A piece of quality, thank you.

Johan Alvfors and Charlotta Tjärdahl
Johan Alvfors and Charlotta Tjärdahl

- Can quality really be bought?


In recent days, there has been a discussion about the possibility of claiming money back for an education that has failed national quality reviews. The reason is that an international student sued his university to get back paid tuition fees and got it right through a ruling in the district court. It is still unclear whether the verdict will be appealed, but it has started a principled discussion about higher education that is likely to be long-lasting.


The verdict leaves us with many interesting questions. Is it reasonable for a person who has completed an education whose quality has been questioned to be able to get money back? Does this mean that higher education is a service that can be bought? Should the state then demand back what it paid the higher education institutions for tax-financed educational places if the quality of the education was questioned? What conditions does it create for the higher education institutions' ongoing development work, when money can suddenly disappear?


SFS has for many years fought for a fee-free higher education, and sees the ruling as a clear consequence of the introduction of tuition fees for overseas students. It appears from the judgment that the district court reasoned about the education as a service, precisely because the student paid tuition fees. If that vision takes hold, it can have major consequences for the entire education system.


Education is not a product - it should not be possible to buy education

The fact that some students pay fees for their education goes against one of the most important principles in higher education: education is not a product, not a service you can buy. The education is a context where you participate to learn something and develop as a person. You will be accepted on the basis of your qualifications, not on the basis of your ability to pay. Regardless of who reimburses the higher education institutions for the costs of the education, the money should never affect who attends the education.


Across the world, a slow process is underway where education is increasingly seen as a product that has a specific and pre-given purpose. This is done both by more and more societal actors talking about education as a labor market policy measure and caring more about the effects of education than about education as such. Correspondingly, society's financial insecurity forces individuals to see education more as a merit needed to get a job than as part of one's personal development. These trends meet in a dangerous rhetoric where society sees education as a service to the individual instead of a public good. It paves the way for tuition fees where society completely takes its hand away from the responsibility for everyone's equal right to education.


The previous quality assurance system was problematic

The ruling has established that the University Chancellor's Office, then the National Agency for Higher Education, decided that the education in question was of poor quality. In the then quality assurance system, there was a major problem in that students' results were mixed with the quality of the education. This means that the quality review on which the current judgment is based does not necessarily have anything to do with the quality of the education. Therefore, it constitutes a very dubious basis for decision-making.

 

UKÄ is now designing a new quality system for reviewing and developing education at universities and colleges. A new take on the system is needed and welcome. Instead of the review aiming to punish the university when something is wrong, the focus is on development and a dynamic approach to higher education. The new system may seem extremely innovative and elusive, but is fully in line with the work carried out at European level for many years. Through an increased focus on actual learning rather than final achievement, Sweden is once again becoming a relevant player in the international higher education arena. Now we start catching up!


The education's financing and quality development must be independent of each other

In order for higher education to continue to be relevant and effective in a changing society, ongoing development work is needed. The work must involve both teachers and students who work together in trust to create better conditions for learning. Such development work depends on stable economic conditions. It requires security and predictability.

 

Therefore, SFS has consistently been opposed to confusing the educational conditions of education with measures of its quality. We protested that the previous quality assurance system punished those who were considered to be of low quality and rewarded those who were of high quality. It is just as wrong for the university to repay money to an individual based on assessments of quality. In addition, we have already described that there are problems with clearly assessing quality at all.

 

When leaders and politicians now welcome the ruling giving the higher education institutions new incentives to "sharpen up" and address quality challenges that are certainly quite real, it is clear that they have not understood how the university works. Quality can not be ensured or demanded, but is created between teachers and students in a constant development work.


The way ahead

In order not to confuse the financial conditions of an education with its quality, it is important that an individual judgment is not elevated to principle without proper examination. We therefore hope that the verdict will be appealed. It requires that politicians as well as the higher education sector take responsibility for creating a more stable system. A system where there are good conditions for quality development, and education does not risk being seen as a commodity!

 

Johan Alvfors, vice chairman

Charlotta Tjärdahl, incoming vice chairman