The government has finally announced the terms of reference and review panel for its review of university teaching funding. It was first promised in the May 2009 Budget.
The terms of reference acknowledge that the proposed new regulation of institutional and course standards changes things fundamentally. It would be irrational for one arm of government to set standards and another deny universities the finance needed to meet those standards (though as I have long had to tell bewildered newcomers to higher education policy, the fact that something is absurd has never been regarded as a valid argument against it).
The terms of reference are silent on one of the biggest issues in costs, whether the per student funding rate includes funding for research time. If it costs teaching alone – say 8 months a year including preparation time – the current funding rates probably are more or less adequate for a standardised education product. If research is not included, it will lead to a massive shake-up of the whole sector.
The terms of reference strongly link private benefit to the ‘fair’ contribution students make to the cost of their education. But it does not seem to accept that students should be able to invest differential amounts in their education. This has long been one of the central absurdities of higher education policy: for all the talk of ‘investment’ in higher education the bipartisan, long-term policy has been to restrict that investment.
I think the terms of reference leave it open to the review to recommend lasting mechanisms for adjusting prices in the higher education sector. If the review’s report doesn’t include such recommendations it will be a failure, just another in a long series of ad hoc patch ups that keep things going for another few years but don’t deal higher education’s structural problems.
The review is not going to report until October 2011. At least that gives me plenty of time to write my submission, and saves the government introducing new funding rates before 2013.
Andrew Norton 
Andrew, I think you have finally worn me down. Sign me up for the “Government Causes Dumbness and Philistinism”.
To All Politicians
FFS. Please get out of the university business.
Oh, the Inhumanities.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how the review deals with issues of equity in base funding. The web link seems to give this higher billing than the actual terms of reference. The impact of a introducing a demand driven system seems to be significant growth in enrollments in some institutions, but it may be difficult to discern whether this is influencing low SES participation, and perhaps more difficult with an evolving indicator for low SES. Any recommendations in this domain would appear to be done without giving the primary and recently introduced equity and participation policy frameworks a chance to demonstrate their impact.
LikeLike
Matt – The history of offering more places is that there is a boost in low SES, because the unis are absorbing more people with lower entry scores.
The terms of reference themselves seem to suggest the government will (unsurprisingly, given the stated beliefs of the PM) put perceived low SES access issues above diversity or premium quality possibilities.
LikeLike
‘I have long had to tell bewildered newcomers to higher education policy, the fact that something is absurd has never been regarded as a valid argument against it’
So true
So sad
When will they learn that no one has worked out how to make central planning work and we will always end up with absurdities whose existance will have to be denied
LikeLike
Americans don’t respect arse lickers. They treat them with contempt. In stark contrast, there was no more staunch ally of the US than Margaret Thatcher, and no ally no more more respected by them, and she stood up to them when the occasion demanded it.
LikeLike
Sorry, the above was meant to go in the Howard thread.
LikeLike
with due respect too much time spent on Universities in terms of higher education and very little is spent on TAFEs.
LikeLike