A draft government decree outlines new terms in student contracts when education is funded by a client, such as a scholarship or employer sponsorship. The changes would apply to agreements where a student enters a program with targeted funding and the sponsor covers costs for tuition and living expenses.
Under the proposed rules, sponsors could specify clear milestones for academic progress, including the disciplines, modules, and internships required to master the chosen profession. They would also decide which courses the student must take and assess performance after at least two midterm evaluations to determine if standards are met.
If a student struggles to keep up, the decree suggests that this could be treated as grounds for contract termination or for reducing support measures. As reported, a sponsor might cut funding for elements such as stipends, housing allowances, or additional training programs.
However, immediate contract termination by the sponsor is not allowed. The sponsor would be obligated to support the student’s improvement, even paying for extra educational services. If performance remains unsatisfactory, the contract could be terminated and the student might owe tuition obligations.
The document notes that the new rules would cover both traditional and digital learning environments, including e‑learning and distance education technologies.
The Ministry of Science and Higher Education proposed implementing these changes on the government decree titled “On targeted training in secondary vocational and higher education educational programs” dated October 13, 2020. The changes were slated to take effect by September 1, 2023, with a sunset provision through January 1, 2029.
Russian leadership has discussed adjusting legislation to allow sponsors to set academic performance requirements in contracts, directing Prime Minister Mishustin to outline a broader framework on October 7, 2021, with a development deadline of March 1, 2022. These proposals reflect ongoing national debates about the role of sponsors in education and accountability for student outcomes.
expert opinion
Ekaterina Altabayeva, Deputy Chair of the Federation Council committee on science, education and culture, described the change as understandable because it aims to ensure that an organization or legal entity funding a student can rely on a qualified result. She cautioned that strong education cannot be built through coercion; most students seek high-quality education and professional growth driven by genuine interest. She urged careful study of the potential effects and suggested assigning some obligations to the party with preferential access to state-funded spots, including compulsory employment constraints.
Altabayeva emphasized that constant micromanagement of grades may be unnecessary. She argued that while compliance with academic requirements is essential for education, life circumstances and varying disciplines mean guidance should be tailored. She noted that the effectiveness of strict, ongoing monitoring remains uncertain and called for a balanced approach developed through collaboration with universities and students. A final assessment would depend on the completed policy document, not just preliminary proposals.
Viktor Panin, head of the All-Russian Association for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Education and a member of the government’s expert council, argued that targeted entrants sometimes enter universities with lower thresholds and variable study habits. He suggested tightening expectations for such students and criticized the clause requiring sponsors to first attempt to improve grades before termination. Panin warned that this could become leverage in favor of sponsors rather than students.
Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and leader at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, contended that it is often more efficient to select the best candidates rather than subsidize the education of underperformers. He proposed preferring top scorers on standardized exams or holders of master’s degrees even if they do not hold a bachelor’s degree. This reflects a broader belief that strong foundations should be rewarded and funded accordingly, aligning sponsor outcomes with market needs.