The Conservative government’s far-reaching plan for university reform declares that its goals are to drive up teaching standards, widen participation, increase choice and promote the interests of the consumers of higher education through a new Office of Students. But commentators are wary of the methods it intends to employ to achieve these aims.
Mark Leach, editor in chief of Wonkhe and Guardian columnist
Despite the government’s rhetoric about freeing up the sector, there is a trend towards greater regulation.
The green paper contains lots of things that weren’t anticipated, for example, the proposal to give power to the secretary of state to increase fees in line with inflation. Although they would still need parliamentary approval for any dramatical increases, this sets a dangerous precedent.
Under the plan, universities would no longer have to respond to Freedom of Information requests. The point made is that private providers aren’t subject to FOI and the government wants to create a level playing field… so it is looking at removing FOI from everyone. While the government claims it’s trying to make the sector more accountable and transparent, taking away FOI will do exactly the opposite, lowering trust in the sector.
There’s virtually no mention of part-time or mature students, which is disappointing given the broad consensus in the sector that real action is needed from the government to stop the huge decline. It’s surprising to see such a disconnect between what the sector’s saying about this and the government’s flagship policies.
Broadly, there’s a disjoint between the rhetoric about getting rid of regulations and making the sector more transparent, and these proposals, which, in the final analysis, do basically the opposite.
With the last government, it was all about opening up the market to drive competition. This is a really, really big shift away from that – this government is going to regulate to create change, and wants a new bureaucracy to do it.
The whole idea used to be that new providers would create competition and choice and more information for students. But what the government is conceding now is that they need to create a whole load of regulations to do this – it’s the opposite of the free market ideology that underpinned the previous set of reforms.
Related: University reform is coming – get ready for another numbers game
Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute
The government’s plan still looks surprisingly sketchy.
We knew the big issues like teaching and regulation were going to be in there and they are the right topics to address. It’s not a surprise, or a bad thing, that student voice will be bigger in the future and I think it was quite a clever move to call it the Office for Students.
I am a bit surprised by how green the green paper is – there are lots of really big issues that haven’t been resolved. For example, where do the funding responsibilities end up? That matters.
If they land in the business department, that brings the government closer to universities. If they land somewhere else, it doesn’t. So there are some big, interesting questions.
If you’re a government that wants lots of new higher education providers and a lively marketplace, you needs lots of private investment coming in. The problem at the moment is that if you’re a private investor, why on earth would you invest in British higher education when no knows the future of regulation? We know from the past few years that new providers have been too loosely regulated, so it’s not a complete surprise that they want to tighten up.
David Green, vice chancellor of Worcester University
Opening the door to new providers is good – as long as they are not-for-profit.
The green paper paves the way for a new wave of universities, opening the door for new providers and making it easier for them to gain university title. I warmly welcome this.
To avoid future problems, it will be essential for institutions to earn the right to be a university by having a real record of educating students effectively to first and higher degree level, meeting properly assessed quality standards.
The government followed these principles 10 years ago when it changed the rules to enable a new group of nine universities to be added to the 104 in existence at that time.
It was a brave move because conventional wisdom had it that there was an oversupply, and that interlopers would lower standards and dilute the UK university brand. No doubt there will be similar opposition this time.
But, if the experience of the universities created in 2005 and 2006 is anything to go by, expansion is a good thing. The universities established then, including my own in Worcester, have all been transformed by university status, growing significantly in student numbers, income, research outputs, and in our contribution to the regional and national economies.
Related: Universities can learn from schools when it comes to improving teaching quality
I also have nothing against private providers entering the market – so long as they are not-for-profit. Many of the world’s great universities are private, non-profit institutions, including Harvard, Princeton and Stanford. The proviso is crucial because not-for-profit institutions focus on students’ interests and public benefit, not on making money.
Maddalaine Ansell, chief executive of the University Alliance
Policies must be backed up with funding.
The devil will be in the detail. In particular, it is important that the commitment to widening participation is backed up by funding.
Ideally, the social mobility push would increase the efforts that universities are already making in partnerships with further education colleges, schools, academies, UTCs and so on to inspire children from non-traditional backgrounds to go to university and support them once they get there. But it’s really important that all of this comes along with funding to support it.
I think the aims for the Tef are very laudable and it’s worth trying, but implementation is going to be complicated. One thing that it might do is give employers more than just a broad sense of [university] reputation on which to base their recruitment decisions, and done properly, that could be a good thing.
In terms of new providers [getting degree-awarding powers], we’re ok with competition as long as the playing field is genuinely level. If new providers have to reach the same quality assurance standards as existing universities, that’s fine – bring it on. What we wouldn’t want to see is any risk that the overall reputation that the system is diminished by new providers being able to come in on relaxed terms.
Dave Phoenix, chair of million+ and VC of London South Bank University
The new Office for Students must be autonomous.
Related: Seven rules the Teaching Excellence Framework should follow
The green paper’s emphasis on social mobility and the student interest is to be warmly welcomed but any new Office for Students must be independent of the government. It is also important that an independent quality assurance system is retained, since this has done much to secure the reputation of UK universities overseas.
If the government is serious about delivering the prime minister’s ambitions to improve participation, it must recognise that supporting a few more working-class young people to enter Oxbridge is not the only – or even the most important – game in town.
Modern universities have excelled in providing opportunities for students from a wide range of backgrounds – and a third of students enter university when they are over 21. If the green paper succeeds in changing the terms of the social mobility debate, that would be a prize worth having.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. Email article pitches to us at highereducationnetwork@guardian.co.uk
Source:Jo Johnson's university reforms: reactions from the experts