stud0608[1]

Norwegian Higher Education Reforms Since 1990

Sverre RustadDeputy Director General

2 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research

• Overview of Norwegian Higher Education• 1990s reforms• The Quality Reform (2003)• The Stjernø Committee (2008)

Headlines


Norwegian higher education – an overview

• 38 state-owned HEIs– 7 universities– 5 specialized university institutions

(architecture, business administration, music, sports, veterinary medicine)

– 24 university colleges– 2 academies of the arts

• Military and police academies• Private HEIs

– not for profit– approximately 10 % of students– 6 fully accredited institutions– a further 25 with accredited programmes


Norwegian Higher Education (II)

• Decentralized institutional structure– successful in terms of access– poses challenges in terms of quality

• High share of public funding

• No tuition fees in state-owned HEIs

• Around 50 % of the relevant age cohorts now attend HE– 1 in 5 students older than 30– only 1 in 5 students younger than 22


1990s reforms

• Pre-1990:– large number of very small higher

education institutions– massification had not started in earnest– only the universities and specialized

university institutions were covered by institutional legislation

• 1991: White paper on Higher Education set direction for major reforms– based on recommendations of 1988

government commission (the Hernes Committee)


1990s reforms (II)

• 1994: 98 regional colleges merged into 26 state (university) colleges

• 1995: Act relating to Universities and Colleges– covered all state-owned HEIs– institutions named in act under respective

categories– enshrined principle of division of labour

• Steering: HEIs micro-managed by Ministry to large extent


The Quality Reform (2003)

• Based on the proposals of the Mjøs Committee (2000)

• Instruments:– March 2001: Main white paper (St.meld. nr. 27)– June 2001: Decisions by the Storting

(parliament) on principles of the reform – Spring 2002: 5 supplementary White Papers and

2 Legal Bills, new decisions by the Storting– 1. July 2002: Legislation comes into force – 1. January 2003: establishment of the Norwegian

Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT)

• Reform implemented at all HEIs from autumn 2003 (some from autumn 2002)


The Quality Reform (II)

• Main elements:– Delegation of powers to HEIs in academic,

organisational, and financial matters• including freedom to establish and withdraw

study programmes– Changes in governance and management

structures– New financing system based partly on output– Changes in student support system– New degree structure– New teaching and assessment methods focusing

on student learning– Increased emphasis on internationalization;

introduction of ECTS, Diploma Supplement etc.


The Quality Reform (III)

• “Bologna Process in Norway”, but also strongly influenced by i.a. OECD review

• Supported by substantial increase in funding (NOK 1,2 billion)– in addition approximately 800 million as a

result of increased output

• Institutions can move to “higher” category through accreditation process


The quality reform – preliminary conclusions

• Students produce more credits, but do not spend more time on studies

• National quality assurance system established and well received

• Internationalization takes time

• Increased autonomy does not lead to more diversity– institutions compete for students i.a. by

establishing competing programmes– universities set the norm for institutional and

academic status

• 3 new universities and 2 new specialized university institutions since 2005


The Stjernø Committee: Challenges in 2008

• Attempts at centrally regulated division of labour have not worked

• Deregulation within present framework of governance seems to reduce rather than stimulate diversity

• Fragmented institutional structure– many small campuses– fragmentation of research training a special

problem• No top institutions in international rankings• Serious concerns about quality of key

educational programmes


Challenges in 2008 (II)

• Increased competition for students, staff and research funds, also internationally– quality is at the centre of success– competitiveness in research requires

concentration

• Higher education and research seen as key to competitiveness and social, economic and cultural development– further increasing the pressure for quality


Challenges in 2008 (III)

• Demographic changes– reduced youth cohorts in most parts of the

country from 2015– accentuated by social preferences– some institutions already face major

recruitment problems

• As more and more HEIs become universities, remaining university colleges, especially small regional ones, will struggle


Challenges to diversity

• All HEIs governed by same legislation

• All HEIs required by law to carry out research and development work – no formal division of responsibilities between types of institutions

• One common set of indicators for output-based financing

• Structure of academic positions and salaries regulated nationally – same for all institutions– academic drift at personal level


Challenges to diversity (II)

• Possible for HEIs to be accredited in higher category – main criteria related to number of master and doctoral programmes– academic drift at institutional level

• Strong regional element in all policy areas– activity/employment considerations– competition for resources– regions want universities


The Stjernø Committee – Key considerations

• How to balance national policies and institutional autonomy?– Institutional strategies determined by

possibilities, internal and external pressures– not always in line with national goals and

priorities – incentives vs. more direct steering

• How to combine accessibility of educational provision with concentration of research?

• How to maintain quality in a decentralized system?

• How to maintain diversity?


The Stjernø Committee – Proposals

• process of mergers of HEIs, based on proposals from institutions– resulting institutions will be universities

• stronger element of national steering/policy supported by strategic funding

• development of distinctive institutional profiles through long-term agreements, supervised by international advisory group

• concentration of research training• changes in institutional management• measures for strengthening key vocational

programmes


The Stjernø Committee - Reception

• Analysis widely shared

• Proposals for mergers greeted with universal scepticism– but few have been able to present

alternative solutions

• Other proposals meet with varying degrees of support

• Political follow-up pending

stud0608[1]

Economy & Finance

heis institutions

diversity institutions

accredited institutions

stateowned heis

types of institutions

institutions academic

new universities

concentration higher