstrated by computation algorithms. The computational capabilities do not represent intelligence in the sense of sapience or sentience. These capabilities are not informed by the senses derived from an organic nervous system. However, as we perceive these systems to mimic human behaviour, it is important to remember that they are machines.

    This does not negate the criticisms of those researchers who argue that there is an existential risk to humanity if A.I. is allowed to continue to grow unchecked in its capabilities. The language in this debate presents a challenge too. We need to acknowledge that intelligence means something different to the neuroscientist and the philosopher, and between the psychologist and the social anthropologist. These semiotic discrepancies become unbreachable when we start to talk about consciousness.

    In my view, there are no current Theory of Mind applications… yet. Sophia (Hanson Robotics) is designed to emulate human responses, but it does not display either sapience or sentience.

    What we are seeing, in 2023, is the extension of both the ‘memory’, or scope of data inputs, into larger and larger multi-modal language models, which are programmed to see everything as language. The emergence of these polyglot super-savants is remarkable, and we are witnessing the unplanned and (in my view) cavalier mass deployment of these tools.

    Three ethical spheres Ethical spheres for Governing Boards to reflect on in 2023

    Ethical and Moral Implications

    Educational governing bodies need to stay abreast of the societal impacts of Artificial Intelligence systems as they become more pervasive. This is more important than having a detailed understanding of the underlying technologies or the way each school’s management decides to establish policies. Boards are required to ensure such policies are in place, are realistic, can be monitored, and are reported on.

    Policies should already exist around the use of technology in supporting learning and teaching, and these can, and should, be reviewed to ensure they stay current. There are also policy implications for admissions and recruitment, selection processes (both of staff and students) and where A.I. is being used, Boards need to ensure that wherever possible no systemic bias is evident. I believe Boards would benefit from devising their own scenarios and discussing them periodically.

     

    Source link