changing landscape of he in romania budapest, 10 may 2013
TRANSCRIPT
Changing Landscape of HE in Romania
Budapest, 10 May 2013
Outline
I. Where are we now? II. History matters III. Promoting a new HE landscape IV. Institutional differentiation V. The way ahead?
I. Where are we now?1. The context
• Emerging consequences of the economic crisis (2010-2012): multiplication of risks, high degrees of uncertainty, individualization of life worlds, increased needs for structural reforms and new public policies
• Education is located in the range of second important issues, thus facing the cuts in public funding
2. Questions at the time of crisis
• How much is the crisis a time for new opportunities or a time of badly affecting education?
• Education, including HE, is a problem or a part of the solutions to the current issues of the crisis?
• Education, having a different time horizon, is the first to be sacrificed financially, while also facing a sharp demographic decline and a decreasing prestige and relevance for individual careers
3. A state of a HE system that demanded change
• An apparently unitary system: all HEIs are universities carrying out teaching and research
• Existing diversification axis: (1) public/private axis; (2) disciplinary axis (e.g. comprehensive,specialized); (3) degree awarding powers: LMD; LM; L.
• The dominant forces at work generated an institutionally unsustainable isomorphic system
4. On the way of changing the HE landscape
• The implementation of the 2011 Education Law: new institutional charts; a new pattern of institutional governance and management; re-configuration of internal structures; new approaches to QA; a new system of HE public funding ; new rules of public accountability.
• Right now: a new government and new approaches and ideas – some in motion, others in the waiting
II. History matters:• 1990-1995 : Post-communist reparatory changes
• 1995-1999: Emerging a new HE system Changing the legislation: a new law on
education and on accreditation Institutional diversification on public/private axis and on study programme axis Passing from elite to mass HE
• 1999-2010: Implementing Bologna principles and objectives
• 2010 - Re-configuring the system and institutions: 2010: Evaluating the state of HE and identifying new options for HE
development 2010: Concluding a “National Pact on Education and Research” of all parties
represented in Parliament and of various stakeholders 2011: Adopting a new law on education 2013: Changing some 2011 legal provisions
Facts and Figures (1)
E volution of the H E Is for the period 1991-201048
56
62 63 63
59 58 58 59 57 55 55 55 5536
63 67 69 7067
62
5248
5662 63 63
95102
106111
121126 126 125 122
117
107 104 106 106 108
565656565757
5250504854
4944
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
125
135
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
ac ademic year
insti
tutio
ns
public univers ities
private univers ities
Total HE Is
Comparing sudent flows: 2000-2012
Facts and Figures (2)
E volution of the total number of s tudents in the period 1990-2010
0
200.000
400.000
600.000
800.000
1.000.000
1.200.000
academic year
stud
ents Students in public
universitiesStudents in privateuniversitiesT otal number of students
E volution of the P h.D . or doc toral s tudent's number in the period 1990-2010
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
academic year
stud
ents
Ph.D or doctoral students not payingscholar feesPh.D or doctoral students payingscholar feesPh.D. or doctoral students
E volution of total number of s tudents , by s tudy c yc les , in the period 1990-2010
193 215
236
250
255 33
6
354
361 40
8 453 53
3 582
596 66
7
650 71
6 786
907
891
775
0 0 0 0 0 4 5 7 8 11 13 18 22 29 49 77 90 92 121
139
0 0 1 1 1 15 18 22 24 23 25 29 30 32 37 35 33 33 31 30
0
200
400
600
800
1.000
1.200
thou
sand
s
academic years
stud
ents
Bachelor students
Master or second degree students
Ph.D. or doctoral students
T otal number of students
E volution of the P h.D . or doc toral s tudent's number in the period 1990-2010
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
academic year
stud
ents
Ph.D or doctoral students not payingscholar feesPh.D or doctoral students payingscholar feesPh.D. or doctoral students
Facts and Figures (3)
Evolution of the total number of teaching staff (full-time employed by the univerities) for the period 2002-2010
28.589 29.532 30.100 30.857 31.543 30.583 31.964 31.973 31.103
24.069 24.968 25.300 25.272 24.927 24.543 24.788 25.189 25.371
4.520 4.564 4.800 5.585 6.616 6.040 7.176 6.784 5.732
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
academic year
teach
ing st
aff
Total Public univ ersities Priv ate univ ersities
Evolution of the students to teaching staff ratio, for the period 2002-
2010
22 22 24 25 27 30 32 33 30
20 20 23 25 26 27 26 25 25
32 30 30 28 31
44
5361
56
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
academic year
stud
ents
to te
achin
g sta
ff
Total Public univ ersities Priv ate univ ersities
Configurations (1)
• A high number of institutions for a rather small number of students and for the demographic size of the country
• A high number of HEIs in social sciences and humanities and a small number of HEIs in technical and professional areas
• A high market demand for technical and professional qualifications and a high supply of HE qualifications in areas with low market demand
Configurations (2)
• A decreasing demand for higher education degrees associated with a sharp demographic decline
• A small number of teaching and research staff and a high student/staff ratio
• A continuous shrinking of public funds made available for public HE and research
• A rather low research output internationally relevant and competitive
Configurations(3)
• A high institutional isomorphism in terms of assumed missions and with reference to structures, governance and organization of curricula; thus a reduced institutional differentiation in the system and a growing gap between the stated mission and its realization
• Encountering difficulties in concentrating resources and demonstrating local, regional or national relevance of HEIs
Configurations (4): latest trends
• A decreasing number of students due also to demographic decline
• A growing number of students in technical and medical studies and a smaller one in economics, law and social sciences
• A decline of older academic staff and an increased of younger staff (59% of the total are in the range of up to 35 years of age)
III. Promoting a new HE landscape. 1. Criteria:
Structural and functional re-configuration, at system and institutional levels, in terms of :
Quality - focused on outcomes Relevance - for the market demands and
students personal development Competitiveness - both nationally and
internationally
2. Systemic Actions:
• Increase university autonomy as this is related to clear ways of accountability
• Generating a higher institutional differentiation through university classification and programme ranking
• Introducing a new funding formula: public funding dependent on teaching and research outputs and on real costs
2. Institutional Actions
• HEIs governing structures: HEIs to opt out for either a more collegiate or a more managerial type of governing structures
• Re-structuring institutional missions and internal organization: HEIs to set up their own internal structures in line with the prospects of a new mission and its successful realization
• Diversifying financial sources: allowing universities to set up commercial companies and foundations
3. Institutional and systemic actions
• New approach to quality assurance: more emphasis on learning and research outcomes
• Innovating curricula and teaching quality: provide public financial incentives for innovations and for staff recruitment and promotion
• Providing new incentives for increasing research outputs and for the re-organization of doctoral and master programmes
(Cont.) Institutional and systemic actions
• Develop qualifications tracer studies: this is to increase HEIs outputs relevance for market demands and student personal development
• Intermediary collegiate bodies - UEFISCDI: set up and/or strengthen buffer collegiate bodies, under the umbrella of an executive agency – UEFISCDI - meant to provide national and international information on HE and increase inter-institutional communication
IV. Institutional differentiation
• This is a key institutional and systemic collaborative action
• Means of differentiation: (1) classification (not ranking) of universities in 3 classes: research intensive (LMD), research and teaching (LM)and teaching focused universities (L); (2) programme ranking at national and institutional levels
• Relating classification with : (1) degrees awarding powers; (2) financial incentives
Classification procedure
Internal evaluation: 2011 Data collection Data processing First classificationExternal evaluation - 2011-2013 – by an
international agency (IEP/EUA)
Data collection
• (1) invite –via EUA - a group of experts to advise on data collection and approaches to classification;
• (2) define a set of indicators for structuring the information on institutional outputs related to teaching, research, relations with environment, institutional capacity;
• (3) invite universities to report their outputs; • 4) make the information available on an open
public web-site.
From data collection to data processing
• An acceptable range of indicators that are indicative of institutional outputs
• Weightings for each indicator to permit an overall assessment of institutional outputs
• Data to populate each indicator that is sufficiently comparable across institutions to permit “fair” national comparisons
• Work out formulas and weightings for identifying university classes
Finalizing the 1st stage of university classification
• Benefiting from the assistance of EUA in establishing university classes
• Reporting on the provisional results:I. 48 teaching focused universitiesII.22 teaching and research universitiesIII. 8 teaching and artistic creation universitiesIV. 12 research focused universities (out of which: 3
comprehensive; 4 technical; 3 medical; 1 agricultural; 1 social sciences)
External evaluation - 2011-2013
EUA –IEP acting as the agency responsible for the external evaluation of universities by classes
Planning and implementing the institutional evaluations
Having institutional and cluster reportsFinalizing with a policy relevant system report
on the institutional differentiation within the Romanian HE system
V. The ways ahead ?
Waiting for the impact of the IEP/EUA cluster and policy reports on HE development
Envisaging new policies : Further reviewing the 2011 Law? Changes in the HEIs positioning ? Changes in the public funding of HE? Etc.
Reflecting on the dialectics of stability and change in HE at the age of crisis and unpredictability