Search

In November 2010, the British Government, modifying one of the proposals in the Browne Report published in October, decided to allow English universities to charge tuition fees of up to £9,000, while removing almost all the public funding previously provided in the form of a block grant. This had consequences the Government should perhaps have foreseen. HEIs, unsure whether they could remain financially viable if they did not, went for the highest fee allowed. The consequence is that the new system could cost the taxpayer more in providing loans for students at this level than the continuance of direct public funding would have done. Policy was developed to reduce this cost, and one of the ideas which emerged was to allow more providers into the system, including private providers. This has prompted discussion of the resulting value for money, for students and for taxpayers, and then of the meaning of 'value', and then of the need to protect the quality of the courses on offer and the 'value' of the resulting qualifications. A number of changes seem likely to be necessary in consequence, among them the revision of the rules for granting degree-awarding powers and university title to private providers both profit-making and non-profit-making. This article explores the case for and against these changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses proposals on the educational system in England. It states the Brown Review proposals establishing the Higher Education Council (HEC) to address disputes between students and institutions. It states the Committee on Standards in Public Life's proposals that include involvement in internal systems of dispute resolution. It adds that HEC cannot end a dispute by taking control. Also presented is the website on law teaching of legal ethics and professionalism.

After its recent Assurance visit from HEFCE, Oxford went through a high profile public debate at the end of which its academic community voted against moving to a governance structure which would have given Oxford a majority of external members on its Council. The Higher Education Funding Council asked Oxford to answer eight questions justifying its governance and administrative arrangements. Cambridge had had a very similar internal 'governance' controversy a few years earlier but no HEFCE Assurance visit coincided with it. Cambridge had fewer external members on its Council than Oxford (two to Oxford's four) though that has now moved up to four. The process of the decision- making to bring about this change involved a rough ride for the administration and some strong words from the academic community. Cambridge has now had its own Assurance visit and the result seems to have been a report from HEFCE much less intrusive and not seeking to insist that it make radical and immediate changes to its governance. Apparently Cambridge is not going to have to answer the 'eight questions'. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the outcomes of these parallel processes of interaction with Oxford and Cambridge respectively is that it appears that HEFCE does not intend to treat them alike. Cambridge's anomalous governance is to be allowed to continue while Oxford is being put under heavy pressure to change its own to comply. HEFCE should perhaps tell us why. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent highly public debates in th e University of Oxford about its future governance arrangements have raised questions of importance to all institutions involved in the provision of higher education, about public policy and state control and the role of the funding councils. This article begins with an outline of the relevant distinctive features of Oxford governance. It is mainly concerned with the history of the controversy as it has unfolded during the last few years, with particular reference to the part played by HEFCE. It concludes with a note on proposed moves within the University of Cambridge and an appendix comparing the way the direct democracies of the two ancient universities conduct their public debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on autonomy accorded to universities and colleges. A report by the "Times of Higher Education Supplement" of February 9, 2006 stated that the Privy Council was going to abandon their internal arrangements in their own consideration. A letter from the Minister of Education further attested that the government cannot alter the content of Statutes and Charters of universities, or Instruments and Articles of Government of statutory corporations.