2003-03-25

Classification of courses - a task assigned by the government

The task and its implementation

How do the higher education institutions classify courses?

In some subjects, however, there are relatively large differences. Differences in methods of classification also have some financial impact for some of the institutions. There are two kinds of subjects in which classification differences affect funding. One of these consists of subjects with large numbers of full-time equivalents, such as computer studies and business administration. Here there are differences between the institutions that classify these subjects as humanities or social sciences and those where they are categorised as belonging to the natural sciences or technology. The other type consists of subjects where some higher education institutions have classified full-time equivalents in programme areas with high funding levels. Other institutions have not been entitled to compensation for full-time equivalents or annual performance equivalents in these programme areas. This concerns subjects such as physical education and psychology.

The National Agency´s contacts with the higher education institutions have revealed that most of them are actively working with classification issues within the institution itself. Many institutions have their own “safety controls" - consisting of procedures for the institution´s internal classification of courses - to prevent abuse of the system and erroneous classifications. These procedures vary, however, from institution to institution. Most of the higher education institutions with which the National Agency has been in contact have had a decision-making process in which the classification of courses in different programme areas is determined at a central level on the basis of centrally established guidelines. At some institutions, however, classification decisions are made at faculty - or departmental - level and there is less internal control of these classifications.

The National Agency´s proposal

• The guidelines should contain a requirement that courses be classified on the basis of their subject content and not according to the resources required, teaching methods or the like. It should also be emphasised that universities and higher education institutions are only entitled to offer programmes and account for full-time equivalents and annual performance equivalents in the programme areas laid down in their annual directives.
• The guidelines should contain a recommendation that the higher education institutions introduce quality assurance measures for classifications. This could for instance take the form of a review by the institution of its decisionmaking process and follow-up of classifications. Dialogue between the higher education institutions could increase the uniformity of classifications. A central agency like the National Agency for Higher Education lacks the expertise needed to reach an opinion on how courses should be classified. This expertise exists within the institutions. To facilitate dialogue between the higher education institutions, SUHF (The Association of Swedish Higher Education) could act as convenor, as suggested by the institutions themselves.
• The Swedish National Audit Office conducts an annual risk and operational audit concerning funding at the higher education institutions in preparation for the annual audit reports of the different institutions. As the classification of courses may play a significant role in the allocation of resources, the National Audit Office should pay particular attention to this issue.
• The classification of courses at the higher education institutions should be monitored regularly. This will increase the transparency of classification. Monitoring should take the form of regular publication by the National Agency of statistics on the classifications employed by the higher education institutions. What form this publication is to take should be agreed jointly by the institutions and the National Agency. These statistics would provide the institutions with valuable information about the classifications used at other institutions, which could, per se, augment the uniformity of classification overall. Greater transparency would also provide the insight into classification procedures required by the National Audit Office for the discharge of its duties.