Upload
shanon-copeland
View
225
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
Governance in Short
• Institutional Autonomy
• Institutional Governance
• Institutional Leadership
• Funding
• Quality Assessment
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;
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
International Developments
• Austria
• Australia
• Denmark
• Sweden
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Japan
Governance Changes
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Japan (2004)
• Administrative Council with internal and external members.
• Academic Council, comprising the university President, heads of faculty, academics, others appointed by the President.
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.
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.
Appointment of Leaders of Universities
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
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
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)
New Methods for Allocating Recurrent Funding
to Universities
Country Examples
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.