|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Modern Education
Reference:
Druzhinin, A.V. (2024). Reforming government control in the field of higher education as a response to the challenges of the post-pandemic. Modern Education, 3, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8736.2024.3.72953
Reforming government control in the field of higher education as a response to the challenges of the post-pandemic
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8736.2024.3.72953EDN: KRSKYMReceived: 24-12-2024Published: 31-12-2024Abstract: The proposed study addresses the crucial issue of transforming the system of state control in Russian higher education after the COVID-19 pandemic. We seek to understand how the relationship between the state and educational organizations is changing, paying particular attention to ensuring equal rights and opportunities for private and public universities. Our focus is not only on formal mechanisms for assessing the quality of education but also on their real impact on the lives of students, teachers, and university administrators in the new post-pandemic environment. We consider it critically important to find a balance of interests of all participants in the educational process that would meet the principles of democratic governance of modern education. The need to help universities adapt to the post-pandemic reality while maintaining high quality of education with a reasonable reduction in administrative pressure makes our work particularly relevant. The study applied a comparative legal analysis of the reforms of state control of higher education in 2020-2022, including an assessment of the initial goals and achieved results. The article offers for the first time a holistic view of how the reform of the state control in higher education helps universities adapt to the post-pandemic reality. The results of the work show that the changes made have significantly facilitated the life of educational organizations, freeing them from excessive bureaucracy and administrative obstacles that hindered recovery after the pandemic. We are pleased to note that universities can now focus on really improving the quality of education, rather than on formal compliance with numerous requirements. It is especially important that the new control system takes into account the modern realities of the digital transformation of education and the post-pandemic peculiarities of the work of universities. Keywords: state control and supervision, Covid-19, economic recovery, assessment of the quality, higher education, Post-pandemic adaptation, Bureaucracy reduction, State control reform, Industry specifics, Flexible control systemThis article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here. Introduction The relevance of the research topic is due to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the higher education system. The forced transition to distance learning, reduced funding, and changing educational needs of students - these and other factors have created new challenges for universities [4]. In these circumstances, an effective system of state control is of particular importance, capable of adapting to changes and supporting higher education during the crisis period. The problem lies in the fact that traditional approaches to state control in the field of higher education do not fully meet the realities of the post-pandemic period [1]. The focus on formal indicators, insufficient consideration of the specifics of the remote format, and lack of flexibility reduce the effectiveness of control and supervisory activities [2]. As a result, universities do not receive the necessary support in adapting to new challenges, which negatively affects the quality of education. The purpose of this study is to analyze the transformation of state control in the field of higher education in the post-pandemic period and to develop proposals for its further development. To achieve this goal, the following tasks are required:: - Analyze the key challenges of the post-pandemic period for the higher education system. - To consider changes in the regulatory framework and new approaches to control and supervisory activities. - Evaluate the results of the transformation of state control based on the analysis of data on control measures. - To develop proposals for the further development of state control, taking into account the tasks of the post-pandemic period. Literature review Issues of state control in the field of higher education are actively studied in the scientific literature. A number of works are devoted to the analysis of the regulatory framework and the institutional structure of state control [5,7,9]. Separate studies consider the features of quality control of education, licensing and accreditation of universities [1,2,4]. In recent years, special attention has been paid to the introduction of a risk-based approach in control and supervisory activities [3, 11]. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on higher education is also becoming the subject of scientific analysis. Researchers note such problems [4,8], analyze changes in the educational process, university management, and interaction with stakeholders [8]. A number of works are devoted to the adaptation of educational quality assessment systems to new realities [4]. However, the issue of the transformation of state control in the post-pandemic period remains insufficiently studied. Some publications address changes in the regulatory framework and new control mechanisms [6, 10], but a comprehensive analysis of the results and effectiveness of these changes has not yet been conducted. This study is aimed at filling this gap and offering a vision for the further development of state control in the field of higher education. Challenges of the post-pandemic period for universities The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a number of serious challenges to the higher education system. The key problem was the forced transition to distance learning [4]. Many universities were not ready for a full-scale digital transformation, faced with a lack of technical and methodological resources [8]. Teachers and students had difficulty adapting to new technologies and forms of interaction [4]. Another serious challenge was the reduction of university funding. Declining revenues from paid educational services and uncertainty about budget financing have put many universities in a difficult financial situation. This required cost optimization, revision of investment plans, and search for new sources of income [8]. The pandemic has also changed the educational needs and expectations of students. Increasing demand for practice-based learning, the development of soft skills, and the personalization of education - universities need to respond to these trends by changing educational programs and technologies [4]. Retaining students and ensuring their involvement in the distance learning format has become a difficult task [4]. These challenges are significantly different from those faced by the higher education system in previous crisis periods. Previously, the main problems were lack of funding and falling demand, but the pandemic required a rapid and comprehensive restructuring of the learning model itself [8]. Digital transformation, personalization, and practical orientation have become not just trends, but factors of university survival [4]. The response of universities to the pandemic challenges has been mixed. Some universities have adapted to the new realities fairly quickly, using established online learning practices and digital resources [8]. Others faced serious difficulties due to the lack of necessary infrastructure and competencies [4]. There is a tendency for universities to differentiate in terms of digital maturity and adaptability [8]. In general, the post-pandemic period has marked new accents in the development of higher education - digitalization, individualization, and focus on the needs of the labor market [4]. This creates the basis for reviewing the objectives and mechanisms of State control in this area. Its focus should shift from formal indicators to substantive aspects of the transformation of universities, from supervision and punishment to support and stimulate positive changes [3]. Analysis of the transformation of state control in the post-pandemic period Changes in the regulatory framework State control in the field of higher education in the post-pandemic period is undergoing significant changes. They are reflected in the transformation of the regulatory framework. The key document was Federal Law No. 248-FZ dated 07/31/2020 "On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation" [10]. He laid the foundations for the transition to a risk-based approach, strengthening the preventive focus of control, and introducing new tools for control and supervisory activities. Significant changes were made to Federal Law No. 273-FZ of December 29, 2012 "On Education in the Russian Federation" [6]. In particular, the powers of Rosobrnadzor for quality control of education have been expanded, norms on remote forms of control have been introduced, and requirements for licensing and accreditation of educational activities have been clarified. New by-laws regulating individual control procedures have been adopted [6]. However, regulatory innovations have not yet fully taken into account the specifics of the post-pandemic situation. The focus remains on formal indicators (the number of students, the level of teachers, etc.), insufficient attention is paid to the qualitative aspects of the transformation of universities (changes in educational programs, teaching technologies, interaction with employers) [8]. Further improvement of the regulatory framework is required, with an emphasis on creating conditions for the innovative development of higher education. New approaches and control tools As part of the reform of control and supervisory activities in the field of higher education, new approaches and tools are being introduced. First of all, it concerns the transition to a risk-based approach [3, 11]. It involves differentiating the scope and intensity of control measures depending on the potential risks of harm from the university. A risk category is determined for each university based on a set of indicators (results of past inspections, monitoring data, student complaints, etc.) [3]. The practice of preventive measures is developing - consulting, informing, issuing recommendations on compliance with mandatory requirements [3, 10]. This helps to prevent violations at an early stage, and encourages universities to self-monitor and self-regulate. The use of remote monitoring methods is expanding - data analysis of information systems, study of university websites, online surveys of students and teachers [6]. At the same time, the new tools do not yet provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of education in the context of digital transformation. Methods for identifying risks in a remote format, criteria for evaluating electronic educational resources, procedures for monitoring online proctoring, etc. have not been sufficiently developed [4]. Further expansion of the arsenal of control tools is required, taking into account technological and social changes in higher education. Results of control activities (analysis of Rosobrnadzor data) At the same time, the effectiveness of inspections has increased. If in 2019 violations were detected in 53.53% of the inspected universities, then in 2020 - in 52.63%, and in 2021 - in 61.65%. This may indicate an increase in the accuracy of the selection of control objects based on risk analysis. Among the most common violations are non-compliance with licensing requirements, violations in the registration of educational documents, and inconsistency of the content of educational programs with federal standards [10]. The quantitative values of the results of Rosobrnadzor's law enforcement practice are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - Quantitative values of the results of Rosobrnadzor's law enforcement practice in 2017-2023
The table clearly shows the decline in the number of cases of administrative offenses in 2020, related to the measures taken by the Government to prevent the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy (Decree of the Prime Minister of 03/18/2020 MM-P36-1945r and Government Decree of 04/03/2020 No. 438). It is compensated in the first half of 2021, the last period during which control and supervisory activities were carried out under the old Federal Law No. 294-FZ of December 26, 2008. The peak of administrative punishments and fines occurred in 2019 (220 punishments, 5 million rubles in fines), after which there was a decline. In 2021, the ratio of the number of punishments to the number of inspections increases significantly (to 112.5% in the second half of the year), which may be due to stricter controls and an increase in the proportion of detected violations. In the first half of 2021, the practice of suspending and resuming state accreditation based on the results of inspections continued. The share of preventive measures in the total volume of control and supervisory activities has increased significantly. If in 2019 they accounted for 40% of events, then in 2020 - 60%, and in 2021 - 70% [10]. The most widespread forms have become such as advising universities, informing about typical violations, and clarifying new requirements [6]. However, the impact of these measures on the actual behavior of universities and the quality of education is still difficult to assess. In general, Rosobrnadzor statistics show some progress in implementing a risk-based approach and preventing violations. At the same time, the emphasis remains on the formal aspects of control (checking documentation, compliance with standards, etc.). The detected violations poorly correlate with qualitative changes in the activities of universities due to digitalization and new student demands [4]. To obtain a more complete picture of the transformation of state control, it is necessary to supplement quantitative data with qualitative studies of university practices and perceptions of stakeholders. It is important to note that the data for 2022 and 2023 may not be fully representative due to the introduction of a moratorium on inspections during a special military operation. This limits the possibilities for analyzing the dynamics of control activities in the last period. Nevertheless, the general trend of transformation of state control in the post-pandemic period can be traced quite clearly. Proposals for the development of state control (supervision) in the field of education The key principles of the transformation of state control should be: - Result orientation, not process orientation. The assessment of university performance should be based not so much on checking formal requirements as on analyzing the actual learning outcomes - the level of knowledge and skills of students, their demand in the labor market, and employer satisfaction. - Taking into account the specifics of the digital environment. Control mechanisms should adapt to the specifics of online learning and distance learning technologies. This requires the development of new criteria for evaluating electronic resources, procedures for monitoring online exams, and methods for identifying risks in digital format [4]. - Individualization of control approaches. The risk profile and support needs may vary significantly among universities, depending on their type, profile, and resource availability. It is advisable to differentiate control measures taking into account these specifics - more intensive monitoring of "problematic" universities and an emphasis on prevention for leaders [3]. - Involvement of stakeholders. It is important to ensure the participation of students, teachers, and employers in assessing the quality of education and developing recommendations for its improvement [1, 4]. It is necessary to develop feedback mechanisms, public control, and co-regulation in the field of higher education. Specific measures and solutions to improve the effectiveness of control - Development and implementation of a new system of education quality indicators reflecting the priorities of post-pandemic development. In addition to formal indicators, it should include an assessment of the practical orientation of programs, their adaptability to the demands of the labor market, the effectiveness of the digital tools used, etc.[4] - Creation of specialized tools for monitoring online learning - requirements for LMS platforms, standards for evaluating online courses, protocols for monitoring online exams, etc.[6] Their development should be carried out with the involvement of the expert community, taking into account the best practices of universities. - Development of a risk-based approach through deeper segmentation of universities by risk profiles, the use of predictive analytics methods to identify potential violations [3, 11]. Concentration of control resources on high-risk areas while reducing administrative pressure on bona fide universities. - Expansion of preventive measures, including advising universities on the transformation of the educational process, the introduction of risk-based checklists for compliance with mandatory requirements, and conducting training seminars for university management teams [10]. - The introduction of public control mechanisms, including the participation of student and professional communities in assessing the quality of education, the formation of open ratings and benchmarks of universities [1]. Ensuring transparency and accountability of the state control system itself. - Formation of a unified digital data platform on the activities of universities, including the results of control and supervisory measures, data on the employment of graduates, feedback from students and employers, etc. [8]. Discussion Substantiation of proposals, taking into account the problems and tasks of the post-pandemic period, the proposed measures to transform state control meet the key challenges and objectives of the development of higher education in the post-pandemic period. Firstly, they create incentives and guidelines for the digital transformation of universities, the adaptation of their activities to new technological and social realities [4]. Without support through control mechanisms, it will be difficult for many universities to make the necessary changes. Secondly, new approaches to control contribute to greater flexibility and adaptability of educational programs to the needs of students and the labor market [8]. Relying on learning outcomes rather than formal process parameters, and involving all stakeholders in quality assessment are steps towards bridging the gap between higher education and the needs of the economy and society. Thirdly, the proposed model of state control enhances incentives for the self-development of universities, encourages the introduction of innovations and best practices [3]. A differentiated approach, risk prevention, and transparency of performance data all create conditions for healthy university competition and continuous improvement. Finally, the transformation of control reflects the general trend of increasing the flexibility and adaptability of the regulatory system in the post-pandemic period [11]. The rejection of excessive administrative barriers, the transition to risk management, the emphasis on prevention and support - these principles are relevant for the entire sphere of public administration in the new environment. Of course, the implementation of the proposed changes will require serious efforts - legal, organizational, technological. It is necessary to further improve the regulatory framework, develop and test new control tools, train and motivate staff. However, given the scale of the challenges facing higher education, these efforts seem necessary and justified. The post-pandemic situation has created new serious challenges for the higher education system related to the forced transition to distance learning, reduced funding, and changing student needs and the labor market. Traditional approaches to state control in this area have proved to be insufficiently effective in the new conditions. An analysis of changes in the regulatory framework, new control tools, and the results of Rosobrnadzor's activities in recent years shows certain positive developments - the transition to a risk-based approach, increased preventive work, and the development of remote forms of inspections. However, these measures do not yet fully take into account the qualitative aspects of the transformation of universities. In order for state control to become a real driver of the development of higher education in the post-pandemic period, its further transformation is necessary. It is important to shift the focus to supporting universities in adapting to digitalization and new demands, to ensure a balance of control and stimulation of changes. The key areas here are the updating of quality assessment criteria taking into account new realities, the development of preventive control tools adapted to the remote format, the involvement of all stakeholders in risk prevention and the development of recommendations. If properly adjusted, state control can become a significant factor in the post-pandemic transformation of higher education, increasing its contribution to the innovative development of the country. It is important to systematically continue moving in this direction. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has become a serious challenge for the higher education system, requiring rapid adaptation to new realities. State control in this area has also faced the need for transformation in order to effectively respond to the problems that have arisen and support the development of universities in the changed conditions. The analysis shows that in the post-pandemic period, significant changes in state control are taking place - the revision of the regulatory framework, the introduction of a risk-based approach, the strengthening of the preventive component, and the use of remote tools. These measures demonstrate certain positive results, but so far they do not fully take into account the qualitative changes in the activities of universities related to digitalization and new demands from stakeholders. In order to enhance the role of state control as a factor in the post-pandemic transformation of higher education, further improvement of its mechanisms is proposed. The priorities here should be focusing on the results and specifics of the online environment, individualizing approaches to university assessment, and involving students, teachers, and employers in decision-making. It is important to find the optimal balance of control and support of innovations, to create incentives for the self-development of universities in the new environment. A well-thought-out transformation of state control can make a significant contribution to adapting the higher education system to post-pandemic realities, ensuring its quality and relevance to the needs of the economy and society. This will require comprehensive improvement efforts. References
1. Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
2. Thompson, K. (1992). Quality-control in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 40(1), 51-56. 3. Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2012). When risk-based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges. Regulation & Governance, 6(1), 2-22. 4. Williams, J., & Harvey, L. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill, & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 506-525). Palgrave Macmillan. 5. Alimov, G. T., Ladnushkina, N. M., Pashentsev, D. A., & Feklin, S. I. (2020). Control and supervision in the field of education: Monograph. 6. Kirillovykh, A. A. (2022). The mechanism of the "regulatory guillotine" in education: Problems and prospects for practical implementation in the activities of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 4, 37-45. 7. Krestinskaya, L. V. (2018). On the issue of codification of norms on administrative responsibility for violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation on education. Siberian Law Review, 4. 8. Sinelnikov-Murylev, S. G., Idrisov, G. I., & Ponomareva, E. A. (2020). Reform in new conditions: Control and supervision in higher education. Educational Policy, 3(83), 22-29. 9. Stakhov, A. I. (2021). Administrative and legal regulation of safety in the Russian Federation: Monograph. 10. Druzhinin, A. V. (2023). Administrative responsibility following federal state control (supervision) in the field of education: Maintaining a balance of interests in light of current legislation. NB: Administrative Law and Administration Practice, 3, 33-44. 11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). OECD regulatory enforcement and inspections toolkit. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303959-en 12. Efremov, A. A. (2022). Application of regulatory policy tools for the development of information legislation: Lessons of 2020 and prospects. In Management through law: Regulatory policy in Russia and abroad: Collection of materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (pp. 61-65). Infotropik Media. 13. Zyryanov, S. M. (2023). Modern understanding of the place of state control (supervision) in the mechanism of legal regulation in the spectrum of reforming regulatory policy. Public Law Today, 2(16), 55-67. 14. Yuzhakov, V. N., & Spiridonov, A. A. (2023). Client-centricity of state control: Orientation towards balancing the interests of the parties. State Service, 25(2), 13-28. 15. Ponomaryova, E. A., Savina, A. D., & Antonenko, N. S. (2023). Risk-oriented regulation of Russian universities: Risk indicators and their use for state control purposes. Higher Education in Russia, 32(2), 43-60.
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Third Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2025 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
Eng
