Hepi, Can generalist Whitehall match specialist HEFCE?
In the cloud of questions towards HEFCE’s future, another story emerges as to their ‘disturbing blunder’ in a report that compared results of graduates from public and private schools. False results by public bodies are always serious – not only because it leads to a jaded reputation, but also because it influences the decisions made by others who rely on the validity of the information.
The report’s error was spotted by the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Education and Employment Research on 8 October 2015, and subsequently changed by HEFCE.
It is a sad case that this headline was dormant for one month, only to come to the media’s attention as HEFCE’s demise seems evermore inevitable. HEFCE’s overall contribution to the HE sector is well worth considering.
The axing of over two hundred quangos – known as the ‘bonfire of the quangos’ – is a very significant and critical reform to the UK, which should spark debate as to whether the public bodies now responsible for the public services have the knowledge, experience, institutional memory, resources and values to deliver the services effectively and in best practice. Quangos deliver ‘public services, give advice or regulate behaviour’ at arms length from government, and play a critical to governance as they provide expert, independent insight to influence policy.
There are real concerns that the welfare of particular industries and sectors are overshadowed by financial trade-offs, but the primary question should be ‘at what cost to the standards of living and prosperity that the UK has achieved over the generations?’