With the previous research bill presented in 2016, the government announced that an inquiry would be appointed into the higher education resource allocation system. Many in the higher education sector welcomed the inquiry, which would produce proposed solutions to several problems within the sector.
One of the most pressing problems has been the price tag system, i.e. the compensation system for education. The higher education institutions receive compensation for each registered student converted into the number of full-year equivalents (HST), and compensation for performance (HPR) in the form of how many higher education credits the students take. This is questioned for several reasons. Among other things, because it directs resources away from the education programs that are in greatest need of quality improvements, while at the same time providing incentives to lower the requirements in order to let more students through.
Another problem with HPR reimbursements is that courses suitable for lifelong learning, i.e. evening, part-time and distance courses that are more accessible to working professionals, have significantly lower throughput and thus receive lower reimbursements.
The Steering and Resource Inquiry (Strut) was appointed in 2017 and submitted its final report in early 2019. Strut presented a proposal for a new resource allocation system for higher education. In the model, the funding for education would not be as directly linked to the number of students. The distribution based on full-year performance would be removed completely.
Even before the research bill was presented, it was clear that some of the proposals from the Steering and Resource Inquiry would be included. These included changes to the Higher Education Act to strengthen academic freedom and clarify the responsibility of higher education institutions for lifelong learning. During the consultation round, several consultation bodies pointed out the need to remove the HPR part in order for the lifelong learning mandate to be effective. According to SFS's compilation, it was one of the proposals that had the greatest support from the consultation bodies.
One of the very few consultation bodies that was negative about the Steering and Resource Inquiry's proposal was the Swedish National Audit Office, even though they themselves had criticized the system in other reports. They highlighted the value of giving universities financial incentives for throughput. The problem with this reasoning is that the HPR system does not favor throughput on programs, but only possibly courses. When throughput on individual courses within programs decreases, the number of admitted students increases and vice versa. Universities can therefore, in theory, receive full allocation with the current system without a single student graduating from educational programs such as teachers, engineers and nurses, which the state currently seems so interested in. The effect is instead that individual teachers, who each year receive fewer resources to work with, are forced to lower examination requirements and in turn the quality of education.
The government seems to have partially acknowledged the problems with HPR. When the government earmarked 3,000 new training places for lifelong learning in the autumn budget 2020, the performance-based component was not included. Instead, the compensation amounts will be paid in full for each registered full-year equivalent. The announcement was a step in the right direction.
The HPR price tags pose a problem for all education programs, and the 3,000 new places exempt from the rules correspond to only one percent of all full-year students.
SFS and many of us hoped that the government would clarify what should happen to the price tag system with the new research bill. The Steering and Resources Inquiry proposed a completely new system. Even if the government does not want to proceed with that particular proposal, there is a need for broader reform of the system. However, the question was left completely unanswered in the bill.
Just as we described in the blog post Regarding the dimensioning of doctoral education, only specific initiatives have been presented so far, even though what needs to be addressed is a system error. The 3,000 new places will not be able to be evaluated until 2022 at the earliest. By then it will be too late to do anything before the next election. The 2022 budget bill will not be submitted until after the election.
There is still time for a broader reform of the price tag system, but time is running out. The last opportunity to make a sharp proposal will be with the autumn budget later this year. Sweden needs a new resource allocation system that puts student learning at the center and puts an end to the quality-impairing structures that exist today. SFS hopes that responsible politicians will take this on board and that change will happen in the near future.
Simon Edström, Chairman of the Swedish Federation of Swedish Students (SFS)