Posted on by c.graziano

University Governance

This weeks reading explored the topic of University Governance and what role the government plays in regulating/controlling higher education. In The World Bank article, two models explored are the state control model and the state supervising model. The first model entails the state government seeking to control the universities, while in the later model, the state seeks to just monitor and regulate universities, rather than control them. Different countries and institutions can have different levels of government involvement in their public universities. The article explores levels anywhere from fully state controlled, semi-autonomous, semi-independent, to completely independent.  Each model has it’s own advantages and disadvantages and depends on many different factors to determine what works for each countries university system – once again there is no “one size fits all” approach available.  Private institutions are another cause of conversation, as the state does not have direct authority to control the universities in the way they do with public institutions.  Many times financial aid, which is funded by the state and federal government, is granted to students who attend both public and private universities.  The money follows the student; therefore, in a sense, the government is partially funding private education – this is a common practice in the United States.  There are several issues that arise with the private sector of education as there is a belief that private institutions have financial gain as a primary interest in mind, rather than universal education. Some questions the article asks about regulating private universities include:

  • Should there be a balance between the public and private sectors?
  • Is it acceptable for the private sector to focus on commercially profitable programs, that focus on subjects which are in high demand
  • What regulatory processes can/should the state adopt and which will achieve results?
  • Will the same quality assurance regime be applied to both public and private institutions?

While the answers to these questions will vary, they are good starting points for viewing private education as a whole and how university governance should be carried out differently for public and private universities.  We also must not lose sight over the benefits of private education, as many times they fill a gap that private education cannot meet.  Private universities usually have the capital to build programs quicker and meet the need of students and the economy faster than public institutions.  There is also not enough space to educate the entire population in public institutions; therefore, private institutions help ensure a higher percentage of the population is able to seek higher education.  Although, this article was written in 2004, it addresses the important point that if the government is providing funding to private institutions, does that mean they have control?  The author does not believe it does because we are reminded that higher education isn’t controlled the same way lower levels of public education are regulated because students are not required to attend – seeking higher education is a choice.  If students are not satisfied with their experience at a university, they can take the tuition they pay somewhere else, causing the college to lose that funding source.  This is a type of “self-regulation” as colleges work hard to keep their students happy, as they are their consumers.

Posted on by Natallia Kolbun

W10 – Global Trends in University Governance

This week’s reading on Global Trends in University Governance was very informative and in some situations eye-opening when it comes to today’s world of Higher Education. The report talks about the movement of the developing (and even developed) countries to give more autonomy to the individual institutions to give them more freedom to compete on the international level, since having total or even most of the control over higher education institutions limits their ability to compete and be more creative and advance at the needed pace. The state/government has to also consider international players coming and competing on their territory and brining more flexibility to the new demand of non-traditional students (over 24 years old, part-time, and online programs).

Most of the countries do not want (and should not) to give up all of the control, as higher education is important for its people and its economy, so the operation and results need to be monitored one way of the other. What was new and interesting to me in the reading is the discussion about the “buffer body” created by ministry of education. It is the way the government can still control the performance of the higher ed institutions, while giving them the right to make their own decisions. I found an article that talks about the need and importance of buffering bodies back in the 1990s, which I found really interesting that even 20 years ago, this was already a starting trend toward autonomy in Higher Ed Institutions around the world. What I think is important to notice is that decision to give autonomy to institutions really depends on the type of governance in the country. For example, Russia is currently moving toward some form of autonomy allowing more private institutions and even public institutions to make certain decisions. However, for a country that seen a tremendous change in political overturn in early 1990s when the USSR fell apart, it might take some time to adjust to the world new trends.

 

Natallia Kolbun

Posted on by s.ahuja1

Week 10-Governance Reforms and Automony

This week we focused on university governance, reforms and autonomy in Asia, Europe and Latin America.  First, Global Trends in University Governance looks at how governments plan and direct their higher education sectors.  Second, Governance reforms and university autonomy in Asia examines the move towards autonomy and how it has played out in China, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Japan and Indonesia.  And again, comparative analysis was useful to see what works for one region or country may not work for another and that in the study of higher education internationalization, it is imperative to understand the diversity of geopolitical and socio-economic issues that intersect and interact.  For me personally, having worked at both public and private higher ed institutions, the concepts of autonomy and governance are interesting ones to consider.  I realized that the autonomy enjoyed by many American universities is not at all a universal concept but reading about recent governance trends toward autonomy was heartening but also tempered by better understanding what some of the challenges are through both readings.

The concepts of autonomy and academic freedom took center stage in this week’s readings and I think the connection between the two is important to understand in gaining an understanding of how higher education is different from other sectors and what makes it a unique sector to regulate.  In general, autonomy reforms serve to propagate that the notion that higher ed institutions should be free to manage their affairs.  The move from a state control model in many countries to a state supervising model bolsters the role of academic freedom for universities and colleges to be in charge of their own academic programs and developments as well as mission and vision.

Of course, there are growing pains we see with autonomy for countries that are trending from complete state controlled models.  It is clear that for less developed and more previously totalitarian regimes, governance reforms cannot be implemented in a vacuum and must take into context the historical context from which they are coming, such as Malaysia or Cambodia.  Japan, on the other hand, as a more developed country has been able to withstand the corporatization reforms of much less state control toward that of private, independent universities and colleges.

While full assessment of the impact of autonomy may be premature, it seems certain that the state supervisory model allows room for higher ed institutions to be more open to internationalization efforts such as cross-border partnerships and other market driven academic entrepreneurial intiatives.

 

Posted on by J.Gulston

W10: Universities Governance and Autonomy

The two readings for this week examined autonomy and governance in higher education. Over the past couple of years, countries are moving to have the public higher education institutions in their countries become less reliant on government involvement. In the reading authored by John Fielden, governance is defined as “all those structures, processes and activities that are involved in the planning and direction of the institutions and people working in tertiary education”.  His definition is encompasses the responsibilities of the administration in colleges and universities. The push for autonomy is twofold:  it will allow institutions to have the ability to compete on an international level and allow institutions to take on more financial responsibilities which will alleviate budgetary concerns for countries. Throughout this class the United States hasn’t been often used as an example with regards to international higher education but when dealing with autonomy and governance, we can look at the structure of the United States’ tertiary education for examples of how countries can move towards more autonomy for their colleges and universities.

The state control model and the state supervising model are two models that are being used by countries in regards to governing HEIs.  The first model involves the state government seeking control of the institutions and the second model, states monitor and regulate universities. Within the second model there are different levels of state involvement from semi-autonomous to completely independent. Whichever model is used depends on the country, it isn’t a “one size fits all” method. It is important to take into account private institutions and state involvement. Even though states don’t have direct authority with regards to private colleges or universities, the monetary aid or tax breaks that HEIs receive can enable states to become involved in private institutions. The question now, is that a good thing? If the state is able to ensure that private institutions main goal is the education of the student’s not financial benefits then I think states should have some involvement in private institutions.

The report by N.V. Varghese and Michaela Martin, compares the governance reforms in several Asian countries. It takes in account the governance issues that are discussed in the article by the World Bank. All of these countries have experienced swift growth/expansion in their higher education systems. Eventhough the countries varied in areas outside of higher education, with regards to the growth in HEIs they shared the same characteristics: privatization, revised programs, improved research facilities, etc. The rise of private HEIs in these countries because private institutions almost have no involvement from the state. An important factor with institutional autonomy that is highlighted in the article is the need to have strong institutional leaders. With a strong Board of Trustees and Presidents, institutions will be able to function well and govern themselves.

Posted on by A. Olly

W10: Higher Ed Governance in Asia

The Varghese reading on Governance Reforms and University Autonomy in Asia discusses the concept of the vast worldwide variations of the Global Gross Enrollment Rates (GER) and what that says about higher education in a nation. 1% GER Tanzania, 98% Korea, 83% US. Up to 15% GER= elite system, 16-50% =mass higher education, 50+% = universal higher education.  The GER measurements make a strong reference point when reviewing the data from Varghese covering the outcomes of higher education reform in Asia.

The five Asian countries studied: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam, cover a wide range in the areas of population, income, infrastructure, governance, adult literacy and school life expectancy. Japan consistently ranks the highest and the closest with the US, while Cambodia ranks the lowest. However, all countries have experienced a rapid expansion of their higher education systems. The expansions all shared  the characteristics of privatization, revised curricula, the creation of connections with local business and industry, and enhanced research facilities at some institutions.  The higher educations expansions have resulted in a jump of the GER in all five countries studied. China and Indonesia have GER’s indicating mass higher education, Japan has universal higher education. While the GER’s of Cambodia and Vietnam still place them them in the elite category, their numbers have increased.  What I find striking is the role private institutions play in the expansion of higher education, indicating a  shift in both management and implementation of higher education from the state to the market.

The balance of governance and autonomy in higher education differs greatly in both concept and practice among the five countries. Development and economics are a factor, with state controlled economies holding decision making abilities in all areas, meaning limited autonomy for higher ed institutions. A fascinating example is the power of the Chinese Communist Party to appoint the deans and senior administrators of higher ed institutions. Varghese makes the distinction between government and party in the case, however it indicates a structure in which high level decisions are made outside the institution.

In all cases, the success of bringing institutional autonomy into practice is dependent on the strength of the institutional leadership. After all, the transfer of power and policy making from government leadership to institutional leadership will only be beneficial for the colleges/universities who will be able to govern themselves.  The challenges and missteps covered by Varghese make clear that regardless of the levels of autonomy practiced in the higher education system of a country, institutional strength is dependent on strong, competent leadership. This seems to be the most vital aspect, having the right woman or man to lead and make education decisions, whether they are working in-house at the university level, or further removed at the government level.