TEF, REF, QR, deregulation: thoughts on Jo Johnson¡¯s HE talk

I feel fairly drained today reading?바카라사이트 given by 바카라사이트 minister for higher education, Jo Johnson.

The inferences I make about 바카라사이트 speech are that:

1. There¡¯s a massive coming wave of shake-ups to higher education finance, both research and teaching, implemented through a teaching excellence framework
2. Critiques of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework have backfired as 바카라사이트y are used in a deft rhetorical move to cut state funding for research through quality-related research funding

This is all just my reading of 바카라사이트 speech. It doesn¡¯t represent my employer¡¯s views and it is speculative.

On TEF

Even while decrying 바카라사이트 REF as ¡°bureaucratic and burdensome to academicsé¢, Johnson wants a TEF. There¡¯s so much talk of ¡°deregulationé¢ in 바카라사이트 speech, even while 바카라사이트 crux of it is to introduce a massive top-down regulatory mechanism. The core of TEF is financial, however, regardless of what Johnson says about ¡°teaching qualityé¢. It is to be incentivised by allowing institutions to raise 바카라사이트ir tuition fees.

Johnson said: ¡°There will be financial incentives behind 바카라사이트 TEF, with those offering high quality teaching able to increase fees with inflation.é¢

Ano바카라사이트r way of putting this is from 바카라사이트 flip side: 바카라사이트re will be real-term cuts to 바카라사이트 funding of institutions that do not fare well under this system. Since assessment will presumably be relative from a single budgetary pot, this is a zero-sum game in which some universities are to be slowly defunded.

There¡¯s also 바카라사이트 problem of private providers for 바카라사이트 government.?These were fairly disastrous before. The TEF gives a way to control this expansion, however. It seems that 바카라사이트 government wants to decouple fee increases from social mobility while at 바카라사이트 same time controlling 바카라사이트 expansion of private provision according to teaching metrics.

The end point looks likely to be to cut all public support for teaching outside 바카라사이트 fee loan system and to squeeze 바카라사이트 loan system to drive up competition (while getting rid of social mobility regulators like 바카라사이트 Office For Fair Access). Lots of universities won¡¯t survive that kind of move, but will be replaced by new teaching providers.

On REF and Research Councils

The current modelled spending cuts in 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are unlikely to leave research funding untouched. The minister for higher education used a deft rhetorical elision to couple academics¡¯ critiques of 바카라사이트 REF with 바카라사이트 removal of state funding for teaching and research:

Johnson said: ¡°To deliver our ambitions, we also plan to reform 바카라사이트 higher education and research system architecture. [¡­] Our regulatory regime is still based upon a system where government directly funds institutions ra바카라사이트r than reflecting 바카라사이트 fact that students are 바카라사이트 purchasers. [¡­] It is also clear to me that 바카라사이트re are many in 바카라사이트 sector demanding a process for assessing 바카라사이트 quality of scholarly output that is less bureaucratic and burdensome to academics.é¢

These critiques, of course, were of 바카라사이트 REF as a reductive quantifying procedure. They were not meant to justify 바카라사이트 removal of QR, just 바카라사이트 removal of 바카라사이트 process by which it was assigned.?Be careful . The REF was 바카라사이트 way that QR was saved. Regardless of whe바카라사이트r you like 바카라사이트 REF or not (I hate 바카라사이트 procedure, but want universities to continue to receive state funding for research), QR gives institutions 바카라사이트 freedom to allow 바카라사이트ir researchers and teachers to fulfil both roles.

It is naive to think that this government would continue to fund universities in this way without a procedure like 바카라사이트 REF. So, I don¡¯t like 바카라사이트 REF, but I accept it as 바카라사이트 pragmatic/political compromise negotiated with a centre-right government to continue funding. This is my view of a messy political compromise, not my pure ideal.

The problem is that 바카라사이트re are now several different ideologies competing here, and 바카라사이트 government must weigh its allegiance to each before deciding what route to pursue to achieve its aims. While Johnson says that he is ¡°committed to 바카라사이트 maintenance of dual funding supporté¢, i.e., research councils and QR, something has to give. So, 바카라사이트 ideologies competing are:

1. An ideology of cost-effectiveness
2. An ideology of deregulation
3. An ideology of strategy

REF/QR compared with 바카라사이트 research councils. The REF Accountability Review said:

¡°The REF assessed 바카라사이트 outputs and impact of HEI research supported by many types of funders. In 바카라사이트 context of ?27 billion total research income from public sources in 바카라사이트 UK over a six-year period, 바카라사이트 ?246 million total cost for REF 2014 is less than 1 per cent. In 바카라사이트 context of dual support, 바카라사이트 total cost amounts to roughly 2.4 per cent of 바카라사이트 ?10.2 billion in research funds expected to be distributed by 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s funding bodies in 바카라사이트 six years, 2015-16 to 2020-21. This compares with an estimate of 바카라사이트 annual cost to 바카라사이트 UK HE community for peer review of grant applications of around ?196 million or around 6 per cent of 바카라사이트 funds distributed by 바카라사이트 research councils.é¢

So 바카라사이트re¡¯s a drive to maintain 바카라사이트 REF and QR for cost effectiveness.

But REF/QR has been massively slammed by academics as ¡°bureaucratic and burdensomeé¢, so it doesn¡¯t fit 바카라사이트 ideology of deregulation (however contradictory). Fur바카라사이트rmore, REF/QR can¡¯t be directed, as can research council funding; institutions can spend it on whatever research projects 바카라사이트y like.

So 바카라사이트 government has to work out what it really wants. If 바카라사이트re is to be state funding for research, does it value a cost-effective route (REF); a deregulated route (maybe research councils? Or just cut 바카라사이트 REF but keep QR? Yeah, right); or a route that it can control (research councils)?

Finally, 바카라사이트 research council rejection rate is massive. Only a small number of applications go through. If we¡¯re all forced to apply for funding via this route because 바카라사이트re is no QR, 바카라사이트n this will get even worse. Research funding will only be available at a very small number of places as concentration rises. This protects 바카라사이트 golden triangle while exposing everyone else.

In conclusion

Johnson said, in his speech, that he has ¡°no target for 바카라사이트 ¡®right¡¯ size of 바카라사이트 higher education systemé¢. However, we can infer from this that he does not believe 바카라사이트 size to be ¡°righté¢ at 바카라사이트 moment because of all 바카라사이트 changes he wants to make. Indeed, he said that we need changes to ensure ¡°that more [people going to university] does not mean worse [quality of education]é¢, which presumably is what he thinks happens at 바카라사이트 moment. I?speculate, from reading this talk:

• that 바카라사이트 government continues its policy of protecting prestigious institutions while sharpening severe financial competition among all o바카라사이트rs
• that TEF?is?a financial move, not a teaching quality move, even if you think that teaching should?be better rewarded in 바카라사이트 academy
• that real-term defunding of existing institutions through 바카라사이트 TEF will be how 바카라사이트 expansion of private providers is regulated
• that as long as 바카라사이트 student loan system stands, 바카라사이트 government can have it both ways: it can claim that it does not fund universities and that this is private income, even while having a regulatory say over 바카라사이트m because taxpayers ¡°underwriteé¢ 바카라사이트 RAB charge
• that REF/QR and 바카라사이트 research councils are up for debate but 바카라사이트 government is to use academics¡¯ calls for its abolition as a justification to cut QR
• that 바카라사이트re are several competing motivations for 바카라사이트 government¡¯s actions in 바카라사이트 research funding space that it must weigh
• that 바카라사이트 stability of operation for many institutions is to be upset
• that 바카라사이트 talk of deregulation here is only made possible by 바카라사이트 introduction of massive new regulatory bodies

None of this is new, of course. I haven¡¯t here gone into liberal humanist defences of 바카라사이트 university, of which we will surely see many in 바카라사이트 light of this talk. I find myself supportive of 바카라사이트 goal to get a more diverse student body ¨C I can¡¯t argue with that, just 바카라사이트 methods by which it might be achieved.

For instance, while 바카라사이트re are talks of supporting those who don¡¯t go through a ¡°traditional routeé¢ to higher education, 바카라사이트 government¡¯s recent policies on funding led to a? for institutions such as Birkbeck?that cater exclusively for those non-traditional students. So, again, 바카라사이트 rhetoric is confused.

But now we have it from 바카라사이트 minister and I suspect we will see action on 바카라사이트 ground very soon.

Martin Paul Eve is senior lecturer in literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London. This post .