Unwarranted: The OfS Review of Assessment Practices and the Erosion of Institutional Autonomy

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Policy Pub Date : 2024-02-18 DOI:10.1057/s41307-024-00346-3
Liz Molyneux
{"title":"Unwarranted: The OfS Review of Assessment Practices and the Erosion of Institutional Autonomy","authors":"Liz Molyneux","doi":"10.1057/s41307-024-00346-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In England, the relationship between the higher education regulator (OfS) and those it purports to regulate is highly strained. A 2023 parliamentary inquiry into the OfS published an excoriating report which found, among other issues, problems with the execution of its statutory duty to protect institutional autonomy. An OfS policy which evidences this is the requirement for universities to assess spelling, punctuation and grammar. In imposing this mandate, the OfS appears to be <i>ultra vires</i> as it has a statutory duty to protect institutional autonomy, specifically defined to include the freedom to determine assessment practices. This paper uses an adapted form of Hyatt’s Critical Higher Education Policy Analysis Framework to examine the policy steers and socio-political contexts from which the assessment mandate emerged. The warrants for the policy are analysed with reference to three epistemic beliefs relating to declining literacy, higher education quality and employment. This paper also analyses the OfS’s interpretations of its statutory duties in issuing this policy. Despite the highly critical findings of the inquiry, no substantive change in regulatory approach looks likely.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00346-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In England, the relationship between the higher education regulator (OfS) and those it purports to regulate is highly strained. A 2023 parliamentary inquiry into the OfS published an excoriating report which found, among other issues, problems with the execution of its statutory duty to protect institutional autonomy. An OfS policy which evidences this is the requirement for universities to assess spelling, punctuation and grammar. In imposing this mandate, the OfS appears to be ultra vires as it has a statutory duty to protect institutional autonomy, specifically defined to include the freedom to determine assessment practices. This paper uses an adapted form of Hyatt’s Critical Higher Education Policy Analysis Framework to examine the policy steers and socio-political contexts from which the assessment mandate emerged. The warrants for the policy are analysed with reference to three epistemic beliefs relating to declining literacy, higher education quality and employment. This paper also analyses the OfS’s interpretations of its statutory duties in issuing this policy. Despite the highly critical findings of the inquiry, no substantive change in regulatory approach looks likely.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
毫无根据:英国标准局对评估实践的审查和对机构自主权的侵蚀
在英格兰,高等教育监管机构(OfS)与其监管对象之间的关系非常紧张。2023 年,议会对高等教育监管局进行了调查,并发表了一份尖锐的报告,发现该局在履行保护院校自主权的法定职责方面存在诸多问题。英国教育标准局的一项政策就证明了这一点,即要求大学对拼写、标点符号和语法进行评估。在强制执行这一规定时,英国高等教育标准局似乎越权了,因为它有保护院校自主权的法定职责,具体定义包括决定评估实践的自由。本文采用 Hyatt 的 "高等教育政策批判分析框架"(Critical Higher Education Policy Analysis Framework)的一种改编形式,来研究评估授权所产生的政策导向和社会政治背景。本文参照了与素养下降、高等教育质量和就业有关的三种认识论信念,分析了该政策的依据。本文还分析了教育标准局在发布该政策时对其法定职责的解释。尽管调查结果具有很强的批评性,但监管方法似乎不会发生实质性的改变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy. The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome. Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.
期刊最新文献
The Third Space in Higher Education: A Scoping Review A Question of (Academic) Honour? Motivations for Member Participation in Advisory Boards in the German Science System Women’s Leadership Dilemma: Why Ethiopian Women in Academia Prefer to Stay away from Decision-Making? Beyond the Bench: The Professional Identity of Research Management and Administration The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1