On November 7, 2019, an Expert Seminar "Regulatory Guillotine" in Education: State Control and Mandatory Requirements" was held at the ASI's Coworking Center "Tochka Kipeniya"
The participants of the seminar discussed a new model of state control in the field of education and mandatory requirements, the implementation of which should be tested during state control in the field of education. In the course of the plenary session, the speakers noted the key areas for reducing the load on educational organizations at different levels, including revising the requirements for accreditation and licensing, introducing a risk-based approach to monitoring activities, and linking education quality assessment tools with labor market requirements. In three sections devoted to different levels and types of education, experts discussed the features of model implementation taking into account level specificity, and also assessed how the presented lists of requirements are relevant to risks in the field of education.
The experts were presented with a list of mandatory requirements in the field of education, which was reduced by more than 10 times compared to the current one.
As a result of the discussion, the following positions were documented:
· it is necessary to implement the principle of one controlling body (in relation to one mandatory requirement, control is carried out by one controlling and supervisory authority);
· a revision of the system of state accreditation of educational activities, or a complete abandonment of this institution;
· the number of compulsory requirements in education should be substantially reduced;
· federal state control over the quality of education can be replaced by state and non-state procedures for assessing the quality of education, based on the transparency of procedures, the variability of mechanisms and the reputation of assessment providers, duly recognized by the state;
· the number of scheduled inspections should be reduced in relation to conscientious organizations (organizations for which violations were not detected during previous control and supervisory activities and which demonstrate a high quality of education);
· the data of monitoring studies, and not control and supervision measures, should maintain the basis for improving the work of the education system;
· it is necessary to stimulate the ability of organizations to independently maintain high quality education through internal assessment systems.