introduction approach setting the scene –innovation –creativity –the university and economic...

49
Introduction • Approach • Setting the Scene – Innovation – Creativity – The University and economic development – Knowledge Society

Upload: shanon-copeland

Post on 04-Jan-2016

222 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Introduction

• Approach

• Setting the Scene– Innovation– Creativity– The University and economic development– Knowledge Society

Page 2: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Why Attention to Governance ?

• the increasing size of universities and the expanding complexity of their missions;

• the diversification of incomes and new mechanisms for budgeting;

• a greater degree of accountability towards the universities’ stakeholders;

• more administrative responsibility for budget, personnel, and property issues, which were formerly entirely within the jurisdiction of ministries of Governments

Page 3: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Define Governance

“Governance comprises a complex web including the legislative framework,the characteristics of the institutions and how they relate to the whole system, how money is allocated to institutions and how they are accountable for the way it is spent, as well as less formal structures and relationships which steer and influence behaviour.” OECD

Page 4: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Governance in Short

• Institutional Autonomy

• Institutional Governance

• Institutional Leadership

• Funding

• Quality Assessment

Page 5: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Three Models (1)

• There is a traditional ‘stakeholder’ model that gives voice to all with an interest in these public institutions, including those who work or study within them. It has been criticized for hindering effective governance and management through slowing, or avoiding, crucial strategic decision-making;

Page 6: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Three Models (2)

• A ‘business model’ has been advanced that places a premium on effective financial management and outcomes for shareholders. It draws critical commentary for the low priority it gave to the educational and learning objectives of universities, as well as for the exclusion of internal stakeholders.

Page 7: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Three Models (3)

      A third model,’ trusteeship’, has recently been proposed, concerned with governance in not-for-profit organisations oriented at achieving their mission. This approach explicitly recognises that non-financial goals are among the core objectives of the university, but it endeavours to provide an effective governance and management structure to achieve a multiple bottom line in complex institutions of learning, research and community service.

Page 8: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Agronomic Sciences

Social service council Social services

Library

Interdepartment Labs

Research Centres

Museam

Psychological intervention center

Experimental farms

Animal Hospital

Pólos

European documentation

center

Orchester

Department

- Rural Engineering- Phytotechny- Animal Vegetal S.- Zootechny

Department

- Economics- Business Management

Department

- Physics- Computer Sciences- Mathematics- Chemistry

Department

- History- Ling. Literatures- Ped. Education- Psychology- Sociolgy

Department

- Biology- Ecology- Geosciences- B. Landscap Planning

Economic and

Management Sciences

Exact Sciencies

Nature and Environmental

Sciencies

Human and Social

Sciencies

Departmentof

Arts

RECTOR

AdministrativeServices

Other Scientific and Pedagogical units

General board

Senate

Administrative council

Consulting board

Scientific council Pedagogical council

Nursing School

S. João de Deus

- CIASBE - CIEA

Minerva

NAE

NUFOR

GRI

Historicalarchive

UE/NET

ODA

Rector office

APL

Legal support

Accounting auditor

GIA

GRP

Editorial board

Staff units

AcademicServices

ComputerService

TechnicalServices

Page 9: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society
Page 10: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Ireland“A university in performing its functions shall:• Have the right and responsibility to preserve and

promote the traditional principles of academic freedom in the conduct of its internal and external affairs, and

• Be entitled to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom, and in doing so it shall have regard to:

• the promotion and preservation of equality of opportunity and access,the efficient and effective use of resources andits obligation as to public accountability.”

Page 11: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Australia• The Council or Senate, which provides the body

independent of Government but responsible in the public interest for the operation of the university;

• The universities’ objectives, as established by Council and drawing on advice from senior management;

• A Chief Officer ( Rector, Provost, President, Vice-Chancellor) and executive managers, responsible to the Council for the effective management of the university; and

• An Academic Board, responsible to Council for ensuring the academic quality and credibility of the university’s operations.

Page 12: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

University and Government - OECD

“Overall, the higher education reform agenda has involved governments in greater focus on strategy and priority setting and less involvement in the running of the system on a day-to-day basis.… The broad trend has been for a reduction of direct state control of higher education in most OECD countries … yet at the same time introducing new forms of control and influence, based largely on holding institutions accountable for performance via powerful enforcement mechanisms including funding and quality recognition.”The review concluded:“The art of policy-making will in future involve ensuring that public goals are met in higher education through influence rather than direction.”

Page 13: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Irish Government View

“National policy-makers should be persuaded to see academic freedom and institutional autonomy as necessary features of higher education systems and not as problematical constraints.”

Page 14: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Internal Governance (1)

• Governance – as exercised by Governing Boards- involves the responsibility of approving the mission and goals of the institution; the oversight of its resources; the approval of the policies and procedures; the appointment, review and support of its President; and an informed understanding of its programmes and activities.

Page 15: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Internal Governance (2)

• Management involves the responsibility for the effective operation of the institution and the achievement of its goals within the policies and procedures approved by the board; the effective use of its resources, the creative support and performance of teaching, research and service; and maintenance of the highest standards of scholarly integrity and professional performance.

Page 16: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Internal Governance (3)

• The responsibility of the board is to govern, not to manage.”

• The Glion Declaration II “We urge the principle of subsidiarity to campus governance, in which decisions are made at the lowest appropriate levels of responsibility.”

Page 17: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Trends

• A strengthening of the power of executive authorities within the university who are increasingly being appointed for their leadership and managerial qualities in addition to the traditional academic leadership skills; and

• An increase in participation on governing bodies by representatives and individuals from outside the university which has strengthened the leadership of the institution;

• A loss of power and influence by the existing collegial bodies to the Chief Officer e.g. Rector.

Page 18: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Universities: Composition of Governing Authority Ireland

  Internal Membership

External Membership

Total

DCU 18 17 35

NUIG 18 20 38

NUIM 16 13 29

UCC 19 21 40

UCD 20 20 40

UL 17 17 34

TCD 25 2 27

Page 19: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Recent Trends

• Most of the issues on governance focus on the governing bodies of higher education institutions, either

• Their composition (Australia, Austria, Finland, and Flanders) or

• The way their members are chosen (Denmark and Finland).

• In France and the UK, the discussions have had a more general character, focusing on the enhancement of institutional autonomy.

• The rise of performance contracts or agreements is the second issue.

Page 20: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society
Page 21: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

International Developments

• Austria

• Australia

• Denmark

• Sweden

• Finland

• Netherlands

• Japan

Page 22: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Governance Changes

Page 23: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

United Kingdom (1988)

• In the “new” universities (mainly former polytechnics) the main governing body is a Board of Governors which generally comprises about 25 members, the majority of whom are external.

• There is also generally an Academic Board which comprises academic staff only.

• In the “old” universities the main governing body is generally a Council of 25-60 members, the majority of whom are external, and a Senate comprising academic staff only.

Page 24: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

United Kingdom -What Changed?

• Established a small Executive Board, half of whommust be from outside the university with experience inindustrial, commercial or employment matters.

• Strengthened the power of the Chief Executive.• Subordinated the Academic Board to the Board of

Governors in all aspects and to the Chief Executive insome respects.

• Although the “old” universities were not affected bythe 1988 Education Reform Act, the report of theNational Committee of Enquiry into Higher Educationin 1997 made recommendations about governancewhich have, in the main, been adopted by them.

Page 25: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Netherlands (1988)

• Supervisory Board, 5 external members appointed by Ministers.

• Executive Board, 3 internal members including the Rector.

• University Council, academic,administrative staff, plus students; mainly advisory function.

Page 26: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Netherlands –What Changed?

• Replaced joint decision-making by Administrative Board and Academic Council.

• Introduced Supervisory Board, which supervises and appoints members of the Executive Board.

• Executive Board is accountable for governance and administration to the Supervisory Board.

• University and Faculty Councils became largely advisory bodies for students and employees.

• Executive strengthened relative to University and Faculty Councils; Dean’s power increased within faculty.

• Abolition of the previously powerful Disciplinary Research Groups

Page 27: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Austria (2002)

• University Council, 5-9 external members, nominated by the Ministry and the University Senate.

• Rectorate, the Rector and up to 4 Vice-Rectors.

• Senate, academic, administrative staff, students; majority of members are professors.

Page 28: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Austria – What Changed?

• Introduced the University Council which will appoint the Rector, and decide on the organisational plan, budget, and employment structure.

• The Rector takes on a senior management function, supported by a team of Vice-Rectors.

• The Senate was retained, but lost much of its power, and is to focus mainly on academic programmes.

Page 29: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Japan (2004)

• Administrative Council with internal and external members.

• Academic Council, comprising the university President, heads of faculty, academics, others appointed by the President.

Page 30: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Japan – What Changed?

• Administrative Council created to decide on mainfinancial, personnel and organisational issues.

• Academic Councils created to decide curriculum,appointment of academic staff.

• Executive Board created comprising the universityPresident and several Vice-Presidents.

• Overall the University President gains considerable powers.

Page 31: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Japan National Corporation Law 2003• Each national university was transformed into a “National University

Corporation”

• The State will remain responsible for their functions, and provide funds to support their administration.

• Since the proposed reform is intended to enhance autonomy, it also includes changes in internal decision-making authority.

• The ultimate responsibility will rest with the university president, who will control internal appointments.

• The Minister will appoint as president the candidate named by a selection committee with both internal and external members.

• More flexible forms of employment, salary structure and working hours will be possible.

• It will also be able to set up and abolish departments and other academic units without needing statutory approval.

Page 32: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Appointment of Leaders of Universities

Page 33: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Elected Leaders

Who Elects?

• Finland - Academic staff and heads of separate institutes

• France - Board or Council• Japan (national) - Academic staff• Korea (national) - All full-time

faculty members • Switzerland - Senate or ad hoc

committee• Turkey - All full-time faculty

members Yes

Government Approves?

• No

• No

• Yes

• Yes

• Yes

• Yes

Page 34: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Appointed Leaders

Country Process

Australia University Council (majority external) Ireland Governing Body (approximately 50%

external) Netherlands Supervisory Board: 5 external

members appointed by Minister

Sweden Government, on recommendation of mainly external Governing Board, which first consults students and employers

United States State government-appointed Regents or (public) Coordinating Boards on the recommendation of Search Committee

United Kingdom Governing Body, of which the majority are external members

Government approves?

• No (5 –7)• No (10)• No (4)

• Yes (6)

• No (Varies)

• No (7)

( ) Term

Page 35: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Countries where reforms have been implemented in 2003

• Austria Formerly elected by University Assembly of professors (25%), assistant professors (25%), other staff (25%), and students (25%) from the candidates proposed by Senate.From 2003, appointed by University Council made up of external members, from a shortlist of three candidates nominated by Senate.

• Denmark Until July 2003, elected by: academic staff (50%);other staff (25%); and students (25%).From July 2003, appointed by a Board with a majority of external members.

• Norway Formerly elected by academic and other staff, with some role for students.From 2003, an Executive Board with strengthened external representation may propose to the Minister that it appoints the Rector.

• No ( 4 )

• No ( 4)

• No (3/4)

Page 36: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

New Methods for Allocating Recurrent Funding

to Universities

Country Examples

Page 37: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Australia (1998)• Commonwealth (federal) government funding

(around 60% of total revenue in 2001) has two main components: (i) a general operating grant largely based on a specified number of student places in the context of an educational profile of the institution concerned and (ii) funds for research and research training allocated primarily on a competitive basis.

• Resources are allocated in the context of a rolling triennium which ensures that institutions have a secure level of funding on which to base their planning for at least three years.

Page 38: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Czech Republic(1992)

• The major part of funding for teaching activities (about 78% in 2002) is based on inputs (the number of students multiplied by the cost of relevant studies).

• Around 10% is provided on a competitive basis whereby institutions are invited to submit projects in response to state priorities. The government aims to increase the competitive component to 30% over the next few years.

• Government funding for research has two main components: around 30% (research directly connected to teaching) is based on a formula taking into account: (i) the funds raised by the institution for research and development;(ii) the ratio of professors and associate professors to the total academic staff;and (iii) the ratio of graduates from doctoral and master’s programmes to the total number of students in the institution.

• The other 70% of research funding is provided through a competitive bidding process.

Page 39: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Netherlands(2000)• Universities are funded on the “performance

funding model”. • 50% of the total teaching budget in 2000 was

based on the number of degrees awarded in 1999; 13% was based on the number of first year enrolments;and the remainder was a fixed allocation per university.

• Universities receive separate funding for research programmes.

• Universities of professional education (HBOs: Hoger Beroepsonderwijs) are allocated teaching funds by a formula taking into account programme characteristics and teaching output (enrolment and completion rates).

• The government has foreshadowed plans to merge these two systems from 2005.

Page 40: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Norway(2002)Grants to institutions now consist of three main components:

• a basic component (on average approximately 60% of the total allocation in 2002) associated with unit cost;

• an education component (approximately 25%) based on results: the number of completed student credits, the number of graduates (scheduled to begin in 2005), and the number of international exchange students (incoming and outgoing); and

• a research element (approximately 15%) dependent on performance and quality criteria including: (i) ability to attract external funding; (ii) number and qualifications of academic staff; (iii) number of postgraduate students;(iv) regional and professional policy priorities; and (v) total student numbers.

Page 41: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Switzerland(2000)

• University funding, which was based on teachers’ salaries, student enrolments and cantons’ financial capacity, now takes account of the services provided by universities:

• 70% of basic funding is allocated according to the number of students enrolled for the legal duration of studies, weighted by academic disciplines;

• 30% is distributed as matching funds to the contributions that each university obtains from third parties (e.g. the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Commission for Technology and Innovation).

Page 42: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

University performance contracting in Finland

• The Finnish government has a three-year contract with each university that covers objectives, programmes and funding.

• The contract provides for a government grant in the form of a lump sum to implement the contract, including the goals for master’s and doctoral degrees.

• The budgeting system has been developed to support management-by-results so that the university’s goals and appropriations are inter-linked:

• the same three-year period is used both for measuring outcomes and allocating resources;

• negotiations run from February to April preceding the three-year funding period; and

• each university documents the achievement of goals in the form of an annual report.

Page 43: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Pennsylvania State System of Higher EducationThe Impact of Performance Reporting and Performance Funding(1)

Among the highlights are the following:• At 76.2%, our retention rate stands well above the national average.• Graduation rates continue to increase and our six-year graduation rate

is now 52.8%. • Over the past three years, there has been a 5.0% increase in the four-

year graduation rate. Graduation rates well above the national average.• Diversity is increasing with larger numbers of Hispanic and African

American students entering each year.• The number of minority and female faculty and senior administrators

is also on the rise.• The number of academic programs with few graduates has declined by

almost 17% and student credit hours produced (average per faculty) has increased by 5.1%.

• A higher percentage of students are completing their degree programs at the baccalaureate and masters levels (increases of 2.0 and 0.8% ).

• The accreditation of professional programs continues to increase.

Page 44: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

The Impact of Performance Reporting and

Performance Funding(2)

• These improved efficiencies have NOT led to a significant increase in class sizes. In fact, our average class sizes, which are still under 28 for freshmen and under 20 for sophomore, junior and senior levels remain well below the averages at the State-related universities in Pennsylvania and public universities nationally.

Page 45: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

There are some guiding principles for the RQF

          Have a clear purpose         Reward and promote quality research

outcomes         Minimise costs and administrative burdens         Be international in perspective         Encourage diversity         Recognise differences between disciplines         Promote collaboration         Maximise positive side-effects         Be transparent and simple; and         Have credibility

Page 46: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

The most common indicators      Enrollment/graduation rates by gender, ethnicity,

and programme         Degree completion and time to degree         Persistence/retention rates by grade, ethnicity, and

programme         Remediation activities and indicators of their

effectiveness         Transfer rates to and from two- and four-year

institutions         Pass rates on professional exams         Job placement data on graduates and graduates’

satisfaction with their jobs         Faculty workload and productivity in the form of

student/faculty ratios and teaching contact hours.

Page 47: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Top Performance Measures by SHEEO’s Survey:

      Graduation rates 32      Transfer rates 25      Faculty workload or productivity 24      External or sponsored research funds 23      Follow-up satisfaction studies 23      External or sponsored research funds 23

Remediation activities/effectiveness 21     Pass rates on licensure exams 21     Degrees awarded 20     Placement data on graduates 19     Admissions standards and measures 18    Total student credit hours 18     Number & % of accredited programs 13

Page 48: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

States identify the following advantages

•         Builds support from political leadership for higher education

•         Serves as an incentive to improve performance•         Provides an alternative to enrollment-based subsidy

approaches•         Responds to calls for accountability•         Connects planning goals with the budget•         Serves as an image and credibility builder to

reinforce confidence in higher education•         Results in better communication with political

leaders•         Is more effective than considering only inflation and

enrollment growth.

Page 49: Introduction Approach Setting the Scene –Innovation –Creativity –The University and economic development –Knowledge Society

Difficulties encountered in designing a system

• ·        Balancing institutional autonomy with state level review and control

• ·        Addressing the complexities of measuring quality, particularly in student learning

• ·        Dealing with conflicts when institutions “lower the bar” in setting goals

• ·        Using only quantitative measures that negate important institutional processes

• ·        Finding measures that adequately reflect differences in institutional mission

• ·        Adjusting to annual changes in legislative priorities rather than responding to long range goals.