Reform of control and supervision of higher education in new conditions

The existing structure of higher education regulation has
a number of significant problems. These include the bias of the procedures and criteria used to verify compliance with regulatory requirements, the lack of usage of information about controlled objects and limited use of new technologies during control and supervision that affect both the verification procedure and its result. The main drawback is the lack of clarity of understanding of the risks that arise as a result of violation of certain requirements, which leads to a de facto situation, on the one hand, the equivalence of influence on the ability to conduct the educational process of insignificant and extremely expensive measures to eliminate comments, and on the other hand, illusions that a necessary
and sufficient condition for quality education is compliance with all regulation requirements. A change in the system of regulation of higher education, in our opinion, should include, firstly, a transition to a risk-based approach, while the level of risk to the values protected by law (first of all, the quality of education, its accessibility, life and health of students) should be taken into account both when forming the list of regulatory requirements and their criteria, and when choosing the object of inspections, secondly, ensuring transparency and verifiability of the fulfillment of these requirements mainly with regard to assessing the quality of education. These changes will optimize the burden on both the subject and the objects of control while reducing the overall risk level for the higher education system.

1. Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. The modern law

2. review, 71(1), 59–94.

3. Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2012). When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges. Regulation & Governance, 6(1), 2–22.

4. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2019). Quality Assurance and Public Accountability. Retrieved from https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/

5. pdf/PAR-Feb15-FINAL.pdf.

6. Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science. (n.d.). http://obrnadzor.gov.ru/ru/press_center/news/index.php?id_4=7291. (In Russian).

7. Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science. (n.d.). http://obrnadzor.gov.ru/ru/press_center/news/index.php?id_4=7311. (In Russian).

8. Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science. (n.d.). http://obrnadzor.gov.ru/ru/press_center/news/index.php?id_4=7303. (In Russian).

9. Federal law On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual

10. Entrepreneurs in The Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal

11. Control оf 26.12.2008 N 294-FZ. (In Russian).

12. Hampton, P. (2005). Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection

13. and enforcement. London: H. M. Stationery Office.

14. Hazelkorn, E. (2013). World-class universities or world-class systems?

15. Rankings and higher education policy choices. In E. Hazelkorn, P. Wells

16. & M. Marope (eds). Rankings and accountability in higher education: Uses

17. and misuses. Paris: UNESCO.

18. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2013). How we use

19. data. Retrieved from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/how-we-use-data.

20. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2013). Retrieved

21. from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/how-teqsa-rates-risk-indicators.

22. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2019). Retrieved

23. from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/risk-assessment-framework.

24. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

25. (2010). OECD Risk and Regulatory Policy. Improving the Governance

26. of Risk. OECD Rewies of Regulatory Refor. OECD Publishing: Paris.

27. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264082939-en.

28. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018).

29. OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit. OECD Publishing:

30. Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303959-en.

31. The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation. (n.d.).

32. https://proverki.gov.ru. (In Russian).